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 

The SCOTUS Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10560
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Quote:
"'the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean.'

also, aren't they supposed to actually hear arguments on the actual case before they rule on it? but maybe he figures the founding fathers were expecting judges to rule on they "knew" was right, rather than wasting time on actual facts.

So what qualifies as grounds for impeachment of a Justice?
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Lasairfiona



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9702
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Death. I think that is it.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6078
Location: California

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congress can impeach a Supreme Court Justice, but it's only happened once and he was acquitted
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10560
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

History is known to repeat itself.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17278
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, but we don't want it to repeat itself - we want it to progress, by actually successfully removing a justice from the court.

but since they don't even have to follow the usual rules of recusal, even when they have a blatant conflict of interest, i'm not sure what he could be charged with.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10560
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So basically there needs to be constitutional amend--- aww fuck yer right, it'll never happen.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10560
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They're going to the dogs
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1855
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moved from the Random Stories thread...

Darqcyde wrote:
With SCOTUS, you never know.

When was it municipalities were given the right to utilize eminent domain? I remember it being discussed here on the forums, I just forget when that shit went down. Anywho, this is exactly the kinda shit that I was afraid was going to happen.


CTrees wrote:
Considering how Kelo v. New London went, it's really difficult to guess how the SCOTUS would handle an appeal.


Another possible SCOTUS case relating to eminent domain might be coming up.

Quote:
At the center of the case is a 30-acre neighborhood outside Philadelphia of two-story, attached row houses called The Gardens that is blighted and overrun by crime. In 2000, about 1,600 people lived in the neighborhood, about two-thirds of whom were black or Hispanic. Most household incomes were far below the town's $43,000 median.

Since 2002, Mount Holly officials have sought to demolish the homes and replace them with 520 mostly market-priced apartments and townhomes; 56 would be reserved for Gardens residents.

While about 260 families have moved out, many with relocation assistance from the town, about 70 remain, including about 30 that are parties to the lawsuit. They have charged that any redevelopment of the neighborhood would affect blacks and Hispanics more than whites and is therefore discriminatory.

Not true, the town argues in its recent brief to the court. The Fair Housing Act "prohibits intentional discrimination alone; it does not require local officials to use race as a criterion in determining how best to allocate limited resources in the context of redeveloping an entire section of a community," it says.

But proving intentional discrimination is "an extremely hard burden for a plaintiff," Pomar says." People don't leave memos that contain obvious smoking guns in this day and age."

The Obama administration and its civil rights allies aren't eager to fight this battle in a court with a 5-4 conservative majority. The Department of Justice intervened in the last case to get St. Paul officials to drop their appeal and settle with landlords, who had alleged that the city's aggressive enforcement policies reduced the amount of affordable housing for minorities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10560
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Philly is fast on it's way to becoming one of the largest shitholes in the US. I like Philly, it's a nice place to visit, but so much is already horrible with how this state, Pennsylvania, is run, but in Philly it's x10.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10560
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a bit old, but OMG I feel sorry for future barristers and and policy makers: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/politics/in-supreme-court-opinions-clicks-that-lead-nowhere.html
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Moor



Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
This is a bit old, but OMG I feel sorry for future barristers and and policy makers: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/politics/in-supreme-court-opinions-clicks-that-lead-nowhere.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20110629140903/http://ssnat.com/
(Bonus: the live version of the page edited itself to add: "And if you quoted this in the NY Times, will you do a correction for the now changed text?" )

http://web.archive.org/web/20080615165501/http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1109258

Also, from both the Supreme Court ones: "(all Inter-net materials as visited Apr. 10, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court's case file)"
(with, obviously, the dates different.)

Also, there are totally already services to get storable copies of a webpage: https://archive-it.org/ , and given, say, an rss feed of a courts opinions, it is nearly trivial to extract a list of URLs from the text in the PDF.

So, like, this needs to be acted on, but it isn't exactly an unsurmountable problem.


Last edited by Moor on Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10560
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I saw the 404 page. Still, I see it as indicative of lazy practices, which is something you SHOULD NOT see in SCOTUS cases.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Moor



Joined: 07 May 2013
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree -- while I don't know about the practices of other courts, at least SCOTUS has saved the webpages as accessed, in whatever the Clerk of Court's case file is. And I'd be willing to bet that if you're looking up the case it's not that hard to ask for the case file as well, and that by the future the case file will be available online right alongside the opinions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10560
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html

Quote:
The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times.

Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.

“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17278
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

one guesses that his definition of "religion" is at minimum "abrahamic" - but i'm guessing christian (with jews tolerated as pre-christians).

one almost wants to see a case before the court involving the religious rights of hindus, or some other non-abrahamic religion that is nevertheless a clearly recognized religion, just to see what contortions he would go through to show _that_ religion isn't one the government can favor.
_________________
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
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 6 of 9

 
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