Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

    Originally posted by alfablue View Post
    Given the choice between freezing to death and dragging truck well below the normal lower speed limit (which is normally against the law, too), that's no a reasonable choice. And is an absurd situation, and the law is not adequate to it's intent to not be fired for trying to protect his health and safety.

    It sounds like the opinion said that there actually was a third choice: leave the truck intact and get a ride to someplace warm. ("he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate)..."). Not at all saying it was a good choice...

    Also, on a side note, I'm not sure which Courts get to rule on the constitutionality of a law, and which ones are limited to interpreting existing law. Our resident experts can weigh in. Not every court can just toss out a law with which they disagree, only courts above a certain level.
    "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


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

      Originally posted by unofan View Post
      Nope, except as it relates to the government doing the killing. Due process says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The corollary is that you can be deprived of those things with due process.

      Criminal law is almost always left up to the states. Murder is only a federal crime under certain circumstances, because the federal government doesn't have general police powers.

      A general principle to remember is that, with some exceptions, the Constitution applies solely to governments and says what they must, can, and cannot do. It very rarely applies to private individuals.

      Gay marriage is legal because the 14th amendment prohibits the government from discriminating when issuing marriage licenses. A private business firing someone who is gay is still legal in many states because they haven't chosen to make such actions illegal.
      Thank you, uno. People often misunderstand the difference between statutory prohibitions affecting individual conduct and constitutional prohibitions and limitations of government action. Just as they misunderstand the role of an appellate court as compared to that of the trial court.
      Last edited by burd; 03-22-2017, 01:52 PM.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by alfablue View Post
        Is there a part of the constitution that is used to outlaw murder? Aka, a right to be living? Or a right to not harm oneself?
        (I don't know that part)
        State laws can, and generally do, address all these situations. I might well be mistaken, but I thought that the federal government, in theory at least, only had jurisdiction when something crosses state lines.

        Also, I thought that states can regulate people while the federal government only regulates behavior. I forget the technical details now; but states can require you to purchase auto insurance liability coverage before getting a state-issued driver's license, while the federal government doesn't (cannot?) regulate driver's license laws at all.

        The federal workaround has generally been "states, do what we want, or we restrict federal funding for something you want."
        "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


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

          Originally posted by unofan View Post
          Nope, except as it relates to the government doing the killing. 5th amendment says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government without due process. The corollary is that you can be deprived of those things with due process.

          Criminal law is almost always left up to the states. Murder is only a federal crime under certain circumstances, because the federal government doesn't have general police powers.

          A general principle to remember is that, with some exceptions, the Constitution applies solely to governments and says what they must, can, and cannot do. It very rarely applies to private individuals.

          Gay marriage is legal because the 14th amendment prohibits the government from discriminating when issuing marriage licenses. A private business firing someone who is gay is still legal in many states because they haven't chosen to make such actions illegal.
          Thanks for the clarification.

          On a tangent, it also provides no Constitutional protection to unborn fetuses relative to the rights of the mother, but that's a totally different thread.

          Originally posted by joecct View Post
          I'm not talking about an unconstitutional law, but a flawed law that is so badly written it has unintended consequences.

          So this is the remaining question. How does the system deal with flawed laws that have unintended consequences? One of which it could harm human life- which is generally protected in each state.

          It's interesting that a court can clearly stop a law if they deem it flawed in a manner that it's unconstitutional, but not flawed in any other way. Even when the intent of the law is to provide some protections that are no longer there in circumstances that can be interpreted. And the ambiguous interpretations are even noted in the opinions.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
            It sounds like the opinion said that there actually was a third choice: leave the truck intact and get a ride to someplace warm. ("he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate)..."). Not at all saying it was a good choice...

            Also, on a side note, I'm not sure which Courts get to rule on the constitutionality of a law, and which ones are limited to interpreting existing law. Our resident experts can weigh in. Not every court can just toss out a law with which they disagree, only courts above a certain level.
            All courts get to rule on constitutionality. All courts get to interpret. A higher court simply trumps a lower court, and lower courts are bound by higher ones if the exact same issue arises.

            The exception is state constitutional law. A state Supreme Court trumps all federal courts, including SCOTUS, when a ruling involves only state law.

            Comment


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

              That Gorsuch ruling that SCOTUS just zinged 8-zip really does look pretty craven. When you're too vicious for Alito, time to check yourself.

              Under Gorsuch’s opinion in Luke P., a school district complies with the law so long as they provide educational benefits that “must merely be ‘more than de minimis.’”

              “De minimis” is a Latin phrase meaning “so minor as to merit disregard.” So Gorsuch essentially concluded that school districts comply with their obligation to disabled students so long as they provide those students with a little more than nothing.

