|
Trabisnikof posted:Would one need a constitutional amendment to broaden the acts/speech that counts as renouncing your citizenship? Until the 1920s a woman lost her citizenship when she married a foriegn national. It only took an act of Congress to end that, so it would technically only take an act of Congress to reenact it. If marriage is enough to renounce, it seems like they can make it pretty broad.
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:A fat 79 year old man dying in his sleep? MURDER. Yeah. And from outside observations, a pretty unhealthy one at that. Clearly murder. Not gonna lie, if I were going to murder a right-wing justice, I would pick Alito or Roberts based on life expectancy alone. It would be like taking out Ginsburg instead of Kagan. What's the point when nature is about to do the job for you. Still, kind of amazed Stevens outlived him. And O'Connor. If what I've read is true, she didn't like him very much. But it's a fun little contrast to the old canard that you die as soon as you retire.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
ulmont posted:SESSIONS v. MORALES-SANTANA Wasn't the justification for the difference based on the fact that an unwed mother is far more likely to produce a stateless child than an unwed father? It feels particularly cruel to apply the stricter of the two standards.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:The government argued this, but the opinion doesn't think the argument was successful: Fair enough. Although the quoted section seems to argue for applying the weaker standard, rather than the harsher. Mr. Nice! posted:It's deliberate action to force Congress to act because they know they won't otherwise but will probably be ignored until a functioning government is installed again. It comes across as a fairly lovely way to force them to act, honestly. Wouldn't enforcing the stronger standard across the board be as likely to motivate political action as the weaker one? Putting somebody in a position where they must be more generous unless they act seems more defensible than putting potentially very vulnerable people at greater risk to make a point. But what do I know.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:hot take in the SCOTUS thread Pretty sure that’s what they meant. Constitution is just a conduit to legitimize the outcome you want.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It could be more complicated than that. Note that the only required court is a Supreme Court - all the inferior courts could become subdivisions of the Supreme Court and then you rotate people out...after all, judges do sit on both higher and lower courts than their permanent positions. I’d say “questionable constitutionality but not clear one way or the other.” Complicated? Courts can’t handle that. Sounds non-justiciable as a political question to me
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:yea i agree with you, I don't agree with what that tweet was saying but I'll admit i don't know the actual details of Bernie's plan But that exact scenario is why the circuits will do en banc rehearings is necessary, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
Looks like they just deemed non-unanimous jury trials unconstitutional. This is not uncommon in Oregon, even though the case came from Louisiana. Going to be interesting seeing how many people move for new trials or other kinds of relief.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Kagan dissented for some reason I don't know how much it might have influenced her, but the Oregon AG was very opposed to a constitutional ruling on this because she didn't want to open up the opportunity for people to appeal convictions. The AG wanted to get rid of it through a voter petition or the legislature. Which, honestly, in my opinion is pretty gross. If you recognize that it's wrong and unjust, you need to fix it for everyone, even if it's messier.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Mikl posted:gently caress gently caress gently caress gently caress gently caress It's not exactly a slam dunk that Biden wins in November, but even if he does and the dems manage to retake the senate, Chuck S. is on record that he thinks bringing back the judicial filibuster is a good idea. Maybe he's smart enough to replace RBG before restoring it I guess, but LOL if McConnell forces Biden to pick from the Federalist list and Biden being the savvy negotiator that he is goes along with it.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
NaanViolence posted:Even if she had retired it's very unlikely that Obama would have chosen anyone of nearly her quality. Everyone seems to be missing that point. It is very unlikely, but more likely than Clinton would have, or that Trump would have, or that Biden would have, or that Tom Cotton would if Biden wins and RBG holds on to after the 2024 election. What exactly do you think she brings to the table? For all the "quality" she provides, it's from the minority, and when has a dissent mattered unless the minority could actually take the court back?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
NaanViolence posted:Sotomayor isn't nearly as good as RBG. Again, why does this even matter unless there are four other justices on the court nominally aligned with RBG? Isn't having a majority of tepid justices better than a small minority of stellar ones? Maybe the answer is no, but I'd like to hear why Can you point me to a decision where she pulled the majority further to the left than it would have been? HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 19:57 on May 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Aimee Stephens, the trans woman whose case is currently pending judgement at the SC, died yesterday. It probably depends on whether the majority wants to dodge the issue or if they want to set a precedent. They could moot it or they could decide well the decision is already written we'll release it. VitalSigns posted:yeah that's what I said, the liberals on the court would never do that, but they could have Merrick would have "recused" himself and it would have been 8-0 in favor of the president not having that power because "historical norms"
