|
computer parts posted:"Obama should do the thing that the closest thing to the American Dictator tried and failed miserably at doing". Uh I'm pretty sure Jackson personally nullifying court decisions tops FDR threatening to stack the court.
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:More generally, there is a pernicious problem with employer-provided healthcare. It just gives way too much profit motivation for many forms of discrimination. Almost as many states have specifically passed laws banning employment discrimination against smokers almost as have comprehensive ENDA laws 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And that right there is why this debate will keep on going. The logic that someone supporting the idea of some regulation on abortion is automatically a secret anti-woman pro-lifer is the same as saying someone who supports reasonable firearm regulation hates the second amendment. We are talking about a specific regulation crafted to chip away at abortion rights in a manner that is meant to sound like a health concern to fool credulous people on cursory review. It's not "automatic" because we are talking about a specific law, in real life, in Texas, in he United States, on Earth.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Was it pro se or indigent? I can't pull the article right now but I thought they said indigent. Here indigents get appointed counsel even on appeal. I thought the last pro se case the Supreme Court heard was in 1978 anyway (when insane libertarian conspiracy theorist Sam Sloan beat the SEC 9-0)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's more, when most International laws of armed conflict were written the model was "state a vs. state b" (international war) or "belligerency a vs. state b" (civil war). Having a war with a non-state entity operating out of a different country doesn't fit neatly in the box, but is becoming more common, so the laws have adapted to reflect that. It's not a traditional POW because that imagines a situation where all parties are abiding by Geneva or other international law, but we also don't want to say "well, they aren't a country, they aren't party to Geneva, so gently caress 'em" so: Enemy combatant. Not entitled to full rights of a POW because hey...you can't demand protections given a lawful combatant...but there's also that pesky "humanity" thing. When talking about the black site prisoners, they weren't even really treated as nebulous enemy combatants like Gitmo prisoners. Basically we treated them like spies whom of course you can torture or summarily execute or whatever. They were only upgraded from proscription to enemy combatant status when they were all sent to Guantanamo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Speaking of selective enforcement, I just learned that each case of wrongful imprisonment restitution in California has to be individually approved by the legislature, Roman-style. I guess you can argue this isn't about judicial independence, and even if it were, the Constitution doesn't explicitly mandate such a thing, and even if it did, it wouldn't apply to the states, but it is still bizarre to see this kind of bizarro Bill of Attainder in America in this the year 2766 ab urbe condita.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Can you expand on why you think that? I'm generally of the opinion that standing should be limited. Is there something in this case in particular that you think merits standing? There are quirky things like unconstitutional domestic spy programs being immune from judicial review if they manage to withhold information on whom they target, denying anyone standing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Even if there is, I'd think "can you sue a state for having laws more/less restrictive than yours but in keeping with permitted federal boundaries" is pretty different from "can you sue a state for openly allowing for something federally banned", in terms of legal predecent. It is still pretty awkward how, in a certain way, they are trying to trump federalism by indirectly attacking selective enforcement. The court might want to wash their hands of it just for being such a mess.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I still can't wrap my head around why these states don't just use pentobarbital. When I asked the same question (I think in this very thread) the answer was because there's concern over changing a protocol with previous case law, but now they're changing the protocol. Why not go with something that is simple to administer and widely accepted to be not painful? Perhaps concern over being seen as treating people as animals (even though in this case we treat animals differently in order to deliberately be more humane than we are with humans)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
So am I safe in assuming Thomas's dissent in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch that there should be no EEOC and that explicit private employment discrimination should be legal?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If there are bad actors in this process, it's not the plaintiffs, but the sophisticated legal actors who are using them to pursue a given outcome. Test plaintiffs will always exist, or can be created. Legal teams and consultancies that build and train them, in pursuit of unethical outcomes- those are the real villains in this story. If this were really the case all the time you'd think a better test plaintiff than Abigail Fisher would've made it to the Supreme Court 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I don't like it. The government has a bad history of treating pacifism as treason so let's not ban yelling fire in a crowded theater again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
