User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/4/2019 4:35:23 PM EDT
[#1]
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/john-roberts-has-cast-a-pivotal-liberal-vote-only-5-times/
While you probably don't trust 538, this article has a pretty good statistical breakdown on why I think your 80% claim is nuts. Roberts has been involved in 800 decisions while on the high court bench, ...
When we get rid of those cases where he sided with at least two members of the conservative bloc, the list of Roberts’s liberal “swings” drops to five cases. Five liberal-leaning decisions where Roberts joined his liberal colleagues and actually changed the outcome by doing so. They cover a small grab bag of topics and, with one big exception, aren’t exactly the sorts of results that show up in your phone’s push alerts. The first of these five, and Roberts’s most famous “liberal-leaning” vote, came in 2012, when he wrote the opinion that upheld the Affordable Care Act. That case, called National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, found the ACA’s individual mandate, which imposes fines on certain people who do not carry health insurance, to be a constitutional use of Congress’s power of taxation.2 Roberts performed some jurisprudential contortions to arrive at his opinion, and the result was seen as an expression of his desire to maintain the credibility and legitimacy of the court. The second, Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, came in 2014. It concerned Native American tribes’ sovereign immunity and a state’s lawsuit to stop a recognized tribe from operating a small casino. The court ruled in favor of tribe. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company v. Owens, also decided in 2014, was a legally technical case about the procedure for removing a case from state court to federal court. Yates v. United States was a case decided in 2015 and famous for its fish — specifically, whether a fish was a “tangible object” as defined by a certain provision in the federal criminal code. The court found that, in this case, a fish was not a tangible object. And finally, Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar was a 2015 free speech case concerning money in politics. Specifically, Roberts and the four more liberal justices found that the First Amendment did not prevent states from barring judicial candidates from soliciting funds for their campaigns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2019 6:17:45 PM EDT
[#2]
prior to kennedy he had an out. now he doesnt. unless kavanaugh suddenly does a reverse. not arguing his previous positions
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2019 11:51:57 AM EDT
[#3]
 Swing vote? Some conservatives worry Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has drifted permanently to "We aren't doing politics" You lying mother fucker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 11:49:04 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a5iP3ckeAU
"We aren't doing politics" You lying mother fucker. Or is this a case of you (Sylvan) have your strict interpretation of the Constitution, and anyone who doesn't 100% agree is a Communist? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 12:07:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can understand an argument that attempting to avoid politics is in fact playing politics, but other than a what I'd call a small or slow list to the left, is there a reason you think he's "lying" or being dishonorable? Or is this a case of you (Sylvan) have your strict interpretation of the Constitution, and anyone who doesn't 100% agree is a Communist? Its his incessant incantation that judges aren't political. thats a lie. Everyone knows it. So he would be better off saying "we need to work hard to ensure judges aren't political" I could accept that. But to deny the problem just highlights how full of shit he, and the rest of his cohorts, are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 1:43:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not at all. Its his incessant incantation that judges aren't political. thats a lie. Everyone knows it. So he would be better off saying "we need to work hard to ensure judges aren't political" I could accept that. But to deny the problem just highlights how full of shit he, and the rest of his cohorts, are. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I can understand an argument that attempting to avoid politics is in fact playing politics, but other than a what I'd call a small or slow list to the left, is there a reason you think he's "lying" or being dishonorable? Or is this a case of you (Sylvan) have your strict interpretation of the Constitution, and anyone who doesn't 100% agree is a Communist? Its his incessant incantation that judges aren't political. thats a lie. Everyone knows it. So he would be better off saying "we need to work hard to ensure judges aren't political" I could accept that. But to deny the problem just highlights how full of shit he, and the rest of his cohorts, are. 
Have you heard the old joke about the difference between God and a federal court judge?
