[SCOTUS] thread we dreaded updates for because RIP RBG

1555658606163

Posts

  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    I think I missed it but did anyone listen to oral arguments this morning?

    https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1

    For the ACA overturn case.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • EddyEddy Gengar the Bittersweet Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    I think I missed it but did anyone listen to oral arguments this morning?

    https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1

    For the ACA overturn case.

    I followed one of my old law profs who scanned the important questions the justices were asking



    Basically all justices are skeptical af but who knows with the right wing

    Eddy on
    "and the morning stars I have seen
    and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
    thatassemblyguywobblyheadedbobBlackDragon480Fencingsax
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Roberts and Kavanaugh outright stated that it doesn't make sense for the individual mandate to be non-separable. So should be safe on the whole destroying the entire ACA on a flimsy pretext thing.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikerViktor WaltersEddyjkylefultonMillMrMisterFencingsaxEncHappylilElftynichonoveresanstodoshryke
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    I don’t l ow if that’s good or bad and those are earnest or sarcastic awesomes

    ExtreaminatusElvenshaeCommander ZoomCalicaOrcaNetscape
  • tuxkamentuxkamen Registered User regular
    I don’t l ow if that’s good or bad and those are earnest or sarcastic awesomes

    That's good--individual clauses of laws are generally considered severable. If, for whatever reason, the mandate clause was rendered unconstitutional, it does not invalidate the entire ACA--just that one portion.

    I would leave that whole question aside, of course, since we've already gone through a cycle where it was lowered to $0 *without* being considered unconstitutional.


    Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
    Thus, the others all die before tuxkamen dies to the vote. Hence, tuxkamen survives, village victory.
    3DS: 2406-5451-5770
    EddymonikerBlackDragon480MrMisterFencingsaxEnc
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I don’t l ow if that’s good or bad and those are earnest or sarcastic awesomes

    It's good, because the argument Texas was making was this:

    1) Health care advocates say the law doesn't work as intended without a mandate
    2) Roberts previously ruled the mandate was fine because it was a tax
    3) Congress zeroed out the tax and isn't a tax you don't pay anymore not really a tax?
    4) Therefore the individual mandate is unconsitutional.
    5) Therefore since the law doesn't work without it, the whole law has to go.

    Note that this argument is essentially "when Congress didn't repeal the whole law, they actually repealed the whole law."

    The counterarguments to this are twofold and pretty obvious:
    1) Congress didn't repeal the whole law, so they definitely didn't mean to do so when they zeroed out the penalty for not having coverage.
    2) The advocates argument' was a matter of policy effectiveness, not a matter of law.
    3) Therefore, if you rule the individual mandate unconstitutional since it's not a tax anymore, you can just invalidate that part of the law and keep all the other stuff (Medicaid expansion, pre-existing conditions coverage, etc)

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    EddymonikerMrMisterFencingsaxEncArdolspool32HappylilElfshryke
  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane The Djinnerator At the bottom of a bottleRegistered User regular
    Eddy wrote: »
    I think I missed it but did anyone listen to oral arguments this morning?

    https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1

    For the ACA overturn case.

    I followed one of my old law profs who scanned the important questions the justices were asking



    Basically all justices are skeptical af but who knows with the right wing
    Did Alito just try to squeeze in an argument about expanding standing for the Trump's 2020 Election challenges into today's ACA case on standing?

    And is the anti-standing Roberts Court about to conveniently stretch standing just for Trumpy MAGA plaintiffs?

    Is there any more detail on this? How the absolute hell can they weasel standing for 2020 election challenges into the ACA case?

    This doesn't sound good at all.

