User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/28/2019 10:58:08 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll say she is a cunt out of general principle. 
I'm disappointed you're not coming to FO2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2019 10:59:39 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
thats why I was confused. I read cert, and then next thing I know Thomas is tearing the ghost of margaret sanger a new asshole. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you're referring to the Box decision, no. This isn't typical. They granted cert. and decided the question without hearing oral arguments. It's a grant of cert. and an opinion. Most cases are just a "cert. is granted." See the HERNANDEZ, JESUS C., ET AL. V. MESA, JESUS case on the bottom of page 1 of the link. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2019 11:05:34 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm disappointed you're not coming to FO2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2019 11:08:44 AM EDT
[#4]
You'll probably want to take a look at the Hernandez v. Mesa case that was granted today, if you haven't already.
The 5th Cir. opinion that is being appealed: https://casetext.com/case/hernandez-v-mesa-6 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2019 11:56:01 PM EDT
[#5]
There was a 5-4 decision today. I haven't had time to read it. Roberts was in the majority.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-8995_kimp.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 7:26:59 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was a 5-4 decision today. I haven't had time to read it. Roberts was in the majority. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-8995_kimp.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 8:18:25 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so when do I start freaking out about Gorsuch? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There was a 5-4 decision today. I haven't had time to read it. Roberts was in the majority. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-8995_kimp.pdf It's not realistic to expect that every conservative will vote with the other conservatives every single case. It's never happened and never will. There are issues on which reasonable people can disagree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 8:20:31 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You shouldn't, any more than the liberals should freak out about Ginsburg, who voted with the conservatives for the 5-4 majority. It's not realistic to expect that every conservative will vote with the other conservatives every single case. It's never happened and never will. There are issues on which reasonable people can disagree. These pedantic decisions when there are real issues out there (like Hawaiian judges running foreign policy) being ignored is infuriating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 11:30:06 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I assume there are no reasonable liberals on the court. I didn't even read the decision so I don't know what happened. These pedantic decisions when there are real issues out there (like Hawaiian judges running foreign policy) being ignored is infuriating. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You shouldn't, any more than the liberals should freak out about Ginsburg, who voted with the conservatives for the 5-4 majority. It's not realistic to expect that every conservative will vote with the other conservatives every single case. It's never happened and never will. There are issues on which reasonable people can disagree. These pedantic decisions when there are real issues out there (like Hawaiian judges running foreign policy) being ignored is infuriating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 11:33:36 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They hear the cases that are brought before them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 11:40:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bush v Gore proves they can hurry when they feel like it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They hear the cases that are brought before them. Which Hawaii case are you talking about? The Court ruled on Trump v. Hawaii in 2018. Trump won. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 11:40:49 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bush v Gore proves they can hurry when they feel like it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They hear the cases that are brought before them. This article might make you feel better Sylvan. Another problem is the fact that Congress writes crappy statues that don't foresee every possible scenario. SCOTUS gets to sort out the ambiguities. Reasonable people can disagree on what Congress intended to do and what the statues mean, even if the liberal Justices aren't included in the set of reasonable people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 11:55:13 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Half the country thought that decision was a sham. SCOTUS doesn't like it when that happens. This article might make you feel better Sylvan. Another problem is the fact that Congress writes crappy statues that don't foresee every possible scenario. SCOTUS gets to sort out the ambiguities. Reasonable people can disagree on what Congress intended to do and what the statues mean, even if the liberal Justices aren't included in the set of reasonable people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 12:04:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does and doesn't. I want Thomas replaced by a republican. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Half the country thought that decision was a sham. SCOTUS doesn't like it when that happens. This article might make you feel better Sylvan. Another problem is the fact that Congress writes crappy statues that don't foresee every possible scenario. SCOTUS gets to sort out the ambiguities. Reasonable people can disagree on what Congress intended to do and what the statues mean, even if the liberal Justices aren't included in the set of reasonable people. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2019 5:04:10 PM EDT
[#15]
France's judges apparently don't like what we're doing in this thread.
‘The identity data of magistrates and members of the judiciary cannot be reused with the purpose or effect of evaluating, analysing, comparing or predicting their actual or alleged professional practices.’ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2019 10:38:55 AM EDT
[#16]
@Sylvan regularly complained about SCOTUS taking trivial and unimportant cases.
Are you aware that SCOTUS often asks for the solicitor general's advice on some cases, and usually takes that advice? https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/solicitor-general-files-invitation-briefs-2/#more-286567 #FreeSylvan 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2019 9:57:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Opinions are coming.
Speaking before the annual conference of federal judges in New York, Ginsburg suggested that more than a quarter of the court’s remaining 27 rulings will be decided by a single vote. Of the 43 argued cases settled so far, 11 were by a vote of either 5-4 or 5-3, she said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2019 12:49:31 PM EDT
[#18]
No 5-4 opinions today.
Quarles v. US (9-0) Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion statute substantially corresponds to or is narrower than generic burglary for purposes of qualifying for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined.
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and KAGAN, JJ., joined. The federal government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, when federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf. CERTIORARI DENIED
18-936 KETTLER, JEREMY V. UNITED STATES 18-7451 COX, SHANE V. UNITED STATES |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2019 4:35:00 PM EDT
[#19]
I will withdraw from the bet early and declare you the victor. My ban from GD is permanent. So I have no reason to remain on the board. I am glad, albeit early, to have been proven wrong thus far.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2019 6:22:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will withdraw from the bet early and declare you the victor. My ban from GD is permanent. So I have no reason to remain on the board. I am glad, albeit early, to have been proven wrong thus far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2019 7:51:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
federal judges don't write their opinions, either  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Federal judges don't bill hours. They get the same salary if they write two or two-hundred page opinions. Of course we'd probably all like it if SCOTUS took more cases and wrote fewer pages. Other than the SCOTUS justices, with a few opinions that make the news and MIGHT be read by the public, I assume most judges write their opinions for other lawyers, specifically the judges that will read the decision when it gets appealed, or the SCOTUS clerks that are going to write a cert. brief for the justices, and perhaps for the parties. I doubt most care what the proles think.
