|
JesusSinfulHands posted:Welp wrap it up fellow Californians I guess we are not genuine Westerners Shorter Scalia: "This Court and its New York sense of humor..."
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Schnorkles posted:tbf Roberts' dissent from scotusblog doesn't sound like tears or frothing rage [helllloooo Scalia] as he thinks that the proper place for this was within the democratic process. It's a pretty measured dissent that clearly tells people to go celebrate that its over, but he doesn't like that it was the court that did it. On the other hand, adjudicating the rights of minority groups in a representative democracy is one of the most rock-solid reason to have an institution as counter-majoritarian as a life-tenured federal judiciary, so if this isn't the role of the Court I'm not sure what the gently caress he thinks it is. (They're better disguised tears, but don't mistake them for some other form of saltwater.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I think its probably an outdated artifact today. Long ago I could see a case where the supreme court makes an error because the facts aren't all known and someone rides in on horseback or train to yell "Wait stop, you guys were wrong, that didn't happen, it really went down like this!", and they can have a re-hearing to correct their mistake. It is pretty strange but no stranger than the motion for reconsideration, which is still used today in lower courts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:Crossposting from the picture thread since you guys might be able to answer it better: Highly unlikely - we probably won't even see another Souter, but part of this is that ideological factionalization among potential nominees (and all politically inclined lawyers) has intensified and started earlier.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Kennedy's opinion on SSM is really unambiguously legislation from the bench- he made no real effort to present the outcome in terms of existing law. This is genuinely a bad thing, and makes it harder to construct a coherent legal framework around the holding, and damages the authority of the court. The dignity material that drove Thomas nuts was genuinely an especially bad offender in this regard. Whoa, where have you been? How'd the DC bar go?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Failed by, after curving, one half of a point. I'm not going to worry about it until after the PhD is complete. I've been in the lawgoons thread, the DnD crowd (especially when a big decision hits) drive me nuts. Ah, I've only recently ventured back to the lawthread in an attempt to avoid Dragon Age spoilers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
A note on Fisher - Justice Kagan recused herself from consideration of the petition. Just like last time, she will recuse herself it seems.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
A follow-up on Fisher: Justice Kagan is the only justice with actual experience administering affirmative action.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Wow, that's actually the one unexpected outcome this term. Well, that and Fair Housing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Fair Housing is a pretty big case Yeah, but it was unexpected primarily because of this Court's racial issue jurisprudence. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:And I would add Obamacare Nah, the unexpected part of Obamacare was that Kennedy flipped, not the outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Sometimes, Gawker rivals SCOTUSBlog for insightful commentary. "Showing a persistence and work ethic she never mustered in her lackluster high school career, University of Texas reject and professional white martyr Abigail Fisher has convinced the Supreme Court to give her one more chance to blame affirmative action for her personal failures."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:Sotomayor's dissent in Glossip is a work of art. She just takes apart the District Court's finding of fact piece by piece and then hands it to the majority on their (strange) reliance on Baze (plurality) throughout the opinion. Just a thorough demolishing of the majority. And she has a quick hat-tip to the Breyer/Ginsburg dissent, so maybe there are 2.5 votes there or at the very least she's open to being convinced. Justice Sotomayor is also, I believe, the only sitting Justice with trial court bench experience (and also the only former prosecutor, if I'm not mistaken). For all of Justice Scalia's talk about a homogenous Court, it's actually very interesting what diverse and pertinent experience many Justices have.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Execution is cheaper (or could be, and notice that this is cycling back to and argument analogous to the "access to the drugs" issues), and removes the risk of subsequent harms by the individual. I'm not engaging on this further; I keep making the mistake of reading the SCOTUS thread when something significant has happened, when that's the exact worst time to do it. If the law and its underpinnings can't be made clear to people to whom it applies, that's a problem for the legitimacy of the law or, more likely, a flaw in the offered explanation. Law can't be restricted to the sorcery of a select few trained in its arcana. This isn't Warhammer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is that not the purpose of the bar exam? No, the bar exam merely answers a threshold question: for a given jurisdiction, are you sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently ethical (with the MPRE) to plaster your face on the sides of buses next to the word ¿ACCIDENTES?