More fun would be if the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact went into effect. I bet the Court would strike it down but still allow states to adhere to it voluntarily anyway, while pointing out in reality that it was Constitutionally voluntary to begin with, setting a record for most unfalsifiable Supreme Court opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What is the difference between a state passing a law and a state doing that thing voluntarily. Yeah but they're not allowed to enter into compacts. But there's no way to say they can't coincidentally act as though they had entered into a compact for the purposes of how to allocate electors because how to do so is at their discretion. It does matter in this case though because the NIPVC is a clever way to try to get the popular vote to determine the Presdient by saying that once enough states sign up to determine the Presdient with their combined electors, they'll all choose the, based on the popular vote. Without the threshold probably no or few states would allocate electors based on the national popular vote no matter how much people lobbied for it. eSports Chaebol fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:And to be clear, if Roe were overturned abortion would very likely be legal in most places regardless. Public opinion has shifted a lot since the 70s, and basically every other democracy has arrived at legalizing abortion despite having to vote on it. Uh pro-life activism is a huge phenomenon built up over decades. It is arguably the biggest grassroots political movement since the Civil Rights Movement. Yeah, most states would keep it legal, but those already working on banning it wouldn't, and it could take decades to turn around (assuming it ever would at all without another Supreme Court ruling).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:This is in no small part because abortion is legal through a process that was never voted on. "Keep the very firmly in place status quo" just doesn't attract activism the way changing it does, even when the majority agrees with it.). No doubt, and that's really the pernicious side of Roe: without it, by now abortion might be legal anyway, but it it were overturned, it would be a long time till it were universally legal again. Contrast this with gay marriage, where the Court's timing has been perfect (from social acceptance perspective, not a human rights perspective of course).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I bet there are at least a few college administrators who wish they could do straight up quotas. It would make accommodating the demands of the recent campus protests a lot easier. It's really easy to imagine a future where AA is banned and yet colleges are harangued (including by people who were against AA!) for a lack of diversity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
duz posted:No, that's not one of the problems with it. Surely you could drum up some conservative support for requiring speaking filibusters by comparing it to the Tribunal physical veto in Republican Rome
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I'm curious what your endgame is in this scenario? You destroy the legitimacy of the court, because you think it's blatantly political... Which lets you make it even more blatantly political? Uh the alternative is to have legislatures write laws to establish these political norms instead of relying on unelected justices to decide what the law really is. Now I know that the U.S. doesn’t have a functional federal legislative branch anymore, and many of the state legislatures are primed to pass lovely laws that reduce freedoms, but you can absolutely be opposed to relying on the judiciary to uphold rights without resorting to partisan violence. This is what “politics” is supposed to be for. This boner for the institution that said Dredd Scott wasn’t a person, that existed for the whole Lochner era, that said jailing pacifists during wartime doesn’t violate free speech rights, that has been plenty awful—that it’s beloved by liberals because it has been unexpectedly progressive for much of the past 50 years, is totally misplaced and has been an excuse for abstaining from engaging in the pursuit of actual politician progress.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 04:54
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:I get the frustration at Dems for Being Bad, but wtf is the alternative? Not voting? Why is it so lovely to vote for Dems and press them to do the right thing? Yeah maybe in another 48 years they’ll codify abortion rights. Maybe in another 75 years we’ll get UHC, etc
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:No, the problem is that people didn't vote in 2016, and voting in 2018 and 2020 is not enough to erase that mistake even if the Democrats pulled off a virtuoso election performance. I would have thought "repairing the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation" was a more effective campaign slogan than "try and pull off some semblance of damage control," but I guess I don't understand the Rust Belt mentality. I suppose the people of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan can just send the women of America an apologetic fruit basket. People voted in 2008. People voted in 1992. People voted in 1976. Elections apparently don’t have consequences lol