The punchline is that God doesn’t think he’s a federal judge – implying, of course, that federal judges have an inflated perception of their omnipotence. Now, you of course are political, and view everything the government does through the lens of politics. That's your prerogative. But I think it's a bit disingenuous, or perhaps you just want to be inflammatory, to paint the Chief Justice as a liar just because he claims to want to avoid politics. You may indeed be right that Roberts is going to shift left, but I'd wonder if Roberts' tiff with Trump this past Nov. isn't part of the reason why. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 2:04:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ahhh. You're a mind reader! I'm not a mind reader, but I suspect most federal judges, and especially SCOTUS justices, view themselves as being above the political fray. A lifetime appointment will do that for you. You don't like the POTUS -- just stay alive for another 4-8 years. Yes, they all have political leanings as humans, but they (I suspect) don't view themselves as politicians. Now, you of course are political, and view everything the government does through the lens of politics. That's your prerogative. But I think it's a bit disingenuous, or perhaps you just want to be inflammatory, to paint the Chief Justice as a liar just because he claims to want to avoid politics. You may indeed be right that Roberts is going to shift left, but I'd wonder if Roberts' tiff with Trump this past Nov. isn't part of the reason why. He isn't claiming he wants to avoid politics. He is claiming politics doesn't enter into the SCOTUS decision making. That there is no difference between "Obama Judges" and "Trump Judges" I guess he will single handedly prove trump wrong. By joining the liberal wing in destroying the country. Yeah, gay marriage is a constitutional right but owning guns isn't. Thats my apolitical court at work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 2:58:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Roberts was the deciding vote on Obamacare. That will be his legacy. That will be his epitaph. He is a liberal thru and thru. He is the next Souter - appointed by a Bush but turned out to be a liberal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 3:03:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i'd like to weasel out and say "important cases" but too vague. We will see. Oh and my office has a picture with me and C. Thomas hanging out. Best Justice on the Court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 3:08:16 PM EDT
[#10]
You really should drop the gay-marriage is more important than gun rights shtick in this thread. It isn't persuasive.
OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, June 26, 2015 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered) ... The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. ... As the head of the federal judiciary Roberts probably feels he doesn't have the luxury of admitting that truth, or is willfully ignoring it. I assume that he feels that it's his responsibility to attempt to convince the public that it shouldn't matter if a Trump judge or an Obama judge hears their case or appeal. Unfortunately, I don't think that is possible for the thirds of the country that are strongly right and left. It might matter to the mushy third in the middle, but they don't really pay attention as far as I can tell. Perhaps there's a strong argument that Roberts is blind to reality up in his ivory tower, but is that sufficient to ascribe malice? Should Justice Roberts be leading the religious-right's crusade against all things Democrat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 3:10:35 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really should drop the gay-marriage is more important than gun rights shtick in this thread. It isn't persuasive. OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, June 26, 2015 I agree with you that there is a difference between Obama Judges and Trump Judges. As the head of the federal judiciary Roberts probably feels he doesn't have the luxury of admitting that truth, or is willfully ignoring it. I assume that he feels that it's his responsibility to attempt to convince the public that it shouldn't matter if a Trump judge or an Obama judge hears their case or appeal. Unfortunately, I don't think that is possible for the thirds of the country that are strongly right and left. It might matter to the mushy third in the middle, but they don't really pay attention as far as I can tell. Perhaps there's a strong argument that Roberts is blind to reality up in his ivory tower, but is that sufficient to ascribe malice? Should Justice Roberts be leading the religious-right's crusade against all things Democrat? The fact he dissented in Hodges means nothing to me. Had kennedy not provided the 5th vote, I have ZERO doubt Roberts would have stepped up in his stead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 3:29:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fact he dissented in Hodges means nothing to me. Had kennedy not provided the 5th vote, I have ZERO doubt Roberts would have stepped up in his stead. Assuming you're right, why did he bother to author a "fake" dissent? There were three others he could have just signed onto. Do you think his dissent was a lie or charade? Why not provide a 6th vote for gay marriage? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 3:38:18 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why? Assuming you're right, why did he bother to author a "fake" dissent? There were three others he could have just signed onto. Do you think his dissent was a lie or charade? Why not provide a 6th vote for gay marriage? not being a lawyer, I couldn't meaningfully differentiate between a lie and a charade, so take your pick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 4:10:52 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same reason he is lying about the political nature of the court. maintain the facade that he is some kind of swing king of jurisprudence. not being a lawyer, I couldn't meaningfully differentiate between a lie and a charade, so take your pick. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why? Assuming you're right, why did he bother to author a "fake" dissent? There were three others he could have just signed onto. Do you think his dissent was a lie or charade? Why not provide a 6th vote for gay marriage? not being a lawyer, I couldn't meaningfully differentiate between a lie and a charade, so take your pick. Does "the swamp" need an unpredictable court to keep the left and the right at each other? Kennedy was the "swing king" because his decisions didn't neatly fit into the "all conservative" or "all liberal" buckets. Before he was the exact center there was O'Connor who he had to share the middle with (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey). If Roberts stays "mostly conservative" as established by his past opinions, but OCCASIONALLY votes with the 4 liberals and "swings" left then the right will be mad, and you'll feel justified in saying he's a traitor, but why do you assert that this is due to Roberts being less than honorable or truthful in his decisions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 4:36:28 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To what end? Does "the swamp" need an unpredictable court to keep the left and the right at each other? Kennedy was the "swing king" because his decisions didn't neatly fit into the "all conservative" or "all liberal" buckets. Before he was the exact center there was O'Connor who he had to share the middle with (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey). If Roberts stays "mostly conservative" as established by his past opinions, but OCCASIONALLY votes with the 4 liberals and "swings" left then the right will be mad, and you'll feel justified in saying he's a traitor, but why do you assert that this is due to Roberts being less than honorable or truthful in his decisions? Roberts has, at best, put the reputation of the court in front of the law as written and his responsibility as a judge. He is certainly being less than honest in his public opinions on the political nature of the court. I assume everything else is a lie as well. having given the SCOTUS near unlimited power in making law, it would be nice if they were at least honest in their intentions and motivations. RBG makes no qualms about using the court as a mechanism of social justice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 5:03:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The swamp needs nothing but to maintain the facade to the american people that all is well and they don't wipe their ass with the constitution. Roberts has, at best, put the reputation of the court in front of the law as written and his responsibility as a judge. He is certainly being less than honest in his public opinions on the political nature of the court. I assume everything else is a lie as well. having given the SCOTUS near unlimited power in making law, it would be nice if they were at least honest in their intentions and motivations. RBG makes no qualms about using the court as a mechanism of social justice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To what end? Does "the swamp" need an unpredictable court to keep the left and the right at each other? Kennedy was the "swing king" because his decisions didn't neatly fit into the "all conservative" or "all liberal" buckets. Before he was the exact center there was O'Connor who he had to share the middle with (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey). If Roberts stays "mostly conservative" as established by his past opinions, but OCCASIONALLY votes with the 4 liberals and "swings" left then the right will be mad, and you'll feel justified in saying he's a traitor, but why do you assert that this is due to Roberts being less than honorable or truthful in his decisions? Roberts has, at best, put the reputation of the court in front of the law as written and his responsibility as a judge. He is certainly being less than honest in his public opinions on the political nature of the court. I assume everything else is a lie as well. having given the SCOTUS near unlimited power in making law, it would be nice if they were at least honest in their intentions and motivations. RBG makes no qualms about using the court as a mechanism of social justice. Which is it? So you want Roberts to be more like RBG (honest about being political), so you're arguing that he IS like RBG (a political liberal). Even though you'd like him to be like Thomas, right? Who he votes with roughly 80% of the time. Can you see why I'm not following your logic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 5:28:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was he lying when he joined the majorities in Heller and McDonald? Which is it? So you want Roberts to be more like RBG (honest about being political), so you're arguing that he IS like RBG (a political liberal). Even though you'd like him to be like Thomas, right? Who he votes with roughly 80% of the time. Can you see why I'm not following your logic? As proven by the fact that you still can't buy a gun in DC and that state level gun control has marched on unimpeded since the decision. I am arguing he is like RBG with the notable exception is he will pretend to be conservative when it doesn't matter (worthless escoteric cases on what the meaning of is is (or, if you prefer, when compensation is compensation) and then with large sea changes in the culture (gun control, abortion, gay rights, etc) he will suddenly feel the need to be liberal. Only a lawyer could be confused by what I am saying, over and over and over again. But, then again, you aren't my lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 6:35:09 PM EDT
[#18]
To deny that Heller was a victory is ridiculous. Maybe not the all out destruction of our enemies we would have liked, but it was a win.
