Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

SCOTUS

User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#401

Post by raison de arizona »

neeneko wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:03 pm
pipistrelle wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:51 pm
Supreme Court sides with Ted Cruz, striking down cap on use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans
Supreme Court decision supports campaign, candidate corruption

I rewrite headlines for fun.
I wonder how long until SCOTUS decides pay to play and outright bribes are also 'freedom of speech'.
I'm not being facetious when I say I think they would probably do it right now. They've chipped away at McCain-Feingold every chance they've got over the last twenty years and that was before the current makeup. It would need be wrapped in only the thinnest of charade, if any.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#402

Post by raison de arizona »

The call is coming from…inside the house.
lisa hendricks @MsLisaHendricks wrote: The Buffalo shooter: “White birth rates must change…people must achieve a birth rate…that is about 2.06 births per woman.”

SCOTUS: “the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life…had become virtually nonexistent.”
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#403

Post by humblescribe »

So, infants are now part of the supply and demand chain?

I think we need Gregg to give us his keen insight into the economics behind this. This could be the beginning of a nascent natal industry, amirite?
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
Dave from down under
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Re: SCOTUS

#404

Post by Dave from down under »

Perhaps a home grown cottage industry…

Like puppy farming..
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6552
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#405

Post by Slim Cognito »

I know you meant that as a joke, but…….
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
Danraft
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#406

Post by Danraft »

Well, the Quiverfull movement (of which my ex-wife’s mother seemed to advocate) is that there is a coming war (any day now, of course) and it is the responsibility of true believers to have many children (a quiver full of “warriors”). It is not important to educate them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
User avatar
bill_g
Posts: 5335
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:52 pm
Location: Portland OR
Occupation: Retired (kind of)
Verified: ✅ Checked Republic ✓ ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Re: SCOTUS

#407

Post by bill_g »

raison de arizona wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 11:58 am
Off Topic
Speaking of antifa, Andy Ngo will bring them to justice for the low low price of only $35 (or more.)
[img]https: //pbs.twimg.com/media/FSWAFNyXsAEMmUd?format=jpg&name=900x900[/img]
Andy Ngo was once "brutally assaulted" by a vegan vanilla milkshake during his coverage of a Portland Summer Protest Festival (which we seem to have turned into an annual thing).
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14350
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: SCOTUS

#408

Post by RTH10260 »

Danraft wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 9:41 am Well, the Quiverfull movement (of which my ex-wife’s mother seemed to advocate) is that there is a coming war (any day now, of course) and it is the responsibility of true believers to have many children (a quiver full of “warriors”). It is not important to educate them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
Never mind that they will be twenty years late to the war (killing of course alloed years before they may touch alcohol (officially). Then again my guess is they will have their own version of the Hitlerjugend :bag:
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#409

Post by Kriselda Gray »

raison de arizona wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 10:08 pm
lisa hendricks @MsLisaHendricks wrote: The Buffalo shooter: “White birth rates must change…people must achieve a birth rate…that is about 2.06 births per woman.”

SCOTUS: “the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life…had become virtually nonexistent.”
He doesn't appear to be taking into account the fact that most parents who are adopting a child want to adopt an *infant*, or that many families that want to adopt an infant would choose to forego adopting all together rather than adopting a child if an infant is unavailable.

It's always been difficult to get children who are more than 3 or 4 years old a new, permanent family, which they need as much, if not more than, an infant does. Barring abortion does nothing to address this aspect of the problem. Yes, it would increase the supply of infants, but it doesn't help decrease the number of older children needing homes. The main thing that would happen is that more families might be able to adopt infants, including some of those families who are turned away or decide to stop trying to adopt if no infants are available for them. That still leaves all the children who aren't getting adopted now (because they're not infants) needing homes.

A better way to address this matter would be to offer some kind of incentive to encourage people to adopt older children. At the same time, create disincentives for adopting infants. Some possible incentives for adopting children might be to offer tax breaks, provide some child care support or looking for ways to speed up the adoption process - provided, of course, that it can be done without compromising the safety checks. As for disincentives for adopting infants, those could include making that process a bit more difficult or requiring prospective parents to pass an assessment of their parenting skills. I'm sure there are many more (and probably better) ideas out there. Doing something like this would help rebalance the infant-to-child ratio of adoptions without any women having to lose their rights.

Of course, this presumes that the availability of adoptable infants is actually what they're concerned about, as opposed to, say, controlling a woman's sex life...
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#410

Post by raison de arizona »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:49 am Barring abortion does nothing to address this aspect of the problem. Yes, it would increase the supply of infants, but it doesn't help decrease the number of older children needing homes. The main thing that would happen is that more families might be able to adopt infants, including some of those families who are turned away or decide to stop trying to adopt if no infants are available for them.
Studies dispute this, as it turns out, the vast majority of women who are forced to carry a pregnancy to completion opt to keep the baby.
Of course, this presumes that the availability of adoptable infants is actually what they're concerned about, as opposed to, say, controlling a woman's sex life...
:winner:
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 11589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:06 am
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired mechanical engineer
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#411

Post by Volkonski »

“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#412

Post by raison de arizona »

Wow.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6552
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#413

Post by Slim Cognito »

More POC (and whites but mostly POC) for slave labor and windfall profits at for-profit prisons. It's not a bug, it's a feature!!!!

