I did not say anything about not reading more into the written word, I said without law backing their decisions. Hobby Lobby goes counter to previous cases argued based on the dumb law that they suddenly found supports christian religious beliefs.
My issue is they radically decide like with the VRA, what constitutes real law and what doesn't, without an actual support to that other than their office. I mean the VRA decision was so idiotically destructive it boggles the fucking mind.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah, there's "nothing in the Constitution directly addresses digital wiretaps, because that wasn't even a thing 200 years ago, but based on the text that's there, it seems to indicate a philosophy that would imply X, Y and Z." And then there's, "Well, let's just make some shit up, because haha whee!"
One of those things is cool, and the other is what Scalia does.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah, there's "nothing in the Constitution directly addresses digital wiretaps, because that wasn't even a thing 200 years ago, but based on the text that's there, it seems to indicate a philosophy that would imply X, Y and Z." And then there's, "Well, let's just make some shit up, because haha whee!"
One of those things is cool, and the other is what Scalia does.
Hey, he doesn't make shit up. He parrots whatever's on Fox News, because that's his only news source.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
And in some ways, I can agree with that. What makes Scalia such a monumentally terrible person is that in many arguments, it's obvious he is a smart, witty guy who knows how to judiciate the shit out of things. It's just he's completely willing to suborn his skills in service to completely bullshit ideology that often goes against his own legal analysis. He will say stuff he provably knows is utterly wrong because, say, he hates the gays.
He's just so obviously the guy who 100% knows better but chooses to be an asshole.
Nope, don't love him
I kind of despise him for the reasons you stated above, actually
He has written some landmark decisions that you read in law school, and his writing is usually entertaining because he's a snarky guy.
His performances at oral argument are also for entertainment purposes. He likes to "gotcha" people and tell jokes.
Four or five years ago I probably wouldn't feel as strongly about him, but man, he's really shown his full true colors recently.
I think he wants to go down in the history books as a staunch defender of religious freedom.
In reality, he'll go down as an inconsistent Justice who created law out of whole cloth instead of interpreting existing law as he should, and did so to further his own misguided ends. He'll be remembered as the guy who created obstacles we had to overcome, rather than the one helping overcome societal obstacles.
He has written some landmark decisions that you read in law school, and his writing is usually entertaining because he's a snarky guy.
His performances at oral argument are also for entertainment purposes. He likes to "gotcha" people and tell jokes.
Four or five years ago I probably wouldn't feel as strongly about him, but man, he's really shown his full true colors recently.
I think he wants to go down in the history books as a staunch defender of religious freedom.
In reality, he'll go down as an inconsistent Justice who created law out of whole cloth instead of interpreting existing law as he should, and did so to further his own misguided ends. He'll be remembered as the guy who created obstacles we had to overcome, rather than the one helping overcome societal obstacles.
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
Lawyers are people within a system that pays them based on their ability to argue in bad faith on whatever subject, so it hardly surprises me.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
Lawyers are people that take home paychecks based on their ability to argue in bad faith on whatever subject, so it hardly surprises me.
This could be phrased in a way that doesn't make all lawyers sound like assholes.
+3
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
Better to have an advocate willing to advocate for those who are guilty then have no advocate at all. You can't have it both ways.
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
Lawyers are people that take home paychecks based on their ability to argue in bad faith on whatever subject, so it hardly surprises me.
This could be phrased in a way that doesn't make all lawyers sound like assholes.
He has written some landmark decisions that you read in law school, and his writing is usually entertaining because he's a snarky guy.
His performances at oral argument are also for entertainment purposes. He likes to "gotcha" people and tell jokes.
Four or five years ago I probably wouldn't feel as strongly about him, but man, he's really shown his full true colors recently.
He's the John Bolton of the SotC, nominated to the bench because he showed contempt for the court, and demonstrated said hate to Reagan's people by writing smarmy rants about SotC decisions in his lower court opinions. It's not really surprising how he's performed since, because it's pretty clear he's a contrarian who totally gets off on sticking in people's craw. But I like to think his behavior cost him the big chair, because I figure had he been less contentious, the Bush people would have given him the Chief Justice nomination, and brought Roberts in as an Associate Justice.
