SCOTUS

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm

SCOTUS

#51

Post by Mark » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:29 pm

...a policy to admit the top 9 percent of each high school class...This wasn't a new policy. California has long had the policy, at least since the early 70s :oldlady:, that if you were in the top 10% of your high school class, you were guaranteed a spot at a University of California campus. You might not get Berkeley or Davis you might have to settle for Merced or Riverside or UCLA, but there'd be a spot for you.FIFY :wave:
And that's all I have to say about that. :smoking:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44891
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SCOTUS

#52

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:21 pm

...a policy to admit the top 9 percent of each high school class...This wasn't a new policy. California has long had the policy, at least since the early 70s :oldlady:, that if you were in the top 10% of your high school class, you were guaranteed a spot at a University of California campus. You might not get Berkeley, you might have to settle for Merced or Riverside or UCLA, but there'd be a spot for you. :explode:

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

SCOTUS

#53

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:15 am

You might not get Berkeley, you might have to settle for [ . . . ] UCLA :o -xxThere was a baseball game on TV which is probably why it took :sterngard: 3hrs 10min to respond. I'm guessing his ears were burning but he was too nervous about the game to leave.

User avatar
wavey davey
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:01 pm

SCOTUS

#54

Post by wavey davey » Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:34 am

...a policy to admit the top 9 percent of each high school class...This wasn't a new policy. California has long had the policy, at least since the early 70s :oldlady:, that if you were in the top 10% of your high school class, you were guaranteed a spot at a University of California campus. You might not get Berkeley, [highlight]you might have to settle for[/highlight] Merced or Riverside or [highlight]UCLA[/highlight], but there'd be a spot for you.Say WHAT????

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7937
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

SCOTUS

#55

Post by Flatpointhigh » Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:01 am

...a policy to admit the top 9 percent of each high school class...This wasn't a new policy. California has long had the policy, at least since the early 70s :oldlady:, that if you were in the top 10% of your high school class, you were guaranteed a spot at a University of California campus. You might not get Berkeley or Davis you might have to settle for Merced or Riverside or UCLA, but there'd be a spot for you.FIFY :wave: Gotta agree GO AGGIES!!!! but then again, I was also there during the Alan Bakke debacle.

My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

SCOTUS

#56

Post by Plutodog » Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:12 am

I gather his behavior doesn't get him reported to the bar... ;) (both articles excerpted, follow hot links for full stories)[/break1]theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/justice-alitos-inexcusable-rudeness/277163/]Justice Alito's Inexcusable RudenessA justice of the Supreme Court should not act like a high schooler on the bench; when the target is a fellow justice, the offense is even greater.Garrett Epps Jun 24 2013, 2:22 PM ETThe episode occurred when Ginsburg read from the bench her dissent in two employment discrimination cases decided Monday, Vance v. Ball State University and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. In both cases, the Court majority made it harder for plaintiffs to prevail on claims of racial and sexual discrimination. The Nassar opinion raises the level of proof required to establish that employers have "retaliated" against employees by firing or demoting them after they complain about discrimination; Vance limits the definition of "supervisor" on the job, making it harder for employees harassed by those with limited but real authority over them to sue the employers.The Vance opinion is by Alito, and as he summarized the opinion from the bench he seemed to be at great pains to show that the dissent (which of course no one in the courtroom had yet seen) was wrong in its critique. That's not unusual in a written opinion; more commonly, however, bench summaries simply lay out the majority's rationale and mention only that there was a dissent. (Kennedy's Nassar summary followed the latter model.)After both opinions had been read, Ginsburg read aloud a summary of her joint dissent in the two cases. She critiqued the Vance opinion by laying out a "hypothetical" (clearly drawn from a real case) in which a female worker on a road crew is subjected to humiliations by the "lead worker," who directs the crew's daily operation but cannot fire or demote those working with him. The Vance opinion, she suggested, would leave the female worker without a remedy.At this point, Alito pursed his lips, rolled his eyes to the ceiling, and shook his head "no." He looked for all the world like Sean Penn as Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, signaling to the homies his contempt for Ray Walston as the bothersome history teacher, Mr. Hand.[/break1]washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-justice-samuel-alitos-middle-school-antics/2013/06/24/534888f8-dd0d-11e2-9218-bc2ac7cd44e2_story.html]Justice Samuel Alito’s middle-school anticsBy Dana Milbank,The most remarkable thing about the Supreme Court’s opinions announced Monday was not what the justices wrote or said. It was what Samuel Alito did.His treatment of the 80-year-old Ginsburg, 17 years his elder and with 13 years more seniority, was a curious display of judicial temperament or, more accurately, judicial intemperance. Typically, justices state their differences in words — and Alito, as it happens, had just spoken several hundred of his own from the bench. But he frequently supplements words with middle-school gestures.Days earlier, I watched as he demonstrated his disdain for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the two other women on the court. Kagan, the newest justice, prefaced her reading of an opinion in a low-profile case by joking that it was “possibly not” the case the audience had come to hear. The audience responded with laughter, a few justices smiled — and Alito, seated at Kagan’s right elbow, glowered.Another time, Sotomayor, reading a little-watched case about water rights, joked that “every student in the audience is going to look up the word ‘preemption’ today.” Alito rolled his eyes and shook his head.
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

SCOTUS

#57

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:28 am

Having learned from such appointees as Justices Warren, Stevens, O'Connor and even Kennedy, Republican Presidents have since been assiduous in cultivating Justices who not only agree with their political stances, but lack the basic judicial temperament even to be on the bench, acting like schoolchildren in robes. It is an embarrassment and, perhaps even as much as their unprincipled, politically-motivated rulings, has caused the Court to sink further and further in the public regard as nothing more than a bunch of right-wing hacks serving their political masters.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

