welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SCOTUS 2006-2007

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Celaeno



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3031
Location: Kzoo

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:08 am    Post subject: SCOTUS 2006-2007 Reply with quote

The Supreme Court opened term today today, and here's a list of the cases they will hear.

It looks like the big issues this year are patents, abortion, immigration, affirmative action (although I don't know if I should really call it that), and the environment.

Any predictions?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ashcraftthepirate



Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 1035

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding the Affirmative action case: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1, et al.

I feel that affirmative action itself is a type of discrimination that was at one time a valid solution for dealing with a problem, but is quickly outliving it's usefulness.

When affirmative action plans were first instituted, they acted as a gateway, providing access to qualified members of affected minority groups. These days, affirmative action plans are more of a barrier to those who don't fit into a specifically tailored quota.

That said, I predict with a sadness, that the Supreme Court will support the school district in using racial criteria as a factor in deciding the composition of the student population.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Celaeno



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3031
Location: Kzoo

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really? I predict it will go the other way. In both the Seattle and the Kentucky cases, the appellate courts already ruled in favor of the policies, so it doesn't seem efficient for the Court to choose to take these if it were going to uphold the both rulings.

I'm also curious as to why they would take on BOTH. It leads me to believe that they will use some distinction between the two cases (probably the fact that Kentucky's policy is more of a desegregation one) to rule differently in each.

If anyone's interested in reading more about it, I thought the CBS article was decent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marik



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1234

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:15 pm    Post subject: coke can? pubic hairs? nary a joke in sight. Reply with quote

With O'Connor gone, Kennedy is the new swing vote.

I'll be interested in what the legacy of the Roberts court is shaping up to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bunnubis!



Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Oklahio

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm more interested in the case of Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., dealing with payphones and longdistance calls.

Mercy! Could change the course of the whole world.
_________________
Werd.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10954
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was reading that one of the ones to watch this term was Philip Morris USA v. Williams, Mayola. The question is regarding a $79.5 million punitive damage award, which the old court would have been likely to reduce, as O'Connor was in favor of punitive damage caps. With her gone it will be interesting to see how the new "Roberts Court" interprets them.

Of course, the ones I'm most interested in are Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, which are both regarding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

[edit: *cough* $79.5 million, not $79.50]
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman


Last edited by Dogen on Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12384
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ashcraftthepirate wrote:
These days, affirmative action plans are more of a barrier to those who don't fit into a specifically tailored quota.

Quotas are generally illegal, actually. They're only instituted in specific cases against specific organizations who have outstanding histories of discrimination or in response to blatant discrimination.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ashcraftthepirate



Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 1035

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...

Last edited by ashcraftthepirate on Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17600
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hadn't thought much about the affirmative action cases, but kara raises an interesting point - why would the court choose to look at them?

and i am also very interested in the partial birth abortion ban, since in the past, ones like this one have always gone down to court challenges if they made no provision for protecting the health of the mother. in the current law, congress just flatly stated that such abortions are _never_ necessary for the health of the mother, which is just stunningly stupid (one wonders if they even looked at data on how rare the procedure is, and why it was done in various cases). i think the court ruling on this may have a significant impact on the value placed on science in future legislation.

of course, the one i _really_ want to know about won't happen until next court year - whether or not the new law depriving detainees of habeas corpus rights and subjecting them to military tribunal will hold up.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12384
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't that the one that they wrote "SCOTUS can't look into any of this" into the bill?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17600
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yup. so it will be interesting to see what scotus has to say about that.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group