|
Evil Fluffy posted:Did you let them know your Ouja point pointed to an F for their grades? Should do this
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
So what would've happened had this been heard when the Court still had 9 members? What was the case actually about?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
quote:a million explanations Ah thanks guys. As a former public sector union employee this makes a lot of sense. Didn't know the whole reason this case went forward is someone argued all actions of a public sector union were political actions, which seems like an insane argument to me. By that same logic, are all actions of a government contractor political actions? I mean they're getting paid with public funds after all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's the ultimate goal of the people litigating this against the unions. That seems like an insane/terrible endgoal. The government buys lots of things from lots of companies. Are people going to argue with a straight face that "random lightbulb supply company" is making a political action when they sell a bunch of lightbulbs to some office in DC?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It was a 9‐0. Yeah, the issue is the Constitution doesn't really have a remedy for "acting in bad faith." Well I guess you could impeach people but iirc, only the Legislature can do impeachment so you'd have to have it impeach itself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Some good news on the gun front- That's really surprising. Could SCOTUS now have decided they don't like Heller vs DC and want a re-do?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Even if the SCOTUS issues an injunction compelling action there is no one to actually compel the president to act. Historically presidents have followed the orders of the court, but Trump probably won't and there's no enforcement mechanism behind it besides impeachment. Didn't this happen to Andrew Jackson and he just laughed and kept on doing whatever the gently caress he wanted?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Well this is fun. https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/958787095354540033
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Legal folks, any merits to this tea leaf reading or is it a bunch of crap?The Muppets On PCP posted:ian millhiser possibly reading a little too much into scotus not expediting the partisan congressional gerrymandering case in nc https://thinkprogress.org/ginsburg-sotomayor-signal-partisan-gerrymandering-f24d049cdab4/ quote:Unfortunately for opponents of gerrymandering, the order handed down by the Supreme Court on Tuesday denied this request to expedite the case. As a practical matter, this means that the case is likely to be heard next term — too late to prevent North Carolina’s gerrymandered maps from being used in the 2018 midterms.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Trump news today is gonna be goooooooood Gorsuch: The Secret Liberal would be a hilarious outcome
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Does the sports gambling decision re-legalize online poker or is this limited in scope?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The decision threw out PASPA. Online poker is restricted by the UIGEA (unlawful internet gambling enforcement act). Ah okay. I was just wondering if the same logic that threw this out would apply there/to other gambling bans
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:And the extra fun part is the will he or won't he speculating about Kennedy retiring once the term is over! I honestly think if Kennedy retires it'll be the end of the Republic.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Is it now legal for me to open a shop and refuse to serve Christians based on my "deeply held" religious beliefs? Because if so every company in America should do this. loving SCOTUS.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They specifically wanted to challenge the map as a whole and have a clear rule for "no, gerrymandered", because requiring district-by-district challenges allows for Texas-style replacing illegal districts with new illegal districts over and over again so that there are never legal districts. This logic always seemed insane to me. If one district is cracked/packed by definition you have to pack/crack another district to allow it to occur. District borders are all relative to each other.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:I'm not sure how the gently caress you would even redraw HD90 without impacting other districts. It's a really odd decision to go 'well only this one is bad sayonara suckers' Stickman posted:It also makes no sense because "gerrymandering" is by goddam definition a property of the geographic and demographic relationships between several districts. Saying "District A is gerrymandered" makes colloquial sense in that the relationship with other districts is implied, but any sensible legal definition would have to consider more than one district simultaneously. This. It's why their decisions on gerrymandering blow my mind. If one district is gerrymandered, at minimum one other must be as well as districts don't work in a vacuum. The Supreme Court is so goddamned useless, my god.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
#packthecourt
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:if they're gonna be a shithead can they at least be consistent. they can't say the omission used animus in its decision to strike it down and then not use the same reasoning with trump. scalia used to do that poo poo but at least he had the excuse it was in different years. this was a loving week apart.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
Charging feed to non-members was the compromise made to restrict labor's ability to strike. That deal has now been rescinded. There should be a general strike in retaliation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
UberJew posted:while ideal, please remember that general strikes are illegal and this is a country that is thoroughly in love with mass incarceration before judging unions for not doing so Everyone just "gets sick" mysteriously one day. And it's a real bad illness, probably won't be a week or so till they're back on their feet. Goal accomplished without anyone technically breaking the law.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:This is kind of my point. The way things are now and for the foreseeable future, any vacancy nets the GOP a potential Scalia disciple while at best we get a Sotomayor, who while progressive isn't willing to poo poo on the Constitution for partisan gain. That's why this is all so demoralizing. Our victories are just "we were not completely wiped out and are still able to fight" while their victories are "we abolished gay rights and labor organizing" Rear-guard actions aren't cutting it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Evil has won
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:The liberals on the court are any better? Literally every one of Sotomeyer's dissents or opinions is a rant on the underlying policy with little to nothing on legality or constitutionality. Ginsberg is not far behind, though she at least tries to make a (stretched) legal argument on matters. Kagan and Kennedy and Roberts are the only ones who seem capable of evaluating the legal merits of their cases, and not just the effects their decisions will have on legislative or executive policy. The real loss with Kennedy is that he added some legitimacy and premise of neutrality to the institution; now it will turn more into an un-elected version of congress. we basically are in the crisis of the end of the roman republic where nothing could be accomplished because everyone vetoed everything. the only question is who our octavian is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
How bad is it? My expectation was the corpse of Justice Taney so I have pretty dismal priors.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:it's the most "trump is immune from the law" pick he could find Well gently caress. Probably should go back to avoiding D&D for my own mental health.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2018 02:14
|
|