2019 SCOTUS cases

Political discussions
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14954
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby BDKJMU » Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:36 am

Soon to have a bunch of major decisions handed down.

Today:
Supreme Court upholds cross on public land in Maryland
https://apnews.com/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117
7-2 ruling with only the wise Latina and Darth Bader dissenting..

User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 51677
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby 93henfan » Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:24 pm

BDKJMU wrote:Soon to have a bunch of major decisions handed down.

Today:
Supreme Court upholds cross on public land in Maryland
https://apnews.com/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117
7-2 ruling with only the wise Latina and Darth Bader dissenting..


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, with Ginsburg writing that “the principal symbol of Christianity around the world should not loom over public thoroughfares, suggesting official recognition of that religion’s paramountcy.” Ginsburg read a summary of her dissent in court, a way of expressing deep disagreement. Ginsburg is the only other justice on the court who is Jewish. The others are Christian.

"Paramountcy?"

Like this?
Image

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 20159
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby CID1990 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:44 pm

93henfan wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:Soon to have a bunch of major decisions handed down.

Today:
Supreme Court upholds cross on public land in Maryland
https://apnews.com/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117
7-2 ruling with only the wise Latina and Darth Bader dissenting..


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, with Ginsburg writing that “the principal symbol of Christianity around the world should not loom over public thoroughfares, suggesting official recognition of that religion’s paramountcy.” Ginsburg read a summary of her dissent in court, a way of expressing deep disagreement. Ginsburg is the only other justice on the court who is Jewish. The others are Christian.

"Paramountcy?"

Like this?
Image


RBG, like all justices, parse their words VERY carefully in ways that will prevent perceived inconsistencies. In this case, her language suggests that she has an issue with the visibility of religious symbols from public venues, not just those placed on them. I know this case wasn’t about that specifically, but words matter and I think hers in this case are revealing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21929
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby Ivytalk » Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:13 pm

Ginsburg isn't the only Jewish Justice. Kagan is, also.
Anything I post passes any rational test. — John StOnge 7/12/19

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14954
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby BDKJMU » Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:48 am

Ivytalk wrote:Ginsburg isn't the only Jewish Justice. Kagan is, also.

And Breyer. In the paragraph before the one 93 quoted:
Two of the court’s liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, both of whom are Jewish, joined their conservative colleagues in ruling for the memorial, which on its base lists the names of 49 area residents who died in World War I.

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 41087
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby kalm » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:02 am

So they know it's unconstitutional but they grandfathered it in anyways. Pussies. :roll:

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a majority opinion for himself and four colleagues that “when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol or practice with this kind of familiarly and historical significance, removing It may no longer appear neutral.”

“A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,” Alito wrote

Alito also wrote that the Maryland cross’ connection to World War I was important in upholding it because crosses, which marked the graves of American soldiers, became a symbol closely linked to the war.
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 20159
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby CID1990 » Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:48 am

kalm wrote:So they know it's unconstitutional but they grandfathered it in anyways. Pussies. :roll:

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a majority opinion for himself and four colleagues that “when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol or practice with this kind of familiarly and historical significance, removing It may no longer appear neutral.”

“A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,” Alito wrote

Alito also wrote that the Maryland cross’ connection to World War I was important in upholding it because crosses, which marked the graves of American soldiers, became a symbol closely linked to the war.


Don’t worry, klam

They’ll determine that all the dead soldiers memorialized on it were racists and then it will come down


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 41087
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby kalm » Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:07 am

CID1990 wrote:
kalm wrote:So they know it's unconstitutional but they grandfathered it in anyways. Pussies. :roll:



Don’t worry, klam

They’ll determine that all the dead soldiers memorialized on it were racists and then it will come down


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:lol:
Image
Image
Image

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21929
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby Ivytalk » Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:05 am

I liked that Knick decision on property rights. No longer a need to exhaust state court remedies before going to federal court to challenge a taking. Now if they’d only overrule that abortion of a Kelo decision.
Anything I post passes any rational test. — John StOnge 7/12/19

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12334
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:35 am

Ivytalk wrote:I liked that Knick decision on property rights. No longer a need to exhaust state court remedies before going to federal court to challenge a taking. Now if they’d only overrule that abortion of a Kelo decision.


