|
THIS THREAD IS HELLA OLD. Anyone who reads this should feel free to make a new one. Without further ado … YOUR UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES! Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr.  Nickname: The Ump Prestige Drama Alter Ego: Appointing President: George W. Bush Education: A.B., Harvard College; J.D., Harvard Law School Religious Affiliation: Roman Catholic Style of Jurisprudence: Pragmatic conservative – widely seen as concerned with the legacy of the Court, inquiring minds look at some of his opinions and ask “legacy to whom”? Claim to Fame: hosed up the presidential oath of office in 2009. Probably the greatest appellate advocate alive today – his brief in Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004), is still given to law students as a model for brief-writing a decade later. Famous Opinions: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), (also known as “the Obamacare case”). Held that PPACA was constitutional under the taxing power, but not the Commerce Clause. Chief Justice Roberts is believed by some to have written significant portions of both the majority and the dissent in this case, having switched votes fairly late in the process. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), (also known as “the Voting Rights Act case”). gently caress EVERYTHING GODDAMMIT MOTHERFUCKER GOD IS DEAD LOVE IS A LIE. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007). Held that voluntary race-conscious school integration, in the absence of de jure segregation or a court order mandating integration, was unconstitutional because “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy  Nickname: Goldilocks; Doris Day Prestige Drama Alter Ego: Nucky Thompson, Boardwalk Empire. Appointing President: Ronald Reagan Education: B.A., Stanford University; LL.B., Harvard Law School Religious Affiliation: Roman Catholic Style of Jurisprudence: Eclectic if you look at it strictly from the liberal-conservative binary, but when you get down to brass tacks, Justice Kennedy is an upper-class white centrist – cool with gay people (Windsor, Romer, but see Boy Scouts), not so wild about people of color (Parents Involved, Grutter). Weirdly fascinated by international law. Claim to Fame: Once considered a “reliable” vote for the conservative bloc, the retirement of Justice O’Connor thrust him into the swing vote position. But take it from someone who knows better: Ser Jeffrey Toobin posted:I am no maester to quote history at you, Your Grace. Swords have been my life, not books. But every child knows that the Kennedys have always danced too close to madness … Anthony Kennedy was not the first. Chief Justice Warren once told me that madness and greatness are two sides of the same coin. Every time a case comes before a Kennedy, he said, the gods toss the coin in the air and the world holds its breath to see how it will land. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008). Held that Guantánamo detainees had the right to the writ of habeas corpus, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. Based his reasoning on the Insular Cases, which are a series of early 20th century decisions that dealt with the territorial acquisitions of the United States after the Spanish-American War, notably situated Puerto Rico in hosed up legal limbo. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Held that executing the mentally retarded is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Held that executing people who were minors when they committed the crime for which they received the death penalty is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006). Held that the presence of mitigating factors, when aggravating factors were equally present, did not create an Eighth Amendment violation for a death sentence. Most notable in that Kennedy voted with the majority instead of joining the dissent, which questionined the “soundness” of a capital punishment system that executed mentally retarded people and sentenced minors to death in the 21st century. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Held that the Colorado constitutional ban on recognizing gay and lesbian people as a suspect/protected class was unconstitutional under rational basis review. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Held that consensual sodomy bans were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (substantive due process). One big exception! United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). gently caress you, DOMA! Associate Justice Clarence Thomas  Nickname: Silent But Deadly Prestige Drama Alter Ego: Hector Salamanca, Breaking Bad Appointing President: George H.W. Bush Education: A.B., College of the Holy Cross; J.D., Yale Law School (15 cents) Religious Affiliation: Roman Catholic Style of Jurisprudence: Hipster Originalist – he’s into the dictionaries from the 1780s, none of this commercialized poseur Merriam-Webster bullshit. Claim to Fame: Doesn’t ask questions and really doesn’t need to – Thomas’s