SCOTUS

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31118
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

Post by mimi » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:20 am

There should be much more of this going on.





Greg Proops tears apart Antonin Scalia for being unable to read the New York Times


By Eric W. Dolan


Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:04 EDT








“Ok, look, I’m a comedian,” Proops said. “I have no responsibility to the public. I’m not holding a sinecured position where I am adjudicating of f*cking matters of grave national importance every day of my life and writing opinions and being a deciding vote on a f*cking panel of nine people who were hand chosen by psychopaths — and yet I have the catholicity of taste to f*cking watch Fox News every once and awhile, and I don’t go, ‘Oh my god!’”





“You can’t read the New York Times because it upsets you too much and you’re a justice?” he continued. “How narrow is you f*cking purview?





“And then he talks about how he believes in the Devil and whatnot. And you’re like, we are getting kind of weird here.”The video is at the link. NSFW. alotta F-bombs.





[/break1]rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/greg-proops-tears-apart-antonin-scalia-for-being-unable-to-read-the-new-york-times/]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/g ... ork-times/

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31118
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

Post by mimi » Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:51 am

Here's a scary fact:Mar 6Scalia is the only Justice who has been in the majority in every opinion during OT13 (26/26)more factoids in his twitter:[/break1]com/kedarbhatia]https://twitter.com/kedarbhatia

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31118
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

Post by mimi » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:04 pm

Julie Silverbrook @JMSilverbrook



Shout out to @SCOTUSMap @BenWinslow and @AppellateDaily - all of whom are livetweeting today's event in Utah with #SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor.





This was my fav tweet:



Michelle Olsen @AppellateDaily



Sotomayor: One of my colleagues writes rambunctious dissents & people ask, "How do you get over it?" For starters, he lost. #SCOTUS @UUtah



:P




User avatar
realist
Posts: 33986
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SCOTUS

Post by realist » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:11 pm

Michelle Olsen @AppellateDaily Sotomayor: One of my colleagues writes rambunctious dissents & people ask, "How do you get over it?" For starters, he lost. #SCOTUS @UUtah



=)) =)) =))
ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 18969
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by TollandRCR » Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:05 pm

June 24 2016 AAUP Press Release
Today, in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II) the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the University of Texas at Austin’s affirmative action program. The AAUP had joined an amicus brief in this case, supporting affirmative action. Due to Justice Kagan’s recusal from the case and the death of Justice Scalia, only seven justices took part, resulting in a four-three decision. Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court is significant in taking a realistic and reasonable approach that should enable universities to adopt affirmative action programs that meet constitutional requirements.

The Court applied the three key criteria from its earlier decision in this case (Fisher I): (1) a university must show that it has a substantial purpose or interest in considering race as a factor in its admissions policy and that considering race is necessary to achieve this purpose; (2) courts should defer, though not completely, to a university’s academic judgment that there are educational benefits that flow from diversity in the student body; and (3) the university must prove that race-neutral alternatives will not achieve its goals of increasing diversity.

The Court’s decision recognizes that judges should give due deference to universities in defining educational goals that include the benefits of increasing diversity in the student body, such as the promotion of cross-racial understanding and the preparation of students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society.
The Court confirmed that universities must prove that race is considered only as necessary to meet the permissible goals of affirmative action. In particular, the university must prove that “race-neutral alternatives” will not suffice to meet these goals. This was the most controversial aspect of the Fisher I decision. In Fisher II, though, the Court takes a reasonable approach, finding that UT had sufficient evidence that its “Top Ten” admissions policy based on class rank was not adequate, by itself, to meet diversity goals. By adding a “holistic” evaluation of applicants who were not admitted in the “Top Ten” program, UT was able to consider race as one factor in a broader assessment of qualifications.

The Court noted that the “prospective guidance” of its decision is limited to some extent by the particularities of the UT case. Despite this, the Court’s decision does provide important guidance to universities concerning the criteria that will be applied in evaluating affirmative action programs. The Court also emphasizes that universities have “a continuing obligation” to “engage[] in periodic reassessment of the constitutionality, and efficacy, of [their] admissions program.” While this requires ongoing study and evaluation by universities, the Court’s decision creates a significant and positive basis for universities to adopt affirmative action programs that meet constitutional requirements.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40882
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:12 pm

Great victory for diversity. Justice Scalia couldn't have died at a more opportune time.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8006
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:11 am

The Texas anti-abortion law was reportedly reversed 5-3.
I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 13794
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: SCOTUS

Post by ZekeB » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:15 am

Vím o prasatech hodně zajímavých věcí.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40882
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:16 am


User avatar
Karen Walker
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:31 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Karen Walker » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:18 am

Mikedunford wrote:The Texas anti-abortion law was reportedly reversed 5-3.
@SCOTUSblog: SCOTUS invalidates Texas abortion restrictions.
Breyer's Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 4_p8k0.pdf

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8006
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:22 am

The Court also upheld federal laws barring gun ownership for those convicted of certain misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. That one was 6-2, with Thomas dissenting, joined in part by Sotomayor. (That, I'll have to read at some point.)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 4_19m1.pdf
I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

bjd
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:30 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by bjd » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:22 am

And Lyle Denniston is leaving SCOTUSblog. Well, he *is* 85 years old.