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Garland wouldn't have accepted it in those conditions because he (and everyone else) knows the challenge would fail. The liberals on the SCOTUS are not "win at all costs" like the conservatives, which is why the GOP's a single liberal away from having a judicial death grip on the country for the next 30+ years. I’d propose that they already have it and another liberal is just icing on the cake VitalSigns posted:Well it wouldn't have to be Merrick, but yeah that's what I said, Democrats had the raw power to abuse the constitution to seize the court but they would never do it. Unless you’re defining winning by who really won in 2000 as opposed to who took power then it’s 4-4 over the last 30 years and 5-4 republican advantage if you go back to 88 but I take your point and you’re basically right Or no it’s not. I’m a loving idiot who’s counting Trump twice so shows what I know. HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 23:17 on May 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm holding out hope that the Democrats manage to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, get at least 50/50 in the senate, and then one of the older conservatives keels over before Biden's out of office so that he gets to take one back for Obama in addition to replacing RBG. That’s entirely fair, but Clarence Thomas is the oldest and he’s only 71 so he’s got almost a full two terms before he hits life expectancy, and given he has rich and powerful people healthcare I’m not sure I’d hold my breath. Scalia was horribly unhealthy looking and still made it almost it 80.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:So Judges can vote, but don't have to write an opinion about it? Was Alito in a rush to get to his golf game or something? I mean it’s more efficient. The opinion is just whatever they can throw together to justify how they were always going to vote anyway. Might as well just cut out the make work part.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
I wonder if they got Gorsuch on board with the decision, and once Roberts saw the liberal wing was going to win anyway, he decided to join the majority to give cover to his neutral court myth he wants to perpetuate? No use burning his neutrality cred on something that's already lost.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
I’m just one guy with no special insight or training, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all for the actual vote to happen after the midterms. Use it as a campaign issue and let endangered Republicans hem and haw and try to walk the tightrope, and then regardless of who wins go ahead and confirm in early November.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I'm not a lawgoon but doesn't texas have like no standing to even bring this case? Standing, more than anything else, is a tool for the court to dispose of cases they do not want to rule on the merits. If the court wishes to find standing, they can. If they wish to reject the case without ruling on the merits, they can find a way to deny standing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There's so far not only no evidence of this, but so far a lot of evidence of between a choice between a progressive or a conservative choice, Biden has basically went for the progressive choice. Given Biden's previous promises about the supreme court we'll absolutely get a younger progressive on the bench. Since Dems control the Senate and the Judiciary committee there's no reason to nominate a moderate especially since as long as she's qualified you'll get defections from the GOP in an up and down floor vote since there's no filibuster. I agree that we'll see a black woman. There's no upside to Biden going back on that and every downside. It's too easy to find a qualified candidate to back down Progressive is a meaningless word by this point, I think we can look at the cabinet picks to date and come to very different conclusions on how they fit into the political spectrum. I certainly wouldn't anticipate anyone not squarely in the mainstream of the democratic party establishment, because that's just not who Joe Biden is, for better or for worse
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
Devor posted:Why does the state let liquor stores operate but not churches?!? There are a lot of reasons it’s stupid to compare churches to liquor stores, but this isn’t it. First of all California allows liquor sales in grocery stores. “Liquor stores” in California are more like convenience stores/mini-marts that also sell liquor. Also nobody is considering physical alcohol dependency when making these decisions
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'd also be ok with hospitals at/near capacity turning away anyone who willingly goes to church or other mass spreader events so they can focus on helping those who aren't Nurgle cultists. Again liquor is widely available in California and beyond that... Platystemon posted:You can’t close “liquor stores” and expect everyone to get their fix at a grocery store because a lot of people live in food deserts and the liquor store is the only thing in walking distance. Beer and wine and malt liquor available at non”liquor store” convenience stores will do just fine. People don’t need hard liquor or they explode Like I said there are plenty of very good reasons liquor stores are different, but it’s not this
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Devor posted:You can get your liquor at grocery stores Lmao I don’t know what point you think your making but whatever. Liquor stores are a bad analogy for religious services for a lot of reasons, such as you don’t typically spend hours in a liquor store in close contact with other people singing and chanting and sharing communion and on and on. But liquor stores in California aren’t necessary to prevent people from going into alcohol withdrawal, that’s just a dumb point to try to make about liquor stores when there are other better reasons to explain why liquor stores are less problematic than churches
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, getting a drink, dependent on alcohol or otherwise, is not a constitutional right. This is also really dumb. Freedom of association is also a constitutional right but nobody seems to be suggesting that banning conventions is somehow an overreach
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
Devor posted:I'm aware that liquor stores are much less dangerous being open for numerous reasons - but even granting the assumption that they are equally dangerous, temporary closure during a pandemic for a liquor store would increase mortality, but for a church would decrease mortality. I know the context and I know Gorsuch was being a disingenuous poo poo. But the bolded claim is false. There’s plenty of true things you can say about the difference between liquor stores and churches so maybe stop hanging your argument on a point that is contradicted by reality 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
Devor posted:Let's have a fact finding on that in a district court, instead of Gorsuch making GBS threads out lies. And I don't trust hand-waving solutions like the guy drinking vodka to make it through the day switching to bud light that he can buy at Whole Foods, over decisions made by governors in consultation with their health departments. Alcoholics and their needs played zero part in the decision making process because it was entirely irrelevant to that process. Holy poo poo you don’t think someone that dependent on alcohol isn’t perfectly capable of knowing to switch to any number of cheap malt liquors if they happen to live in a state that doesn’t have super loose liquor sales rules? Like we’re not even in disagreement about the big picture so I’m not sure why you can’t just accept that this line of reasoning makes no sense and is a backwards justification at best and therefore entirely worthless in swaying opinions