              All eight justices rejected Gorsuch’s approach. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act), Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “is markedly more demanding than the ‘merely more than de minimis’ test applied by the Tenth Circuit.” Indeed, Roberts added, Gorsuch’s approach would effectively strip many disabled students of their right to an education.
              Last edited by Kepler; 03-22-2017, 02:21 PM.
              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: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                That Gorsuch ruling that SCOTUS just zinged 8-zip really does look pretty craven. When you're too vicious for Alito, time to check yourself.
                It would be interesting to see the details of this like the frozen trucker.

                The court wasn't deciding on a constitutional issue. It was deciding the applicability of a law.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by unofan View Post
                  Nope, except as it relates to the government doing the killing. 5th amendment says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government without due process. The corollary is that you can be deprived of those things with due process.

                  Criminal law is almost always left up to the states. Murder is only a federal crime under certain circumstances, because the federal government doesn't have general police powers.

                  A general principle to remember is that, with some exceptions, the Constitution applies solely to governments and says what they must, can, and cannot do. It very rarely applies to private individuals.

                  Gay marriage is legal because the 14th amendment prohibits the government from discriminating when issuing marriage licenses. A private business firing someone who is gay is still legal in many states because they haven't chosen to make such actions illegal.
                  I get all that but I am still confused...there are guidelines set up that protect workers from unsafe work environments both federally and statewide? Wouldnt this law be in conflict with that in this instance?

                  Honest questions by the way because when I was studying law this wasnt the stuff we were studying.
                  "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                  -aparch

                  "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                  -INCH

                  Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                  -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                    That Gorsuch ruling that SCOTUS just zinged 8-zip really does look pretty craven. When you're too vicious for Alito, time to check yourself.
                    Yeah not sure how Gorsuch thought that was going to hold up when he made his decision.

                    It is definitely interesting to look into cases when the judges are being vetted. Their reaction is often more telling after the fact than the opinion was originally.
                    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                    -aparch

                    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                    -INCH

                    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                      I get all that but I am still confused...there are guidelines set up that protect workers from unsafe work environments both federally and statewide? Wouldnt this law be in conflict with that in this instance?

                      Honest questions by the way because when I was studying law this wasnt the stuff we were studying.
                      If one federal statute conflicts with another federal statute, judges are to attempt to interpret them in a way so that both will survive. Where that is impossible (law X says red things are banned, law Y says red things cannot be banned), there have been entire forests that have been killed to try to determine which survives and which doesn't.

                      More to the point, though, there may not have been a conflict here. This is likely the workplace safety law applicable to truckers, and it just happened to have a gap in coverage, at least as far as Gorsuch saw it. That may be a flaw in the law, but it's not necessarily in conflict with anything else.

                      Comment


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

                        How about not "changing the facts" of the case and simply judge it as is? More false equivalence from the board's best.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by unofan View Post
                          If one federal statute conflicts with another federal statute, judges are to attempt to interpret them in a way so that both will survive. Where that is impossible (law X says red things are banned, law Y says red things cannot be banned), there have been entire forests that have been killed to try to determine which survives and which doesn't.

                          More to the point, though, there may not have been a conflict here. This is likely the workplace safety law applicable to truckers, and it just happened to have a gap in coverage, at least as far as Gorsuch saw it. That may be a flaw in the law, but it's not necessarily in conflict with anything else.
                          Cool thanks for the info
                          "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                          -aparch

                          "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                          -INCH

                          Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                          -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                          Comment


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

                            Looks like the Dems got some balls for Christmas*.

                            Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced on Thursday that he will oppose President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and said Senate Republicans will need to muster up 60 votes to confirm Gorsuch, suggesting that Democrats will filibuster his confirmation.

                            "After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court," Schumer said on the Senate floor. "His nomination will have a cloture vote. He will have to earn 60 votes for confirmation. My vote will be no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same."
                            Regrettable, but you can't negotiate with terrorists.

                            * I mean Eid Al-Fitr, of course.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                              Looks like the Dems got some balls for Christmas*.



                              Regrettable, but you can't negotiate with terrorists.

                              * I mean Eid Al-Fitr, of course.
                              I get that the base is clamoring for this, but it's still the wrong call, IMO. This isn't the nominee that you force the nuclear option on.

                              Now when Ginsburg dies and they replace her with Cletus, you can't stop it.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by unofan View Post
                                I get that the base is clamoring for this, but it's still the wrong call, IMO. This isn't the nominee that you force the nuclear option on.

                                Now when Ginsburg dies and they replace her with Cletus, you can't stop it.
                                Yep. I would just let this one go.
                                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X