Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Maybe we can finally move on as a nation this June.

    Someone on face the nation suggested 6-3 with Roberts in the majority.
    "If you can't beat em, join em."
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

    Comment


    • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

      Originally posted by Kepler View Post
      "If you can't beat em, join em."
      Rick Santorum is going to give Scalia head?
      Code:
      As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
      College Hockey 6       College Football 0
      BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
      Originally posted by SanTropez
      May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
      Originally posted by bigblue_dl
      I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
      Originally posted by Kepler
      When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
      He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

      Comment


      • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

        Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
        Rick Santorum is going to give Scalia head?
        That is not his eponymous end.
        Cornell University
        National Champion 1967, 1970
        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

        Comment


        • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

          I've never been a big fan of that "campaign"
          Code:
          As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
          College Hockey 6       College Football 0
          BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
          Originally posted by SanTropez
          May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
          Originally posted by bigblue_dl
          I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
          Originally posted by Kepler
          When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
          He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

          Comment


          • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

            Originally posted by unofan View Post
            I'm predicting either 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of equality, depending on how bad Roberts thinks it'll look in the history books if he votes against it. Either way Kennedy writes the majority opinion, solidifying his place in gay rights history.
            Because, of course, Roberts would never actually vote for it because he happens to think that's what the law requires, right?
            That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

            Comment


            • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

              Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
              Because, of course, Roberts would never actually vote for it because he happens to think that's what the law requires, right?
              Not sure if serious. Have you seen the body of work of this Court?

              The myth that the Court isn't just another political tool was exploded by Bush v Gore.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                Not sure if serious. Have you seen the body of work of this Court?

                The myth that the Court isn't just another political tool was exploded by Bush v Gore.
                Kep, not disagreeing, but if the Court had not intervened, how long would we have had to wait until there was a result? And, politically, would your opinion change if the Court had come down for Gore?
                CCT '77 & '78
                4 kids
                5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                - Benjamin Franklin

                Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                Comment


                • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                  Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                  Because, of course, Roberts would never actually vote for it because he happens to think that's what the law requires, right?
                  Given his vote 2 years ago in the last gay marriage cases and the pretty credible stories about him switching his ACA vote at the last minute (backed up by the dissent reading like it was initially a majority opinion), that is not a likely outcome.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                    Originally posted by unofan View Post
                    Given his vote 2 years ago in the last gay marriage cases and the pretty credible stories about him switching his ACA vote at the last minute (backed up by the dissent reading like it was initially a majority opinion), that is not a likely outcome.
                    I've never read the actual case from two years ago (I assume it was the one with the lady looking for a tax refund or something), but wasn't that the case where Roberts and other dissenters basically complained the whole lawsuit and hearing by the Supremes was a sham because the government took the same side as the lady? I don't recall reading anywhere that Roberts ever expressed any opinions on gay marriage, either for or against, in that decision.
                    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                      Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                      I've never read the actual case from two years ago (I assume it was the one with the lady looking for a tax refund or something), but wasn't that the case where Roberts and other dissenters basically complained the whole lawsuit and hearing by the Supremes was a sham because the government took the same side as the lady? I don't recall reading anywhere that Roberts ever expressed any opinions on gay marriage, either for or against, in that decision.
                      http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_6j37.pdf

                      Roberts basically says in his dissent in Windsor, "It should be a state decision," which is how the bigots win, at least for the short term (ultimately, demographic shifts will cause them to lose long term). He also would've voted to uphold DOMA on the merits as constitutional. While he goes out of his way to say the case was not about gay marriage itself, his argument clearly sets forth a reasoning that would lead him to vote against marriage equality as a federal matter. So again, while anything is technically possible, if Roberts joins the majority, you'd have to present strong evidence to convince me it's because he's actually changed his mind and not simply because he doesn't want the history books to show him having voted the wrong way on the modern day Plessy.

