|
|
Recent Noteworthy SCOTUS cases and verdicts (Page 4)
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Bumping this thread for the inevitable crippling of public unions in a few months
Scalia died to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Ah, I see. So essentially the question is whether ACA can mandate coverage for contraception. For instance, if the company had the choice between ACA and another, more expensive insurance without contraception coverage, would it be reasonable to force the company to choose the more expensive insurance?
It doesn't work like that, for the most part ( I think). Contraceptive coverage is mandated by the ACA. I think if an insurance plan was offered by a religious group it could be absent (if such a thing exists). I was listening to a podcast on this and one way of framing the question is whether the government is offering the least intrusive option while declaring contraceptives a compelling interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
One of the two Texas voting cases came back, 8-0. It feels like a very, very, sketchy 8-0. Two concurrences by Alito and Thomas which leaves me feeling that if Scaliahad been there it'd be at least 6-3 and maybe 5-4 once the veneer of unanimity had disappeared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Another unanimous decision in the Arizona redistricting case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
One of the two Texas voting cases came back, 8-0. It feels like a very, very, sketchy 8-0. Two concurrences by Alito and Thomas which leaves me feeling that if Scaliahad been there it'd be at least 6-3 and maybe 5-4 once the veneer of unanimity had disappeared.
Do you really think SC justices are that fickle?
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't think fickle is the right word. I think Scalia held a lot of sway and the CJ does as well. The concurrences speak volumes to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
The contraceptive mandate got side-stepped and sent back to the lower court for compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah I'm really perplexed about Justice Breyer going along with this ruling. At least Justice Sotomayor wrote a really scathing dissent.
In a dissent that cited W. E. B. Du Bois, James Baldwin and Ta-Nehisi Coates, Justice Sotomayor said the court had vastly expanded police power.
“The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” she wrote. “Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong.
“If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay,” she continued, “courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.”
Justice Sotomayor added that many people were at risk. Federal and state databases show more than 7.8 million outstanding warrants, she wrote, “the vast majority of which appear to be for minor offenses.” There are, she added, 180,000 misdemeanor warrants in Utah. And according to the Justice Department, about 16,000 of the 21,000 residents of Ferguson, Mo., are subject to arrest warrants.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined most of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, along with all of a separate dissent from Justice Elena Kagan. But Justice Sotomayor reserved her most personal reflection for a part of her dissent in which she wrote only for herself, setting out in detail the dangers and indignities that often accompany police stops.
“For generations,” she wrote, “black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’ — instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger — all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.”
“We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are ‘isolated,’” she wrote. “They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter, too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.”
Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was remarkable. It is, he said, “the strongest indication we have yet that the Black Lives Matter movement has made a difference at the Supreme Court — at least with one justice.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
This one torqued me up too. We're getting small victories, like needing a warrant for some obvious searches. Then we get big setbacks, like Citizens United and this latest. We're losing rights faster than we're gaining them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Texas' bullshit abortion regs got knocked down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yep, no need to perform them in clean places when you can get one in a gas station bathroom style place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
No need to have more stringent requirements than for any other similar procedure, more like it.
And while this is being reported as a 5-3 decision, it was really only Thomas who wanted to affirm on the merits. Roberts and Alito got hung up on a technicality (basically that the plaintiff in question had sued before over a similar thing, so the case would have to be redone with a different plaintiff) and seemed to want to remand even if that issue could be solved.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
No need to have more stringent requirements than for any other similar procedure, more like it.
"Similar procedures" have tougher health standards, abortion doesn't need it for some reason. Essentially all you need is a nurse and a plunger. (Exaggerating, but not by much.) I disagree with Texas' stance and said it was too far, but so is what it was like before the measures they enacted.
|
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Texas' bullshit abortion regs got knocked down.
The ban after 20 weeks was left in place.
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm not well versed with the separation of powers, and the checks and balances in the system in this country.