Yes, the aftermath has been disappointing but how bad do you think it would be if Kennedy or Roberts had agreed that the 2A only protects a collective state right (not an individual's right)? Hypothetical: RBG dies tomorrow and is replaced by a Scalia clone. Would CJ Roberts vote with the three remaining liberals in "important cases" to keep things close (5-4), or would he vote with the five conservatives to keep up the charade? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 6:50:27 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To deny that Heller was a victory is ridiculous. Maybe not the all out destruction of our enemies we would have liked, but it was a win. Yes, the aftermath has been disappointing but how bad do you think it would be if Kennedy or Roberts had agreed that the 2A only protects a collective state right (not an individual's right)? Hypothetical: RBG dies tomorrow and is replaced by a Scalia clone. Would CJ Roberts vote with the three remaining liberals in "important cases" to keep things close (5-4), or would he vote with the five conservatives to keep up the charade? If Roberts vote didn't matter he would probably swing to the conservative more often than not. But it wouldn't matter in the end. but that isn't the case and RBG won't be replaced until a democrat is president. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 8:30:30 PM EDT
[#20]
OST
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 8:38:19 PM EDT
[#21]
He's a piece of shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 8:56:28 PM EDT
[#22]
He jumped the shark back at the Obama Care vote...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2019 9:10:51 PM EDT
[#23]
Dems prob have too much blackmail material on him for him to swing full conservative
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2019 12:52:16 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heller is explicit in stating that some types of guns can be banned. So now we are where you can't ban all guns, but you can ban everything but a single shot 22 and still be in accordance with keeping the constitutional rights. If Roberts vote didn't matter he would probably swing to the conservative more often than not. But it wouldn't matter in the end. but that isn't the case and RBG won't be replaced until a democrat is president. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To deny that Heller was a victory is ridiculous. Maybe not the all out destruction of our enemies we would have liked, but it was a win. Yes, the aftermath has been disappointing but how bad do you think it would be if Kennedy or Roberts had agreed that the 2A only protects a collective state right (not an individual's right)? Hypothetical: RBG dies tomorrow and is replaced by a Scalia clone. Would CJ Roberts vote with the three remaining liberals in "important cases" to keep things close (5-4), or would he vote with the five conservatives to keep up the charade? If Roberts vote didn't matter he would probably swing to the conservative more often than not. But it wouldn't matter in the end. but that isn't the case and RBG won't be replaced until a democrat is president. I'm pretty sure everything I own (pistols, rifles, and shotguns) are all covered by the "in common use at the time" language of Heller and Miller. Sorry, I don't expect to ever see machine guns "legalized" by any judicial act. Ask Nolo how his last stab at that went. So you admit he's a conservative at heart!? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2019 8:44:01 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you referring to machine guns, short barreled shotguns, or other "dangerous and unusual" weapons? I'm pretty sure everything I own (pistols, rifles, and shotguns) are all covered by the "in common use at the time" language of Heller and Miller. Sorry, I don't expect to ever see machine guns "legalized" by any judicial act. Ask Nolo how his last stab at that went. So you admit he's a conservative at heart!? how is that defined? Whatever anyone cares about. Roberts is, at best, an actor playing a role. He is certainly a republican. Unquestionably. But he isn't a constitutionalist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2019 11:09:02 AM EDT
[#26]
GOING ARMED WITH DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL WEAPONS TO THE TERROR OF THE PEOPLE
I would read dangerous as covering "unsafe to the user" items such as "pot metal" pistols (Saturday night specials?) that are I believe commonly banned, but this isn't discussed in Heller. "Spring-guns," which are illegal, are probably a better example of "dangerous and unusual," but again not specifically discussed in the historical context of the 2A to my knowledge, other than the fact that they've been banned for a long time as far as I know. Another interesting read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2019 11:12:15 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
GOING ARMED WITH DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL WEAPONS TO THE TERROR OF THE PEOPLE I would read dangerous as covering "unsafe to the user" items such as "pot metal" pistols (Saturday night specials?) that are I believe commonly banned, but this isn't discussed in Heller. "Spring-guns," which are illegal, are probably a better example of "dangerous and unusual," but again not specifically discussed in the historical context of the 2A to my knowledge, other than the fact that they've been banned for a long time as far as I know. Another interesting read. Back to my point, judges will do what they want with no accountability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2019 11:31:04 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How reasonable people read things has no bearing on how lawyers, politicians and judges (but I repeat myself) read things. Back to my point, judges will do what they want with no accountability. I almost thought for a second you might have considered me to be reasonable. Yes, it's called judicial independence -- like most things there's good and bad to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2019 11:34:24 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FIFY I almost thought for a second you might have considered me to be reasonable. Yes, it's called judicial independence -- like most things there's good and bad to it. The exact opposite of what was intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2019 11:38:42 AM EDT
[#30]
Now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2019 11:42:18 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2019 2:41:32 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2019 5:54:41 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryThanks. I haven't had my lawyer hat on today.