jurisprudence is so idiosyncratic that no advocate is going to spend a lot of time pitching to him. Arguably doesn’t believe in oral argument, stare decisis, or fairies. Does believe in the Privileges and Immunities Clause, but no one else does. Has a reputation for being Scalia’s toady, which certainly doesn’t have any unfortunate implications, no sir, but by all accounts has exercised more influence on Scalia than vice versa. Also, Anita Hill. Famous Opinions: Just read them all, concurrences and everything. I cannot hope to put into words how Justice Thomas departs from basically every Justice on the Court in the fundamental way that he understands law. I’m not even saying he’s necessarily wrong about everything, but it’s some purestrain through-the-looking-glass poo poo. An interesting note on his voting rights jurisprudence: Thomas basically believes (wrongly, in my opinion) that the Constitution limits governmental remedies to racism to only the most invidious and overt expressions of it. When you consider his originalist perspective and who exactly was writing the Constitution and subsequent amendments, you may come to think that this is actually a fairly reasonable construction of original intent. Associate Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg  Nickname: Murtaugh; the Iron Doily; the Notorious R.B.G. Prestige Drama Alter Ego: Daenerys Targaryen, Game of Thrones Appointing President: Bill Clinton Education: B.A., Cornell University; LL.B., Columbia University (see below) Religious Affiliation: Jewish Style of Jurisprudence: Too-old-for-this-poo poo liberal Claim to Fame: Literally at least twice as capable as the average lawyer – in her first year at Harvard Law School, her husband (then a second-year law student at Harvard) was diagnosed with testicular cancer. With an infant daughter at home, she attended both her and her husband’s classes, took notes, and typed her husband’s papers for him (he dictated, at least). She made law review. Upon graduating, her husband took a job in New York, and she transferred to Columbia Law School as a third-year after Harvard refused to accommodate her. She made law review at Columbia. Gave birth to a son, James, in 1965, and during the pregnancy is believed to have consumed the raw, still-warm heart of a stallion. Had colon cancer in 1999, did not miss a day on the bench, got pancreatic cancer in 2009, was back on the bench twelve days after surgery (eight of which were spent in the hospital). Tough as loving nails. Expected to retire in time for Obama to appoint her successor. Famous Opinions: Pretty much every dissent from last term, particularly the ones in Shelby County, Fisher, Nasser, and Vance. She read the last three from the bench. Alito did his little passive-aggressive eyeroll bullshit but she don’t care. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) (concurrence). Held that a state partial-birth abortion ban that did not carve out an exception for the woman’s health was unconstitutional. Concurred to state that doctors, not judges, got to decide what medical procedures to use in the interests of safety of the patient. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) (dissent).The majority held that the statute of limitations for bringing a wage discrimination claim (in this case, on the basis of gender) begins to run when the initial discrimination is made (to pay a woman less), and that subsequent paychecks do not restart the clock. In effect, this means that by the time you find out you’ve been discriminated against, you’ve lost your right to legal remedy. (This was later explicitly reversed by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act). Dissenting, Justice Ginsburg argued that this was dumb and wrong and read her dissent from the bench. Go read it, it’s good stuff.  Our Lady of Kicking rear end and Taking Names has no patience for bullshit narrowing of discrimination remedies. Associate Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer  Nickname: Ringo Prestige Drama Alter Ego: Truxton Spangler, Rubicon. It is a testament to how criminally underrated that show is that I couldn’t find the clip I wanted, which is the “Will anyone really give a poo poo?” scene from the finale. Appointing President: Bill Clinton Education: B.A., Stanford University; B..A., Magdalen College, Oxford (Marshall Scholar); LL.B., Harvard Law School Religious Affiliation: Jewish Style of Jurisprudence: Purposivist, weirdly lovely on criminal procedure sometimes. Also defined as an anti-originalist. Claim to Fame: Forums poster Bel_Canto's old roommate once went on a run with Breyer outside Trinity College, Cambridge. This is the only interesting thing about Stephen Breyer. Famous Opinions: Maryland v. King, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (upholding DNA swabs as part of booking procedure). Associate Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.  