Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #576  
Old 02-02-2017, 06:58 PM
The Man's Avatar
The Man The Man is offline
Donald Trump is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: MVCCXL
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Gorsuch evidently founded "Fascism Forever Club" & quoted Kissinger on yearbook page.

Today, Tomorrow, Forever - Lawyers, Guns & Money

Charming.
__________________


“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith

“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin

FG · last.fm · soundcloud
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-03-2017), beyelzu (02-02-2017), Crumb (02-02-2017), Janet (02-02-2017), Kamilah Hauptmann (02-02-2017), Kyuss Apollo (02-07-2017), lisarea (02-02-2017), slimshady2357 (02-02-2017), Sock Puppet (02-02-2017), SR71 (02-04-2017), Stephen Maturin (02-02-2017), Stormlight (02-03-2017)
  #577  
Old 02-04-2017, 10:13 PM
Dingfod's Avatar
Dingfod Dingfod is offline
Name Dropper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In a Hole
Gender: Male
Posts: XLMMCCCLXVII
Blog Entries: 21
Images: 92
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Gorsuch evidently founded "Fascism Forever Club" & quoted Kissinger on yearbook page.

Today, Tomorrow, Forever - Lawyers, Guns & Money

Charming.
NOPE.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-05-2017), Crumb (02-05-2017), Kyuss Apollo (02-07-2017), SR71 (02-06-2017), Stormlight (02-06-2017)
  #578  
Old 02-04-2017, 10:38 PM
The Man's Avatar
The Man The Man is offline
Donald Trump is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: MVCCXL
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

I did preface my statement with "evidently" because the source was the Fail. I'm not sure, however, that the, "club" being an evident joke is much of a defence. What a person jokes about is often rather telling of their values, and this certainly makes his look putrid.

The Kissinger quote on his yearbook page, at least, is confirmed to be genuine.
__________________


“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith

“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin

FG · last.fm · soundcloud
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (02-06-2017), Stormlight (02-06-2017)
  #579  
Old 02-05-2017, 12:04 AM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is online now
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCXXXV
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Since I havent posted it here yet, fuck the democrats. This was Obama's pick and they just caved to the cry baby gop. If reversed the republicans would be making the government a living hell right now, the multi year long tantrum would have just started. It would be nice to maybe have half that from the dems. Instead of the current roll over and show belly version.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Janet (02-08-2017), Kyuss Apollo (02-07-2017), lisarea (02-05-2017), SR71 (02-05-2017), Stormlight (05-24-2017), Zehava (06-21-2017)
  #580  
Old 02-05-2017, 02:03 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMCCLXXIV
Images: 11
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

What was their winning strategy?

I recall being told that bringing up the Supreme Court wasn't that important when I tried to use it in an argument. I tried bringing up the many important liberal achievements of the Warren Court (which we take for granted now, but give you some idea of how much the court can move the ball forward).

I remember seeing anti-Hillary leftists claim that it wasn't fair to bring up the Supreme Court as to why they should vote for Democrats, because there's always the possibility of a SCOTUS seat opening up, which is unfair because the stakes of the presidency will always be too high to waste your vote on an idiot like Jill Stein, and it's not fair to demand that they deal with the system we have, which constitutionally disadvantages third-parties and makes voting for them for president pointless.

I also saw widespread disbelief that Clinton's appointees would rule in liberal ways, despite all four of the liberals on the court voting against Citizens United and generally in ways that liberals like, despite the fact that they were all four nominated by noted neoliberals Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Both of whom ran on more centrist platforms. Obama's platform was even to Clinton's right in 2008! And Hillary was thought to be a liberal extremist back in the 90s. But whatever.

So I'm not sure it could've become a rallying cry for her campaign.

What I will say is that nominating Garland was probably a strategic mistake. Obama should've picked someone that at least one Democratic constituency could rally around: a woman, a racial minority, or someone farther to the left (particularly given Sanders's surprising success, which was already evident at that point). To be a little cynical, playing some identity politics could also have made it possible to paint the opposition as not merely about the Supreme Court (which Democrats and left-of-Democrats appear not to find very motivating) but about bigoted opposition to the candidate, which might've been more motivating than trying to explain why the Supreme Court matters.

This is what I thought before he announced his pick last year.

