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

#476

Post by raison de arizona »

Sotomayor praises Clarence Thomas: ‘He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution’

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke highly of colleague Justice Clarence Thomas during an event on Thursday, saying, “He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution.”

Sotomayor, who is liberal, acknowledged during remarks at the American Constitution Society that while she often disagrees with the conservative justice, she believes that “we share a common understanding about people and kindness towards them”

“Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name, every one of them. And not only does he know their names, he remembers their families’ names and histories,” she said.

“He’s the first one who will go up to someone when you’re walking with him and say, ‘Is your son okay? How’s your daughter doing in college?’ He’s the first one that, when my stepfather died, sent me flowers in Florida,” she added.
:snippity:
https://thehill.com/regulation/3526826- ... stitution/
“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
p0rtia
Posts: 4915
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: SCOTUS

#477

Post by p0rtia »

Sotomayor is my favorite living justice, but this lack of social awareness--of self-awareness, appalls me. This is Dr. Birx level pandering to a willfully corrupt individual.
Atticus Finch
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:59 am

Re: SCOTUS

#478

Post by Atticus Finch »

Hitler was nice to his dog but he was still a psychopath.
You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion.
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6687
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: SCOTUS

#479

Post by pipistrelle »

p0rtia wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:44 am Sotomayor is my favorite living justice, but this lack of social awareness--of self-awareness, appalls me. This is Dr. Birx level pandering to a willfully corrupt individual.
I don't get the point of saying this at all, even if thought. Also, anyone can be "nice" to others if they need something from them.

Said of psychopaths:
They can be intelligent, charming, and good at mimicking emotions. They may pretend to be interested in you, but in reality, they probably don’t care.

“They’re skilled actors whose sole mission is to manipulate people for personal gain,” Tompkins says.
Not saying Thomas is s psychopath, but it doesn't take much to appear charming or caring.
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

#480

Post by Slim Cognito »

I heard Ted Bundy was charming.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: SCOTUS

#481

Post by Kendra »

Slim Cognito wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:17 am I heard Ted Bundy was charming.
:rimshot:
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: SCOTUS

#482

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

I felt same about Scalia/RBG. They are like children who live with an abuser. If the theoretical, ideological "court" is more important than the people it affects, their priorities are out of whack.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#483

Post by AndyinPA »

Atticus Finch wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:16 am Hitler was nice to his dog but he was still a psychopath.
Actually, there are photos that show that the dogs were actually terrified of Hitler, but I get your point.
"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

#484

Post by raison de arizona »

Rex Chapman🏇🏼 @RexChapman wrote: “Federal law requires that spouses of the Supreme Court Justices disclose payments that they have received…[Ginni Thomas] received more than $680,000 from the Heritage Foundation and yet somehow the Thomases failed to report that.”

They are one.
“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

#485

Post by raison de arizona »

Shoop v. Twyford

Like Shinn v. Rameriz, this court appears hellbent on execution without regard to, well, innocence, or really anything.
“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

#486

Post by Slim Cognito »

Fuck this shit.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS

#487

Post by neeneko »

Damn.. they are really going down the 'facts are not a defense' path.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#488

Post by bob »

neeneko wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:04 pm Damn.. they are really going down the 'facts are not a defense' path.
... sorta?

Twyford wanted a federal court to order the state to transport him to a medical facility, where his mental impairments could be tested; evidence of that testing later could be presented to a court.

But SCOTUS ruled such evidence would have to first be presented in a state court, so the federal court did not yet belong in this case.

This ultimately is a federalism case, that is, SCOTUS is telling the lower federal courts to stop stepping on the state courts' toes, i.e., Twyford needs to ask a state court for the transport order.


In case it wasn't clear: Twyford is on death row; his mental impairments might make him ineligible for execution.


For the nerds: Although it is a 5-4 decision, basically it is 6-3; Gorsuch dissented only say cert. was improvidently granted. But it is technically a dissent because Gorsuch would have let the lower court's ruling stand.

But it is still nuts that SCOTUS is reversing the 6th (not known for its bleeding hearts).
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#489

Post by Phoenix520 »

:torches:

What’s that you say?

Oh. :oopsy: Never mind .

:lol:
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

#490

Post by raison de arizona »

bob wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:07 pm
neeneko wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:04 pm Damn.. they are really going down the 'facts are not a defense' path.
... sorta?

Twyford wanted a federal court to order the state to transport him to a medical facility, where his mental impairments could be tested; evidence of that testing later could be presented to a court.

But SCOTUS ruled such evidence would have to first be presented in a state court, so the federal court did not yet belong in this case.

This ultimately is a federalism case, that is, SCOTUS is telling the lower federal courts to stop stepping on the state courts' toes, i.e., Twyford needs to ask a state court for the transport order.


In case it wasn't clear: Twyford is on death row; his mental impairments might make him ineligible for execution.


