Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

They aren't issued a birth certificate, so no, they're not.

Uh, but you said ...

Since citizenship is granted at birth, you're not a citizen until then. (Boom, lawyered).

Birth is not a birth certificate. One is biologic; one is administrative. So, my fair esquire, which is it, birth, or paperwork? Does that mass have no citizen rights until an MD scribbles on paper? And remember, sometimes it takes days (weeks) to get that birth certificate. What of that mass in the intervening time? Disposable?

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I know there's a separate thread for this part of the discussion.

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

No because it has had his/her spinal cord snipped then the corpse is dragged out of the mother. If the doc did the snipping after the baby had been completely ejected from the mother, it would be murder. But because part of the baby remains inside the mother, there is a gray area in the law that permits this abomination.

If only you showed the same outrage for people that arent babies that died...

[MissThundercat]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I know there's a separate thread for this part of the discussion.

And here it is.

[unofan]

Uh, but you said ...



Birth is not a birth certificate. One is biologic; one is administrative. So, my fair esquire, which is it, birth, or paperwork? Does that mass have no citizen rights until an MD scribbles on paper? And remember, sometimes it takes days (weeks) to get that birth certificate. What of that mass in the intervening time? Disposable?

If a child dies one minute after birth, they will still be issued a birth (and death) certificate. Since aborted babies are never born, they are never issued a birth certificate. The lack of a birth certificate is proof they weren't born, a necessary requirement for getting birthright citizenship.

Again, it's a binary function, just like the mother's pregnancy.

Put another way, my daughter's head crowned about ten minutes before she popped all the way out. The time on her birth certificate isn't when she entered the birth canal, but when she popped all the way out.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Don't bring Roe v. Wade into this ...

I thought that, for all practical purposes, SCOTUS had tacitly "rescinded" [in effect, not literally] the reasoning from Roe v Wade and pretty much re-wrote the whole subject matter in Casey v Planned Parenthood ??

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I thought that, for all practical purposes, SCOTUS had tacitly "rescinded" [in effect, not literally] the reasoning from Roe v Wade and pretty much re-wrote the whole subject matter in Casey v Planned Parenthood ??

Yes. Casey is the real precedent now. It is now the CW among everyone, left, right or center, that Roe, although vital for articulating the Griswold right of privacy that underlies all other rights, was on its other points wrongly argued.

Casey's more important effect however has been nefarious. It gives the Thumpers the ability to continually challenge and erode reproductive rights as long as these "exceptions" meet state compelling interest. On the face of it that makes sense since no right is absolute (except apparently the 2nd...) but in practice the Usual Suspect states have introduced all sorts of bizarre and disgusting restraints on women and the conservative majority Court has meekly upheld them. It's as if after Brown v Board the Court amended the decision, and afterwards Mississippi and Alabama passed laws saying state-mandated segregation was permissible in hospitals... and restaurants... and, eventually, schools.

As always, unofan will tell me if I'm lying, since I'm arguing from memories of Con Law.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

In California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., SCOTUS rules that a statute whose text reads "in no event" actually does mean what it says.

Makes one wonder a bit why the ruling was only 5-4. How do the 4 interpret "in no event" to mean something different than what it says on its face??

[burd]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

In California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., SCOTUS rules that a statute whose text reads "in no event" actually does mean what it says.

Makes one wonder a bit why the ruling was only 5-4. How do the 4 interpret "in no event" to mean something different than what it says on its face??

Did you read the entire decision and/or the cases relied upon by the parties. That would probably answer your question. The fact that it reached the Supremes should inform you that there was a bona fide dispute at many levels below.

[St. Clown]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Did you read the entire decision and/or the cases relied upon by the parties. That would probably answer your question. The fact that it reached the Supremes should inform you that there was a bona fide dispute at many levels below.

Is it something like this?

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Did you read the entire decision and/or the cases relied upon by the parties. That would probably answer your question. The fact that it reached the Supremes should inform you that there was a bona fide dispute at many levels below.

Of course he didnt read it. The bot only picks up relevant info and then uses it adding an emoticon so as to appear human...

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Did you read the entire decision and/or the cases relied upon by the parties. That would probably answer your question. The fact that it reached the Supremes should inform you that there was a bona fide dispute at many levels below.

Let's use an analogy (which I know are imperfect) so that maybe we can at least understand each other, if not agree.