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 06:00
|
|
|
Devor posted:You seem to be agreeing with the court that, because there was no fact finding on an issue, then it should be assumed to be in favor of the church. Bad arguments are bad arguments, whether they're in favor of policies I support or against them. Arguments that don't stand up to basic logic are bad because they undermine your position. Make arguments that can't be picked apart by anyone who has ever been to California or known an alcoholic, neither of which are particularly uncommon traits. I'm not agreeing with the court because I think comparing liquor stores to churches is dumb. I'm very specifically telling you that this particular line of reasoning is dumb and doesn't hold up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Between stewart's bad pizza opinion and his absolutely terrible, unfunny new twitter account I have lost all love for the man. They were probably never good, it's just we all used to be worse and unlike them we've grown 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Yeah, it's the same playbook conservatives have been running for a while now where they just flat out lie openly and refuse to acknowledge when called on it. "The ruling is based on precident" as they blow away all precident because it was inconvenient to the ruling they wanted. I assume Kav will be as phased by Sotomayor throwing his own words back at him to display the hypocrisy as ol' Mitch is anytime the Dems do it to him. Can't be shamed when you're shameless! I think the conservatives understand that a strongly worded dissent only matters if you have the ability to gather and wield enough power to force the majority to acquiesce. And the conservatives I think feel secure enough in their stranglehold to know that any dissent is meaningless
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:how many gun laws have they struck down lol I have no answer for you beyond the question “how many gun laws is the Mississippi legislature passing in the first place” since that seems to be a requirement for them to get struck down
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
The Cedar Point Nursery decision seems to be a doozy. quote:The access regulation grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers' property. It therefore constitutes a per se physical taking
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Looks like the PA Supreme Court just freed Bill Cosby https://mobile.twitter.com/nytimes/status/1410282926969921537
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I'm inclined to agree. The dude DeSantis beat literally had his campaign implode because of an FBI sting that involved him being bribed with Hamilton tickets. I'm not sure anyone could have lost to that guy realistically speaking. Lmao I forgot about that scandal. His post election arc was definitely something else, too
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/texas-six-week-abortion-ban/2021/09/01/e53cf372-0a6b-11ec-a6dd-296ba7fb2dce_story.htmlquote:A divided Supreme Court late Wednesday refused to block one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws, a unique Texas statute that bans the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy. I don’t know that this was unanticipated, but certainly not great news
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2021 06:44
|
|
|
What kind of backlash would it cause is probably the bigger question. Lots of donations for doomed democrats running in red states and large marches in urban areas don’t necessarily equate to anything happening
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 03:48
|
|
|
Keyword:dissent 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:But her emails. This is a bad way to think about it because the conservative takeover of the courts has been a half century long project that liberals haven’t ever taken particularly seriously. It’s also bad in the specific context of trump’s judges because there are voters who either don’t care at all about the Supreme Court, or for who it’s just not a thing they prioritize. A better candidate or campaign might have captured some of these voters by appealing to them on issue they do actually care about, rather than depending on these voters to hold values and priorities they don’t actually hold
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 01:52
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:At which point Susan Collins will claim to be gobsmacked that Rapey McBeerface might have lied to her, and she'll maybe go from "concerned" to "jimmies are rustled" if the court completely overturns Roe instead of just gutting it via the Mississippi law. If she runs again it will be 2026 and she knew that the timing was going to be fine for her going in. She’ll take her lumps and let it become background noise. There’s no accountability for senators
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I fully expect the upcoming case where they gut Roe to include "life begins at conception" or similar language in the ruling. The only question is if that part of the opinion will have 4, 5, or all 6 of the conservatives signing on to it and immediately ending abortion rights nationwide, or if they'll just let the red states start cracking down on it while preventing blue states from allowing the service even if they won't prosecute it. John Roberts I’m very confident isn’t on-board with a life begins at conception ruling. I’m pretty confident Gorsuch isn’t on board either. Kav maybe but I doubt it. So at best you have three. I don’t know that a life begins at conception ruling actually ends blue state abortion. You just pass laws creating a justifiable homicide rule in blue states. Obviously it would make it dangerous to cross state lines from red states to get one of a Republican was in office Honestly the more I think about it a life at conception ruling is so far out in left field and creates so many other dumb problems I will be absolutely shocked if you even get a lone concurrence that argues for it HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jan 26, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2022 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 20:13 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Here: You may be aware that the first thirteen words have been determined to be prefatory and carry no legal weight because sure why not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 23:10
|
|