Prepare yourself for the return of debtors' prison.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: SCOTUS

#414

Post by KickahaOta »

raison de arizona wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 10:32 am Wow.
Do you want to know the worst thing about this decision that denies relief to people who have already been denied justice due to incompetent counsel?

Under current federal law, it's completely reasonable.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) puts severe, one-sided, and (IMO) unfair barriers in front of state prisoners trying to obtain federal habeas relief.

The majority opinion's policy justifications for its decision strike me as abhorrent. (Editorial aside: I would expect as much from an opinion authored by Justice Thomas.) But at its heart, the opinion is reading the plain text of AEDPA, and determining that it means what it says.

And it's not as if AEDPA was recently snuck through Congress in the dead of night by a narrow margin. It was passed in 1996, with a Senate vote of 91-8, and a House vote of 293-133. 25 years of senators and representatives and presidents have let it stand since then.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#415

Post by AndyinPA »

This SCOTUS can't undo rights fast enough. :mad:
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#416

Post by humblescribe »

I'll leave the detailed parsing of Laurence Tribe's op-ed piece to the legal experts here. I have no feeling one way or another if Mr. Tribe is spot on from a legal sense or just how scholarly he is in the academic side of the legal trade. Clearly, he is famous and can make good argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ence-tribe

From my viewpoint out in the bleachers, his argument makes perfect sense. Courts are supposed to be flexible as times and society change, and the Constitution was drafted in a way so as not to prohibit this. Stare decisis is not absolute, but you better have a gosh darn super compelling reason to overturn past opinions. Reactionary beliefs are not even kinda sorta compelling.

The burning question in my mind: If the Virginia case that tossed the anti-miscegenation laws is revisited, will Thomas recuse himself? Will he be asked to recuse? If it is overturned, will he be forced to divorce his wife?
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#417

Post by AndyinPA »

I read the opinion by Tribe a day or two ago. I thought he made excellent arguments, too. He has a proven track record with the Supreme Court.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#418

Post by raison de arizona »

As a refresher, one of the highlights we've seen so far is the decision that actual innocence isn't enough to save someone from execution. Looking forward, we have a big gun decision, and of course the abortion one as well. I'm sure they will be decided in a reasonable fashion. Where is a hole to crawl in?
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#419

Post by raison de arizona »

Moar Tribe. I dunno, seems off to me.
Laurence Tribe @tribelaw wrote: This unsolicited advice from @mjs_DC is worth what the law clerks paid for it. This isn't a criminal investigation, and any law clerk who values his or her job at the Court and the perks that job carries with it going forward would be smart to cooperate with this inquiry.
Mark Joseph Stern @mjs_DC wrote: If any law enforcement official ever asks you to hand over your phone or phone records without a warrant, the answer is "no," then "talk to my lawyer." Supreme Court clerks know this better than most.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#420

Post by Phoenix520 »

PopeHat would (did) tell them to get lawyers immediately.

I don’t trust any R any more. My worst fear has come to pass, that the right will make their “revolution” about absolute bullshit Q things, truth and sanity be damned.

Short of Jeebus coming down to reprimand them, I don’t see how to end it. Fox will never be banned.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#421

Post by bob »

Slate ran an article with an interesting idea: If four justices recuse themselves, SCOTUS will lack a quorum. Meaning, the lower court's ruling stands. (The 5th Cir. had enjoined Texas' law.)

Anyone counting noses will realize the Chief would have to be the fourth, and I very much doubt he'll do this.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#422

Post by Phoenix520 »

Would they need to state a valid reason to recuse, bob?
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#423

Post by bob »

Phoenix520 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:01 pm Would they need to state a valid reason to recuse, bob?
Legally, no. Politically/"for posterity," perhaps.

In routine recusals, some judges explain why but others don't. Sometimes it is obvious but sometimes it isn't.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#424

Post by Phoenix520 »

Ta.
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: SCOTUS

#425

Post by Kendra »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 700e809fd2
According to a report from Rolling Stone, officials in Donald Trump's administrationconned Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) into voting for current Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh while ridiculing her at the same time for being easy to manipulate with one going so far as to crassly mock her as a "cheap date."

As the Rolling Stone's Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley report, Collins "was deliberately manipulated by Trump administration officials — and a future Supreme Court Justice — who viewed her as an easy mark."

Collins, often mocked for her constant professions of being "concerned" by current events, was considered to be a walkover by the Trump administration officials and supporters of Kavanaugh who felt she only needed "vague assurances" that Kavanaugh would not be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

According to Rolling Stone, two former Trump officials admitted that they played Collins and then laughed at her behind her back.
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”