    VuIBhrs.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    I do not think for a second that Roberts and Gorsuch will let Trump's idiot brigade make them clowns, I think they will save Trump in a method that's constitutional only if you squint at it from a distance, but I don't think they'll do so unless Trump's legal team displays some basic fucking competence

    trying to turn the aca ruling into some bullshit about vote counting I feel like will rub Roberts the wrong way for sure and Gorsuch probably

    override367 on
    Fencingsax
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    I don’t l ow if that’s good or bad and those are earnest or sarcastic awesomes

    That's good--individual clauses of laws are generally considered severable. If, for whatever reason, the mandate clause was rendered unconstitutional, it does not invalidate the entire ACA--just that one portion.

    I would leave that whole question aside, of course, since we've already gone through a cycle where it was lowered to $0 *without* being considered unconstitutional.

    The rub is that normally those laws specify that the clauses are severable. The authors of the ACA messed up. I hope it doesn't matter. My small-time apartment lease even has a clause in it that if any provision falls, it is severable and the other ones continue to apply.

    Interestingly questions of standing can tie into this. SCOTUS might decide that if plaintiffs have standing on some clauses but not others, that a successful challenge will only invalidate those clauses where you do have standing. Severability due to standing or lack thereof, so to speak.

  • LuvTheMonkeyLuvTheMonkey High Sierra Serenade Registered User regular
    Eddy wrote: »
    I think I missed it but did anyone listen to oral arguments this morning?

    https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1

    For the ACA overturn case.

    I followed one of my old law profs who scanned the important questions the justices were asking



    Basically all justices are skeptical af but who knows with the right wing
    Did Alito just try to squeeze in an argument about expanding standing for the Trump's 2020 Election challenges into today's ACA case on standing?

    And is the anti-standing Roberts Court about to conveniently stretch standing just for Trumpy MAGA plaintiffs?

    Is there any more detail on this? How the absolute hell can they weasel standing for 2020 election challenges into the ACA case?

    This doesn't sound good at all.

    As far as I can tell via further Twitter commentary, nothing about the election was stated.





    (this person is formerly of the GAO and NYS Dept of Health, now a partner at some law firm)

    Seems targeted at Medicaid questions.

    Molten variables hiss and roar. On my mind-forge, I hammer them into the greatsword Epistemology. Many are my foes this night.
    STEAM | GW2: Thalys
    TetraNitroCubane
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    enc0re wrote: »
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    I don’t l ow if that’s good or bad and those are earnest or sarcastic awesomes

    That's good--individual clauses of laws are generally considered severable. If, for whatever reason, the mandate clause was rendered unconstitutional, it does not invalidate the entire ACA--just that one portion.

    I would leave that whole question aside, of course, since we've already gone through a cycle where it was lowered to $0 *without* being considered unconstitutional.

    The rub is that normally those laws specify that the clauses are severable. The authors of the ACA messed up. I hope it doesn't matter. My small-time apartment lease even has a clause in it that if any provision falls, it is severable and the other ones continue to apply.

    Interestingly questions of standing can tie into this. SCOTUS might decide that if plaintiffs have standing on some clauses but not others, that a successful challenge will only invalidate those clauses where you do have standing. Severability due to standing or lack thereof, so to speak.

    Honestly, I've never understood those severability clauses. It seems like whether a clause is severable depends on the clause and the law and such. You can't make something severable by sticking a clause at the end if it results in a nonsense outcome, and not having a clause shouldn't make completely separate things not severable. Severability doctrine predates those clauses, and they seem like boilerplate and shouldn't be given any weight imo if they're just stuck on everything.

    Polaritie on
    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Alito and Thomas are definitely going to rule against the ACA

    ElvenshaeBlackDragon480BrodysanstodoshrykeHeir
  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane The Djinnerator At the bottom of a bottleRegistered User regular
    Eddy wrote: »
    I think I missed it but did anyone listen to oral arguments this morning?

    https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1

    For the ACA overturn case.

    I followed one of my old law profs who scanned the important questions the justices were asking



    Basically all justices are skeptical af but who knows with the right wing
    Did Alito just try to squeeze in an argument about expanding standing for the Trump's 2020 Election challenges into today's ACA case on standing?