I will also say that Garland was evidently picked to highlight Republican hypocrisy in unanimously opposing someone they had recently suggested as a pick they could plausibly support. Given that, it is strange that they didn't follow through on that strategy. If you're going that route, you need to be attacking them as hypocrites constantly. Otherwise there was no point in picking Garland vs. the other options I mentioned above. But I think that was the wrong strategy anyway, as it's been evident for a while that Republicans won't be hurt much by their hypocrisy and the media certainly won't play along.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (02-05-2017), JoeP (02-05-2017), Kael (02-05-2017), lisarea (02-05-2017), Sock Puppet (02-05-2017), SR71 (02-05-2017), Stormlight (05-24-2017), The Man (02-05-2017)
  #581  
Old 02-05-2017, 03:28 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VCCLXXVII
Images: 2
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

They sat there with their fucking thumbs up their hineys the whole time. How the hell could there not be a winning strategy in there somewhere? Any strategy ffs. The dems just let it pass with nary a whisper like nothing bad was happening. Dems suck at messaging. The GOP excels. That's why we're getting our ass kicked.

They stole the fucking president's nominee with no reasonable justification and the dems just sat there looking stupid. I'm still as pissed about that one thing as anything.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (02-05-2017), Crumb (02-05-2017), lisarea (02-05-2017), slimshady2357 (02-05-2017)
  #582  
Old 02-06-2017, 08:45 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMDCCCXXVIII
Images: 19
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by SR71 View Post
Dems suck at getting non-conservative messages out via the conservative-owned and -controlled media. The GOP excels.
:fixed:
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kyuss Apollo (02-07-2017), slimshady2357 (02-07-2017), SR71 (02-06-2017), The Man (02-06-2017)
  #583  
Old 05-23-2017, 01:37 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLVII
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Cooper v. Harris:

The Court (5-3, Gorsuch not participating) upheld a trial court ruling that North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause when it redrew the boundaries of two Congressional districts after the 2010 census. This case, along Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, indicate that federal courts will closely scrutinize a state's claim that "We HAD to redraw this district along racial lines to comply with the Voting Rights Act."

As to one of the two districts at issue, the decision was unanimous. The legislature established a district comprised of a majority of black voters, and argued that doing so was required to comply with the VRA. (SOP for Republican legislatures is to pack black voters into a small number of districts, then claim it's for their own benefit.) SCOTUS unanimously disagreed. For something like 20 years, there was enough crossover white voter support that the district overwhelming elected black representatives even though the district's population was under 50% black. Under those circumstances, the VRA did not require the subject redistricting and VRA compliance didn't justify race-based redistricting in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Competing analyses from Election Law Blog are available here and here.

This ruling comes in the wake of last week's refusal to hear the North Carolina voter ID law case, in which the lower federal courts ruled that the state legislature passed the law with deliberate intent to fuck over black voters.

Republican Party of Louisiana v. FEC:

The Court summarily affirmed a trial court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold limits on state and local political parties' use of "soft money" donations. This one comes as something of a pleasant surprise.

TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Food Groups Brand, LLC:

The federal statute governing venue in patent infringement cases says that such actions can be filed in the district where: (1) the defendant "resides"; or (2) where (a) the infringement occurred and (b) the defendant has "a regular and established place of business." The Court held 8-0 that, for purposes of this venue statute, a corporation "resides" in its state of incorporation and nowhere else.

It's hoped that this ruling will work to the detriment of patent trolls. Since 2014, a single federal court in Texas has been the site of 1/3 of all patent infringement filings. A 1990 ruling by the federal court of appeals with appellate jurisdiction in patent cases allowed trolls to sue in any district where the defendant conducted business. That ruling is no more.

Other recent cases -

Kindred Nursing Ctrs. L.P. v. Clark:

The rule in cases like this one is simple and invariable: if the question is whether the Federal Arbitration Act renders arbitration mandatory under the circumstances presented, the answer is always "yes."

Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson:

A vast number of toilet bugs have acquired billions of dollars in default judgments by purchasing consumer debt from the original creditor for pennies on the dollar and suing on the debt. Trouble is, collection of these debts is time-barred under state statutes of limitations.

Every federal court that's ever addressed the issue has held that these debt buying scumbags violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by filing suit on claims they know are time-barred. That being true, the current debt buying scumbag business model involves keeping watch on bankruptcy court filings. If the debtor files for bankruptcy protection, the debt buying scumbag will file a proof of claim form on its time-barred debt with the bankruptcy court. Debt buying scum collect often enough via such practices to make the effort profitable.