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
Lawyers are people that take home paychecks based on their ability to argue in bad faith on whatever subject, so it hardly surprises me.
This could be phrased in a way that doesn't make all lawyers sound like assholes.
Fair enough.
You didn't phrase it any better.
Arguing to the best of one's ability is not the same as arguing in bad faith.
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
Lawyers are people that take home paychecks based on their ability to argue in bad faith on whatever subject, so it hardly surprises me.
This could be phrased in a way that doesn't make all lawyers sound like assholes.
Fair enough.
You didn't phrase it any better.
Arguing to the best of one's ability is not the same as arguing in bad faith.
A prosecutor or defense attorney that thinks their party is wrong must still argue in favor of their party. Something that's incredibly unethical, in my opinion, and why I don't hold much regard for the profession.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
Lawyers are people that take home paychecks based on their ability to argue in bad faith on whatever subject, so it hardly surprises me.
This could be phrased in a way that doesn't make all lawyers sound like assholes.
Fair enough.
You didn't phrase it any better.
Arguing to the best of one's ability is not the same as arguing in bad faith.
A prosecutor or defense attorney that thinks their party is wrong must still argue in favor of their party. Something that's incredibly unethical, in my opinion, and why I don't hold much regard for the profession.
Would you prefer a world in which unpopular defendants would be unable to secure representation? The judicial system is already distorted by public opinion, but at least everyone gets an advocate.
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
Lawyers are people that take home paychecks based on their ability to argue in bad faith on whatever subject, so it hardly surprises me.
This could be phrased in a way that doesn't make all lawyers sound like assholes.
Fair enough.
You didn't phrase it any better.
Arguing to the best of one's ability is not the same as arguing in bad faith.
A prosecutor or defense attorney that thinks their party is wrong must still argue in favor of their party. Something that's incredibly unethical, in my opinion, and why I don't hold much regard for the profession.
So you could get screwed because your lawyer doesn't like you personally?
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
We're treading in A Goddamned Separate Thread country y'all.
Seriously, I have never talked to a lawyer who didn't think Scalia was an amazingly smart and talented man who understands the law really well and writes great opinions. It just seems that the more liberal the lawyer, the more likely they are to say he's a political hack despite all that. But they gotta lean more liberal then you'd expect for that otherwise. (this is obviously just my limited experience)
Lawyers are people that take home paychecks based on their ability to argue in bad faith on whatever subject, so it hardly surprises me.
This could be phrased in a way that doesn't make all lawyers sound like assholes.
Fair enough.
You didn't phrase it any better.
Arguing to the best of one's ability is not the same as arguing in bad faith.
A prosecutor or defense attorney that thinks their party is wrong must still argue in favor of their party. Something that's incredibly unethical, in my opinion, and why I don't hold much regard for the profession.
Would you prefer a world in which unpopular defendants would be unable to secure representation? The judicial system is already distorted by public opinion, but at least everyone gets an advocate.
I really do not know what I would prefer, honestly. I'm not a policy maker or expert in the relevant fields; I just know an unethical system when I see it.
Client is guilty of stabbing a couple to death? Eh, just declare one of the key witnesses to be a racist and ad hominem your way to a victory at the witness's expense for the sake of your violent client. Know that your key evidence for prosecuting a suspect is either terrible, faked or both? Whatever. Just pretend it ain't and speak with more conviction than the underpaid pro bono intern defense. GG WP, go to jail and give me my paycheck.
Etc.
This is off topic, though, so by all means send me a PM if you want to continue the discussion.
He has written some landmark decisions that you read in law school, and his writing is usually entertaining because he's a snarky guy.
His performances at oral argument are also for entertainment purposes. He likes to "gotcha" people and tell jokes.