As a foreign observer, it seems like the SCOTUS governs from the bench, serving as a "tie breaker" of sorts and this seems like there might be too much power concentrated in too few. One step away from the pulpit IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't have a better place to put this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
So why are you showing us some opinion-like evaluation of what he said, instead of what he actually said. The writer seems to be opinioning too much and assuming too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hot take.
I think the lower court decision would be correct for a criminal case, but with a civil case I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Warrants needed to search phones, 8-0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sounds great, got a link? I'm not seeing any news stories about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not ATM saw it on ze twitter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by reader50
Sounds great, got a link? I'm not seeing any news stories about that.
Ha, the decision was from 2014. Not sure how that slipped into my timeline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
This Gorsuch dude is smooooth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Unless they find a body in the trunk of his car, he's in.
|
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
He seems like less of an asshole than Scalia, which I think is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
There's a scrappiness to him though, I like that.
|
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Oh, no no no no no no. Don't do this Chuck. Do not do this.
God, this will bite you in the ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow, Schumer is about to screw the pooch royally.
|
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
That is short-sighted. The GOP could trigger the nuclear option now, saying that it is in support of a highly qualified and well-regarded candidate that does not shift the balance of the court. If one of the octogenarians on the court dies or retires in the next four years, they can then wave through whoever, no matter how loud the protests. Dems are not taking back the Senate in -18, not with 24 of their own up for re-election with only 10 from the GOP.
But then, Schumer is very well aware of this, so I wonder what he's thinking. Does he think the GOP would push through the nuclear option anyway in the event of a contentious candidate? Does he feel that it is more important to keep the base fired up?
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
It better ****ing be he has dirt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
That is short-sighted. The GOP could trigger the nuclear option now, saying that it is in support of a highly qualified and well-regarded candidate that does not shift the balance of the court. If one of the octogenarians on the court dies or retires in the next four years, they can then wave through whoever, no matter how loud the protests. Dems are not taking back the Senate in -18, not with 24 of their own up for re-election with only 10 from the GOP.
But then, Schumer is very well aware of this, so I wonder what he's thinking. Does he think the GOP would push through the nuclear option anyway in the event of a contentious candidate? Does he feel that it is more important to keep the base fired up?
The base will revolt if the Dems roll over on this. The GOP stonewalled a legitimate pick and the Dems are the bad guys for filibustering? Especially when the GOP showed many signs of wanting to keep the seat empty if Hillary won?
Anyway, I seem to recall the Dems were the bad guys for their tactical nuke, so I'm curious how they would be the bad guys here if they got nuked for acting like the GOP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
^^^
This! Absent the GOP shenanigans over Garland I would have no issues with Gorsuch. He strikes me as about as reasonable a jurist we would get from any GOP president. But this isn't about qualifications ... as the GOP made abundantly clear with their unprecedented obstruction of the Garland nomination. The GOP essentially stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama for no other reason than because they could. And that BS simply can't go unanswered on general principle alone! Otherwise you just tell the GOP that they can defy all political norms with impunity. The bottom line is this ....
If you are afraid to use the filibuster because you fear it will be taken away ... then it is already lost.
And FTR ... I'm not even advocating that the Dems use the filibuster to PREVENT a vote. Or even a HEARING as the GOP did. I'm just saying allow the vote but deny the 60-vote threshold. And demand that the GOP accept Sen. Udall's proposed deal that trades Dem support for Gorsuch in exchange for GOP support for Garland.
OAW
(
Last edited by OAW; Mar 23, 2017 at 07:15 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
"unprecedented obstruction of the Garland nomination"
Its called politics. Works BOTH WAYS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
"unprecedented obstruction of the Garland nomination"
Its called politics. Works BOTH WAYS.
No. It doesn't. Something like that has NEVER happened before. Hence the term "unprecedented".
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OAW
No. It doesn't. Something like that has NEVER happened before. Hence the term "unprecedented".
OAW
Seems to be working that way now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Seems to be working that way now.
Not really. Gorsuch is getting a hearing. Garland did not.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Is that a mushroom cloud I see? Called it.
|
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OAW
^^^
This! Absent the GOP shenanigans over Garland I would have no issues with Gorsuch. He strikes me as about as reasonable a jurist we would get from any GOP president. But this isn't about qualifications ...