Nickname: Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. Prestige Drama Alter Ego: Todd Alquist, Breaking Bad Appointing President: George W. Bush Education: B.A., Princeton University; J.D., Yale Law School Religious Affiliation: Roman Catholic Style of Jurisprudence: Conservative-libertarian Claim to Fame: Was a member of “Concerned Alumni of Princeton,” which was mostly concerned with all the “undesirables” (read: nonwhites and women) getting let in thanks to affirmative action and coeducation. Skip to the next Justice to see how that turned out! Famous Opinions: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). Indian Child Welfare Act case, less broad than it could have been. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (dissent). The lone dissenter in the Westboro Baptist funeral picketing case. It’s actually a decent enough read and you can empathize with his point of view. It almost makes you think he’s a human being. Associate Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor  Nickname: The Empathizer; the Wise Latina Prestige Drama Alter Ego: Joss Carter, Person of Interest. Sonia loving Sotomayor can define prestige drama however she drat well pleases. Appointing President: Barack Obama Education: A.B., Princeton University; J.D., Yale Law School Religious Affiliation: God’s Own New York Yankees. Also Catholic, I guess. Style of Jurisprudence: Liberal Lioness Claim to Fame: The first Latina on the Court, she basically redefined “full court press” – probably the most publicly visible Justice. Wrote a memoir, My Beloved World, which is awesome and you should read it. As a nonwhite woman Princeton alum, she is literally everything that Samuel Alito feared would come to pass, which is worth several points in my book. Was a “more than adequate bouncer” at the Yale graduate student bar. Probably beats up Alito in the Supreme Court cafeteria. C’mon, look at this loving Justice! Famous Opinions: J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011). Held that age is a relevant factor in determining whether an individual is in police “custody” for the purposes of Miranda. Associate Justice Elena Kagan  Nickname: The Benchwarmer of the Bench Prestige Drama Alter Ego: C.J. Cregg, The West Wing (by the way, it’s really distressing how few excellent, self-possessed, rear end-kicking women characters there are even in my expansive definition of prestige drama …) Appointing President: Barack Obama Education: A.B., Princeton University; M.Phil, Worcester College, Oxford; J.D., Harvard Law School Religious Affiliation: Style of Jurisprudence: Liberal Populist (in that her writing is readable to laymen) Claim to Fame: Probably the best ill-advised Supreme Court nominee in history, Justice Kagan served as Solicitor General in the Obama Administration – the first time she argued in court was in her capacity as SG. However, because of this, Justice Kagan is considered to be conflicted out of a number of cases. She recused herself from Fisher this term and the SB1070 case from last term, but did not do so for NFIB. This, kids, is why you never nominate a sitting Solicitor General. Famous Opinions: American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (dissenting). Another in the line of SCOTUS cases loving over class action plaintiffs in arbitration, Justice Kagan’s dissent is as notable for its readability as its vociferous advocacy for plaintiffs against repeat player institutional defendants. It’s a good one, read it. IN MEMORIAM Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia  GOOD SOURCES https://www.scotusblog.com – probably the best source out there, also compiles stats for the terms. http://www.oyez.org/ - recordings of oral argument. BAD SOURCES https://www.cnn.com mod edit: 
Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:06 on May 9, 2021 |
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Thomas is incredibly talkative and gregarious in person, also, though I think that's more common knowledge now. Sotomayor and Ginsburg are both hardcore as expected in person. I watched Breyer and Scalia spar in oral argument for Bilski v. Kappos back in 2009 - unlike most Justices, I would say Breyer shines brightest in oral argument.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Ginsburg the originator of the "not going to answer hypotheticals on law" approach to confirmation hearings? After all the chatter around Garland for so long, I'm pretty convinced that the quality of Clinton's SCOTUS appointees was more a happy accident than deliberate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:They absolutely were. Clinton's first SCOTUS appointment process was a notorious clusterfuck. Clinton offered it to Mario Cuomo, who accepted then retracted the offer at the last second. Afterwards, Clinton weighed selecting a clown car of bad picks: his wife, judges who were friends with himself/Al Gore, a member of the Alabama Supreme Court, George Mitchell, random high-powered lawyers, and even Stephen Breyer-who interviewed Clinton while loaded with painkillers and made a bad impression. Janet Reno eventually snapped and told Clinton to appoint Ginsburg. Haha, I read some of this in the Stephanopoulos memoir, do you have any recommendations on the topic? Off-thread, but Clinton's rehabilitation into the iconic Democratic president is really at odds with his actual behavior in office. Oh well, looking forward to that hagiography getting trotted out in two years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Clinton is like a counterpart to Reagan in this. Although not as bad. He really is, in that they both defied the current party orthodoxy and yet are held up as exemplars of it. (See, e.g., the Unholy Trinity of '96.