    And is the anti-standing Roberts Court about to conveniently stretch standing just for Trumpy MAGA plaintiffs?

    Is there any more detail on this? How the absolute hell can they weasel standing for 2020 election challenges into the ACA case?

    This doesn't sound good at all.

    As far as I can tell via further Twitter commentary, nothing about the election was stated.





    (this person is formerly of the GAO and NYS Dept of Health, now a partner at some law firm)

    Seems targeted at Medicaid questions.

    Much appreciation for this explanation. Thanks!

    VuIBhrs.png
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Alito and Thomas are definitely going to rule against the ACA

    They always have

    ElvenshaeHeir
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Alito and Thomas are definitely going to rule against the ACA

    I am not sure. Alitos question sounds like “are you sure you don’t want to have standing look at this way I would rule you had standing?”

    wbBv3fj.png
  • tuxkamentuxkamen Registered User regular
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    I don’t l ow if that’s good or bad and those are earnest or sarcastic awesomes

    That's good--individual clauses of laws are generally considered severable. If, for whatever reason, the mandate clause was rendered unconstitutional, it does not invalidate the entire ACA--just that one portion.

    I would leave that whole question aside, of course, since we've already gone through a cycle where it was lowered to $0 *without* being considered unconstitutional.

    My little elliptical comment was actually echoed by Justice Roberts. That's weird.
    "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," Roberts told the attorney representing Texas, one of the states fighting the law.
    "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job," Roberts added.


    Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
    Thus, the others all die before tuxkamen dies to the vote. Hence, tuxkamen survives, village victory.
    3DS: 2406-5451-5770
    Commander ZoomStarZapperFleur de AlysmonikerElvenshaeBlackDragon480ButtersMartini_PhilosopherBrodyoverride367FencingsaxEncboogedybooArdolHappylilElfsanstodoMrVyngaardJoolanderKruiteMoridin889
  • StarZapperStarZapper Vermont, Bizzaro world.Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    I don’t l ow if that’s good or bad and those are earnest or sarcastic awesomes

    That's good--individual clauses of laws are generally considered severable. If, for whatever reason, the mandate clause was rendered unconstitutional, it does not invalidate the entire ACA--just that one portion.

    I would leave that whole question aside, of course, since we've already gone through a cycle where it was lowered to $0 *without* being considered unconstitutional.

    My little elliptical comment was actually echoed by Justice Roberts. That's weird.
    "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," Roberts told the attorney representing Texas, one of the states fighting the law.
    "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job," Roberts added.

    I swear, I'm almost starting to like Robert's. I mean I know at his core he's a POS conservative like the rest of them, but he actually has values he believes in. Not to mention ever since he took over as chief justice he's been bending over backwards to try and maintain a semblance of law and dignity. Now if only Alito & Thomas could retire in the next couple of years...

    StarZapper on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    StarZapper wrote: »
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    I don’t l ow if that’s good or bad and those are earnest or sarcastic awesomes

    That's good--individual clauses of laws are generally considered severable. If, for whatever reason, the mandate clause was rendered unconstitutional, it does not invalidate the entire ACA--just that one portion.

    I would leave that whole question aside, of course, since we've already gone through a cycle where it was lowered to $0 *without* being considered unconstitutional.

    My little elliptical comment was actually echoed by Justice Roberts. That's weird.
    "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," Roberts told the attorney representing Texas, one of the states fighting the law.
    "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job," Roberts added.

    I swear, I'm almost starting to like Robert's. I mean I know at his core he's a POS conservative like the rest of them, but he actually has values he believes in. Not to mention ever since he took over as chief justice he's been bending over backwards to try and maintain a semblance of law and dignity. Now if only Alito & Thomas could retire in the next couple of years...