I agree on both counts. Don't see the hubbub about making contesting a taking more easy (especially since it's poorer people that will be "taken" more) and I also disagree with the Keto ruling. I think this Court would reverse Keto if they got a case to do it with.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21929
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby Ivytalk » Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:52 pm

I see that Gorsuch sided with the 4 liberals today in invalidating (on vagueness grounds) a federal statute providing jail terms for crimes committed with firearms. I think Gorsuch actually got this one right.
Anything I post passes any rational test. — John StOnge 7/12/19

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 42337
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby dbackjon » Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:54 pm

Ivytalk wrote:I liked that Knick decision on property rights. No longer a need to exhaust state court remedies before going to federal court to challenge a taking. Now if they’d only overrule that abortion of a Kelo decision.



Agreed as well

Now if they would just reverse SCC vs SPRR
Image
Image

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21929
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby Ivytalk » Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:59 pm

dbackjon wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:I liked that Knick decision on property rights. No longer a need to exhaust state court remedies before going to federal court to challenge a taking. Now if they’d only overrule that abortion of a Kelo decision.



Agreed as well

Now if they would just reverse SCC vs SPRR

Why stop with Santa Clara County? Why not overrule Dartmouth College v. Woodward and deprive corporations of Contract Clause protection as well?
Anything I post passes any rational test. — John StOnge 7/12/19

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12334
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:01 pm

dbackjon wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:I liked that Knick decision on property rights. No longer a need to exhaust state court remedies before going to federal court to challenge a taking. Now if they’d only overrule that abortion of a Kelo decision.



Agreed as well

Now if they would just reverse SCC vs SPRR


They'd have to reach even further back and reverse Dartmouth v Woodard as well. The amount of court packing that this would require given the current configuration would likely be too much for any current court packing idea on the table. I think it's pretty safe to say those decisions will stay as current precedents for quite some time.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 42337
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby dbackjon » Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:22 pm

Ivytalk wrote:
dbackjon wrote:

Agreed as well

Now if they would just reverse SCC vs SPRR

Why stop with Santa Clara County? Why not overrule Dartmouth College v. Woodward and deprive corporations of Contract Clause protection as well?



We just need to get rid of the insane idea that corporations have personhood, and are protected by the 14th Amendment (meanwhile, I am still not protected by the 14th Amendment).


Or, if Corporations want personhood, then criminal penalties (including the death penalty) need to be on the table
Image
Image

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14954
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby BDKJMU » Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:12 pm

Gorsuch joins libs in case involving criminal defendants.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/24/gors ... un-crimes/

2nd time that Gorsuch has delivered the fifth vote with the liberals to strike down a law on vagueness of “crime of violence”.

User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 17188
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Don't call it Seattle...

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby Chizzang » Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:38 pm

dbackjon wrote:
Ivytalk wrote: Why stop with Santa Clara County? Why not overrule Dartmouth College v. Woodward and deprive corporations of Contract Clause protection as well?



We just need to get rid of the insane idea that corporations have personhood, and are protected by the 14th Amendment (meanwhile, I am still not protected by the 14th Amendment).


Or, if Corporations want personhood, then criminal penalties (including the death penalty) need to be on the table


Now John...
if we did that there would be way too much "accountability"
The entire design structure of a corporate entity is to remove accountability

:nod:

Corporation:
All the rights of a human individual
none of the Accountability Liability or Responsibility

You can't improve that ^ design right there...
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 42337
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby dbackjon » Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:39 pm

BDKJMU wrote:Gorsuch joins libs in case involving criminal defendants.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/24/gors ... un-crimes/

2nd time that Gorsuch has delivered the fifth vote with the liberals to strike down a law on vagueness of “crime of violence”.



Gorsuch very much believes in the rights of defendants and due process. Congress created a vague statute. Congress can fix the issue.
Image
Image

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21929
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby Ivytalk » Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:43 pm

Chizzang wrote:
dbackjon wrote:

We just need to get rid of the insane idea that corporations have personhood, and are protected by the 14th Amendment (meanwhile, I am still not protected by the 14th Amendment).