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Fixed. Hobby Lobby will be argued probably by April would be my extremely broad guess, and not decided until the last month of term.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
I mean if any phrase describes the Supreme Court, it'd be "an incestuous, ultraviolent fuckfest full of archaic gender and racial politics and also bizarre ideas on how language should work." Also, Thomas is clearly Jaime Lannister. There are no men like him, there's only him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
I can't see any of the NFIB Four voting to uphold this mandate and I feel like Roberts is going to swing with them this time, that infinite fucker - I don't see him siding against the nebulous soundbyte of "religious freedom." Then again, my analysis may be clouded by my complete and utter hatred of him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:How? I see basically no connection between the cases outside of broad stroke media/interest group wailing, certainly no legal rationale. Citizens United is not substantively cited in any of the briefs in any of these cases, there's even only one errata citation to it in Clement's brief. I think plenty of people see Citizens United as indicative that what may appear to be destined for a narrow decision may get pried open in argument/reargument, but I think they underestimate what a tortured process that was, really. edit: Also what Kalman said. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Alito proves once again that he is a tremendous piece of poo poo:quote:(Reuters) - A federal judge this week defended his custom of urging lead law firms in class actions to staff the lawsuits with women and minority lawyers, two weeks after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito took the unusual step of criticizing the practice. Judge Baer owns, but leave it to the Concerned Alumnus of Princeton to make sure that the voice of racist, sexist, boorish hacks doesn't go unrepresented. Alito's statement about the makeup of the bar versus the makeup of plaintiffs is a delightful bit of concern trolling, too, given that he signed onto the gutting of Brown and the attempt to bring loving integration into the bullshit affirmative action analytical rubric. (Obviously, there are a number of tensions with Baer's practice and the ideal, but I'm generally in favor of more efforts to remedy the whiteness of the bar, especially in complex civil litigation.) The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Didn't everyone just get done arguing that sort of connection was NOT important when it was about Vaughn Walker? Judges aren't a party's lawyers and they play very different roles. Baer's argument is more in line with Sotomayor's "empathy" comments than anything. Kalman posted:It's not disqualifying, but it is useful. You do get that they're distinct concepts, right? Also this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:If the class is disproportionately white, then it's a "white problem" by definition. The thing about systemic marginalization of non-white/non-male people is that what you're calling "white problems" affect people outside that category while the people outside that category also endure additional burdens by virtue of not belonging to that category. What Baer is saying fits into what was once the dominant theory of racial justice law in this country: that you cannot extricate underrepresentation of minorities/women from the hundreds of years of systemic marginalization that those groups have endured, while no comparative systemic marginalization exists for white people qua white people or men qua men. The post-Adarand shift to classificationism has resulted in an utter clusterfuck because it is a nonsensical approach to systemic discrimination, which - let's face it - was the whole loving idea if you're familiar with O'Connor's racial discrimination jurisprudence (as well as Rehnquist's nasty history with the issue). This is the Roberts framework to which Kalman refers - that an attempt to remedy systemic discrimination that "disadvantages" whites (i.e., does not confer the same benefit to whites) is as pernicious as an attempt to enforce systemic discrimination. Baer's framework distinguishes between remedying systemic discrimination and perpetuating it. Nevertheless, unless a class is basically 100% white male, efforts to staff in reflection