Looks like a solid win for the administration at first glance. Were any of the 9th Cir. judges from Hawaii? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2019 6:05:13 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks. I haven't had my lawyer hat on today. Looks like a solid win for the administration at first glance. Were any of the 9th Cir. judges from Hawaii? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2019 2:47:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Scotus Blog addresses our topic
In the three areas described above — criminal procedure, economic activity and the First Amendment – Roberts has voted in the liberal direction more frequently over time in cases in which the court’s outcome is conservative. In criminal-procedure cases, he also appears to have shifted to voting in the liberal direction more frequently in cases with liberal outcomes over time. For these data to be meaningful, however, we must at least assume that the number of conservative and liberal outcomes has not dramatically differed over the years, and this ratio appears fairly consistent when we look at the count and frequency of decisions in both directions in the top chart in this post.
The results of this analysis show that while the court’s conservatives may have moved slightly to the right since Roberts joined the court, Roberts has exerted some clear movement to the left. This of course is based on the assumption that all cases are equal (which they are not). Roberts may be voting conservatively in more important cases and liberally in less important cases, essentially nullifying any evidence of a leftward shift. Some additional perspective can be given by focusing on cases decided by a single-vote margin. Here we see probably the most consistency in the graphs analyzing Roberts’ votes. [[graphic]] Roberts clearly favors voting conservatively in all cases decided by one-vote outcomes and has predominantly voted conservatively in conservative decisions by a single vote (the top row of graphs). He has displayed a balance in voting liberally and conservatively when the court’s outcome has been liberal. Last term was the first time, however, when Roberts voted more times liberally than conservatively in 5-4 decisions for which the court’s outcome was coded as liberal. Although Roberts is by no means moving into the court’s liberal camp, the data concerning his ideological voting behavior do suggest a mild liberalizing over time. This, rather than that the court is shifting rightwards, seems more likely to be the cause of the observation that Roberts is siding with the court’s liberals more often lately, although Roberts’ shifting voting behavior could well also combine with a mild rightward push by the court’s conservatives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2019 10:09:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Nice unanimous win for a private land owner today.
STURGEON v. FROST |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2019 10:12:28 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryThis is the shit SCOTUS spends its time on? I mean, good call, but all the gun bans they ignore?
My days of not taking SCOTUS seriously is certainly coming to a middle. Federal owned lands outside of military bases I think is wrong in principle. All that land that people could be owning and improving that is instead a burden on the taxpayer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2019 10:15:05 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the shit SCOTUS spends its time on? I mean, good call, but all the gun bans they ignore? My days of not taking SCOTUS seriously is certainly coming to a middle. Federal owned lands outside of military bases I think is wrong in principle. All that land that people could be owning and improving that is instead a burden on the taxpayer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
My days of not taking SCOTUS seriously is certainly coming to a middle. Federal owned lands outside of military bases I think is wrong in principle. All that land that people could be owning and improving that is instead a burden on the taxpayer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2019 10:23:14 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryNow, this strikes me precisely as an area where the SCOTUS should be involved as it involves foreign affairs with a sovereign nation.
