SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›8 »

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Goatman Sacks posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

In which a sitting supreme court justice unironically says "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion"

Our currency literally says "In God We Trust" on it, I don't see how this is controversial.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2014 17:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 8, 2024 21:06

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Evil Fluffy posted:

Because that slogan was added as part of the Red Scare and in no way is connected to the founders or founding documents?

I really can't fathom why you think this fact would make the notion that the government can do openly religious things controversial. Yes, that slogan was added in 1956, do you think the first amendment forbids the government from printing "In God We Trust" on whatever it feels like? And particularly do you think the fact it was added as part of the Red Scare somehow makes it more first amendment violate-y?

# ¿ Oct 3, 2014 17:39

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Evil Fluffy posted:

I'm curious what his thoughts on are on why Article 6 specific prohibits any sort of religious test being a part of qualifying for office if he believes there's no freedom from religion inherent in the founding documents.

A religious test being a part of qualifying for office isn't:

Scalia posted:

in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies

Which was the context of what Scalia said, so I don't understand why you think that is relevant to this. Separately I have no clue why the people who wrote the document included that provision, but I think it's a good provision, and doesn't extend any other protections than what it narrowly mentions.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2014 00:25

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Pinterest Mom posted:

None of the pro-SSM justices voted to grant cert, and they were never going to. You don't grant cert to a ruling you intend to uphold. By voting against cert, the five pro-SSM justices, for all intents and purposes, made SSM the law of the land. They didn't have to be talked into it.

If the analysis were that simple, the case would have been granted cert, because there is very clearly at least 4 no votes on the court.
edit: It would also imply the Supreme Court never upholds by more than a 5-4 margin.

twodot fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Oct 6, 2014

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 18:15

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Communist Zombie posted:

So while looking up something on the amendments and found this interesting clause in the 14th

Why hasnt this been used ever? Disenfranchise blacks? Fine, you lose at least one representative and its vote in the EC.

It's been used at least once, and the judge said the number of representatives a state has is a political question, and ruling on it would be real messy.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/152/235/1486629/
Summary is that some guy tried to run for representative at large in Virginia, on the basis that their poll tax disenfranchised 60% of the voting population, so they should only have 4 reps instead of 9, and because they should only have 4, the district lines that they drew are invalid, and all 4 seats should be voted on at large.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2014 19:40

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

HootTheOwl posted:

Can a legal eagle explain to me how this happened? I thought "not guilty" meant it was over?

In this particular case, the people were convicted of one thing and not another, but got sentences greater than would normally been justified by the thing they were convicted of.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2014 05:30

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

ActusRhesus posted:

As for the fois gras thing...states have the right to set guidelines for animal cruelty. Not sure there's much in the way of a constitutional question here. I can see why one would argue commerce clause...but I don't think banning fois gras procedures get you to unreasonable limitation on commerce. They can still sell duck liver...they just can't torture the duck first.

There were two arguments, a due process one:

quote:

Plaintiffs contend that they raised a serious question that the statute violates their due process rights because: (1) the statute's definition of force feeding is vague; and (2) the statute fails to give persons fair notice of what conduct is prohibited.

Those are both obviously stupid, and a commerce clause one:

quote:

Plaintiffs argue that we should find that � 25982 violates the Commerce Clause because the statute: (1) discriminates against interstate commerce; and (2) directly regulates interstate commerce.

Which is more technical, but still wrong.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1642935.html

# ¿ Oct 15, 2014 22:35

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

McAlister posted:

My friends said it was ex-post and that is why all building codes everywhere work that way - they only apply to future buildings. Their teacher told them that though he was an engineer not a lawyer so - /shrug.

The building was legal and to-code at time of construction. All inspections are done to the code for the year the building was built unless it was substantially renovated at which point it must come into compliance with the new codes.

I think there would be a due process problem with declaring an existing building suddenly illegal. I don't see any due process problem with declaring an existing business suddenly illegal since people can stop doing business at any moment, but buildings can't immediately conform to building codes instantaneously.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2014 04:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

hobbesmaster posted:

Could Roberts just want to punt this thing on standing? Standing in this case was never very clear to me.

It turns out there is a doughnut where very poor people aren't required to get insurance, somewhat poor people qualify for a tax credit which bumps them into the required to get insurance bracket, but the subsidy they qualify for is less than the cost of insurance minus the tax credit, meaning that because of the tax credit, there are random people who are being forced to pay $50 a year for insurance which creates standing.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2014 19:00

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

ActusRhesus posted:

Least favorite words of the previously winning side: "cert granted"

Though occasionally a case is taken to settle a question or clarify a legal point...but usually only on cases that have some precedent value. I don't think that's the case here. Cert granted usually means previous winner is about to get hosed.