Four or five years ago I probably wouldn't feel as strongly about him, but man, he's really shown his full true colors recently.
He's the John Bolton of the SotC, nominated to the bench because he showed contempt for the court, and demonstrated said hate to Reagan's people by writing smarmy rants about SotC decisions in his lower court opinions. It's not really surprising how he's performed since, because it's pretty clear he's a contrarian who totally gets off on sticking in people's craw. But I like to think his behavior cost him the big chair, because I figure had he been less contentious, the Bush people would have given him the Chief Justice nomination, and brought Roberts in as an Associate Justice.
Nope. They brought Roberts in as Chief for one specific reason - his age.
Yeah, finding a reliable ideologue who is ostensibly qualified for SCOTUS and is also pretty young is like finding a four-leaf clover stapled to a gold-shitting unicorn.
Conservatives couldn't have hoped for a better chief than Roberts.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+2
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
If there was a fifth "liberal" justice, Roberts being Chief Justice would be a little less deleterious to the country though. It's not like his vote counts more.
If there was a fifth "liberal" justice, Roberts being Chief Justice would be a little less deleterious to the country though. It's not like his vote counts more.
Well, he could still have a potent negative effect, just not as big of one. Chief Justice gets to decide who writes the opinion for whichever way he/she votes. So a Chief Justice actually has enormous power over the breadth or narrowness of a decision or its dissent.
Yeah, finding a reliable ideologue who is ostensibly qualified for SCOTUS and is also pretty young is like finding a four-leaf clover stapled to a gold-shitting unicorn.
Conservatives couldn't have hoped for a better chief than Roberts.
And yet they hate him for (rightly in my opinion) agreeing the healthcare mandate penalty was in fact a tax. To the base he's just a turncoat now.
If there was a fifth "liberal" justice, Roberts being Chief Justice would be a little less deleterious to the country though. It's not like his vote counts more.
Well, he could still have a potent negative effect, just not as big of one. Chief Justice gets to decide who writes the opinion for whichever way he/she votes. So a Chief Justice actually has enormous power over the breadth or narrowness of a decision or its dissent.
Yeah, if one of the Conservative jurists were to be replaced we'll see a lot of 6-3 decisions with binding opinions by Roberts.
Though I thought he had a health concern last year or so. Meaning he may not be around for as long as people thought.
If there was a fifth "liberal" justice, Roberts being Chief Justice would be a little less deleterious to the country though. It's not like his vote counts more.
Well, he could still have a potent negative effect, just not as big of one. Chief Justice gets to decide who writes the opinion for whichever way he/she votes. So a Chief Justice actually has enormous power over the breadth or narrowness of a decision or its dissent.
Yeah, if one of the Conservative jurists were to be replaced we'll see a lot of 6-3 decisions with binding opinions by Roberts.
Though I thought he had a health concern last year or so. Meaning he may not be around for as long as people thought.
Due to how obviously abusable this is... I have to ask, what is the origin of this? Is it just tradition, or is it laid out in rules somewhere? It's certainly not in the constitution (though barely anything is with regards to SCOTUS compared to the other branches).
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I really don't know what was going on with Roberts in that decision. The fact that he agreed with the tax thing and declared it valid was just a shocker.
That is basically the opposite of what legal ethics is Ender. So no, you don't know an unethical system when you see it.
I really don't know what was going on with Roberts in that decision. The fact that he agreed with the tax thing and declared it valid was just a shocker.
That is basically the opposite of what legal ethics is Ender. So no, you don't know an unethical system when you see it.
The prosecution cheating to get convictions? Happens far too fucking much (AKA non-zero amounts per year). If the defense gets away with ad hominem attacks though... I'm going to have to say that's the prosecutor's fault for not objecting, cross-examining, etc. to deal with it.
I really don't know what was going on with Roberts in that decision. The fact that he agreed with the tax thing and declared it valid was just a shocker.
