Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Recent Noteworthy SCOTUS cases and verdicts

Recent Noteworthy SCOTUS cases and verdicts (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2017, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Anyway, it makes sense, as its just a continuing sign of the polarization in congress and the US. SCOTUS nominee votes have been getting increasingly partisan for the past two administrations. This is the next logical degredation.
Unfortunately, you are spot on. Not a great course for the USS USA to be on.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2017, 11:24 AM
 
Told Lexmark to take a hike, too
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2017, 04:57 AM
 
Was going to post that.

I think it is notable that this was a SCOTUS review of a case that had an en banc review at the Federal Circuit, where the Federal Circuit overwhelmingly decided in favor of Lexmark while SCOTUS unanimously went the other way (Ginsburg dissented on the detail of the patent exhaustion from a foreign sale, but concurred on the main point). Is the Federal Circuit ever going to take a hint? They keep making these patent-friendly decisions and now that SCOTUS has noticed, they get smacked down.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2017, 10:10 AM
 
Someone noted Federal Circuit is 0-5 recently at SCOTUS
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2017, 11:37 AM
 
The FC keeps trying to extend patent laws beyond what they actually say. But while patents and copyrights were supposed to benefit creative citizens, expanding them mostly benefits companies today. At least SCOTUS is fixing some of it. Despite SCOTUS being the source of software patents in the US.

Lexmark and their attempts to enforce high-priced ink. Offhand, I can't think of more deserving people to be smacked down. They've been trying for years to lock out 3rd party ink instead of just selling printers and ink at competitive margins. When I buy a printer, I check to make sure it can use 3rd party ink first. And Lexmark doesn't even get considered, on account of their shenanigans.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2017, 06:45 PM
 
The timeline is that SCOTUS said no to software patents three times but allowed them in a very limited scope the fourth, and after that did not take any more patent cases for close to 25 years, letting the Federal Circuit do as it pleased. Eventually SCOTUS noticed what was up (or possibly Roberts cares more about patent cases than Rehnquist did) and started taking cases, but the Federal Circuit is being intransigent and doing its best to limit the scope of those decisions.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 04:15 PM
 
So much for getting the owner of "Washington NFC east franchise" to change the teams name.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...demark-dispute
Members of the Asian-American rock band The Slants have the right to call themselves by a disparaging name, the Supreme Court says, in a ruling that could have broad impact on how the First Amendment is applied in other trademark cases.

The Slants' frontman, Simon Tam, filed a lawsuit after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office kept the band from registering its name and rejected its appeal, citing the Lanham Act, which prohibits any trademark that could "disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead," as the court states.
The SCOTUS was unanimous in the decision.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 04:29 PM
 
So the Native Americans just need to start their own pro football team.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 04:39 PM
 
I'd have to read a summary on the reasoning but I could definitely see both sides.

Doesn't make Snyder any less of an asshole though.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
So the Native Americans just need to start their own pro football team.
Been done, although it wasn't a pro team. It was an intramural college team.


You can still buy merch online.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'd have to read a summary on the reasoning but I could definitely see both sides.

Doesn't make Snyder any less of an asshole though.
What about the previous four owners? The name issue predates Snyder.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Been done, although it wasn't a pro team. It was an intramural college team.


You can still buy merch online.
I have one of those jerseys, I wore it and a black person told me it was racist.

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
What about the previous four owners? The name issue predates Snyder.
Not too long ago progressive whites weren't so tight-assed, worrying about which minority group they should be offended for.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
So the Native Americans just need to start their own pro football team.
They don't have to start a team, just preemptively trademark all the disparaging names.

Kinda like Coke owns ****coke.com.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
They don't have to start a team, just preemptively trademark all the disparaging names
The new domain squatting
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 11:21 PM
 
I've got dibs on Asshole Polack™
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2017, 05:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
They don't have to start a team, just preemptively trademark all the disparaging names.

Kinda like Coke owns ****coke.com.
At least in Europe you have to use a trademark in the marketplace or it is lost after five years. Doesn't the US have a similar rule?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2017, 07:59 AM
 
^wiki says maybe 10 years?

I meant they should start a team of their own with a Native name, since the court would say they own the rights. They wouldn't own the rights to the fighting Whitey's or Asshole Pollacks, since they are not those things. However the current owners of the Celtics are not irish.

But subego has a point, they can register the trademarks, which might be a more effective way of getting teams to change the names/mascots.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2017, 12:55 PM
 
Dear Ms. Pandi,

It has recently come to our attention you have used our client's trademark, Asshole Polack™, without permission. Please remove all references to Asshole Polack™ from your post or we will be forced to take further action.