To put some numbers on it, according to the last SCOTUSblog stat pack, they reversed 73% of cases accepted.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SCOTUSblog_scorecard_OT13.pdf

# ¿ Nov 8, 2014 17:39

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Slipknot Hoagie posted:

I wonder how the reasonableness test will work in the future with the current "triggered" generation.

It's a self-correcting definition, whatever people think is reasonable is reasonable. If society moves away from what you personally perceive as reasonable, that's your problem.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 01:04

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

FAUXTON posted:

If society diverges along some sort of divide, then what?

You'll get a bunch of hung juries I suppose. I don't see that as a problem, if there is an activity that society legitimately can't come to agreement on whether it should be a crime, I'm ok with it being not a crime.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 01:15

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

patentmagus posted:

I think it's all as illegal as hell, but no one is going to convict a torturer by reading the constitution to the court. It's going to be a lot rougher than that and the torturers are bipartisan and politically powerful.

Even if you conclude that torture is unconstitutional, what's the remedy? It seems to me the best you could ask for is the government to stop torturing you personally.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2014 03:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Green Crayons posted:

Who knows! Whatever a court says is objectively reasonable.

While this isn't wrong, the difference between objectively reasonable and subjectively, is that subjectively reasonable is talking about actor's beliefs "I believed it was reasonable to believe that the law required two tail lights", and objectively is talking about the person doing the analysis "We believe your belief that the law required two tail lights was reasonable".

# ¿ Dec 15, 2014 17:54

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

eviltastic posted:

The Court considers its docket discretionary even for original jurisdiction cases.

Even if they were objectively incorrect about this, no one would have the authority to tell them they are wrong.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2014 18:27

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Not My Leg posted:

Over the long term, the executive (with Congress) has the power to tell the court it is wrong, by nominating people who will overturn past precedent. In the short term, Congress has the authority to tell the Court it is wrong by impeaching justices for violating the Constitution. You can say neither is likely, but that's an issue of political will, not lack of authority.

Also, just so people don't think I'm saying Congress should do this, I have no informed opinion on the Supreme Court's discretion with respect to original jurisdiction cases.

Congress can impeach, but the cases would still have been ignored. The President can appoint, but the cases would still have been ignored (and was ignored for probably multiple decades). My point isn't about likelihood, it's about after the Court decides it doesn't want to hear your case, what recourse you have, which is none.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2014 20:05

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

ActusRhesus posted:

You don't see how your gender perhaps influences your view on whether or not the government should enact policy that reinforces the perception that a woman's place is in the home?

I really don't like this phrasing, and it's pretty common. Of course their gender influences their views on everything. What they had for breakfast also influences their views on everything. By asking the question you are implying their gender is influencing them incorrectly (we wouldn't care if the influence led to a correct position), but if their position is incorrect, you can just directly state why they are incorrect instead of implying they are incorrect via bad influence. Additionally even if they did possess various bad influences, they could still come to the correct conclusion. Analyzing individual influences is good psychology, but it is pointless for law and policy.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2014 17:01

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

ActusRhesus posted:

Except it comes up all the time in context of laws and policy written by a majority that has a disproportionate impact on the minority.

No, laws and policy that have disproportionate impact on minorities are bad because they have disproportionate impact on minorities. If I see a law with disproportionate impact on minorities, I don't say "This law is bad because the writers were influenced by institutional racism (as everyone's actions are all the time)" instead I say "This law is bad because it has disproportionate impact on minorities." (edit: The fact that you seem to acknowledge that writers with racist influence can sometimes write laws with disproportionate impact and sometimes write laws without is essentially my point. The possession of bad influence is not evidence of bad policy. The bad influence argument is literal ad hominem, you are arguing their argument is wrong by talking about a characteristic of the person presenting the argument.)

quote:

In that context, it is not unfair to point out when a person is perhaps displaying some subconscious bias. I find the notion that a woman needs to stay home to be a "good mother" extremely sexist (and I recognize there are stay at home fathers too, but generally, in the US, when one parent stays home to raise the kids, it's the mother.)