of the makeup of the class is pretty much always going to result in an increase in representation for both minorities and women. TinTower posted:This is probably going to be a more discussed question once the marriage equality suits go their way (and maybe even before then depending on what Chelsea Manning does): as a trans person (even one who doesn't live in the US, but has a healthy interest in US politics), I'm aware that governments both state and federal are both rather restrictive on transgender recognition. When it comes to administration and healthcare, how much would those laws and procedures be able to withstand judicial review? I think there's an intuitive argument for gender identity to fit into intermediate scrutiny (which is the traditional "gender" standard of review), but the push beyond rational basis review wasn't established solidly until 2013. Now, animus has been a basis for invalidating a policy under rational basis before (see Romer) but ultimately you've got the right of it - unless there are five votes to establish a precedent for heightened scrutiny, it's unlikely that anything positive is going to happen. Personally, I doubt anything is going to happen through prison litigation for a whole host of reasons. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
It effectively is an (extremely small scale) affirmative action program to attempt to increase opportunities available to women and minority lawyers. That it's done under a discretionary rule about class counsel efficacy is more likely an issue of pragmatism, especially if you look into how Baer actually administers it (which is that he requires the firm to file a memo showing their efforts to staff women and minority lawyers). And again, we return to Sotomayor's comment: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." The counsel adequacy idea is similar: that someone from an outgroup is going to be able to more effectively relate to and advocate for clients from an outgroup. Judge Baer is like 80 years old, the amount of fucks he gives has likely dwindled to a very small number. Why doesn't this apply equally to white men representing white men? The white Christian male experience is the American default, and it's impressed upon everyone whether they fit that description or not. Every lawyer is trained from the first day of civil procedure to the last day of the bar exam to adequately represent white men, and while we're on the topic of affirmative action, that line of law itself is being converted to the story of white interests and their central importance as well. There's simply no need to take the extra step in ensuring descriptive advocacy to protect white male interests because a) white male interests are protected at virtually every turn in society and b) the harm of doing so (contributing to systemic marginalization) outweighs the benefits. Now, given the structure of most class action representation (and really most representation) I am somewhat skeptical about the actual substantive benefits to women/minority clients of women/minority lawyers staffed on the matter, but Judge Baer is absolutely right to be pushing the issue. I mean, this is a lot of words discussing what is Samuel Alito's whiny, juvenile jab at the controversial idea that women and non-whites might actually get more than crumbs from the pie. gently caress Samuel Alito, there's a reason he's Todd from Breaking Bad in the OP. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:I think I agree with this interpretation, but I'm still not clear on a couple of things 1. So it's important to remember that this is about the staffing of lawyers to class action cases by the lead law firm, so there are two components. Class counsel is appointed as part of the certification process because a class action by definition means that many of the parties whose interests are being adjudicated will have virtually no input onto how the case proceeds - this is why the judge is involved in selecting counsel at all, because the counsel selected isn't just representing the plaintiffs in the courtroom but all members of the class. If you've ever gotten a mailing notifying you of your entitlement to like 75 cents because of your cell phone plan, you've been represented by class counsel without any input at all. That's the first part. The second part is different from firm to firm, but basically partners who handle cases will pull more junior lawyers onto matters in various capacities, either piecemeal as developments occur (i.e., pulling new lawyers on when a motion needs to be filed) or at the outset (i.e., one cluster sticks with it for the duration), or what I gather is the most common approach, which is a mix of both. To the best of my knowledge, at virtually no point do clients get input into which lawyers are staffed before the bill comes due. The clients are still getting the lawyers they selected on the grounds they selected them (especially since every law firm at least claims to be an equal opportunity employer committed to a diverse and vibrant profession). 