Last week the Court held (5-3) that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding on a time-barred debt is not a Fair Debt Collection Practices violation. For a thorough explanation of why the practice at issue constitutes "unfair or unconscionable means" of debt collection for FDCPA purposes, please see the dissent (which starts on p. 14 of the pdf).
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-25-2017), Ensign Steve (06-01-2017), Kyuss Apollo (06-21-2017), The Man (05-23-2017), Vivisectus (05-23-2017)
  #584  
Old 06-21-2017, 06:00 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLVII
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Matal v. Tam

Asian dude started a band, named it The Slants, and tried to get the name trademarked. The U.S. Patent and Trademark denied the application pursuant to a statute prohibiting registration of a trademark that could "disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead."

The Supreme Court (8-0, Gorsuch not participating) affirmed a federal court of appeals decision holding that the statute violated the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Along the way the Court rejected the government's argument that trademarks are a form of government speech and held that the statute was unconstitutional even if characterized a regulation of "commercial speech."

----------

The Court also agreed to review this case, in which a panel of three federal district court judges ruled (2-1) that the 2011 Wisconsin redistricting law was unconstitutional political gerrymandering. This could be the case where the Court decides that partisan gerrymandering cases are wholly nonjusticiable, or (more likely) generate a badly fractured decision essentially holding that there may be some circumstances in which judicial relief might be available in such cases, but this ain't one of 'em.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (06-21-2017), Kyuss Apollo (06-21-2017), lisarea (06-21-2017), Nullifidian (07-11-2017), Sock Puppet (06-27-2017), The Man (06-21-2017)
  #585  
Old 06-21-2017, 06:29 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMCCXVIII
Images: 8
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Matal v. Tam

Asian dude started a band, named it The Slants, and tried to get the name trademarked. The U.S. Patent and Trademark denied the application pursuant to a statute prohibiting registration of a trademark that could "disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead."

The Supreme Court (8-0, Gorsuch not participating) affirmed a federal court of appeals decision holding that the statute violated the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Along the way the Court rejected the government's argument that trademarks are a form of government speech and held that the statute was unconstitutional even if characterized a regulation of "commercial speech."
This is an interesting case. In general, I think that if someone wants to trademark a racist, offensive name, they should be able to. I'm not sure that I'm happy with how the SC arrived at the issue. The vote was 8-0, but weren't there 2 rulings? I remember being more unhappy with one than the other.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (06-22-2017), The Man (06-21-2017)
  #586  
Old 06-22-2017, 02:00 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLVII
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
The vote was 8-0, but weren't there 2 rulings?
It's kind of a mess, actually. There's the Alito opinion (with Roberts, Thomas and Breyer) and the Kennedy opinion (with Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan). The two groups get to the same place - the disparagement statute is facially unconstitutional - but it ain't at all easy following either opinion's path.

They're off to a rousing start in unanimously rejecting the government's argument that trademarks are government speech rather than private speech. Trouble is, AFAICT, the government never actually made such an argument.

:strawman:

Everyone seems to agree that the disparagement statute qualified as viewpoint discrimination, but neither opinion proffers a convincing rationale for facial invalidation. The Alito opinion seems to support shooting down the statute on an as-applied basis only, and the Kennedy opinion appears to stretch prior viewpoint discrimination doctrine past the point of recognition to get where it wants to go.

Then there's the whole commercial speech thing. Back in 1942 the Court decided (wrongly AF, IMHO) that the Speech Clause afforded protection to commercial speech, although the protection is not as stringent as for other, more "core" sorts of speech. The Alito opinion concludes that there's no need to decide whether a trademark is commercial speech because, assuming it is, the disparagement statute fails even the loosey-goosey Central Hudson test for commercial speech. The Kennedy opinion sidesteps the issue by staying that commercial speech isn't exempt from the prohibition against viewpoint discrimination (based on Thomas' separate concurrence, there may be majority support for this view). That's a little disturbing since Alito's reinterpretation of Central Hudson and Kennedy's seeming expansion of viewpoint discrimination doctrine seem to leave multiple non-ridiculous provisions of the Lanham Act open to challenge.

I'm also having trouble figuring out what speech the disparagement statute "abridge[s]" for First Amendment purposes. Contrary to some of the idiot reporting that appeared after the PTO denied registration, the applicant remained free to use the term he wanted to trademark in any way he could have used it had the application been granted.