Regards.

D. Bagg, esq.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2017, 03:08 PM
 
Dear Mr. Bagg,

I am part polack on my father's cousin's uncle's side. I believe this entitles me to use this term with impunity, and moreover, for free.

Sincerely,
A. Pandi
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2017, 03:16 PM
 
Dear Ms. Pandi,

Please demonstrate you are unable to screw in a light bulb without assistance, otherwise we will be forced to take action as previously discussed.

Regards,

D. Bagg, esq.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2017, 07:05 PM
 
The Supreme Court said Thursday an immigrant's citizenship could not be revoked because of an untrue statement to authorities that was immaterial to the granting of citizenship.
This was a fun one. It got some airplay when Chief Justice Roberts asked if lying about speeding in the past would be enough to revoke a theoretical citizenship years later. The government, unbelievably said 'yes'.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2017, 11:20 AM
 
In general, I think immigrant citizenship should be almost as solid as birth citizenship, so treason is going to be the main way it gets revoked.

That, and a small exception for felony grade lying on the immigration papers.

Serious felony grade. None of this penny-ante shit.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2017, 11:54 AM
 
It's an application, not an ongoing permit. Let them catch things at the time, but if citizenship is granted, it should be game over. If we allow for anything else, we create 2 classes of unequal citizens. The Constitution imposes a very mild difference - naturalized citizens can't be President. But that's all - they can hold any other office (including Vice President).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2017, 12:23 PM
 
Because I'm ignorant of what goes on immigration forms, I was hedging my bets with the felony clause.

In general, I think once someone has gotten to take the oath, the only way their citizenship gets revoked is treason.

(You may not have been addressing your post at me, but I pretended it was anyway. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2017, 05:00 PM
 
It was my opinion on the subject, addressing our policies.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 10:33 AM
 
Oooh... we get to find out if the cake is a lie.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 10:40 AM
 
Gorsuch dissented on summary reversal on Arkansas who now has to allow names of both same sec parents on birth certificates. Yep, looking like a piece of shit.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 10:53 AM
 
Is there a link to his dissent?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 11:02 AM
 
Dunno. It was him, Thomas and Alito
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 11:07 AM
 
Well, maybe I'm crazy, but I want to know why he dissented before calling him a piece of shit.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 11:16 AM
 
SCOTUS didn't take the case. It was so obvious the CJ who dissented on Obergfell was in the majority. And Grosuch is in the spot formerly held by Scalia in the triumvirate. This is called intuition.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 11:26 AM
 
What I'm talking about is called "a kiss before stampeding".
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2017, 02:49 PM
 
Why bother? It's easier to react. Right?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2017, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I'm talking about is called "a kiss before stampeding".
A. That's not a thing

B. My intuition was right
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2017, 01:07 PM
 
A. Is the claim the reference was misapplied?

B. I form my opinions of Justices by reading their decisions and dissents, rather than a spreadsheet. I'm old fashioned that way.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2017, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A. Is the claim the reference was misapplied?

B. I form my opinions of Justices by reading their decisions and dissents, rather than a spreadsheet. I'm old fashioned that way.
A. I googled your phrase and came up empty

B. My opinion is formed also by their decisions. You didn't think Scalia was shit also. Chalk it up to difference of opinion.

So, what did you make of the dissent?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2017, 02:17 PM
 
Looks like I didn't get it exactly right. Here's the whole line.

"What's wrong with a kiss, boy? Hmm? Why not start her off with a nice kiss? You don't have to go leaping straight for the clitoris like a bull at a gate. Give her a kiss, boy."


My opinion on Scalia is complicated.

1) Even when he was right, he was a gigantic asshole about it.
2) I personally make decisions on the law from something of a constructionist view, so Scalia and I had overlap there.
3) I give him poor marks for consistency.


I have yet to read his dissent, but from what I understand his complaint was the granting of a summary judgement rather than hearing the arguments.

What a dick.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2017, 02:38 PM
 
Now I'll give you my take on the dissent, yes he cried that they didn't get a chance to make their case and that if that case was heard they'd probably win because of the the statute they cited in their defense which we should totally take them at their word is the reason for the discrimination and we should also ignore the other statutes that were shown to undermine their defense.

It was 7-3. It's hard for me to buy a hearing was needed when you get both sides agreeing so fully.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2017, 11:11 AM
 
Gorsuch's dissent could have been written better, but as constructionist type I'm inclined to agree.