    Shelby County v Holder

    ChanusCaptain InertiaCommander ZoomStabbity StyleBlackDragon480EddyButtersMartini_PhilosopherenlightenedbumAistanOrcaoverride367Phoenix-Dsilence1186FencingsaxBigJoeMArdolemp123IncenjucarsanstodoMillshrykeKruitezagdrobMoridin889YamiB.
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    Roberts isn't our friend

    it's just not a sure thing he'll do the wrong thing

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    JragghenStarZapperStabbity StyleBlackDragon480EddyButtersMartini_PhilosopherTetraNitroCubaneBrodyAistanjdarksunOrcaPhoenix-DFencingsaxboogedybooNetscapeArdolspool32emp123IncenjucarMorganVtynicsanstodoMrVyngaardQanamilMillshrykeNiryazagdrobpainfulPleasance
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    Yeah, Roberts' main thing is that there still be a country that still considers the SCOTUS a legitimate and final arbiter of... anything. Everything else is negotiable.
    Because if everyone stops caring what they think and say, he's just one old man sitting on a bench with some other people.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    ElvenshaemrondeauMartini_PhilosopherBigJoeMOremLKsanstodoMrVyngaard
  • StarZapperStarZapper Vermont, Bizzaro world.Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    moniker wrote: »
    StarZapper wrote: »
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    I don’t l ow if that’s good or bad and those are earnest or sarcastic awesomes

    That's good--individual clauses of laws are generally considered severable. If, for whatever reason, the mandate clause was rendered unconstitutional, it does not invalidate the entire ACA--just that one portion.

    I would leave that whole question aside, of course, since we've already gone through a cycle where it was lowered to $0 *without* being considered unconstitutional.

    My little elliptical comment was actually echoed by Justice Roberts. That's weird.
    "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act," Roberts told the attorney representing Texas, one of the states fighting the law.
    "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job," Roberts added.

    I swear, I'm almost starting to like Robert's. I mean I know at his core he's a POS conservative like the rest of them, but he actually has values he believes in. Not to mention ever since he took over as chief justice he's been bending over backwards to try and maintain a semblance of law and dignity. Now if only Alito & Thomas could retire in the next couple of years...

    Shelby County v Holder

    Yes, this and Citizens United are why I said almost. I'm sure he's made many other terrible rulings I'm not familiar with as well. It's just sad that the court has shifted so far right Robert's comes off as the moderate in the group.

    EDIT: He can still go get fucked.

    StarZapper on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2020
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    StarZapperElvenshaeMartini_PhilosopherTetraNitroCubaneBlackDragon480AistanOrcaChanusCommander ZoomStabbity StyleFencingsaxmonikersilence1186JaysonFourboogedybooArdolemp123IncenjucarsanstodoMrVyngaardBullheadMillDoctorArchshrykezagdrobpainfulPleasanceoverride367
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    Indeed, both Roberts and Gorsuch are people with a rational theory of government, and a rational desire for power that you can say, "They are doing this according to some legal theory of good governance they have, they genuinely think what they are doing will help people"

    They are often wrong, but, they do genuinely think they are doing the right thing. Barrett is a loon, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh do have a legal theory, but they do not really believe they are helping everyone. They just think the law is some weird magic and it doesn't matter what the consequences are of their interpretations. They treat it as if they were deciding on the rules of a complicated board game, not real life.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    FencingsaxzagdrobDark_SidepainfulPleasance
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Looking forward to an originalist decision where they count as 3/5 of a person

    I think that’s the plan, actually.

    Either that or just say they aren’t “Persons” at all so they don’t count for the census and literally have no rights at all.

    Which makes it the opposite of the 3/5 compromise.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    Fencingsax
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Kavanaugh i haven't been able to get a good read on. I mostly envision him as a hungover frat boy trying to piece together chunks of his conservative buddies' legal decisions with some legal gibberish, then smacking it down on the table like "LOOK AT ME, I DID A SCOTUS."