Maybe I'll read all this crap again after my head stops hurting, but probably not.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
BrotherMan (06-22-2017), JoeP (06-22-2017), Kamilah Hauptmann (06-22-2017), Nullifidian (07-11-2017), specious_reasons (06-22-2017), The Man (06-22-2017)
  #587  
Old 06-22-2017, 02:37 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMCCLXXIV
Images: 11
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Seems weird to me.

Trademark protection isn't government speech or private speech, it's government restriction of speech.

By granting the trademark, the government agrees that others can be penalized for using the same name.

Or am I totally off-base?

You might want to conclude that this band's name should've been allowed given that it was not intended to disparage and wouldn't likely be interpreted that way either. I would tend to side with the band, but there's a lot of stupidity out there. There are people who would argue it's racist for an ethnic group to be allowed to use a slur and not everyone else, and it might be the only way to satisfy the twits is to ban them altogether. So I might also say in our political context it maybe makes sense to prohibit them as well. (Their issue is that the word is polysemous, and the slur meaning is, in fact, realized partly due to the context of them being an Asian band. But a trademark on "The Gooks" probably wouldn't be allowed in any context under the old rules.)

I suppose prohibiting trademarks of a certain type would tend to mean that businesses won't tend to use the prohibited names, which could be abused to stifle speech.

But I tend to be of the opinion that the government is too liberal in granting trademarks, patents and copyrights (or makes them last too long).

Anyway, not a totally straightforward case.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
JoeP (06-22-2017), specious_reasons (06-22-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-24-2017), The Man (06-22-2017)
  #588  
Old 06-24-2017, 01:28 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLVII
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Seems weird to me.

Trademark protection isn't government speech or private speech, it's government restriction of speech.

By granting the trademark, the government agrees that others can be penalized for using the same name.

Or am I totally off-base?
Nope, you're not off-base at all. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws "abridging the freedom of speech." Conferring a trademark arguable abridges the speech of people who don't hold the mark. The issue in this case is whether denying trademark registration based on the content of mark abridges the free speech of the unsuccessful applicant. Here, it's hard to see what got "abridg[ed]" seeing as how these douche canoes remained entirely free to keep calling themselves The Slants despite the PTO's action. :shrug:

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
You might want to conclude that this band's name should've been allowed given that it was not intended to disparage and wouldn't likely be interpreted that way either.
The applicant's intent and the "likely" perceptions of the proposed mark weren't all that relevant under the law at issue, which authorized the PTO to refuse registration of a mark that "[c]onsists of or comprises . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons . . . or bring them into contempt, or disrepute . . . ."

One of the government's arguments - I think - was that trademark registration is akin to issuing specialty license plates. In the Walker case, Texas rejected a specialty plate design proposed by a group of neo-Confederate shitheads, and the group claimed a First Amendment violation. The Supreme Court ruled that specialty plate designs are government speech rather than private speech, and that the Speech Clause doesn't affect the content of government speech. In this case, the government asserted (I think) that act of registration plus the legal goodies that go along with trademark registration rendered this case sufficiently analogous to Walker that the content-based trademark denial was constitutional. For reasons I don't entirely fathom, no one on the Court bought it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
But I tend to be of the opinion that the government is too liberal in granting trademarks, patents and copyrights (or makes them last too long).
I agree, but that's a statutory and regulatory thing rather than a constitutional thing.

------------------

In other news, the Colorado Supreme Court went 0-2 this term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
The Colorado Supreme Court made SCOTUS's docket twice this term! :linedance:

Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado:

Defendant got convicted in a Colorado state court of assaulting two teenage girls at a racetrack. After trial, defense counsel submitted affidavits from two jurors stating that a third juror, an ex-pig, made all sorts of racist anti-Mexican statements during deliberations, the defendant was guilty because Mexicans "take what they want" from young girls, and the defense's alibi witness couldn't be believed cuz he's "an illegal." And, of course, the juror represented that he knew what he was talking about thanks to being an ex-pig.

Subject to exceptions that didn't apply here, a Colorado rule of evidence modeled on a federal rule prohibits juror testimony "as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror’s mind or emotions . . . ."

All involved judges agreed that the evidence rule precluded consideration of the juror affidavits. However, the Sixth Amendment provides among other things that "the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . an impartial jury." The issue is whether use of the Colorado rule to bar evidence of a juror's racial bias violated the Sixth Amendment on the facts of this case.

