|
Javid posted:I've always held that the biggest problem with standardized tests is the assumption that 100% of students give a single poo poo about it. I've always assumed the biggest problem with standardized testing is that they're absurdly poorly designed and teach skills that often must be forgotten five minutes after the test is over so the students can be taught the actual way of doing things like writing.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
So this Halbig case is going to destroy Obamacare right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
How are they retarded? The law doesn't give the government the authority it claims it has. I support Obamacare and that much seems clear to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
That actually sounds reasonable to my non-attorney ears. Will the circuit court accept it though? Even if it does, what of SCOTUS?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
I told you guys!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Trust me, it wasn't just from a layman's perspective! Fisher was a case for only the truest of true believers, which is why it was an 8-1 punt. Who was the dissenter and how did that justice want to handle things?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
I mean it's pretty obvious that someone can be right in a technical sense but really be wrong. That's some Rumsfeld level deflection there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:after glancing at the last several pages, I can tell you that mediocre government attorneys with no background in the sciences are VERY confused about patents. I was recently told in no uncertain terms that you need a PhD in engineering or similar credential to work in patents in the private sector. Is that really true?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Obama should nominate Richard Posner, just for laughs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:
To be fair this photo is really misleading.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:I can see Scalia as Dracula, but who'd be Richter? Unironically want to play this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Jesus why publish a letter like that? Why not just hold hearings and vote down the nominee? I don't understand what McConnell thinks he's getting out of this. He must be concerned that enough members of his conference would support a moderate to confirm.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
euphronius posted:
sure they can. I doubt it'll help them, but it isn't beyond the realm of the possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
The best example to prove that you shouldn't just ask doctors what they think about medical-related policy is to look into what they think about medical malpractice liability.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:This has been the most interesting and informative derail I've ever seen. I didn't know any of that very important medical poo poo. I encourage you to find out more. Medical malpractice is really a fascinating subject. Controversial as poo poo though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Questions about the proper scope of speech protections often defy traditional ideological categories.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:NYT is reporting that Obama's pick will come "shortly" probably by the end of the week. Likely to be Sri. That's really too bad. I definitely like Paul Watford better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Hillary wont win Thanks for this helpful information forums poster corn in the bible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Ugh what a terrible choice. Sometimes I don't get Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Given the event to which this thread was losing its tits about Evenwel v. Abbott I'm surprised not to hear anyone posting about it today.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah the opinion didn't really say much. It said the method in question was constitutional, and that was basically it right? The opinion is weird in that a lot of the arguments RGB makes seem like arguments for why states might have to use total population, but the Court didn't reach that conclusion. To what extent might RBG be setting up arguments for a future case in which a state actually adopts the petitioner's proposed system and the SCOTUS tells them they can't? What would Roberts and Kennedy think about that?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Beforehand posted:Speaking of standing, is that generally thought to be the way the Court rules on this immigration thing, especially at 4-4? I've read a couple of things suggesting that, but don't know how likely that is or isn't. IANAL, but the Scalia himself at least claimed to be a fan of seperation of powers. See his opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which (to me, a non-lawyer) seems to invalidate a statute that tried to give a cause of action to citizens to compel the executive to act. Obviously this is a somewhat different situation, but the same separation of powers idea might be involved.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:
That was the district courts reasoning. But the 5th circuit thinks that the take care clause means something bizarre and totally ahistorical. Edit: no I'm wrong the fifth circuit didn't say that. Worse, the SCOTUS itself asked the parties to brief that ridiculous question. The fifth circuit did think the executive had exceeded its statutory authority though. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Apr 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do you draw the line that $2700 is an acceptable amount to donate to a candidate but $2701 creates the appearance of corruption and special access, hm you can't welp I guess we can't regulate that either! Said Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Eff is a bunch of tech disruption synergy unicorn nerds who worry constantly about the NSA raiding their MLP erotica stashes. This isn't a big deal and no one should be upset about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Please make a new thread for your dumb Oracle/Google derail since it has gently caress all to do with the SCOTUS. No seriously do this.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Does this basically mean you can assert any bogus patent claim whatsoever if you think the federal circuit is a more friendly venue for other claims? Is there anything stopping that? Federal rule 11.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
For such a respected outfit, SCOTUSblog sure does spend a lot of time providing free publicity to the conservative legal movement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:What do you mean? They're always posting about events that the federalist society and such are holding. Right now on the front page there is a very dry description of Randy Barnett's ridiculous opinions about Lochner. Reporting in that way on people who think Lochner was correctly decided and other insane opinions isn't really journalistic integrity unless you also point out that mainstream academics emphatically disagree as do almost all federal judges. It's like giving equal time to climate change denialists and creationists.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Is today's Puerto Rico decision as bad for Puerto Rico as it sounds/the dissent says? It seems like they really might be hosed. It seems like a pretty dry statutory interpretation case but to my (non-lawyer) eyes the majority seems fairly persuasive. When should pragmatism trump plain meaning, if ever?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Well a good reason is no one thought for a second, or currently thinks, that Garland has a good chance of being confirmed. You don't think Garland will be confirmed during the lame duck session? It seems plausible to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Odds on Cruz filibustering and ruining the Republicans strategy again? The filibuster is effectively dead for SCOTUS nominees, it's just in the dead man walking stage. The next time it's tried the nuclear option will be used just as it was for other nominees.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
I like he ninth amendment because it's fun to ask originalists what it means.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Can someone more familiar with Casey compare the application of the undue burden standard there and in this case? Does this ruling indicate that the undue burden standard may have more teeth than it has had before?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Which Law Goon should be appointed to the bench in this fantasy? Warsuzawahfurhrbfufhhr or whatever would be the best, but WhiskeyJuvenile would be the most entertaining.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
We could maybe do a new thread for each new term. It would give someone a chance to do an informative OP about cases the Court has granted. Probably wait until late September though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
In practice courts are REALLY deferential to the police. Exigent circumstances can just be like "I heard he had drugs and he knew I was out there so he was obviously about to flush all his drugs down the toilet, therefore I had to break his door down".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:That's an actual fact pattern that many courts have decided constitute legitimate exigent circumstances. Yes I am aware. That's why I said it. It seems like in drug investigations it sort of becomes the exception that devours the rule, but I definitely understand why courts rule that way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Maybe the gerrymandering and representation problem posting could go in its own thread since it doesn't have much to do with the SCOTUS or American law generally?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Would it be possible to get a new thread title, or a new thread altogether? That one is...showing its age on a few levels, at this point. My dream is that someone who knows more than me will make a great OP at the beginning of the new SCOTUS term.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 08:29
|
|