|
Lemniscate Blue posted:So, I wonder if Scalia will say something about this? Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:The court granted cert to Friedrichs v CA Teachers Assoc. Which would ban police unions and part of the prison guard unions too, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
From the Texas threadzoux posted:lol I guess my theory that Abby Fisher is an innocent pawn in all this isn't shared by the UT admin.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:He burrows into his victims and then lays eggs. Pretty sure he sleeps elsewhere. That is impossible because he is a real live Human Being and all us Humans know you don't lay your eggs in your victims.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
At least Clarence "Every Decision Since 1930 is null and void" Thomas is consistent in his judicial philosophy and will stick with the outcome it gives him rather than determining the outcome first, and working backwards from it using whatever method that gets the job done.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Wasn't it Scalia who specifically slotted one of his spots for an ideological opposite?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Under the tests for Katz v US, what would the reasonable expectation of privacy be for a citizen on private property not their own wherein the owner of the private property made no declaration one way or the other regarding photography. The hypo I had in mind specifically was something like a shopping mall, but was then wondering more generally. I know it is supposed to be on a case by case basis, and the three example tiers I was taught were your house, your car, and a park. And since this was undergrad, which was awhile ago, its not like a huge amount of time or depth was spent covering a lot of hypotheticals.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html There is a difference between saying, "we are busy with the election, wait until it is done," and, "gently caress you, the next president will get it."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
It is Alamo loving Drafthouse offering a one time (now because of demand, two screens) of a movie to a catered demographic. This is not any deferent than any other business catering services to women. It isn't the government discriminating against anyone. You won't convince a MRA to not go full Ferengi on the Feeeeeeemales so you might as well mock them. After pointing out the above points, ask them why they are so triggered and offer them a safe space to work out their emotional issues. Wonder out loud when they became so emotional. Edit: jk it was the right thread.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
I'll fully concede that there could be some sort of local thing that might get leveraged since it is Austin, but it sure wouldn't be likely to come at the state level, I'd suspect. Either way, not a Constitution thing. Edit: looking at the Seattle thing, this would have to fall under accommodations and they are not discriminating on any of their other screenings so I could imagine that being used to at least file a suit but I'd still not expect much to come of it. I'm not a lawyer though so take my word on that for what it is. Edit 2: "Your request for a reasonable accommodation due to a disability is refused without a valid business reason." the fact that there are other available screenings from this same theater would seem to fail this test to prove discrimination. Dameius fucked around with this message at 19:11 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:^^^^ those links are helpful, thanks! I originally thought that I was responding in the forward thread which is why the tone of my response was what it was. If it was at all overly argumentative or dismissive of the underlying issues that is on me. I am going to go read the gym case linked above before saying anything else, just to get a better read on this.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Part of this theater discussion hinges on the business being a public place/venue and being the one doing the discriminating action. Would there be even less ground to complain on if a private club who happened to discriminate on the basis of gender either bought out all the seats for the showing and resold the tickets or had all the screening donated to them from the theater?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
You guys just need to read the plain text of the opinion and it'll be a lot easier to understand.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Let's say he did nominate Jared and, for sake of argument, he gets on the bench. Then he is found guilty of whatever with Russia and goes to jail. What happens to his seat? Would Congress need to separately impeach him or by going to jail does he automatically vacate the seat?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
I honestly have a hard time seeing Kennedy retiring for anyrhing other than health reasons given his current position on the court. Though there may be some wishful thinking involved im that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Also I feel like competently executing the wrong information vs incompetenly executing the proper information should make a difference. So you, the fireman, correctly break down the door that dispatch wrongly gave you is different than you breaking down a different door than what dispatch gave you. And when you made that error, was it flipping 213 and 231 vs you going to an entirely different neighborhood than what you were called to. I'm not a lawyer at all, but it seems like that kind of competency call should get resolved in court and then resolved accordingly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
axeil posted:Gorsuch: The Secret Liberal would be a hilarious outcome A true conundrum; the fifth vote I'd like to have, wrapped up in an opinion that I'd rather do anything than read.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
White voters seek protection under the Voting Rights Act in case against Dallas County. This seems both doomed to fial and tailored for the appeals process.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:That can't be right. Dead Reckoning is only a pedantic shithead who argues in bad faith about gun rights cases. He's branching out to being wrong about something else now, too. It's progress.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
I don't know how many ways this needs to loop on itself before the point sinks in that you can not refuse service to a member of a protected class on the basis of their membership in that protected class for a service you give to people outside that protected class. It is almost like you are refusing to argue in good faith about this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Please explain how the following sentences are substantively different and if any of them should be constitutionally protected: 1. I refuse to bake you a cake of any kind because you are a gay couple getting married and I refuse to provide service to gay couples wanting to get married due to my religion. 2. I refuse to bake you a cake of any kind because you are a black couple getting married and I refuse to provide service to black couples wanting to get married due to my religion. 3. I refuse to bake you a cake of any kind because you are an interracial couple getting married and I refuse to provide service to interracial couples wanting to get married due to my religion. Edit: Before you try and weasel this, the speaker here has prior history and stated intent of future action to bake wedding cakes for straight couples. Dameius fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jun 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
gently caress it, we are already in the darkest timeline so why does it matter if he negotiated his successor or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
Wouldn't that basically make him just the new Kennedy? And it would mean that the court shifted so far to the right that Roberts now would be the relative middle. Truly a horrifying prospect.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
Can you expand on why you think the USPS is worthless?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Don't scare him off, we might have a new jrodefeld here and that could provide years of entertainment Well I was trying before everyone dog piled. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:They handled it well. Link?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Trump will 100% pick someone worse for the court than Biden will. Biden will 100% not pick someone to properly replace RBG when she leaves.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I’d like to see the predatory clause of the second amendment be used to support things like school breakfast programs with the idea that underfed children cannot grow up to be effective militia soldiers. Now that'd be interesting, because you could back door a ton of social programs under the guise of preparing the citizenry for service.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
OpenArgs was saying in a recent episode that the Trump admin has something around a 15% win rate where traditionally you'd expect closer to 75-85%. I can't remember if that is purely for the SC or across the entire federal judiciary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
At this point it doesn't matter what her reasons were or were not. Her decision, assuming nothing changes in the dynamics of the current status quo, means that her life's work on the court will be undone. She can be a remarkable individual on a personal level while still loving up her work legacy. Those don't have to exist in contradiction.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
I guess that is one way to give Democrats the impetus to pack the courts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
I expect Dems to appropriately identify the correct thing to do and then swerve hard into the wrong thing. As per what they always do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:States are free to redistrict whenever they want to. It's customary to wait until after the next census, but not mandatory. Re: Texas during the aughts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
I wonder how Sandra Day O'connor is feeling about signing her name to that opinion now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:She signed it so that she could retire (she wouldn't have had Gore been elected), so gently caress her. If I remember right, she later said she regretted it so I'm just hoping she is even more miserable now than then because yeah, gently caress her for enabling this poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:Well...until Kavanaugh And now ACB. This particular court makeup has to have the highest percentage of hacks on it in the court's history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Biden has to win first. Then the Dems have to win the senate. Without both things done, nothing will happen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Thomas will die on the bench during oral arguments and no one will notice for hours. Only if and when there is a smell.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
Funnily enough, wouldn't that logic overturn Shelby?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Punch left as hard as you can every time. No exceptions. No compromises.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2020 21:18
|
|