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 06:35
|
|
|
I do have to admit I thought they would be more gradual. Like Roberts probably would rather have whittled down Roe and wait to strike it down completely until after a few rulings weakening its precedent. I mean he’s the probably gonna write a separate pro-life dissent for this.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:You're just arguing against the concept of laws in general, then. There is very much sense in which the abstract liberal notion of a Rule of Law and independent judiciary is about ensuring that the interests of capital are insulated from political considerations. If you don’t like capitalism, you might see that as a bad thing. Sometimes individuals get extra civil rights out of this deal, as a treat, but sometimes they don’t. qv this, right now, lol
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:That's an obviously better system than "whichever strongman happens to have the most guns right now gets to make the rules." That should go without saying, but alas... I mean I’m not even necessarily disagreeing that an unrestricted parliamentary democracy can be authoritarian but considering it to be strongman rule is unusual and probably needs to be clarified if you want people to understand you, yes.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2022 08:12
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Where do they get the 50 (or 60) votes in the Senate to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction? This is a mandatory prerequisite for demonstrating that "if the Dems wanted to," it's possible. It would really be tough to get 60 or 70 Senate seats. I mean, 60, sure, but 70 or 80? I don't think any party has ever held 90 Senate seats.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Setting aside the immediately post-Civil War Senates, which were lopsided for different reasons, the highest party share in the Senate was in the 75th Congress, when Democrats held 76 of 96 seats. Yeah, to be serious, Democrats controlled the House for all but three (3) sessions between the New Deal and the Contract With America.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yeah sorry I meant Yeltsin and mixed them up. Part of the issue is that there simply aren't any alternatives to Putin. He's done more than plenty to reinforce this, but it wasn't entirely of his doing. Who actually was there to vote for who was going to improve the living standards of Russians more than Putin? There have been (and still are) a number of opposition figures lionized by the West because of their opposition to Putin . . . who are insane Russian nationalists themselves!--they just aren't Putin. The only credible opposition is the Communists, and if they won it might invite some anti-democratic measures being imposed on Russia from external actors. I know this is a huge derail but there is some slight parallel with the direction American politics is headed. The Democrats are the only sane option on the ballot with a chance of winning elections. If you only have one legitimate choice, it isn't a very democratic system, and it removes basically all incentives the Democrats have to deliver anything for their voters--they can just (correctly) say that them winning power and literally doing nothing is still better than the alternative.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Far as I can tell it's splitting hairs about how many gently caress ups and how bad of gently caress ups make an attorney ineffective. No it’s the opposite: it’s defining when gently caress ups are relevant, so under which conditions infinite gently caress ups that are infinitely bad are irrelevant
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
I've heard the explicit argument, "They're too dangerous to be on U.S. soil," which I gather implicitly means that terrorists have superpowers so that no U.S. prison can hold them, or they're going to escape like Magneto in the beginning of X-Men 2. I mean that's literally the most straightforward reading of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:it's hosed up how many civilians died in obama-era drone strikes and probably one of his most shameful legacies. A better analogy would be if after the war, the U.S. bombed an American who joined Red Army Faction after the BRD sentenced him to death in absentia, since there's not an actual War on a country or even big cartoon gorilla named Terror or anything, just an open-ended AUMF to conduct military operations anywhere in the world indefinitely. The legalistic defense is that he got his due process in Yemen, which is pretty laughable, or else the President of the United States has the right to kill anyone anywhere without prior restraint and the only redress of grievances is possible after the fact. I mean, not a U.S. citizen, but consider--did anything ever come of Malik Jamal asking to be taken off the kill list? I can't find anything other than the U.S. stating that it cannot confirm or deny if it is trying to kill someone.