Two of three Colorado Court of Appeals judges sided with the state, as did four of seven Colorado Supreme Court justices.

SCOTUS held oral argument earlier this month, and at least five of the eight justices appear to be leaning heavily toward the defense. It looks likely that the big dispute will be over how broadly or narrowly to craft the ruling. Verdict finality is very big deal in all U.S. courts. I suspect the defendant in this case will get a hearing on the bias issue, but SCOTUS won't be able to devise an approach that garners majority support.

Nelson v. Colorado:

This one's pretty fucked up as well. The defendant got convicted in a Colorado state court on multiple counts of sexual assault against her own children. She got a prison sentence of 20-life and was ordered to pay some $8,200 in fees, costs and restitution. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. The state retried her, and the second jury acquitted.

While the defendant was in jail awaiting retrial, the Department of Corrections took just over $700 from her inmate account to put toward the fees, costs and restitution she was ordered to pay after the first trial. After the acquittal, the defendant filed a motion asking that the trial court order the Department of Corrections to refund her money. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reverse and ordered restitution.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled (5-1) that the applicable state statutes did not authorize the refund that the Court of Appeals ordered. If the defendant wants her money back, she must sue the state under something called the Exoneration Act. She can get a judgment of restitution under the Act if, but only if, she proves actual innocence.

Justice William Hood, who's fast becoming my favorite lolorado jurist, dissented. The federal issue here involved basic due process:

Quote:
Instead of requiring Nelson to identify a specific statute authorizing a refund, I would require the State to identify a source of law allowing it to keep a defendant’s property in the absence of a valid criminal conviction. Because I know of no such authority, and I agree with the court of appeals that the district court had jurisdiction to order a refund, I respectfully dissent.
The Exoneration Act doesn't satisfy due process for several reasons, not the least of which is upending the presumption of innocence.

SCOTUS only accepted this case a month ago, so a decision will have to wait until late in the present term.
In Pena-Rodriguez, SCOTUS held (5-3) that a court can't just blow off a Sixth Amendment argument in a case where a juror's statements clearly indicate that he relied on racial animus in convicting a criminal defendant just because some state's verdict impeachment rule purports to preclude an inquiry.

In the Nelson case, SCOTUS held (7-1 [lol Thomas]) that where a criminal conviction is reversed on appeal and and the defendant gets acquitted on retrial, the state can't keep money it took from the defendant for costs, fees and restitution while the conviction was in effect. Colorado's statute requiring defendants in those situations to sue the state and prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence is unconstitutional AF.

--------------------------

McWilliams v. Dunn

Back in 1985, the Court held that if an indigent criminal defendant's sanity was going to be an issue at trial, the state is obliged to provide and pay for an independent mental health professional to assist the defense. I figured that rule would end up going the way of Miranda warnings, i.e., still on the books but either (a) impossible to violate or (b) possible to violate, but with violations never qualifying as reversible error. I was wrong. In McWilliams, the Court held (5-4) that a state violated a criminal defendant's right to meaningful assistance from a mental health professional during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial. The fact that the defense got this favorable ruling in a federal habeas corpus proceeding makes the decision all the more amazing, since the bar for obtaining federal habeas relief in state criminal proceedings is high as hell.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (06-27-2017), Nullifidian (07-11-2017), The Man (06-24-2017)
  #589  
Old 06-27-2017, 03:11 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLVII
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

It was a busy last day on the bench for the 2016-17 term.

First and foremost, Justice Kennedy did not announce his retirement. :phew: That's a bullet dodged, for now at least, but if Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan go at any time before 2021 ... well, you know.

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project:

The Court agreed to hear appeals of two lower court decisions that enjoined enforcement of Executive Order No. 13780, a/k/a Travel Ban 2.0. The cases will be briefed over the summer recess and oral argument will occur in October. The Court also scaled back the effect of the injunctions, which remain in effect as to the plaintiffs and any other "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." Pending the outcome of the SCOTUS proceedings, Travel Ban 2.0 is fully enforceable against foreign nationals without such a claim.

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have stayed the lower court injunctions entirely.

Perry v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd.:

This one involves the federal Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and the property forum for seeking judicial review of federal Merit Systems Protection Board decisions. The case is primarily of interest only to federal government employees and the lawyers who represent them.