So of course he's going to a new job. http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/one-j ... continues/ :clap:

bjd
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:30 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by bjd » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:41 am

And now, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's conviction is vacated, remanded for new jury instructions. I wonder if Virginia will bother.

Tarrant
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Tarrant » Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:33 am

I love that Breyer, in his quite thorough decision, goes through numerous other medical procedures that, in Texas, have significantly higher mortality rates (including giving birth, liposuction, and colonoscopy) than abortions, but for which Texas has no such restrictions.

He also lists other procedures for which Texas does have some restrictions, but grandfathered in existing clinics and gave generous amounts of time for modifications to be made at others, while the abortion restrictions grandfathered no clinics and went into effect nearly immediately.

Of course, it's not like anybody actually believed the "It's for the health of the woman!" argument. Hell, when asked during oral argument for a single case where their restrictions would have been necessary, the Texas AG couldn't come up with even ONE. You'd think they'd manage to at least dig up ONE, if only for cover.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 21990
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by bob » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:34 pm

Mikedunford wrote:The Court also upheld federal laws barring gun ownership for those convicted of certain misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. That one was 6-2, with Thomas dissenting, joined in part by Sotomayor. (That, I'll have to read at some point.)
The issue is ultimately pretty narrow: whether reckless force applied during domestic violence triggers the federal law prohibiting abusers from possessing firearms.
Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

Pompeed
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:27 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Pompeed » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:58 pm

Tarrant wrote:I love that Breyer, in his quite thorough decision, goes through numerous other medical procedures that, in Texas, have significantly higher mortality rates (including giving birth, liposuction, and colonoscopy) than abortions, but for which Texas has no such restrictions.

He also lists other procedures for which Texas does have some restrictions, but grandfathered in existing clinics and gave generous amounts of time for modifications to be made at others, while the abortion restrictions grandfathered no clinics and went into effect nearly immediately.

Of course, it's not like anybody actually believed the "It's for the health of the woman!" argument. Hell, when asked during oral argument for a single case where their restrictions would have been necessary, the Texas AG couldn't come up with even ONE. You'd think they'd manage to at least dig up ONE, if only for cover.

It's hard to manufacture evidence -- even for a state AG who has to stand up and defend the indefensible -- and manage to skirt the Rules of Professional Responsibility.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 3920
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Maybenaut » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:04 pm

bob wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:The Court also upheld federal laws barring gun ownership for those convicted of certain misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. That one was 6-2, with Thomas dissenting, joined in part by Sotomayor. (That, I'll have to read at some point.)
The issue is ultimately pretty narrow: whether reckless force applied during domestic violence triggers the federal law prohibiting abusers from possessing firearms.
I actually agree with the dissent that it's too much of a stretch to read recklessness into the statute (but I don't agree that inclusion of recklessnes would be barred by the Second Amendment). But I'm not so entrenched in it that I think the result is any miscarriage of justice.

What's going to happen is that there will be a larger pool of individuals who will prohibited from owning firearms under the Lautenberg Amendment. There will be a larger pool of people who cannot qualify for certain employment (military, police, and private security, for example) than there already are. And there will be a slightly larger pool of people found with guns in violation of the law and charged than there already are. But none of that bothers me.

In other words, "meh."

chancery
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by chancery » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:11 pm

Mikedunford wrote:The Court also upheld federal laws barring gun ownership for those convicted of certain misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. That one was 6-2, with Thomas dissenting, joined in part by Sotomayor. (That, I'll have to read at some point.)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 4_19m1.pdf
The majority discusses only the statutory interpretation issue, not surprisingly since the Court denied cert. on a Second Amendment claim. Part 3 of the dissent by Thomas, which Sotomayor did not join, goes to Hell(er).

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 10909
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Whatever4 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:23 am

Nine cases left before summer break.
The justices are expected to take the bench tomorrow at 10 a.m. to issue opinions in argued cases. There are nine decisions still outstanding, involving everything from cross-border shootings and property rights to the death penalty and public funding for playgrounds at religious preschools. Here is a brief summary of each of those nine cases, organized by the sitting in which they were argued.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/nine- ... decisions/
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”