I hesitate to disagree with J Thomas on anything, but I think blaming government of Sudan for the Cole bombing is bit of stretch. However, Thomas was correct in calling out the pedantic nature of the court's decision. Which brings me to my entire issues. The law is meaningless to SCOTUS. The law is a tool in their hands to shape society as they see fit. Thomas, as his dissent highlights, maybe the last justice we will ever see who just reads what is in the fucking law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2019 10:37:57 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now, this strikes me precisely as an area where the SCOTUS should be involved as it involves foreign affairs with a sovereign nation. I hesitate to disagree with J Thomas on anything, but I think blaming government of Sudan for the Cole bombing is bit of stretch. However, Thomas was correct in calling out the pedantic nature of the court's decision. Which brings me to my entire issues. The law is meaningless to SCOTUS. The law is a tool in their hands to shape society as they see fit. Thomas, as his dissent highlights, maybe the last justice we will ever see who just reads what is in the fucking law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hesitate to disagree with J Thomas on anything, but I think blaming government of Sudan for the Cole bombing is bit of stretch. However, Thomas was correct in calling out the pedantic nature of the court's decision. Which brings me to my entire issues. The law is meaningless to SCOTUS. The law is a tool in their hands to shape society as they see fit. Thomas, as his dissent highlights, maybe the last justice we will ever see who just reads what is in the fucking law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2019 10:41:18 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't read more than the initial summary, but it struck me as simply a decision on how/where a plaintiff had to mail his complaint to a foreign government. I could be wrong, but I doubt it reached the merits of Sudan's involvement in the bombing. I figured you'd consider this the height of lawyers wasting SCOTUS's time on trivial statutes. As pedantic and ridiculous as this specific issue is, its exactly why we have a federal judiciary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2019 10:42:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ensuring we don't fuck up foreign relations would seem to be dead on within Article 3 Section 2. As pedantic and ridiculous as this specific issue is, its exactly why we have a federal judiciary. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I didn't read more than the initial summary, but it struck me as simply a decision on how/where a plaintiff had to mail his complaint to a foreign government. I could be wrong, but I doubt it reached the merits of Sudan's involvement in the bombing. I figured you'd consider this the height of lawyers wasting SCOTUS's time on trivial statutes. As pedantic and ridiculous as this specific issue is, its exactly why we have a federal judiciary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2019 10:05:57 AM EDT
[#43]
So close, but only a 6-2. I missed Alito's name the first time I read it and thought you had another case.
LORENZO v. SEC And now to read the opinion... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2019 10:09:02 AM EDT
[#44]
And I believe I have my second 5-4 with Roberts in the conservative majority today.
BUCKLEW v. PRECYTHE Petitioner Russell Bucklew was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The State of Missouri plans to execute him by lethal injection using a single drug, pentobarbital. Mr. Bucklew presented an as-applied Eighth Amendment challenge to the State’s lethal injection protocol, alleging that, regardless whether it would cause excruciating pain for all prisoners, it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition.
The District Court dismissed his challenge. The Eighth Circuit, applying the Baze-Glossip test, remanded the case to allow Mr. Bucklew to identify a feasible, readily implemented alternative procedure that would significantly reduce his alleged risk of pain. Eventually,Mr. Bucklew identified nitrogen hypoxia, but the District Court found the proposal lacking and granted the State’s motion for summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Held: ... affirmed. GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to all but Part III. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2019 10:19:12 AM EDT
[#45]
The line-up in today's second opinion is interesting....
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, BREYER, ALITO, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BIESTEK v. BERRYHILL |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2019 10:23:43 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I believe I have my second 5-4 with Roberts in the conservative majority today. BUCKLEW v. PRECYTHE |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2019 10:24:39 AM EDT
[#47]
No cuz he was a liberal before.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2019 10:49:37 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed. Thomas concurrence should be the only writing on the subject ever needed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And I believe I have my second 5-4 with Roberts in the conservative majority today. BUCKLEW v. PRECYTHE 
Kavanaugh's concurrence bringing up the use of a firing squad as an alternative, as discussed at oral arguments, was interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2019 10:57:56 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only a 2-page opinion -- what fun is there in that?
Kavanaugh's concurrence bringing up the use of a firing squad as an alternative, as discussed at oral arguments, was interesting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And I believe I have my second 5-4 with Roberts in the conservative majority today. BUCKLEW v. PRECYTHE
Kavanaugh's concurrence bringing up the use of a firing squad as an alternative, as discussed at oral arguments, was interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2019 11:03:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The line-up in today's second opinion is interesting.... A 6-3, with Ginsburg joining a Gorsuch dissent. BIESTEK v. BERRYHILL |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