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Not really. The point I'm making is that there are established constitutional conventions, some of which predate the founding of the country, that are just as much a part of the law as the explicitly written parts. There is no law that explicitly prohibits Her Majesty from dismissing Johnson and appointing me instead, but it would nonetheless be a breach of the constitutional order so extreme as to be obviously unconstitutional. Then just file an amicus brief pointing this out and come back when they agree with you 9-0. Seems pretty easy!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Your posts in this thread are almost uniformly in bad faith, but had you actually read my post, it would be obvious that I'm saying that even unwritten constitutional conventions enjoy primacy over statute law. I hope you understand now. Am I misunderstanding? It seems to me you were saying that the SCOTUS cannot allow the ISL theory to stand, in a sort of Jacksonesque argument that such a ruling simply won’t be abided by. I am not disagreeing that such a thing is dumb and bad and un-constitutional not only in terms of the U.S. Constitution but indeed in terms of the concept of constitutional political democracy in general. That said, SCOTUS is taking up the case for real, here in America, on Earth, and they’re probably going to rule how they can’t, and what is impossible and cannot happen is probably going to happen
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
It’s also pretty clear the President can only assassinate Americans on foreign soil, so as they as they just stay at home like Kissinger that’s right out
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:The problem being that originalism is extremely subjective, which made it perfect to fig leaf over conservative ideological radicalism and pretend it's really a consistent legal principle Originalism is also inherently incoherent because the Framers were not “originalists”. It’s sort of like Biblical literalism: the Bible wasn’t even written with literalism in mind so in a sense it’s anti-Biblical. qv all the early gun regulations post 2nd Amendment that just don’t count as examples of early gun regulations because
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Sundae posted:The issue is that there is no regional or circuit-based FDA approval process. It is a nationwide thing managed by a federal agency. The FDA says "this drug is approved," and then here comes a circuit judge saying "I revoke your approval." It's absolutely insane, unprecedented, and either creates a situation where the FDA has no jurisdiction in certain court circuits because the courts become the arbiter of drug approvals. It's not "we ban abortion pills in TX" but "we overrule the approval," which is a whole different can of worms. Am I approved? How can I be approved nationally but not in the 5th circuit? What does this do to my supply chain? Does the FDA approval process even mean anything if we've decided that an unrelated branch of government can overrule its approvals? From a legal perspective it seems to me that it would honestly be more sane to say "the FDA is unconstitutional and is hereby abolished" than to give every circuit court judge in America line-item veto power over a regulatory agency.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This is the FDA lawsuit: https://adflegal.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Alliance-for-Hippocratic-Medicine-v-FDA-2022-11-18-Complaint.pdf The GOP solution to insulin prices: declare that type 2 diabetes legally does not exist
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm confused by this thread commentary; courts have been able to rule on agency administrative actions forever. While the particular suit is ludicrous, the basic grounds and idea of suing over a particular finding (including the approval of individual drugs) isn't new. Has a circuit court ever granted standing over a regulatory approval or denial to a party that neither produced nor consumed the good or service (or a rival good or service) in question? I really doubt it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Frankly if there's anyone bribing judges I think it's more likely to be the giant oil company. They did bribe the judge, openly and legally. No one is denying the enormous compensation they gave him, which the judge characterized as a bribe under oath. However, no one in power has elected to handpick a judge and prosecution firm to address this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:As someone from Illinois, I look back and I am surprised that the D party was willing to drop Blago that quickly. Part of it was him being politically and personally insufferable, a sort of anti-Daley. That shouldn’t matter in these kinds of affairs but it does.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Supreme Court denies request to block Illinois ban on semi-automatic rifles Isn't there a bunch of Illinois jurisdictional fuckery going on with this one? I mean aside from a bunch of Sheriffs saying they're going to nullify it, I thought there was a single county where the ban was stayed, then a later stay on the ban by a judge who thought the ban was legitimate based on the inconsistent interpretation of the law, which ruling itself was later superseded by another lawsuit? It is honestly really hard to search for these things without having memorized dates because new news just drown out old news in searches (or even gets overwritten on news websites). My point is that it might be a reason why the Supreme Court wants to stay out of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2023 17:53
|
|