Because if they destroyed the single largest advancement of the welfare state that liberals have been pushing for since Roosevelt (not that one, Teddy) on the newly invented idea that Congress can't force you to eat broccoli or something it means that there would no longer be any fig leaf to argue against single payer. That would be the sole option that a future heavily Democratic congress would have to hand and that is far worse than the ACA. Particularly since he knew that they could slowly dismember parts of the ACA (like, say, ensuring women have free access to reproductive health medicine) later on while still being known in the public consciousness as having kept it alive.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I really don't know what was going on with Roberts in that decision. The fact that he agreed with the tax thing and declared it valid was just a shocker.
That is basically the opposite of what legal ethics is Ender. So no, you don't know an unethical system when you see it.
The prosecution cheating to get convictions? Happens far too fucking much (AKA non-zero amounts per year). If the defense gets away with ad hominem attacks though... I'm going to have to say that's the prosecutor's fault for not objecting, cross-examining, etc. to deal with it.
I'm not saying the current system is problem free. I'm saying that the idea of everyone getting legal representation is not a violation of any sort of legal ethics.
If there was a fifth "liberal" justice, Roberts being Chief Justice would be a little less deleterious to the country though. It's not like his vote counts more.
Well, he could still have a potent negative effect, just not as big of one. Chief Justice gets to decide who writes the opinion for whichever way he/she votes. So a Chief Justice actually has enormous power over the breadth or narrowness of a decision or its dissent.
Yeah, if one of the Conservative jurists were to be replaced we'll see a lot of 6-3 decisions with binding opinions by Roberts.
Though I thought he had a health concern last year or so. Meaning he may not be around for as long as people thought.
Due to how obviously abusable this is... I have to ask, what is the origin of this? Is it just tradition, or is it laid out in rules somewhere? It's certainly not in the constitution (though barely anything is with regards to SCOTUS compared to the other branches).
28 U.S. Code § 2071 and basically the fact that the Chief Justice, on account of being Chief, has the most Seniority on the Court. When he is in the minority that means the most senior Associate Justice in the majority gets to determine who writes the Opinion of the Court.
Also, the Chief Justice is the Chancellor of the Smithsonian.
I really don't know what was going on with Roberts in that decision. The fact that he agreed with the tax thing and declared it valid was just a shocker.
That is basically the opposite of what legal ethics is Ender. So no, you don't know an unethical system when you see it.
The prosecution cheating to get convictions? Happens far too fucking much (AKA non-zero amounts per year). If the defense gets away with ad hominem attacks though... I'm going to have to say that's the prosecutor's fault for not objecting, cross-examining, etc. to deal with it.
I'm not saying the current system is problem free. I'm saying that the idea of everyone getting legal representation is not a violation of any sort of legal ethics.
In fact it is one of the basic tenets of legal ethics. Lawyering is hard. I mean, I read SCOTUS decisions for fun and leisure as well as policy white papers on transportation and economics. I've been a reference librarian and taken courses on GovDocs. I would be in no way comfortable with standing on the wrong side of a judge without competent legal counsel to advise me every step of the way.
I really don't know what was going on with Roberts in that decision. The fact that he agreed with the tax thing and declared it valid was just a shocker.
Because if they destroyed the single largest advancement of the welfare state that liberals have been pushing for since Roosevelt (not that one, Teddy) on the newly invented idea that Congress can't force you to eat broccoli or something it means that there would no longer be any fig leaf to argue against single payer. That would be the sole option that a future heavily Democratic congress would have to hand and that is far worse than the ACA. Particularly since he knew that they could slowly dismember parts of the ACA (like, say, ensuring women have free access to reproductive health medicine) later on while still being known in the public consciousness as having kept it alive.
Also a fig leaf to deny that the Court is a fundamentally politically institution and his role is not just an umpire calling balls and strikes.
Though in fairness, he is. It's just that his strike zone stretches from a right handed batter's thigh to the on deck circle behind him.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I really don't know what was going on with Roberts in that decision. The fact that he agreed with the tax thing and declared it valid was just a shocker.
