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 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 4741
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sweet! Can't wait to hear who it is!
_________________
::lesser crisis mode::

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 4741
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's Merrick Garland. Sounds like a good moderate candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
_________________
::lesser crisis mode::

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 14388
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And so far the rumblings are still that the Senate will deny Obama his right and responsibility to appoint anybody.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Darqcyde



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11919
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sooooo, this is from answers given by Hatch last Friday:

Newsmax quoting Orrin Hatch wrote:
"He could be headed in that direction," replied Hatch who has served as either chairman or ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1993-2005, "This [nomination process] is all about the election."

"The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us.

"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies.

But, Hatch quickly added, "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."

. . .

The refusal of Senate Republicans to now consider an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court was, in Hatch’s words, "the chickens coming home to roost."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-gizzi-orrin-hatch-obama-will-nominate/2016/03/13/id/718871/
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/
https://twitter.com/oadrake
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: 21232
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

will be interesting to hear what he says today....probably nothing.

heh.
Quote:
Some Republican senators have suggested that they might consider Judge Merrick B. Garland’s nomination during a lame-duck session of Congress after the November elections.


so the president can't do anything about the supreme court nearly a year before the end of his elected term....but the senators can, after (presumably) some of them have been voted out of office?

yeah, totally consistent position there, republicans.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11919
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cross-posting for relevance:

Takei was right, he is a clown in blackface:

Quote:
But the court's decision did not apply to cases previously decided, so there are people who remain on death row after being convicted by all-white juries that were carefully and intentionally formed. Still, this history and the prosecutor's notes clearly influence the way that the nation's conservative chief justice and all but one other member of the court — Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenting vote — viewed the Georgia case.

There are a litany of not-at-all-uplifting reasons for that kind of broad agreement across the usual ideological divides on the court. There are also closely related reasons why prosecutors in the Georgia case worked so very hard to to seat an all-white jury. To wit:

* A 2010 Equal Justice Initiative study found that, in counties across the country, prosecutors dismissed nearly 80 percent of African Americans qualified for jury service during the seating process. Some prosecutors have been trained to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race and taught how to conceal this activity. And all this produced multiple cases in which black defendants facing capital murder charges in majority-black counties were tried by all-white juries.

* Prosecutors work so hard to seat all-white juries because they know what all-white juries mean for trial outcomes. A 2012 Duke University study of non-capital cases found that all-white juries convict black defendants 16 percent more often than white defendants. And, what's more, the same study found, when juries included just one black person, 71 percent of black defendants and 73 percent of white defendants were convicted. In other words, the conviction gap almost disappears. A full 40 percent of the juries the researchers studied over a 10-year period had no black members at all. Those that did often had just one or two black jurors.


In short, prosecutors — the public employees on whom Americans rely to seek justice — are aware of the way that all-white juries respond to black defendants and have apparently trained themselves to disguise their efforts to seat all-white juries. These activities increase the odds that black defendants will be convicted, which means that they will also, quite often, boost individual prosecutors' careers.


Full story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/23/what-the-supreme-court-just-said-and-what-it-didnt-about-all-white-juries/
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/
https://twitter.com/oadrake
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: 2545
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SCOTUS had been doing well lately with a couple of unanimous pro-free speech decisions. Then the more statist justices took a giant shit on property rights.

Quote:
The Supreme Court just issued its decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, by far the most important property rights case of the term. The opinion is both a setback for constitutional property rights and likely to create confusion and uncertainty going forward. The case arose from the Murr family’s efforts to sell one of two contiguous lots they own, only to find that the sale was blocked by land-use regulations that rendered the lot largely worthless. But the implications of the ruling reach far beyond these specific facts. Many property owners own contiguous lots that could potentially be affected by the decision, including homeowners, small businesses, charities, and others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11919
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
SCOTUS had been doing well lately with a couple of unanimous pro-free speech decisions. Then the more statist justices took a giant shit on property rights.

Quote:
The Supreme Court just issued its decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, by far the most important property rights case of the term. The opinion is both a setback for constitutional property rights and likely to create confusion and uncertainty going forward. The case arose from the Murr family’s efforts to sell one of two contiguous lots they own, only to find that the sale was blocked by land-use regulations that rendered the lot largely worthless. But the implications of the ruling reach far beyond these specific facts. Many property owners own contiguous lots that could potentially be affected by the decision, including homeowners, small businesses, charities, and others.

That link doesn't go to the article you think it goes to.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/
https://twitter.com/oadrake
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: 2545
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crap, sorry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/23/a-loss-for-property-rights-in-murr-v-wisconsin/?utm_term=.8a8737b5ad8d
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marik



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1357

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No big deal the government can compel sale and set monopoly pricing no big deal
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 21232
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the supremes have lifted part of the stay on the travel ban, prior to a full hearing in october. so only people with no ties to the us and no previous visits can be banned. by the way, the whole thing was supposed to be temporary:
Quote:
Mr. Trump’s revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government’s screening and vetting procedures.


so, 3 or 4 months. we are already 3 months out from march. so if they were really approaching this honestly, they should already have addressed gaps in the procedures (whatever ones they could actually find, that is - somehow, the existing procedures seem to have done pretty well at protecting us from attacks by foreign terrorists).

i know, i know, need to decide the underlying legality in case this or another president tries it again, but still - will be interesting to see what changes they rush into place.

also, gorsuch voted in the minority on this one; he, thomas and alito would have allowed the travel ban to take full effect until they heard the case.

another case on the docket for october is the one about the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple....which i suspect will let us know just how bad gorsuch will be on "religious freedoms". (well, i guess you could say he will be great for religious freedom, as long as that means the right to claim your religion requires you to shit on other people (but only if your religion is christian). i mean, clearly he doesn't think being a muslim gives you any rights to say, travel to see family, possibly for a religious celebration.)
_________________
aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 11329

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trump is such a fucking unhinged crazy person that I continue to be impressed quite sincerely with that a great majority of conservatives support his actions and his performance as president
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 21232
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, in all fariness - most of his actions consist in signing whatever his lackeys put before him, which will include, no doubt, whatever misbegotten rag of a health care law congress manages to pass. and he will be happy to rubber-stamp whatever supreme court nominee they put in front of him (you think he had any idea who gorsuch even was?) in the mean time, his idiotic tweets mean that, and his administrations idiotic responses to them, are what eats up all the news time, instead of things like how fast pruitt is shredding epa regulations, and the fact that there really isn't a rational budget on the table and all the other complete failures to act like a functional government... which leaves them with hope that they will continue to hold their seats while turning the entire country into kansas.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6316

PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
Trump is such a fucking unhinged crazy person that I continue to be impressed quite sincerely with that a great majority of conservatives support his actions and his performance as president


You're stuck in the world of philosophy, cogent ideology, and justification.

Trump is an emotion.

Start from that premise, and all confusion dissolves like cotton candy in the mouth of a drooler.
_________________
Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. ~ Ellen Degeneres
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 11068

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi
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 - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 14 of 15

 
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