Suppose you and I are roommates, and share a car. You say, "my mom is arriving at the airport next Saturday and I need the car to pick her up."
I reply, "I absolutely promise under no circumstances whatsoever will I take the car next Saturday."

Scenario 1: Saturday morning arrives and you find the car is gone, I took it. No matter how badly or how desperately I may have needed it, no matter how dire my emergency, did I break my promise?

Scenario 2: Friday night: I say to you, "remember how I promised under no circumstances I will take the car tomorrow? Something unexpected came up, and I really desperately need it. Here's $100 for cab fare for you to get to the airport, pick up your mom, and bring her back." Did I "break" my promise? or did I re-negotiate my promise into a new one that would be acceptable to us both?




To me, plain explicit language should always mean exactly what it says; however, there is a responsible way to adjust it so that you can then do something other than what the plain explicit language originally said.


If the language itself were unclear or open to more than one interpretation, that would be different.

When the language is that clear and that explicit, it needs to be adjusted by the legislature, not re-written by the Court (at least under our Constitutional system as it is supposed to function).



If the Court can simply re-write any law that it finds inconvenient, how can we rely on anything to be honored?

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

If the Court can simply re-write any law that it finds inconvenient

Please cite who has advocated this, with their quote in context.

Because otherwise it seems to me you're just bloviating another righty strawman.

[SJHovey]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Let's use an analogy (which I know are imperfect) so that maybe we can at least understand each other, if not agree.




Suppose you and I are roommates, and share a car. You say, "my mom is arriving at the airport next Saturday and I need the car to pick her up."
I reply, "I absolutely promise under no circumstances whatsoever will I take the car next Saturday."

Scenario 1: Saturday morning arrives and you find the car is gone, I took it. No matter how badly or how desperately I may have needed it, no matter how dire my emergency, did I break my promise?

Scenario 2: Friday night: I say to you, "remember how I promised under no circumstances I will take the car tomorrow? Something unexpected came up, and I really desperately need it. Here's $100 for cab fare for you to get to the airport, pick up your mom, and bring her back." Did I "break" my promise? or did I re-negotiate my promise into a new one that would be acceptable to us both?




To me, plain explicit language should always mean exactly what it says; however, there is a responsible way to adjust it so that you can then do something other than what the plain explicit language originally said.


If the language itself were unclear or open to more than one interpretation, that would be different.

When the language is that clear and that explicit, it needs to be adjusted by the legislature, not re-written by the Court (at least under our Constitutional system as it is supposed to function).



If the Court can simply re-write any law that it finds inconvenient, how can we rely on anything to be honored?

Yep, pretty sure you didn't read the decision.

The case had to do with statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, class actions and the right of a party to "opt out" of a class action to protect their own interests. I believe it can be summarized thus.

By statute a party has a right to sue someone like Lehman Bros. for misrepresentations made in public offerings of securities. A party has one year to start that lawsuit from the date it discovered, or should have discovered the misrepresentation. That is a statute of limitations.

The law also says "in no event" shall a lawsuit be started more than three years from the date of the public offering. That is a statute of repose.

A class action lawsuit was started within one year of the discovery of a misrepresentation made in a public offering. Everyone, including this big California pension fund, was by definition included in that class (thus, effectively, their claim had been asserted within that one year).

However, after the three year statute of repose had run, the pension fund exercised their right to "opt out" of the class action and start their own separate lawsuit. The reasons for this should seem obvious to any one of you who, like me, have received a check for $6.13 as part of my settlement in class actions. The named parties, and their attorneys, are the only winners in class action cases, and if you are a giant pension fund who has a real claim as part of that class, you are probably better off opting out of the class action and proceeding on your own.

The defendant claimed the lawsuit was barred by the statute of repose. Ultimately, the Supremes agreed.

The pension fund argued, and the dissent agreed, that the lawsuit should not be barred for a variety of reasons. First, they had effectively started their lawsuit in a timely fashion because they were part of the original class. Second, the statute of repose should be "tolled." Class certifications and initial discovery relating to them can take years, and as a result it might very well be well over three years before a party even knows whether they need to opt out and start their own case to protect their interests. By failing to permit a tolling of the statute of repose, we will encourage (i.e., force) parties like big institutional investors to start their own cases before the end of the three years, just to protect themselves against the statute or repose in the event they later conclude they need to proceed on their own instead of as part of the class. This is a waste of resources of both parties and the courts.

[joecct]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

JFC!!

http://www.westernjournalism.com/tex...riage-benefits

Overturned 9 - 0.