Fare well Col. 
edit for spelling attention to detail 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2019 9:16:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will withdraw from the bet early and declare you the victor. My ban from GD is permanent. So I have no reason to remain on the board. I am glad, albeit early, to have been proven wrong thus far. There's always Team. Sometimes there are less dickheads in there but if you choose to go, be well and give 'em Hell.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2019 9:34:04 AM EDT
[#23]
Today's order list. Opinions should be out in a few minutes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2019 9:39:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will withdraw from the bet early and declare you the victor. My ban from GD is permanent. So I have no reason to remain on the board. I am glad, albeit early, to have been proven wrong thus far. I do not accept your withdrawal. You're not banned from legal, AFAIK. This week and the next are to my knowledge the last two of this term and there are about two-dozen opinions that will be released. Our "bet" will be concluded at that point. I hope you're honorable enough to come here and acknowledge it at that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2019 10:08:00 AM EDT
[#25]
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck (5-4)
Roberts joins the conservatives here. Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) "is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment" ETA: I believe this opinion puts the score at 1-5. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2019 10:12:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Virginia Uranium v. Warren
This isn't a 5-4. Looks like an odd 3+3 - 3. Roberts dissents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2019 10:15:10 AM EDT
[#27]
Gamble v. United States (7-2)
"Alito is joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Ginsburg and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2019 10:18:33 AM EDT
[#28]
Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune Hill
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J.,and BREYER and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2019 10:44:37 AM EDT
[#29]
More opinions to come on Thursday morning at 9 AM CT.
As a reminder from an earlier post for any lost soul who happens to wander in here, SCOTUSblog keeps a nice stats page for the whole term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2019 1:49:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Four opinions today --
GUNDY v. UNITED STATES McDONOUGH v. SMITH AMERICAN LEGION v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN PDR NETWORK, LLC v. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC. Edit: Upon further review, the PDR network decision is arguably a 5-4 with Roberts joining the liberals. BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. "The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for that court to consider these preliminary issues, as well as any other related issues that may arise in the course of resolving this case." Had Roberts not joined the liberals we may have had a different outcome. I haven't read every word in this or the underlying decisions, so I'm not sure what to think of this one. However, under the strict standard of only counting the votes and not reading the opinions as set out in the OP this case is Sylvan's if he wants to claim it. @Sylvan |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2019 7:52:14 PM EDT
[#31]
Sure is great that every “swing” voting justice is appointed by a republic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2019 9:06:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure is great that every “swing” voting justice is appointed by a republic. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2019 4:10:58 PM EDT
[#33]
The Court caught me off guard and issued opinions this morning.
Flowers v. Mississippi (7-2) NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF REVENUE v. KIMBERLEY RICE KAESTNER 1992 FAMILY TRUST (9-0) A nice slap down of NC trying to grab out of state $. Rehaif v. United States (7-2) A case with illegal aliens and firearms. What will GD do? 
Knick v. Township of Scott (5-4) 5th Amdt. takings case where Roberts' opinion is joined by the other 4 conservatives! Looks like a nice win for land owners. ETA: I believe that Knick puts the score at 2-6 if I give Sylvan the PDR case from yesterday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2019 11:01:24 AM EDT
[#34]
Opinion day.
US v. Davis (5-4) < GORSUCH + the liberals in a firearms case > DUTRA GROUP v. BATTERTON (6-3) IANCU v. BRUNETT (6-3) FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE v. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (6-3) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2019 12:40:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Opinion day!
US v. HAYMOD (4+1 - 4) < GORSUCH + the liberals in a kiddy pron case > KISOR v. WILKIE I'm going to have to read this one to score it. It MIGHT be another 5-4 for Sylvan, but they all agree in the judgement, so maybe not. KAGAN, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, III–B, and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A and III–A, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined, in which KAVANAUGH, J., joined as to Parts I, II, III, IV, and V, and in which ALITO, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which ALITO, J., joined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2019 1:10:46 PM EDT
[#36]
After looking at Gorsuch's concurrence in Kisor I think I have to score it for Sylvan.
I believe we're at 3-6. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2019 1:10:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Will Roberts screw is on the census question?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2019 1:19:24 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Will Roberts screw is on the census question? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Will Roberts screw is on the census question? There's a lot going on in that case other than just a simple "Can the census ask if you're a citizen?" on the form. Issues: (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution. ETA: SCOTUS blog post discussing the mess that is the census case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2019 10:09:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Today is the last opinion day for the term.
Mitchell v. Wisconsin ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SO-TOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion. JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concluded that when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dis-senting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. The court holds that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2019 10:39:21 AM EDT
[#40]
The census case.
Department of Commerce v. New York ROBERTS,C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GORSUCH and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2019 11:04:39 AM EDT
[#41]
SCOTUS will be issuing orders tomorrow if anyone cares, but we're done with opinions for the Summer. SCOTUSblog will have coverage. Edit: After further review, there's to much going on in the census case to call it a 5-4 either way. I'm tossing it out. Final tally 3-7. Roberts is only 30% liberal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2019 1:21:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Game Over.
There's enough Roberts bashing going on in GD that my futile attempt to provide some insight on how SCOTUS works is pointless. Mods please lock this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2019 1:24:01 PM EDT
[#43]
@Sylvan
I hope you've enjoyed this if you are still browsing ARF, but I assume you aren't and have moved on to better things.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2019 1:35:56 PM EDT
[#44]
By OP request
|
|
|
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.