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    ElvenshaeDoodmannChanusmonikerOremLKArdolN1tSt4lkerHappylilElftynicsanstodoSoggybiscuitCaptain InertiaMillDoctorArchshrykeSleepDark_SideMr FuzzbuttApogee
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Roberts is more ideological than partisan

    monikermrondeauEncBlackDragon480Martini_PhilosopherOremLKN1tSt4lkerJoolanderMillDoctorArchshryke
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    Indeed, both Roberts and Gorsuch are people with a rational theory of government, and a rational desire for power that you can say, "They are doing this according to some legal theory of good governance they have, they genuinely think what they are doing will help people"

    They are often wrong, but, they do genuinely think they are doing the right thing. Barrett is a loon, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh do have a legal theory, but they do not really believe they are helping everyone. They just think the law is some weird magic and it doesn't matter what the consequences are of their interpretations. They treat it as if they were deciding on the rules of a complicated board game, not real life.

    Again, please square this with Shelby County. He invented principles of governance out of whole cloth and pretended that a seven year old law was too far out of date to consider how much the country had changed.

    mrondeauArdolemp123AistanQanamilshryke
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Roberts is more ideological than partisan

    I think he's also just a little fed up with his own party at the moment.

    Dark_Side
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver Registered User, ClubPA regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    I mean, a parrot that says "I concur with Scalia" brings about as much to the table as Thomas does.

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
    ElJeffeElvenshaeBlackDragon480
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited November 2020
    Wrong Thread.

    Alistair Hutton on
    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    I mean, a parrot that says "I concur with Scalia" brings about as much to the table as Thomas does.

    More, actually. At least the parrot would be active during the oral arguments.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    NetscapeMunkus BeaverBlackDragon480
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    I mean, a parrot that says "I concur with Scalia" brings about as much to the table as Thomas does.

    More, actually. At least the parrot would be active during the oral arguments.

    This gooseshit needs to stop.

    One, Thomas has his own unique legal worldview, one that's a fuckload more consistent than Scalia's "originalism", which was often treated as legal Calvinball when Scalia wanted a certain result. It's a really fucking terrifying worldview, but that's just more reason to actually understand it, instead of dismissing him as parroting Scalia.

    Two, Thomas doesn't participle in oral arguments because he feels that they're basically theater, and the main work of the Supreme Court is handled through briefs. And...I can't say he's wrong in that assessment.

    In short, instead of dismissing Thomas, we need to properly grapple with him.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Encenc0rerahkeesh2000Commander ZoommonikerGnizmoMillShadowfireshrykeHefflingMartini_PhilosopherMvrck
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    I mean, a parrot that says "I concur with Scalia" brings about as much to the table as Thomas does.

    More, actually. At least the parrot would be active during the oral arguments.

    This gooseshit needs to stop.

    One, Thomas has his own unique legal worldview, one that's a fuckload more consistent than Scalia's "originalism", which was often treated as legal Calvinball when Scalia wanted a certain result. It's a really fucking terrifying worldview, but that's just more reason to actually understand it, instead of dismissing him as parroting Scalia.

    Two, Thomas doesn't participle in oral arguments because he feels that they're basically theater, and the main work of the Supreme Court is handled through briefs. And...I can't say he's wrong in that assessment.

    In short, instead of dismissing Thomas, we need to properly grapple with him.

    Eh, disagree. I don’t see Thomas’ judicial philosophy as hugely influential, mostly because it’s more facially horrid than Scalia’s and because he’s a worse writer.

    As for the ACA, Barrett wasn’t quite the brilliant mind described. Roberts is right that this is an easy call because severability is legal basics 101. He’d be happy to strike down the ACA with the right case and argument, but this ain’t it bro.

    I’m pretty sure Kavanaugh is dumber than I had previously thought and that was a low bar to begin with. As posner said, they’re not justices because they’re brilliant legal minds, they’re justices because they could get confirmed.

    Captain InertiaBigJoeMDarkPrimusMunkus BeaverBlackDragon480ElvenshaeNetscape
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    sanstodo wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    I mean, a parrot that says "I concur with Scalia" brings about as much to the table as Thomas does.