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:To be fair, it's a bit hard to argue that "race is a component of our admissions decision to fulfill diversity goals" and also simultaneously claim that there are zero marginal people who are affected by it. If you're capping the number of students you admit, then there has to be someone on the losing end somewhere. Fisher could have quieted the standing issue by bringing her action not only on her behalf but as a class action on behalf of future applicants. (This is what the plaintiff in Grutter did.) She or her lawyers decided not to do so. Of course, this was all in play the last time Fisher was up, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Of course, the demographics of the "less qualified" admits does raise on hell of a question when it comes to causation, even if you concede injury in fact. Also, a reminder that just like last time, it's a short bench. Justice Kagan is recused due to her work as Solicitor General.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:As a practical matter though that doesn't matter: a 4-4 decision upholds lower court decision permitting the Texas plan and, though it has no precedential value everyone knows that means there's a 5-4 majority for it and lower courts will take notice. Right, but when it comes to counting votes it's always good to remember the number changes. Also so no one goes through the transcript and thinks Justice Kagan pulled a Justice Thomas. (For what it's worth, though, Justice Kennedy was in the dissent in Grutter. I am...not optimistic.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hell I'll give her $55 right here and now to make this whole thing go away. This specific scenario was also brought up at argument, funnily enough.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Not sure universities give a poo poo about diversity outside of AA being foisted on them. It probably varies from admissions department to admissions department but I would guess that they do, especially since affirmative action has never been required to my knowledge, only permitted, and that private schools are pretty much wholly unaffected by this jurisprudence (though a policy shift in public schools certainly bears on them, it just doesn't bind them).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:AA has been illegal for Michigan public schools for a few years now, and Black enrollment in particular is in a death spiral right now at the U of M. The university has been steadily piling on tuition costs for years, and if you combine that with the ludicrous housing market in Ann Arbor, you end up with a school that is pretty clearly trying to attract the rich white kids from Grosse Pointe and West Bloomfield and doing its level best to keep Black kids from Detroit out. This is interesting, especially since if I recall correctly a lot of the drive for the statewide ban (which I think was also a referendum versus legislative action) was a lot of grousing about out of staters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd be extremely hesitant about putting forward a narrative where younger generations are more likely to value diversity, or even if they do, to support policy. If anything, younger Millennials seem less likely to be on board with tangible efforts to further diversity. Then again, surveying (in part) fourteen year olds seems like a great way to generate noise. Of course, it's not a coincidence that the whole conversation has to be framed around diversity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It'd be cool to see the fallout of AA being killed in university campuses/admissions in terms of seeing the student demo changes. Not really sure "cool" is the word. shrike82 posted:Aren't STEM programs heavy on Chinese and Indians? Again, what are people defining as diversity? Typically, race-conscious programs are targeted at what schools call "underrepresented minorities," which can vary a lot based on how particularized schools are willing to get (some are more particularized than others). For example, Asian Americans may not be included, but if a school digs deeper it may include Vietnamese and Hmong-descent applicants. Hispanic applicants may be included broadly, but similarly if broken down further Cuban-Americans may not be included.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If you think that's weird don't look up "Judge-Executive" I love Kentucky county structures. Judge-Executives are the executive, and are also part of the Fiscal Courts...which are the legislatures. Neither Judge-Executives nor Fiscal Courts exercise any judicial power, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:What in the blue hell is going on in the Commonwealth? Same as it ever was, basically.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
gohmak posted:What do we know of his jurisprudence? http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/an-assessment-of-judge-sri-srinivasans-rulings-or-i-read-all-these-ferc-cases-so-you-dont-have-to/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
I don't know if it's viable to conflate "a political institution," which is saying that is responsive to political forces (but not necessarily any specific political forces), with "not insulated from the political process," which refers to a very specific set of political forces.Discendo Vox posted:Thread request: images of justices in racing gear. If Scalia's seat is filled by the time Fast & Furious 9 comes around... The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