This is about who gets put on a birth certificate in cases of artificial insemination. The statute on artificial insemination wasn't the statute they tried to overturn.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2017, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Now I'll give you my take on the dissent, yes he cried that they didn't get a chance to make their case and that if that case was heard they'd probably win because of the the statute they cited in their defense which we should totally take them at their word is the reason for the discrimination and we should also ignore the other statutes that were shown to undermine their defense.

It was 7-3. It's hard for me to buy a hearing was needed when you get both sides agreeing so fully.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 06:57 PM
 
Debate questions: why only 9 Justices? Why not more?

Idea supplied by Charles Manson of all people.


13 seems more like it to me.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 07:05 PM
 
Actually I was thinking more circuit court route. Do you take a case to SCOTUS if you don't know which 9 you're gonna be getting?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 07:29 PM
 
That idea has merit, but is obviously more radical than Charles Manson.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2017, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That idea has merit, but is obviously more radical than Charles Manson.
It introduces SCOTUS en banc which is like, even more complicated
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2017, 11:09 AM
 
FDR tried in 1937.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 10:30 PM
 
Listened to the Colorado baker case. That is a very, very difficult case. I don't see it as cut and dried for either side and both lawyers had a real tough time defending their side.

What's worse is I disagree with the stance each side took. The Baker's side risks allowing religious objection to destroy the notion of non-discrimination. Meanwhile on the other side, Colorado seems to be pushing for a zero-tolerance view of discrimination.

What alarmed me about Colorado's stance was an example where they said that a person who sold a cake with "X" message to a straight couple must sell it to a gay one. I can't cite the example but I felt like there was a case to be made that a person shouldn't be compelled to provide a cake with a message equally.

Conversely, the Baker's side had to elevate the occupation into some sort of unique artistic status among occupations. It was rightly pointed out that no one sees a cake at a wedding and thinks about the baker in context of approval of the union. It was also not explained why Hair Stylists, Decorator, and other artisans shouldn't be covered by the Baker's exemption.

It's clear the ruling will need to be very, very narrow to avoid an onslaught of religious objection cases coming to the SCOTUS. Kennedy, the swing vote, seemed equally appalled by answers each side gave. Particularly, some of Colorado's stances seemed unfairly harsh. I suspect resolution may lie in narrowing or softening Colorado's law rather than busting precedent by siding with the Baker, however narrow.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 10:55 PM
 
Wasn't the stance of the bakers that their cakes are so artisanal that they are works of art that are protected by the First Amendment? That's a very difficult argument to make in my opinion, because it leads to all sorts of problematic places. If you make artisanal hot dogs, can you refuse to serve a gay or interracial couple? Where do you draw the line? Would it be reasonable to force them to make a cake, but not with the message that you want?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Wasn't the stance of the bakers that their cakes are so artisanal that they are works of art that are protected by the First Amendment? That's a very difficult argument to make in my opinion, because it leads to all sorts of problematic places. If you make artisanal hot dogs, can you refuse to serve a gay or interracial couple? Where do you draw the line? Would it be reasonable to force them to make a cake, but not with the message that you want?
Yes. There was a protracted set of questioning about what occupations were covered by the Baker's speech rights. The answer was pretty much only the baker.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2017, 02:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes. There was a protracted set of questioning about what occupations were covered by the Baker's speech rights. The answer was pretty much only the baker.
I'm curious how this will be weighed in the ruling, because this could really become quite problematic if we let anything count as artistic expression protected by free speech. Even if the SC decides this case in favor of the baker on the basis that baking cakes is a form of protected speech, it would create a dangerous legal precedent.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2017, 05:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It was rightly pointed out that no one sees a cake at a wedding and thinks about the baker in context of approval of the union.
I think this is the key to the whole case. Most people don't even wonder who the baker was when they see a cake at a wedding, let alone whether they approved of anything beyond the quality of their product. A couple could easily send someone else to order and collect their cake, bypassing any disapproval anyway.
If a baker is willing to produce something for a certain price for one customer, they should be happy to do so for any customer. Anything short of that is discriminatory. The only fair ruling I see here is to give the baker a right to anonymity. In other words if someone asks, the couple could be requested to withhold the bakers name at the bakers request.

What I don't know is the laws about refusal of service in general. I know a bartender in some places is obliged to refuse service to someone who is intoxicated for reasons of safety. Perhaps a baker could refuse to sell cake to a diabetic. Beyond that I believe that management sometimes reserves the right to refuse service to customers who are rude, aggressive, disruptive, intoxicated or caught stealing. Drinking establishments can bar people at the owner/operator/Landlord's discretion, permanently without legal repercussions. I fear any ruling requiring bakers to make gay wedding cakes against their preference will see a number of false accusations of such misbehaviour against gay couples or customers instead.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,