#58

Post by mimi » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:38 am

It was Alito who shook his head during the SOTU address as well.Hey Alito, :roll:

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34884
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SCOTUS

#59

Post by realist » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:42 am

Justice Ginsburg's powerful dissent on Voting Rights Act decision [/break1]supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 6_6k47.pdf …
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

#60

Post by mimi » Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:00 pm

slate is running a series on SCOTUS. Sorta like a review or report card for the year.here's one of the blog posts:[/break1]slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/clarence_thomas_is_the_ron_paul_of_the_supreme_court.html]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... court.htmlposner sees the light:* Justice Thomas has integrity, but it’s the integrity of a madman. He is the Ron Paul of the Supreme Court.* The conservative justices really are very, very conservative. I had up until now pooh-poohed liberal constitutional law professors and journalists who argued that the court had gone off the rails. Mea culpa.* I was struck by the sheer relentlessness with which they drove forward their conservative ideas, even in constitutionally unimportant cases like Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (the case about adoption and the Indian Child Welfare Act).I haven't read it all.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

SCOTUS

#61

Post by esseff44 » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:27 pm

Having learned from such appointees as Justices Warren, Stevens, O'Connor and even Kennedy, Republican Presidents have since been assiduous in cultivating Justices who not only agree with their political stances, but lack the basic judicial temperament even to be on the bench, acting like schoolchildren in robes. It is an embarrassment and, perhaps even as much as their unprincipled, politically-motivated rulings, has caused the Court to sink further and further in the public regard as nothing more than a bunch of right-wing hacks serving their political masters.Well, we could have been stuck with Bork. ;) Not to mention, GWB's first choice, Harriet Myers. I still believe that was one of the few decisions he ever made on his own until his handlers made him pull it back. ?( Poor George. He thought he was the decider and they had to tell him the truth. He was never the same after that. :(

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

#62

Post by mimi » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:26 am

RT @EvanMcSan: "Samuel Alito may have more than quintupled his net worth in 2012 " publicintegrity.org/2013/07/17/129… Not surprising to me in the least. [/break1]publicintegrity.org/2013/07/17/12978/justice-alitos-reported-wealth-soars-2012]http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/07/ ... soars-2012

TexasFilly
Posts: 18325
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

SCOTUS

#63

Post by TexasFilly » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:33 am

That's pretty stunning.
I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44891
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SCOTUS

#64

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:37 am

This Supreme Court is very solicitous of big business. I've always thought of the Chief Justice as being the fantasy choice of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.One thing in Alito's favor is that the stock market has done pretty well in the last several years, so many investments would lead to the results his portfolio reflects.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

SCOTUS

#65

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:07 am

But no person need fear this court is biased. At least if that "person" is a corporation.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44891
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SCOTUS

#66

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:09 am

When there are corporations on both sides of a case there is a crisis of conscience access among the RW four.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

SCOTUS

#67

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:33 am

When there are corporations on both sides of a case there is a crisis of conscience access among the RW four.Surely they have criteria for tie-breaking in such situations, based on relevant criteria such as the relative net worth of the corporations involved.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44891
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SCOTUS

#68

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:13 pm

When there are corporations on both sides of a case there is a crisis of conscience access among the RW four.Surely they have criteria for tie-breaking in such situations, based on relevant criteria such as the relative net worth of the corporations involved.More likely who owns what.

User avatar
P.K.
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning.
Occupation: Actor. Legal Secretary. Cat Servant.
Contact:

SCOTUS

#69

Post by P.K. » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:43 pm

Off Topic
There was a baseball game on TV which is probably why it took :sterngard: 3hrs 10min to respond. I'm guessing his ears were burning but he was too nervous about the game to leave.Aw, he's gonna be grumpy anyway so might as well poke him and his bRuin kin. Berkeley and UCLA each accept around 15-20% of freshman applicants. (Davis accepts 40%, Riverside accepts almost 65% mostly CA residents)While UCLA has more undergraduate capacity and accepts more freshmen, he knows I know it's not easier to get into UCLA than Berkeley. And they're [link]ranked,http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandrevie ... top-public[/link] the #1 and #2 public universities in the country. Sekrit Stuffs!
But see who's #1?
Off Topic
Woo hoo! Number 10 is my alma mater, UCSB!We're Number 10! We're Number 10! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: PK, class of 1984
IANALBIPOOTV - I am not a lawyer, but I've played one on TV. In fact, IANA (fill in the blank) but chances are I've played one on TV.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

#70

Post by mimi » Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:29 pm

In Conversation: Antonin Scalia


On the eve of a new Supreme Court session, the firebrand justice discusses gay rights and media echo chambers, Seinfeld and the Devil, and how much he cares about his intellectual legacy (“I don’t”).





By Jennifer Senior


Published Oct 6, 2013





[/break1]com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/]http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/








I only read one page so far, cuz it's the page that was tweeted. But I believe Scalia just likes, no loves, being Scalia the character.





He always seems to be playing a part. Disingenuous.





I don't like it. [-(

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

#71

Post by mimi » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:01 pm

So I read the whole thing. LOLGOP sez it best:LOLGOP ‏@LOLGOP 3mThe greatest trick the devil ever played was confirming Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court 98-0?You'll get it if you read the interview.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44891
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SCOTUS

#72

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:02 pm

The only person with more hubris than Antonin Scalia is Rafael Cruz.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

SCOTUS

#73

Post by mimi » Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:20 am

Erin Gloria Ryan ‏@morninggloria 1hInsert: For this session, the role of Scalia will be played by an email of racist anti-Obama political cartoons your uncle forwarded you.Seriously.That interview was crazy.Like I said though, I gotta wonder how much of it is him just acting a part?I'm not gonna post anymore tweets. When that interview came out, the twitter machine lit up. So much crazy in that.

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”