2. What this probably looks like in practice is there are more ethnic and women's names on the bill the clients get from the white male partners who lead the case. However, it does provide those lawyers with opportunities to advance in the firm (ideally), which is ostensibly good from a perspective of diversifying leadership in the bar. Depending on the jury, it might help to have a woman or minority lawyer arguing, but that's really up in the air. If the lawyer is senior enough to be guiding strategy, a non-white, non-male lawyer might be more sensitive to the needs of non-white/non-male class members than a white lawyer, especially when it comes to pressing discrimination claims. I have seen white lawyers be incredibly condescending and patronizing to their nonwhite clients, especially about discrimination claims, but I don't think that's a function of whiteness so much as a function of being a lovely lawyer. Jeffersonlives is likely entirely correct when he says that the counsel efficacy justification is a smokescreen for Judge Baer to do a little more for non-white non-male lawyers. This actually came up earlier in this term in Scheutte, and comes up every few years (if not every term) when people realize that almost every SCOTUS "race case" ends up argued by white dudes. SCOTUSBlog has a lot on Scheutte, and I'm going to write some up on it in the next week (read: month) for the thread. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Looks like the 10th should be dissolved into the 5th. The current 5th and 11th Circuits were split from the old 5th in October 1981. Splitting the 9th has been debated forever and ever, but good luck getting Congress to do it (or, in divided government, create enough judgeships). Also, gently caress yes Pam Karlan forever and ever amen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:What's with all these auto-stayed rulings? Is to prevent couples from ending up in legal limbo if the ruling is struck down en route to a higher court? Is it some kind of legal tradition or decorum for controversial rulings? I'm genuinely curious. Partially to avoid the limbo issue, but I wouldn't call it auto-stayed - generally what happens is that the judge announces the decision and then the counsel for the losing party asks for a stay pending appeal. It is largely discretionary but if the ruling a) changes the status quo ante lawsuit and/or b) is highly unlikely to resolve before appeal (I.e., a settlement, not really a factor in impact cases like this) I would say it's unusual for a judge not to stay the ruling. I wouldn't call it a tradition, but just sort of the way it works - like how opposing parties will almost always consent to extensions in deadlines to answer the complaint. If the trial court denies a stay, then they can also seek one from the appellate court (as has happened in the RAFA stuff with the nuns, with Sotomayor staying the ruling below) so there are two bites at the apple. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
I think the actual usefulness of video isn't for the audience, but for the attorneys - it's basically game film, especially since in the moment you might be trying to respond to one Justice and the video will allow you to see how other Justices react both to the question and your answer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That's a good point, although I think you get much of the same utility out of SCI moots, and those insights you can carry forward into the case, while after-the-fact insights from video would not generally help you improve as most would be case specific. Fair enough, but I think there are a sufficient number of frequent fliers who end up handling cases with overlapping substantive issues.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
The Court has granted cert in Holt v. Hobbs, a case challenging the no-beard policy of the Arkansas Department of Corrections violates either the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and whether a 1/2-inch beard would satisfy the security goals of the policy. If the cert petition looks a bit strange, it's because Holt is representing himself and handwrote the whole thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Is the court going to appoint someone to argue Holt's position? Doug Laycock at UVA is representing him now, but Holt was pro se through the trial and appellate courts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Though it's arguably more pertinent to the Marriage Equality thread, I figure SCOTUS is going to end up dealing with this eventually. E.D.Mich. has struck down Michigan's gay marriage ban. Stay has been asked for from the Sixth Circuit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Sixth Circuit is "clear error" for factual findings of the district court, which I think is pretty common. The Second Circuit uses the same standard with a bit of a twist in that it treats oral testimony and documentary evidence slightly differently.