The vote was 7-2. Gorsuch's dissent shows that he's more Scalia-like than Scalia when it comes to interpreting federal statutes.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer:

Missouri has a program that provides full reimbursement from state funds to any nonprofit entity that installs playground services made from recycled tires. The church wanted to resurface the gravel playground of a day care center it owned and operated, but the state denied its reimbursement application because the program disallows grants to any entity owned or operated by a church or religious organization.

The Court held that the state violated the church's rights under the Free Exercise Clause by denying a public benefit based solely on the church's status as a religious organization. The vote was 7-2, with Sotomayor noting in dissent that the Court is " holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church."

Hernandez v. Mesa:

A U.S. Border Patrol agent standing on the U.S. side of the border shot and killed a Mexican teenager standing in Mexico. The issues were whether the parents of the deceased teenager had a viable claim for damages and, if so, whether the Border Patrol agent had immunity. The Court didn't decide any of the issues presented, choosing instead to kick the case back to the court of appeals that affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the case.

Pavan v. Smith:

Arkansas's birth certificate law provides that (subject to certain exceptions) when a married woman gives birth, her husband must be listed on the birth certificate as the child's father. The plaintiffs were two lawfully married same-sex couples who had children via anonymous sperm donation. The couples filled out paperwork identifying both partners as parents, but the state issued birth certificates listing only the birth mothers as parents. The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected the couples' constitutional challenge to the state law, ruling that the statute related entirely to biological parentage rather than marital relationships.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and summarily reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court - no briefing, no oral argument, no nuthin' - holding that the birth certificate law ran afoul of the Obergefell decision by denying same-sex couples the benefits of civil marriage "on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples." The state supreme court's reason for upholding the law was bogus since the statute specifies that where an opposite-sex couple conceives through anonymous sperm donation, the husband is listed as the child's father even though he is clearly not a biological parent. Thus, the state supreme court was bullshitting when it wrote that the statute was about biological parentage rather than marital relationships.

Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito dissented.

------------

The Court agreed to review this 2015 Colorado Court of Appeals decision holding that a state public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation did not violated the First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights of a bakery owner who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

-------------

Somewhat surprisingly, the Court refused to review this Ninth Circuit case holding that there's no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. Thomas and Gorsuch were apoplectic in dissent.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (06-27-2017), Kamilah Hauptmann (06-27-2017), Nullifidian (07-11-2017), The Man (06-27-2017)
  #590  
Old 06-27-2017, 06:50 PM
beyelzu's Avatar
beyelzu beyelzu is offline
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
Posts: XMMMLVIII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 8
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

It hurts my spirit whenever I see Gosuck's name listed next to some Scalialike garbage position. Gosuck, Uncle Thomas, and Scalito dissenting in Pavan v Smith is just fucking absurd. If the law specifically puts nonbiological heteroparents names on the fucking birth certificate, it is completely and obviously disinfuckingenuous to claim that the law is about biology only.

It is being deliberately obtuse. It reminds me of court decisions where they give the benefit of the doubt to legislatures that claim they aren't outlawing abortion or disenfranchising people of color. Everyone knows that what they are doing. (Ill note as well that the conservative fucktards had no problem setting aside the will of congress when it renewed the Voting Rights act using the universal agreement as a reason to ignore the vote.)
__________________
:blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :steve: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (06-27-2017), Ensign Steve (07-18-2017), Kamilah Hauptmann (06-27-2017), Nullifidian (07-11-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-28-2017), The Man (06-27-2017)
  #591  
Old 06-29-2017, 01:51 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLVII
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

As lawprof Rick Hasen points out, it usually takes time for a new Supreme Court justice to get fully up and running. Gorsuch, by contrast, wasted no time at all dropping trou and waving his Scaliawang at absolutely everyone.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (06-29-2017), Kamilah Hauptmann (06-29-2017), Nullifidian (07-11-2017), specious_reasons (06-29-2017), The Man (06-29-2017)
  #592  
Old 06-29-2017, 02:21 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMCCLXXIV
Images: 11
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

I hope horrible things happen to him.

(Fuck, this sentiment is getting disturbingly common for me in the Trump era.)
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (06-29-2017), Stephen Maturin (06-29-2017), The Man (06-29-2017)
  #593  
Old 08-22-2017, 01:41 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMDCCCLVII
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

What a fucking shithead. So much for avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kamilah Hauptmann (08-22-2017), Limoncello (08-22-2017), lisarea (08-22-2017), Nullifidian (08-29-2017), The Man (08-22-2017), viscousmemories (09-16-2017)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.37623 seconds with 14 queries