Right if someone is being sexist, feel free to say "You are being sexist, this is bad", saying "I accuse you of possessing bad influence!" is pointless and close to the point of tautological.

twodot fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Dec 29, 2014

# ¿ Dec 29, 2014 17:54

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

FAUXTON posted:

Disproportionate impact versus intent is something that circles right back around to the whole theory vs practicality argument, with practicality often being cited in favor of requiring proof of intent since it would be impractical to consider nuances when drafting/amending legislation, whereas a theoretical approach supports such deliberation since it would be unethical to ignore de facto unequal treatment.

Not only is intent impractical to consider, it's also useless. If someone is trying to be racist but fails to harm anyone, then the policy is fine. If a policy harms people, then regardless of whether that was on purpose, we should fix it. (Also institutional racism affects everyone, so even if you thought intent was useful, you'd need a way to draw a bright line of someone being especially badly influenced)

ActusRhesus posted:

My point is that a person's status can lead to sexist (or racist, or ableist or whatever) thinking that they are not consciously aware of.

This is a generally true statement, but it's not useful to apply to a specific stranger on the Internet who is supporting or not supporting a policy (which is why you had to ask their gender in the first place). The policy is either good or bad regardless of the influences of people arguing about it.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2014 18:20

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Maarek posted:

I think it's useful in the sense that "people will judge me for choosing my career over being a stay-at-home-parent" is so far out of my life experience that it sounds like one of those made up problems that the protagonists of a romantic comedy suffer from. I know this is a real thing, but it might as well be happening on the moon to me.

"People will judge me for choosing my career over being a stay-at-home-parent" is a fact statement about external reality. It has nothing to do with your influences. Because some people might be ignorant of that fact, it can be useful to say, but when choosing between "I bet you are a man and therefore possibly ignorant of <fact>" and "<fact> is true", "<fact> is true" is obviously better.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2014 18:43

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Discendo Vox posted:

Beyond punitive justifications, there are also financial ones. Arguments against the cost framing of capital punishment focus on the data showing it costs more to perform an execution, but the reality is that most of the cost associated is with elements of the appeals process that aren't bound inextricably from capital punishment itself. Getting an accurate cost analysis would require somehow controlling for the other defects of the prison system, though.

Even if capital punishment were cheaper, I don't think cost would work as an argument. The existing solution to overcrowded prisons is to let people out, not just shrug your shoulders and point out it is cheaper to not build new prisons (edit: And killing your prisoners to come under capacity is clearly out of the question).

# ¿ Jan 18, 2015 04:10

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KernelSlanders posted:

United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

# ¿ Jan 19, 2015 07:24

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

fosborb posted:

Relevant study on Scalia's dickishness.

"You are correct, but only in the literal sense" is a pretty loving terrible argument, especially if it begins an article which is trying to claim the person in question is too sarcastic.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2015 19:41

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

esquilax posted:

I think the article was saying he is the most sarcastic, rather than saying he is too sarcastic. And it's a good enough example to use as a lede.

Eh...

quote:

�I think it is a bad thing,� he said. �There is a great deal of value to civility, especially when the court is writing in a sensitive area.�
It is also possible that Justice Scalia�s sarcasm is counterproductive, alienating potential allies and inviting misreading. His deadpan put-downs of Justices Sandra Day O�Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy, for instance, cannot have helped his relationships with them.
And his acid dissent in a 2013 gay rights case helped propel the cause of same-sex marriage.

I still thinks it's weird to say someone is too (or even the most) sarcastic and also include someone saying that person is too literal.

twodot fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jan 21, 2015

# ¿ Jan 21, 2015 19:57

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

ShadowHawk posted:

Regular human speech (even that occurring in a courtroom) can still have obvious implications. To deny as such is to totally disrespect all manner of human speech and thought for the sheer purpose of being obtuse.

Are we doing something about it?
Yes. (We are hoping, thinking, and wishing)
Would most reasonable humans interpret those things as "nothing" ?
Yes. But if you didn't want to include things equivalent to "nothing" as possible responses, you should have been more specific with your question!

should not have to ask that second question. is deliberately trying to misunderstand the question, childishly. But, is indeed technically correct.

I buy this argument socially, but not legally. Why do laws have phrases like "reasonable belief" if how a reasonable human would interpret something is implicit in a statement? Also keep in mind that some laws explicitly recognize non-reasonable beliefs.

Deteriorata posted:

Another implication of it is that actual implementation and enforcement procedures are often at a slight variance with a literal interpretation of the law.