Because if they destroyed the single largest advancement of the welfare state that liberals have been pushing for since Roosevelt (not that one, Teddy) on the newly invented idea that Congress can't force you to eat broccoli or something it means that there would no longer be any fig leaf to argue against single payer. That would be the sole option that a future heavily Democratic congress would have to hand and that is far worse than the ACA. Particularly since he knew that they could slowly dismember parts of the ACA (like, say, ensuring women have free access to reproductive health medicine) later on while still being known in the public consciousness as having kept it alive.
Also a fig leaf to deny that the Court is a fundamentally politically institution and his role is not just an umpire calling balls and strikes.
Though in fairness, he is. It's just that his strike zone stretches from a right handed batter's thigh to the on deck circle behind him.
I think that fig leaf is more important then just that. Striking down the ACA would be the SCOTUS majority essentially declaring war on the Executive, half of Congress and the entire american left. God knows what would come of it. I don't think Roberts wanted to find out. He doesn't seem the type to try and burn this mother down.
I really don't know what was going on with Roberts in that decision. The fact that he agreed with the tax thing and declared it valid was just a shocker.
Because if they destroyed the single largest advancement of the welfare state that liberals have been pushing for since Roosevelt (not that one, Teddy) on the newly invented idea that Congress can't force you to eat broccoli or something it means that there would no longer be any fig leaf to argue against single payer. That would be the sole option that a future heavily Democratic congress would have to hand and that is far worse than the ACA. Particularly since he knew that they could slowly dismember parts of the ACA (like, say, ensuring women have free access to reproductive health medicine) later on while still being known in the public consciousness as having kept it alive.
Also a fig leaf to deny that the Court is a fundamentally politically institution and his role is not just an umpire calling balls and strikes.
Though in fairness, he is. It's just that his strike zone stretches from a right handed batter's thigh to the on deck circle behind him.
I think that fig leaf is more important then just that. Striking down the ACA would be the SCOTUS majority essentially declaring war on the Executive, half of Congress and the entire american left. God knows what would come of it. I don't think Roberts wanted to find out. He doesn't seem the type to try and burn this mother down.
Roberts did on the other hand hurt the ACA in two ways: His calling the mandate a tax he gave the Right tons of political ammunition. And he let GOP states fuck people by denying the Mediciad expansion.
Because I think these threads get a little too depressing sometimes, I would like to inject a little (unintentional) humor.
I was reading Jack Chick tracts (because I think they're incredibly funny) and came across this gem:
This is even funnier in light of the Hobby Lobby ruling. The idea that we're even close to a SCOTUS ruling like this one is delightfully deluded.
Well yeah, we need to establish the One World Order first. Baby steps.
Chick is really mixing up villians here.
The world court is in Rome, so they're Catholic?
But, they're saying Jesus isn't the one true god...
But, also totally acknowledging a 'Father in Heaven'...
I guess in Chick's fantasy world even the evil government is still Monotheistic.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Posts
My issue is they radically decide like with the VRA, what constitutes real law and what doesn't, without an actual support to that other than their office. I mean the VRA decision was so idiotically destructive it boggles the fucking mind.
pleasepaypreacher.net
One of those things is cool, and the other is what Scalia does.
Hey, he doesn't make shit up. He parrots whatever's on Fox News, because that's his only news source.
Nope, don't love him
I kind of despise him for the reasons you stated above, actually
pleasepaypreacher.net
1. conservative
His performances at oral argument are also for entertainment purposes. He likes to "gotcha" people and tell jokes.
Four or five years ago I probably wouldn't feel as strongly about him, but man, he's really shown his full true colors recently.
I think he wants to go down in the history books as a staunch defender of religious freedom.
In reality, he'll go down as an inconsistent Justice who created law out of whole cloth instead of interpreting existing law as he should, and did so to further his own misguided ends. He'll be remembered as the guy who created obstacles we had to overcome, rather than the one helping overcome societal obstacles.
That is a really good way to put it!
Lawyers are people within a system that pays them based on their ability to argue in bad faith on whatever subject, so it hardly surprises me.
