|
Mr. Nice! posted:One of the profs at my school wrote a pretty good article about what the majority did with undue burden yesterday. The primary thing that concerns me about having fact based inquiries is that the pro-life side has no problem manufacturing expert testimony, and friendly courts might be willing to turn a blind eye to it. Also Texas Politicians are really mad that they are being prevented from being shitheads and are promising to pass new anti-abortion laws come spring. quote:“We do not know exactly what’s possible under this decision,” said Joe Pojman, executive director of the advocacy group Texas Alliance for Life. “We’re going to be poring through it with our attorneys and our physicians to figure out if the Supreme Court will allow the state to do anything meaningful to raise the safety standards at those freestanding abortion facilities.” Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Jun 28, 2016 |
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The problem is no one complaining about Clinton's hypothetical picks has been able to offer a definition of "good" that doesn't boil down to "nominate judges who agree with me." My own personal definition of "good" is that the justice takes into account not just the law and precedent but also considers and weighs how the law and the ruling they are writing actually works in the real world and how it affects the average person instead of acting like everyone is a beep-boop automaton without nefarious intent. As examples I would point at abortion restrictions, voter ID, arbitration, and fourth + fifth amendment rights. The last two especially are a subject where the law and conservative justices are wildly out of touch with how people really interact with police. We don't like in Mayberry with Officer Opie: random "consensual encounters" don't actually happen because everyone outside of legal fiction land doesn't feel free to walk away from or close the door on an officer who approached them asking questions and Berghuis v. Thompkins is something straight out of Catch 22.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Good god, that prose is abysmal. Awful try-hard prose aside I really hope this was a "hey you dumbasses were applying there wrong part of the definitions section of the statute" ruling. Allowing the people that purchase old debt to be exempt from the FDCPA would be a disaster, as they are by far the sketchiest and most aggressive part of the debt collection industry.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
“Ardlen” posted:If Janus overrules Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and says that everyone doesn’t have to pay union dues, does this mean that unions only have to represent dues-paying members? My understanding is that the reasoning in Abood was that since everyone benefits, everyone has to pay. Most likely not, as anti-union-shop right to work laws for the private sector haven't been interpreted that way. It feels like the LMRA needs to be amended to explicitly make the duty of fair representation only apply to dues paying members in any situation where a union is legally prohibited from requiring payment of dues from all employees. But that won't happen because the duty of fair representation is a key part of the GOP strategy to break unions as without it the free rider problem basically disappears.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:If I'm reading you right, the GOP loses some of its power here if unions didn't have to bargain on behalf of those who don't pay membership? Right, it would defang right to work legislation. The GOP and management doesn't give a poo poo about employees keeping more of their money, what they care about is getting rid of unions and the easiest way to do that is to bankrupt them. Right to work and the duty of fair representation puts unions in an untenable position: they have to pay the expenses involved with representing all employees while not being able to collect dues from all employees. Employees are incentivized to make this worse because why pay dues when you can get all of the major benefits for free? Dues have to go up or union services go down and it repeats over and over as each turn through the cycle makes paying look even less worthwhile. However we would need to be very very careful about how it is done. The duty was put into place because unions were being racist and corrupt shits by selectively refusing to bother negotiating for or representing grievances for minorities or people who disobeyed the union boss (by not voting a particular way or not "donating" to a particular cause).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
I decided to read through the argument transcripts from Carpenter and... Gorsuch really is Thomas 2.0 isn't he? Everyone else in a group trying to figure out where lines are drawn with regard to reasonable expectations of privacy, potential future technology developments, sensitivity of the records, and how the facts fit into previous cases and here's Gorsuch off in his own little world trying to figure out if cell phone location history records are property of the customer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Neither. It ruled that a particular remand order sending the case back to the trial court was badly worded, and then sent it back to the trial court to decide whether Houston was constitutionally required to do so in light of Obergefell. And that Obergefell statement really should be read as a "please please handle this case in the most airtight manner possible and blame the SCOTUS so we don't get primaried" plea from the Texas Supreme Court judges to the lower court. I seem to recall it initially looked like they were going to let the dismissal stand but the fundies got really worked up over the "technically it didn't say exactly X" thing while murmuring that they might have to find judges that understand that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 18:39
|
|