See here, this is your problem and why you keep losing elections.
as the GOP made abundantly clear with their unprecedented obstruction of the Garland nomination. The GOP essentially stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama for no other reason than because they could. And that BS simply can't go unanswered on general principle alone! Otherwise you just tell the GOP that they can defy all political norms with impunity. The bottom line is this ....
There you go basing your political strategy on emotion again instead of at least keeping the facade of the welfare of the nation.
If you are afraid to use the filibuster because you fear it will be taken away ... then it is already lost.
It was already lost.
And FTR ... I'm not even advocating that the Dems use the filibuster to PREVENT a vote. Or even a HEARING as the GOP did. I'm just saying allow the vote but deny the 60-vote threshold. And demand that the GOP accept Sen. Udall's proposed deal that trades Dem support for Gorsuch in exchange for GOP support for Garland.
OAW
But the dems don't hold enough seats to do that. You can't really negotiate if the only leverage you have is a sense of entitlement from the opposing majority party. Case and point, we've gone nuclear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OAW
Not really. Gorsuch is getting a hearing. Garland did not.
OAW
That was my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Having given this thought, I think the filibuster died with Scalia. I mean, the GOP didn't even hesitate to nuke it. There was no hemming and hawing, no rumination (outside of McCain's crocodile tears), no real negotiation, no waiting. Just BAM! Gone.
Several scenarios have since gone through my mind:
Our 2017 Timeline – Dems allow Gorsuch through. A court liberal dies. Dems filibuster. With the opportunity to swing the court wildly in their favor the GOP surely nukes filibuster.
Alternate 2016 Timeline – Dems have a senate majority. Scalia dies, but GOP filibusters under the same reasons given this past year. Do the Dems nuke it? I think they painfully mull it over. If they decide to keep the filibuster, it's only on the assumption that Hillary will win and the GOP will live up to their word.
Alternate 2017 Timeline – Hillary wins. True to their insinuations during the election, the GOP filibuster Hillary's nominee. Having already punted once, the filibuster gets nuked for continuing obstruction.
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.
*I haven't been able to verify this, but I read the last time a GOP congress voted on a Dem SCOTUS nominee was around 1896. That's incredible, if true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
*I haven't been able to verify this, but I read the last time a GOP congress voted on a Dem SCOTUS nominee was around 1896. That's incredible, if true.
This appears to be true. At the very least it is the last time anyone succeeded, and if the GOP had run out the clock on a Dem nominee any other time, I think we would have heard of it in the news recently.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
This appears to be true. At the very least it is the last time anyone succeeded, and if the GOP had run out the clock on a Dem nominee any other time, I think we would have heard of it in the news recently.
It's a statistical anomaly that's amazing to consider. I'd have to wonder how a SCOTUS fight would have gone down during the later Clinton years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18I1SZ
In an 8-0 decision, SCOTUS has decided that patent suits have to be filed in the district where the defendant is incorporated, instead of all of them being filed in East Texas.
This is huge. It has the potential to kill patent trolls completely.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's a smart verdict because it pushes off any questions if patent reform by eliminating the judicial loophole of east Texas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is big enough it starts me wondering why it took until now. It sounds like they were probably ready to kill this a decade ago (going by the unanimity).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
I also note with curiosity that the liberal justices were joined by none other than Clarence Thomas in delivering a 5-3 verdict telling NC to give it up with the gerrymandering already.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
I also note with curiosity that the liberal justices were joined by none other than Clarence Thomas in delivering a 5-3 verdict telling NC to give it up with the gerrymandering already.
This is more a situation of "A broken clock is right twice a day." Justice Thomas generally objects to congressional districts that are intentionally drawn up to be "majority-minority". Even when that is done to empower the community politically. In this instance existing "majority-minority" congressional districts where intentionally made even more so in order to limit minority voting strength by excluding them from nearby districts. So to put it another way Justice Thomas simply objects to the WHAT ... not the WHY.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|