                      Scalia's dissent is basically everything you'd expect from someone who's dissented from all major gay rights cases. He did not mince words or couch his anti-gay views at all.
                      Last edited by unofan; 01-19-2015, 05:36 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                        There's a pending SCOTUS case that could prove interesting, about a lawsuit against Texas Housing Authority. The Housing Authority is required to follow two different sets of federal guidelines that contradict each other. Low-income housing tax credits are allocated based on one set of rules, and the "disparate impact" theory of "discrimination" says that, by following one set of federal rules, a different federal law is being violated (guidelines for allocating low-income housing tax credits, in practice, lead developers to build housing in "poorer" communities, while "disparate impact" says that, by locating low-income housing in communities that are already poor, the result is to reinforce de facto segregation to the extent that "low-income" and "minority" overlap).
                        "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                        "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                        "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                        "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                          There's a pending SCOTUS case that could prove interesting, about a lawsuit against Texas Housing Authority. The Housing Authority is required to follow two different sets of federal guidelines that contradict each other. Low-income housing tax credits are allocated based on one set of rules, and the "disparate impact" theory of "discrimination" says that, by following one set of federal rules, a different federal law is being violated (guidelines for allocating low-income housing tax credits, in practice, lead developers to build housing in "poorer" communities, while "disparate impact" says that, by locating low-income housing in communities that are already poor, the result is to reinforce de facto segregation to the extent that "low-income" and "minority" overlap).
                          Except that's not why it's in front of SCOTUS at all. It's not even deciding whether disparate impact claims are viable (they are, as SCOTUS itself ruled years ago in a Title VII case). SCOTUS is merely deciding whether or not the FHA is worded in a way to allow disparate impact claims under that specific law.

                          And following federal law is always a defense to discrimination claims. One of the biggest ways trucking companies defend their terminations are by pointing out the driver failed his or her DOT physical.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                            Originally posted by unofan View Post
                            And following federal law is always a defense to discrimination claims.
                            Right, first a charge is brought against you, and then you have to defend it, and only after the defense is successful can you proceed with a 'normal' life again.

                            The situation becomes quite complicated when guidelines issued by two different federal agencies contradict each other.

                            "hey, that agency said to do 'x'."
                            -- I don't care what they said, you have to do what I say.
                            "umm, this other agency said I have to do 'y'."
                            -- I don't care what they said, you have to do what I say.

                            There is absolutely no way out of that box without going to court. In the meantime you are left dangling, racking up fines by the day. Then, after the court rules, whichever agency that was ruled against suddenly becomes petty and vindictive that you would dare challenge their superior wisdom.
                            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                              Right, first a charge is brought against you, and then you have to defend it, and only after the defense is successful can you proceed with a 'normal' life again.

                              The situation becomes quite complicated when guidelines issued by two different federal agencies contradict each other.

                              "hey, that agency said to do 'x'."
                              -- I don't care what they said, you have to do what I say.
                              "umm, this other agency said I have to do 'y'."
                              -- I don't care what they said, you have to do what I say.

                              There is absolutely no way out of that box without going to court. In the meantime you are left dangling, racking up fines by the day. Then, after the court rules, whichever agency that was ruled against suddenly becomes petty and vindictive that you would dare challenge their superior wisdom.
                              Considering this is the area of law I've been practicing for the last five years, trust me when I say you've been misled (or are, as usual, simply full of crap, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). No one racks up fines in anti discrimination cases simply due to time passing unless they're violating court orders. State and federal agencies close most anti discrimination claims after simply gathering basic informtion from the parties. 99% of cases never make it to an administrative hearing.

                              Most cases you hear of are private litigation with no government involvement. A person has to file a complaint with an agency initially, but they are granted an administrative release, or "right to sue" letter, upon request as a matter of course provided certain jurisdictional issues are met.
                              Last edited by unofan; 01-22-2015, 12:31 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                                Originally posted by unofan View Post
                                No one racks up fines in anti discrimination cases simply due to time passing unless they're violating court orders. State and federal agencies close most anti discrimination claims after simply gathering basic informtion from the parties. 99% of cases never make it to an administrative hearing.
                                Ah, you are talking strictly about anti-discrimination cases. I was speaking more generally about conflicting agency guidelines overall. Several years ago we expanded an existing parking lot onto adjacent vacant land and had to file something like 34 forms with 18 different agencies. Even though there never had been a building on the site, we had to certify that no lead paint would be released from demolition of existing structures, for example.

                                Actually, the problem is more in reconciling local, state and federal agency demands.
                                Last edited by FreshFish; 01-22-2015, 02:35 PM.
                                "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                                "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                                "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                                "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X