For the nerds: Although it is a 5-4 decision, basically it is 6-3; Gorsuch dissented only say cert. was improvidently granted. But it is technically a dissent because Gorsuch would have let the lower court's ruling stand.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the state court already said no which is why we are here in the first place. SCOTUS said that if the state court says no, then the answer is no and he gets to die without being evaluated, yes?
“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
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#491

Post by bob »

raison de arizona wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:20 pmCorrect me if I am wrong, but the state court already said no which is why we are here in the first place. SCOTUS said that if the state court says no, then the answer is no and he gets to die without being evaluated, yes?
Again, sorta.

Twyford alleged (in state court) that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his mental impairments. But the state court ruled counsel hadn't been ineffective.

So Twyford technically never asked the state court for the off-site examination. But the request certainly was implicit: If the state court had thought there was something there, it could have done something other than just denying the case; that "something" likely would have included allowing off-site testing.

Another wrinkle is this case all stems from Twyford's request for off-site testing; usually mental-health professionals go to the prison and examine the prisoner there. (Recall Twyford is on death-row; death-row prisoners basically don't travel.) So this suggests a desire for a scan, such as an MRI.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

Re: SCOTUS

#492

Post by neeneko »

bob wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:07 pm This ultimately is a federalism case, that is, SCOTUS is telling the lower federal courts to stop stepping on the state courts' toes, i.e., Twyford needs to ask a state court for the transport order.
Which dovetails with the earlier 'if the state does not want to defend someone, then the federal government will not either' case from earlier.
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

#493

Post by raison de arizona »

I (somewhat) grok the legal issues at play here, but executing innocent folks and the possibly mentally infirm is a pet peeve. :shrug:

Jenna Ellis @JennaEllisEsq wrote: BREAKING: The Supreme Court added this Friday, June 24, as an opinion issuance day. 👀

13 cases still remain. Tomorrow and Friday opinions will be issued starting at 10am ET.
“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
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#494

Post by bob »

raison de arizona wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:03 am I (somewhat) grok the legal issues at play here, but executing innocent folks and the possibly mentally infirm is a pet peeve. :shrug:
Twyford wasn't claiming innocence. Twyford was claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present evidence of his mental disabilities; evidence, he claimed, would have caused the jury to reject the death penalty.

It is unconstitutional to execute the intellectually disabled (the "mentally retarded"), insane, or mentally incompetent. But other mental infirmities do not bar execution.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#495

Post by Dr. Ken »

Scotus just dropped this. Striking down two of NYs gun laws


ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
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

#496

Post by raison de arizona »

That NY State gun law was from 1913, a good 109 year run. But as the new Trump Justices stated in their Senate appearances, it is settled law.

Oh wait.

Poor Susan Collins. She must be so confused.
“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

#497

Post by raison de arizona »

This isn't SCOTUS, but it will be shortly. I will make a not-so bold prediction regarding how it will go. Corporate free speech via political donations, etc.? Corporations are people my friend. People boycotting as an expression of the First Amendment? Not so much.
Julia Bacha @juliabacha wrote: Breaking news: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that boycotts are not protected by the First Amendment. @ACLU has confirmed it'll take the case to the Supreme Court, with huge implications for free speech in America.🧵
“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

#498

Post by raison de arizona »

NY State governor Hochul is considering calling a special session to pass moar gun lawz, the NYC Council has already stated that they will be passing additional measures. Just like all the unconstitutional abortion laws, I guess. What's good for the goose and all. Make them fight each new gun law tooth and nail.
“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

#499

Post by raison de arizona »

Supreme Court limits ability to enforce Miranda rights

The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.
:snippity:
"Today's ruling doesn't get rid of the Miranda right," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But it does make it far harder to enforce. Under this ruling, the only remedy for a violation of Miranda is to suppress statements obtained from a suspect who's not properly advised of his right to remain silent. But if the case never goes to trial, or if the government never seeks to use the statement, or if the statement is admitted notwithstanding the Miranda violation, there's no remedy at all for the government's misconduct."
:snippity:
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the other liberal justices, said that the court's ruling was stripping "individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda."

"The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy," she added.
:snippity:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics ... index.html
“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

#500

Post by raison de arizona »

Been reading random things this morning re: gun control and SCOTUS and found a shimmer of hope, in Kavanaugh's concurring opinion (which Roberts signed on to) there is reason to believe that this is the end of the road for him, and further loosening of the rules in the name of 2A in his opinion fall under reasonable restriction a la Heller. One can hope. On the flip side, there has been some digging and Coney Barrett has written some exhaustive dissenting opinions over the years arguing against, well, any restrictions at all. Including things like restricting convicted felons from being armed, she's specifically argued that convicted felons should retain the right to firearms, the January 6th defendants will be happy to learn.
“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
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”