    More, actually. At least the parrot would be active during the oral arguments.

    This gooseshit needs to stop.

    One, Thomas has his own unique legal worldview, one that's a fuckload more consistent than Scalia's "originalism", which was often treated as legal Calvinball when Scalia wanted a certain result. It's a really fucking terrifying worldview, but that's just more reason to actually understand it, instead of dismissing him as parroting Scalia.

    Two, Thomas doesn't participle in oral arguments because he feels that they're basically theater, and the main work of the Supreme Court is handled through briefs. And...I can't say he's wrong in that assessment.

    In short, instead of dismissing Thomas, we need to properly grapple with him.

    Eh, disagree. I don’t see Thomas’ judicial philosophy as hugely influential, mostly because it’s more facially horrid than Scalia’s and because he’s a worse writer.

    As for the ACA, Barrett wasn’t quite the brilliant mind described. Roberts is right that this is an easy call because severability is legal basics 101. He’d be happy to strike down the ACA with the right case and argument, but this ain’t it bro.

    I’m pretty sure Kavanaugh is dumber than I had previously thought and that was a low bar to begin with. As posner said, they’re not justices because they’re brilliant legal minds, they’re justices because they could get confirmed.

    Angel never said that Thomas' philosophy was hugely influential, just that it has its own internal consistency separate from that of other justices, and it might behoove us to approach things from that perspective rather than just treating him as a shittier Scalia.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
    shrykeEncFencingsaxenc0remonikeremp123Martini_Philosopher
  • XantomasXantomas Heat level critical. Thermal threshold exceeded. Shutdown sequence initiated. Shutdown sequence ov.. Registered User regular
    sanstodo wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    I mean, a parrot that says "I concur with Scalia" brings about as much to the table as Thomas does.

    More, actually. At least the parrot would be active during the oral arguments.

    This gooseshit needs to stop.

    One, Thomas has his own unique legal worldview, one that's a fuckload more consistent than Scalia's "originalism", which was often treated as legal Calvinball when Scalia wanted a certain result. It's a really fucking terrifying worldview, but that's just more reason to actually understand it, instead of dismissing him as parroting Scalia.

    Two, Thomas doesn't participle in oral arguments because he feels that they're basically theater, and the main work of the Supreme Court is handled through briefs. And...I can't say he's wrong in that assessment.

    In short, instead of dismissing Thomas, we need to properly grapple with him.

    Eh, disagree. I don’t see Thomas’ judicial philosophy as hugely influential, mostly because it’s more facially horrid than Scalia’s and because he’s a worse writer.

    As for the ACA, Barrett wasn’t quite the brilliant mind described. Roberts is right that this is an easy call because severability is legal basics 101. He’d be happy to strike down the ACA with the right case and argument, but this ain’t it bro.

    I’m pretty sure Kavanaugh is dumber than I had previously thought and that was a low bar to begin with. As posner said, they’re not justices because they’re brilliant legal minds, they’re justices because they could get confirmed they got pushed through in a super partisan majority vote.

    Commander ZoomJaysonFourDarkPrimusElvenshaeNetscape
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    I mean, a parrot that says "I concur with Scalia" brings about as much to the table as Thomas does.

    More, actually. At least the parrot would be active during the oral arguments.

    This gooseshit needs to stop.

    One, Thomas has his own unique legal worldview, one that's a fuckload more consistent than Scalia's "originalism", which was often treated as legal Calvinball when Scalia wanted a certain result. It's a really fucking terrifying worldview, but that's just more reason to actually understand it, instead of dismissing him as parroting Scalia.

    Two, Thomas doesn't participle in oral arguments because he feels that they're basically theater, and the main work of the Supreme Court is handled through briefs. And...I can't say he's wrong in that assessment.

    In short, instead of dismissing Thomas, we need to properly grapple with him.