Or, if Corporations want personhood, then criminal penalties (including the death penalty) need to be on the table


Now John...
if we did that there would be way too much "accountability"
The entire design structure of a corporate entity is to remove accountability

:nod:

Corporation:
All the rights of a human individual
none of the Accountability Liability or Responsibility

You can't improve that ^ design right there...

Yes you can, with LLCs! :thumb: All the liability benefits of corporations, plus more favorable tax treatment.
Anything I post passes any rational test. — John StOnge 7/12/19

User avatar
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 50073
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby Ibanez » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:48 am

dbackjon wrote:
Ivytalk wrote: Why stop with Santa Clara County? Why not overrule Dartmouth College v. Woodward and deprive corporations of Contract Clause protection as well?



We just need to get rid of the insane idea that corporations have personhood, and are protected by the 14th Amendment (meanwhile, I am still not protected by the 14th Amendment).


Or, if Corporations want personhood, then criminal penalties (including the death penalty) need to be on the table

Stop taking it up the poop shoot and maybe that'll change. :coffee: :kisswink:
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17

User avatar
Skjellyfetti
Anal
Anal
Posts: 12048
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
I am a fan of: Appalachian

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby Skjellyfetti » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:55 am

The big one.

"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)

Cid1990 wrote:It is going to be a sad day for a lot of people when all that comes of all of this is Flynn getting whacked.

Mueller is going to take a beating on the left before this business is over

∞∞∞
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9806
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:30 am

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby ∞∞∞ » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:12 am

Skjellyfetti wrote:The big one.


The decision to let gerrymandering continue was pretty big.

Additionally, the census issue will be brought up again. The SCOTUS essentially said that they didn't like the government's self-imposed deadline to ram this through the court just to get it into the 2020 census, but to further develop the argument and try again during the next session.

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12334
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby GannonFan » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:58 am

I'm good with both results. The late decision to add citizenship to the questions was too late. If you want to include it in the next one get it in up front and not just try to sneak it in at the end. As for the gerrymandering, I dislike gerrymandering as much as the next person (assuming, but I guess there are fans of gerrymandering out there), but I also think it's a legislative function to deal with. We vote for the legislators that do the gerrymandering - we don't like it, vote them out. Judges are nearly as responsive to voters and there's no one single map/method on how to properly draw districts. I know it'll lead to continual bickering, but that's also a facet of politics in general anyway so let the bickering continue.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21929
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby Ivytalk » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:14 pm

GannonFan wrote:I'm good with both results. The late decision to add citizenship to the questions was too late. If you want to include it in the next one get it in up front and not just try to sneak it in at the end. As for the gerrymandering, I dislike gerrymandering as much as the next person (assuming, but I guess there are fans of gerrymandering out there), but I also think it's a legislative function to deal with. We vote for the legislators that do the gerrymandering - we don't like it, vote them out. Judges are nearly as responsive to voters and there's no one single map/method on how to properly draw districts. I know it'll lead to continual bickering, but that's also a facet of politics in general anyway so let the bickering continue.


I get the feeling that you are a frustrated would-be law student. :lol:
Anything I post passes any rational test. — John StOnge 7/12/19

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 17057
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: 2019 SCOTUS cases

Postby JohnStOnge » Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:54 pm

GannonFan wrote: As for the gerrymandering, I dislike gerrymandering as much as the next person (assuming, but I guess there are fans of gerrymandering out there), but I also think it's a legislative function to deal with. We vote for the legislators that do the gerrymandering - we don't like it, vote them out.


I think I agree with the idea that the Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering but I think it needs to. It'd be very difficult to do but the Constitution needs to be Amended to prohibit it.

I don't think it's just a matter of voting those that do it out. People get into a sufficient position of power then they gerrymander to protect their own seats at the State level. They see to it that the people who would vote them out aren't in their district to the greatest extent possible. Or maybe some are in their district but they make sure to distribute them so that their influence is minimized.

It's not a good thing.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image


Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests