2019 SCOTUS cases

[BDKJMU]

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..

[93henfan]

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?

[CID1990]

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?

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

[Ivytalk]

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

[BDKJMU]

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.

[kalm]

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

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.

[CID1990]

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

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

[kalm]

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

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

[Ivytalk]

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.

[GannonFan]

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.

[Ivytalk]

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.

[dbackjon]

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

[Ivytalk]

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?

[GannonFan]

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.

[dbackjon]

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

[BDKJMU]

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”.

[Chizzang]

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



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

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

[dbackjon]

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.

[Ivytalk]

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



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! All the liability benefits of corporations, plus more favorable tax treatment.

[Ibanez]

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.

[Skjellyfetti]

The big one.

[∞∞∞]

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.

[GannonFan]

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.

[Ivytalk]

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.

[JohnStOnge]

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.