If you go back to Llewelyn, realism is basically "human institutions are inescapably human and subject to all the failings inherent to the human condition." As cognitive and behavioral stuff has gotten more of a foothold in legal academics (or at least the discussion of it has), there's more work pointing to specific mechanisms of bias or erroneous reasoning based on how the human brain builds shortcuts. But that's also the split between the realists and the crits, in my opinion: crits believe they have identified the specific forces that hold sway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
It doesn't seem like a big contribution now because we have basically accepted the underlying premise of realism, in part because the increased democratization of education (particularly core education like literacy) makes it clear that there's no arcane wizardry to law. A lot of that predates Llewelyn crystallizing realism but it still has an effect. If you're expecting legal theory to produce policy, of course you'll come away disappointed. The role of legal academia in law is tenuous to say the least. Realism (and critical legal theory by extension, since it arose from realism in this respect) is about attacking underlying assumptions about the processes of the system. It's an incomplete approach to be sure, but I don't think that makes it worse than formalism. I don't think there's value to a comprehensive and all-encompassing theory that gets its broad coverage from flawed premises, but this is the core of the debate I guess. Crits take it further because they do have an explicit aim, but by its nature, there's no consensus on what goes between identifying the problem and achieving that aim. (Of course, ardent crits are going to argue that the whole purpose is to investigate and ascertain what bridges that gap.) The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
All this is to say that when you roll your eyes at gunchat or patentchat, remember that it could be worse. It could be legal theorychat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Yes. For an explanation as to why, simply review the cases in which Kagan recused herself for propriety's sake then contrast them to the cases Thomas, whose wife receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from political activists, chose to recuse himself. Justice Kagan recused herself because she was Solicitor General and was involved in those cases (she was firewalled off from certain cases, like NFIB). It isn't really the same as Virginia Thomas being a lobbyist -- even the big push for Justice Thomas to recuse himself in NFIB was based off the appearance of conflict of interest versus an actual conflict of interest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:There does not need to be an actual conflict, the appearance of one is sufficient to erode faith Yes, that's right. The point I was making is that Justice Kagan had a direct conflict and Justice Thomas didn't, and that at the time it did not appear that anyone was overtly imploring him to recuse because they believed him to be actually conflicted because of his wife's lobbying work. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Wait, is anyone disputing that appearance of a conflict is a reason for recusal? I only brought up the indirectness issue to illustrate that it was a closer call for Justice Thomas in NFIB than it was for Justice Kagan in her recusals, because it appeared that his non-recusal was being directly compared to Justice Kagan's recusals as an indicator of some sort of ideology-based ethical failing. The Justices seem pretty vigilant about it -- Justice Scalia tipped his hand in a public speech once and recused himself from the relevant case (the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance case) and Justice Thomas recused himself from the VMI case because his son was a student there at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Yeah, they were. But hopefully that's behind us now. Well, there was a law professor who suggested that the role of the academy was to check the excesses of the Supreme Courahahahahahahahahahaha.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Pretty interesting case is being argued today, concerning whether a "no impeachment" rule violates the Sixth Amendment. The rule basically says that you can't have a juror testify about deliberations, which has the effect of precluding using post-verdict evidence of racial bias to challenge the Sixth Amendment sufficiency of the verdict because you can't use that evidence to say that the jury was biased in its deliberations. The question is whether that rule, in this particular case, violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury. Both sides have really compelling reasons why they should prevail, in my opinion, so I think the argument should be a good one. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pena-rodriguez-v-colorado/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
i work, therefore i am. in other words, i got way too busy to do anything but broad strokes courtwatching and keeping abreast of developments in a few niche areas of law, so y'all should feel free to make a new thread/write up cases as you will
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 22:31
|
|