The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Taking the high ground, then? On the other hand, Alito doesn't get the undeserved accolades from moderates and liberals for "writing so well" or "being so compelling" or whatever the line is. The greatest thing Obama ever did with his presidency is troll the gently caress out of Samuel Alito on two separate occasions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Tell me more! Aside from the well-known Citizens United callout that got Alito to mouth "not true," Alito was a member of "Concerned Alumni of Princeton," a group of Princeton alumni concerned primarily with the admission of women and minorities to Princeton. Obama's very first SCOTUS appointment - and the Justice immediately after Alito - was a minority woman who went to Princeton for undergrad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Has anyone read about Justice Stevens' upcoming book? I've read an excerpt and I think he's on his speaking tour, but his open opposition to the death penalty now that he's off the Court is what seems to be getting most of the press, even though his opposition-only-insofar-as-he-doesn't-have-to-actually-change-anything-about-how-the-death-penalty-is-applied is unsurprising to anyone who read Baze v. Rees.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Anyone know when the Aereo case starts? Oral argument is set for April 22nd, but I think a bunch of the amicus briefs are in. There should be a case page on SCOTUSBlog that has the docket.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:What is his definition of a "special interest"? Something someone wants that the person using the term doesn't want.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Hahahah, Roberts's concurrence is basically him wagging his finger at Sotomayor for daring to say that the Roberts policy position is ostrich-esque. His prestige drama alter ego will henceforth be Sandor Clegane, Game of Thrones, because he truly is the Worst poo poo in the Seven Kingdoms. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
The case is about political process doctrine - what the ACLU is saying is that if legacies or athletes or polyglots or whatever want to have that considered by admissions, they can appeal to the Board of Trustees or the Admissions Committee or whoever sets that policy at UofM. If racial minorities want that, they have to get the state constitution amended. Political process doctrine is the answer to the quintessential problem of having two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner. The other side of it is that race is a factor literally everywhere else before, during, and after the admissions process, so barring policies that exist to counteract the effects of that persistent discrimination is just furthering invidious discrimination. Sotomayor pretty much explains it all (and more) in her 58-page dissent, which was apparently so mean that Chief Justice Roberts had to whine about it in a separate concurrence like a big baby. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:As I understand it, though, the Court wasn't tasked with determining the racial aspects of affirmative action. They were only concerned with the ability for higher courts to overrule a voted-on policy. Right, that's the political process doctrine: when the majority votes for a policy that inures to the detriment of racial minorities in a way that places additional burdens on that minority in remedying that detriment, something's rotten in Ann Arbor. Basically, the majority voted to change the rules for minority applicants, but not for every other applicant group - not just in the sense that race is no longer considered in the constitutionally permissible way, but that if you wanted the committee to consider race in a constitutionally permissible way, you would have to amend the state constitution and for any other group, you would just appeal to the relevant university bodies - and that raises Equal Protection questions under Hunter/Seattle. This case didn't get to the merits of affirmative action doctrine itself, but it's impossible to remove it from that context when understanding the opinions and the underlying politics. OP has been updated. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Isn't that what the courts did, though? The majority opinion dealt with the actual case, whereas the dissent focused on the extraneous racial aspects. The racial aspects aren't "extraneous" in political process doctrine, that's why the doctrine exists. The dissent focuses on how this is changing up the rules for minorities specifically and exclusively, and also clowns on the obvious ostriching that Kennedy is engaged in, backed by Roberts and Alito. quote:It's only impossible to separate the two if you subscribe to the "The system is racist, you're racist, the ground is racist, and I'm pretty sure half the air molecules I breathed in are racist" mentality. The system is pretty racist. Not sure how you, the ground, or any quantity of air molecules relate to it. When I talk about understanding the opinions and the underlying politics, I mean that when one side of the argument involves any attempt to consider ameliorating racial discrimination, you can be sure you'll find Chief Justice Roberts on the other side of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Will Fisher be coming back to SCOTUS? From what I can remember they basically kicked it back down without really resolving anything, but affirmative action stuff today is just a mess. Yeah, that was a classic punt. I doubt it will come back - the facts were so bad that even Roberts couldn't get five votes to strike down affirmative action. Moreover, the case skirted mootness the first time around, so it only gets weirder to take her case specifically when a cottage industry has sprung up to locate disgruntled white people to challenge affirmative action. Abigail Fisher singlehandedly won affirmative action a stay of execution by being the worst plaintiff possible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
esquilax posted:They are actually specifically focused on Asian-American students, in the case of Harvard. "Looking for white people" was only The Warszawa's characterization I apologize, it was late and I thought it was clear that I was speaking to why Fisher probably won't come up to SCOTUS - I meant to demonstrate that POFR was looking for better plaintiffs with Fisher's profile (disgruntled white applicant), not to imply that they were only looking for white plaintiffs. I can see why you read it that way, so sorry for being unclear. I'm phone posting so I'll have to be brief, but an Asian American plaintiff will probably fare worse than a white plaintiff because it has the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution Kennedy adores. (Namely, that the negative action taken to depress Asian American enrollment is invidious discrimination, but it's independent of race-conscious affirmative action because it only could be affected by it if there are impermissible guarantees of white enrollment.) I mean, assuming Kennedy is looking for a middle ground.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Snoggle posted:Yeah, but she likes the Yankees. One more thing she is unquestionably right on. (Also, go check who the judge was during the players' strike.) The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Again, only using a tortured reading. The AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion decision found that state laws forbidding class action waiver contracts were preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Blame Congress leaving lovely laws on the books. It's not just Concepcion, it's Dukes, and then you've got the generalization of the specific context of Twombly to everything in Iqbal, which is (doctrinally) boring a fuckhole into Rule 8 (though judges may in fact be self-correcting on that).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Even so, the image of Scalia squinting at a draft in the middle of the night trying to figure out whether a period is italicized is deeply satisfying.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:For Supreme Court content, an interesting article on how Ginsburg and Scalia coexist (with some standard Scalia quotes, railing from the bench at how things he disagrees with happen and people just don't find it as horrific as they should, or something): "Firsts" are kind of easy to pick out simply because so much of the judiciary is made up of white dudes - Sotomayor was pickable because there was a sentiment that it was about drat time there was a Latino/a Justice (not counting Cardozo), and that was the same "foresight" that made Miguel Estrada so controversial. For the most part, I tend to think that nominees who "everyone" talks about being obvious choices are usually nominees with friends who are reporters or are listened to by reporters (for example, Kagan and Toobin are close, apparently, and I recall that Greenwald was pretty heavy into Diane Wood when the Souter vacancy was up). That's also why Goodwin Liu got blocked for the 9th Circuit.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I don't follow. Liu got blocked because he had no reporter friends? Sorry, it was late and I was capping off a 300+ month, I was extremely scatterbrained when I posted that. Evilweasel's clarification is what I meant - Liu got blocked because he was an obvious SCOTUS pick, like Estrada before him. (I would be interested in looking at the demographics of candidates with commentariat backing though.) Green Crayons posted:Any thoughts on whether the fact that he's currently serving on California's supreme court is providing him the experience he needs to be a credible nominee? My impression at the time was that this was exactly (part of) why he was nominated to CA Supreme Court. I'm rosier on it than Kalman is, especially considering Kagan now. I do think it's harder to get confirmed to the Circuit Courts than to SCOTUS in terms of being blocked or forced to withdraw - I don't think Sotomayor could get confirmed to the Second Circuit today. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 21:29 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
This is wholly consistent with the Roberts Court's theory of safeguards for minority rights, the well-known "tough titty" doctrine.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Good old Kagan. I've got to remember "hopefully though counterfactually" next time somebody starts talking about a colorblind society or whatever. When they get her off the goddamn bench (well, on the bench but not warming it - wow, sports metaphors really don't work with the judiciary), she's probably one of the most accessible writers in the history of the Court.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 17:12
|
|