For example, a policeman would be technically correct for giving a ticket to a driver he clocked at 1 MPH over the speed limit, but for a whole host of practical reasons it would be a bad move and likely get tossed and the cop reprimanded for antagonizing the public.

Right, management and the public would probably give them poo poo, but "That's sort of lame" isn't an argument to bring to appeal.

twodot fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Jan 22, 2015

# ¿ Jan 22, 2015 06:52

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Is there any precedent that the eighth amendment forbids grossly disproportionate sentencing? The Ninth Circuit appears to have several cases backing terrible sentences, and while I think basically all sentencing regarding drug possession is grossly disproportionate, I wouldn't argue they are unconstitutional because of the eighth amendment.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2015 20:27

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Forever_Peace posted:

Firm called Ransom Blackman LLP from Portland.

Out of curiosity, what are the chances this current court would ever overturn mandatory minimums on Equal Protection grounds? (e.g. where systemic biases in the criminal justice system impose an unconstitutional burden on minority citizens)? If it's going, does it have to be 8th?

The petition poses two questions:

quote:

The first question presented is: Under what circumstances does the Eighth Amendment authorize a district court to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum?
The second question presented is: Does a criminal defendant�s waiver of appeal rights made in an agreement to resolve a case also prohibit an appeal by the government?

Obviously SCOTUS can do whatever they want, but the petition is specifically about the eighth amendment. Also there is a circuit split on the second question.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2015 22:46

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

FAUXTON posted:

I think it's a little disingenuous to say the only way a decision can be considered a politically tainted one is if there's no logical process from the question to the opinion. There's always a logical process and it's often written in rather ponderous language. What is being claimed as evidence is unexplained inconsistency where one would expect predictable doctrine - limited power of the federal government to interfere with state matters for example, and how that limitation applies to guns but not to marijuana.

I think Raich was wrongly decided, but comparing it to guns is just bizarre (since guns have their own special amendment). In any case what does it mean for a decision to be "politically tainted"? My best understanding is that it means that a decision was reached because of a desired policy, rather than an application of rules. My problem is that if there is a logical application of rules that reaches the decision, and the person who presented the decision also gave that process along with the decision, it seems silly to speculate whether they thought of the policy or the rules first. Who cares, so long as the rules were properly applied?

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 19:06

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

evilweasel posted:

Because in the next case they'll apply different rules.

That's possible, but why is that a bad thing? If we think there is the one true judicial philosophy, it seems like it's our responsibility to write that down somewhere.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 19:12

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

evilweasel posted:

Because when the law says X when a judge wants it to be X but it says Y at all other times, this is very bad because it's not predictable (one of the primary jobs of the Supreme Court is making clear rulings that can be applied to new cases by lower courts), and it's fundamentally unjust. This is easiest to see when the judge's preferences are ones that are unambiguiously illegitimate ("if i rule this way I get $50k" or "he's my buddy, giving this case to him").

It is legitimate for judges to have different judicial philosophies. It's not legitimate for them to switch between them just to get the result they want.

Wait are we talking about the Supreme Court or lower courts? A partisan Justice should be extremely predictable, and would create clear rulings that lower courts can use. A random judge might be unpredictable if you are expecting them to follow those clear rules and they don't, but that seems to break my "as long as the rules were properly applied" invariant.

As far as bribery or cronyism goes, I agree those are bad, but they are bad because they are a heuristic for predicting invalid opinions. Once you have an opinion in hand, along with a valid legal reasoning, you can't discover that a judge was bribed, and then conclude the opinion is bad due to the bribery. I suppose you're building towards an argument of the form "Judges who have strong policy desires ought to recuse themselves regarding related matters." which seems ok to me.

Again, why is it bad when judges switch philosophies to achieve a policy goal, but it's not bad for judges to switch philosophies generally? Using your predictable requirement, a judge that switches philosophies for external reasons would be much more predictable than one who switches for internal reasons.

twodot fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 26, 2015

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 21:02

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KIM JONG TRILL posted:

A partisan Justice ISN'T predictable, though, unless you can predict the issues that they care enough about to deviate from their usual ideology.

Agreed, but if determining what issues they care enough about to deviate from their usual ideology is tricky, they aren't very partisan.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 00:04

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

1337JiveTurkey posted:

The threat of causing a massive clusterfuck through what would be seen as a flagrantly partisan decision is a much bigger consideration for Roberts if congress can't bail his rear end out. It'd be absolute poison for the popular legitimacy of American political institutions.

I think there's good evidence that the popular perception of legitimacy of the Supreme Court is directly partisan:
http://www.people-press.org/2014/05/06/supreme-court-favorability-rebounds/
Any partisan decision will gain as much favorability as it loses.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2015 18:51

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

eSports Chaebol posted:

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?

The whole thing turns on the definition of "because of" if you have a policy against hats, and someone wears a hat as a religious practice, and you decline to hire them, is it because of their religious practice of wearing hats, or because of their practice of wearing hats that just so happens to be religious. Thomas argues the latter, which I personally think is the more sane definition policy wise, the example that Scalia gives of "You have to hire someone who refuses to work Saturdays" seems insane and unproductive, but it's also pretty clear what Congress wrote down is the former.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2015 19:57

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Bel Shazar posted:

SCOTUS could probably strike the law down as unconstitutional as a 10th amendment violation, since the finding of fact of existence of Santa on its own wouldn't seem to fall under any of the enumerated powers.

As evilweasel notes, it's unclear how you would get standing to sue a law declaring Santa is real.

Green Crayons posted:

So good.

People quote this a lot because it sounds funny, but it was, at that time, factually true right? For that decision, the Supreme Court ruling on factual innocence was novel.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2015 17:54

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

Which would have been fine as a historical observation in a concurring opinion, but Scalia was dissenting...

If we think his dissent is wrong, shouldn't we be quoting the parts that we think are wrong, rather than the parts that are objectively true?

# ¿ Jun 6, 2015 19:58

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

evilweasel posted:

I consider it beyond dispute that the American legal system has always viewed the execution of someone who is actually innocent as forbidden by the Constitution.

I think this is a fair argument, but the quote isn't about what the Constitution forbids or even what the "American legal system" views, it's about what the Supreme Court has historically held:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent."

# ¿ Jun 6, 2015 20:31

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

evilweasel posted:

It is clearly established constitutional law that the constitution forbids the execution of someone who is innocent. That the Supreme Court had never applied that bedrock principle in a certain specific way is irrelevant: if Scalia were now to write the same passage, but tack on the word "female" to defendant, it would then be technically true in a certain sense since the Supreme Court only held it about a male defendant, and just as insane.

Allow me to rephrase, if we think Scalia's dissent is wrong, shouldn't we be quoting the wrong parts and not the parts that are objectively true, even if irrelevant? "There is a true but irrelevant sentence in Scalia's dissent" isn't very damning.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2015 20:39

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Evil Fluffy posted:

They're quoting the part that's wrong. Scalia says there's nothing prohibitng the execution of an innocent person and he is dead (not literally, sadly) wrong on that. Scalia's just a goddamn psychopath.

They are not. The bolded sentence says the Court has never held there's no prohibition. The next sentence says the question is unresolved despite opportunities to resolve it. Scalia's ultimate conclusion is what you're saying, but it's not actually in the quote.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2015 20:51

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

He's using that to support his conclusion, he's not just idly musing on it at tea on a summer's day and then somehow it ended up in his opinion, free-floating and unconnected to his argument.

If you want to engage with his dissent as an argument and claim that his premises don't support his conclusion, I think that's a pretty reasonable activity. If you want to quote five sentences, bold one (which is factually correct), and follow up with "So good." you aren't doing that.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2015 18:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 8, 2024 21:06

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

ComradeCosmobot posted:

My understanding based on some commentary I recall reading is that the government would rather see the issue dead than to keep fighting it until someone has standing, so they're willfully turning a blind eye to the standing issue.

(Ignoring the "Did King outright lie?" thing) They argued standing in the Fourth Circuit:

quote:

The defendants� argument against standing is premised on the claim that the plaintiffs want to purchase �catastrophic� insurance coverage, which in some cases is more expensive than subsidized comprehensive coverage required by the Act. The defendants thus claim that the plaintiffs have acknowledged they would actually expend more money on a separate policy even if they were eligible for the credits. Regardless of the viability of this argument, it rests on an incorrect premise. The defendants misread the plaintiffs� complaint, which, while mentioning the possibility that several of the plaintiffs wish to purchase catastrophic coverage, also clearly alleges that each plaintiff does not want to buy comprehensive, ACA-compliant coverage and is harmed by having to do so or pay a penalty. The harm in this case is having to choose between ACA-compliant coverage and the penalty, both of which represent a financial cost to the plaintiffs. That harm is actual or imminent, and is directly traceable to the IRS Rule. The plaintiffs thus have standing to present their claims.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2015 01:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›8 »