    Eh, disagree. I don’t see Thomas’ judicial philosophy as hugely influential, mostly because it’s more facially horrid than Scalia’s and because he’s a worse writer.

    As for the ACA, Barrett wasn’t quite the brilliant mind described. Roberts is right that this is an easy call because severability is legal basics 101. He’d be happy to strike down the ACA with the right case and argument, but this ain’t it bro.

    I’m pretty sure Kavanaugh is dumber than I had previously thought and that was a low bar to begin with. As posner said, they’re not justices because they’re brilliant legal minds, they’re justices because they could get confirmed.

    Angel never said that Thomas' philosophy was hugely influential, just that it has its own internal consistency separate from that of other justices, and it might behoove us to approach things from that perspective rather than just treating him as a shittier Scalia.

    Thomas' judicial philosophy is much more well considered than what Scalia was pushing. It's just that it never advanced beyond the 19th century.

    GnizmoAngelHedgieBlackDragon480FencingsaxMartini_PhilosopherBrodyzagdrobElvenshae
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    I wonder how many of the Justices still remember that the ACA is pretty much a conservative plan meant to prop up insurance companies against the possibility of actual universal healthcare, and the primary reason the that Republican Party opposes it is that Obama did it and they want to tear down everything that Obama did?

    ElvenshaeBlackDragon480KetarSleepRhesus PositiveMoridin889painfulPleasance
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I mean it's not really, but that's what we like to tell ourselves.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikerBlackDragon480shrykepainfulPleasanceMatev
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited November 2020
    moniker wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Roberts is smart and doesn't take bullshit, and he's a good person to have in your corner if he happens to agree with you.

    He will also happily twist the law into any old shape if it gets him to what he sees as a conservative-friendly result, so fuck him with a hammer.

    He's better than Thomas or Alito.

    I mean, a parrot that says "I concur with Scalia" brings about as much to the table as Thomas does.

    More, actually. At least the parrot would be active during the oral arguments.

    This gooseshit needs to stop.

    One, Thomas has his own unique legal worldview, one that's a fuckload more consistent than Scalia's "originalism", which was often treated as legal Calvinball when Scalia wanted a certain result. It's a really fucking terrifying worldview, but that's just more reason to actually understand it, instead of dismissing him as parroting Scalia.

    Two, Thomas doesn't participle in oral arguments because he feels that they're basically theater, and the main work of the Supreme Court is handled through briefs. And...I can't say he's wrong in that assessment.

    In short, instead of dismissing Thomas, we need to properly grapple with him.

    Eh, disagree. I don’t see Thomas’ judicial philosophy as hugely influential, mostly because it’s more facially horrid than Scalia’s and because he’s a worse writer.

    As for the ACA, Barrett wasn’t quite the brilliant mind described. Roberts is right that this is an easy call because severability is legal basics 101. He’d be happy to strike down the ACA with the right case and argument, but this ain’t it bro.

    I’m pretty sure Kavanaugh is dumber than I had previously thought and that was a low bar to begin with. As posner said, they’re not justices because they’re brilliant legal minds, they’re justices because they could get confirmed.

    Angel never said that Thomas' philosophy was hugely influential, just that it has its own internal consistency separate from that of other justices, and it might behoove us to approach things from that perspective rather than just treating him as a shittier Scalia.

    Thomas' judicial philosophy is much more well considered than what Scalia was pushing. It's just that it never advanced beyond the 19th century.

    I've come to realize that the only real consistency to Thomas's philosophy that I see anymore, is that he really hates the establishment clause, and often seems to rule in such a way as to protect the potent right wing industry that he pulls a good bit of cash out of on the side.

    Dark_Side on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Alito delivered a keynote speech at a Federalist Society gathering today.

    He railed against same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, criticism of conservativism in general... oh yeah, and against restrictions put in place by governors to try and combat the spread of COVID.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    NetscapepainfulPleasanceMatev
Sign In or Register to comment.