This could be phrased in a way that doesn't make all lawyers sound like assholes.
Fair enough.
He's the John Bolton of the SotC, nominated to the bench because he showed contempt for the court, and demonstrated said hate to Reagan's people by writing smarmy rants about SotC decisions in his lower court opinions. It's not really surprising how he's performed since, because it's pretty clear he's a contrarian who totally gets off on sticking in people's craw. But I like to think his behavior cost him the big chair, because I figure had he been less contentious, the Bush people would have given him the Chief Justice nomination, and brought Roberts in as an Associate Justice.
You didn't phrase it any better.
Arguing to the best of one's ability is not the same as arguing in bad faith.
A prosecutor or defense attorney that thinks their party is wrong must still argue in favor of their party. Something that's incredibly unethical, in my opinion, and why I don't hold much regard for the profession.
Would you prefer a world in which unpopular defendants would be unable to secure representation? The judicial system is already distorted by public opinion, but at least everyone gets an advocate.
So you could get screwed because your lawyer doesn't like you personally?
Fortunately we actually already have one.
I really do not know what I would prefer, honestly. I'm not a policy maker or expert in the relevant fields; I just know an unethical system when I see it.
Client is guilty of stabbing a couple to death? Eh, just declare one of the key witnesses to be a racist and ad hominem your way to a victory at the witness's expense for the sake of your violent client. Know that your key evidence for prosecuting a suspect is either terrible, faked or both? Whatever. Just pretend it ain't and speak with more conviction than the underpaid pro bono intern defense. GG WP, go to jail and give me my paycheck.
Etc.
This is off topic, though, so by all means send me a PM if you want to continue the discussion.
Nope. They brought Roberts in as Chief for one specific reason - his age.
Conservatives couldn't have hoped for a better chief than Roberts.
Well, he could still have a potent negative effect, just not as big of one. Chief Justice gets to decide who writes the opinion for whichever way he/she votes. So a Chief Justice actually has enormous power over the breadth or narrowness of a decision or its dissent.
And yet they hate him for (rightly in my opinion) agreeing the healthcare mandate penalty was in fact a tax. To the base he's just a turncoat now.
Yeah, if one of the Conservative jurists were to be replaced we'll see a lot of 6-3 decisions with binding opinions by Roberts.
Though I thought he had a health concern last year or so. Meaning he may not be around for as long as people thought.
Due to how obviously abusable this is... I have to ask, what is the origin of this? Is it just tradition, or is it laid out in rules somewhere? It's certainly not in the constitution (though barely anything is with regards to SCOTUS compared to the other branches).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
That is basically the opposite of what legal ethics is Ender. So no, you don't know an unethical system when you see it.
The prosecution cheating to get convictions? Happens far too fucking much (AKA non-zero amounts per year). If the defense gets away with ad hominem attacks though... I'm going to have to say that's the prosecutor's fault for not objecting, cross-examining, etc. to deal with it.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Because if they destroyed the single largest advancement of the welfare state that liberals have been pushing for since Roosevelt (not that one, Teddy) on the newly invented idea that Congress can't force you to eat broccoli or something it means that there would no longer be any fig leaf to argue against single payer. That would be the sole option that a future heavily Democratic congress would have to hand and that is far worse than the ACA. Particularly since he knew that they could slowly dismember parts of the ACA (like, say, ensuring women have free access to reproductive health medicine) later on while still being known in the public consciousness as having kept it alive.
I'm not saying the current system is problem free. I'm saying that the idea of everyone getting legal representation is not a violation of any sort of legal ethics.
28 U.S. Code § 2071 and basically the fact that the Chief Justice, on account of being Chief, has the most Seniority on the Court. When he is in the minority that means the most senior Associate Justice in the majority gets to determine who writes the Opinion of the Court.
Also, the Chief Justice is the Chancellor of the Smithsonian.
In fact it is one of the basic tenets of legal ethics. Lawyering is hard. I mean, I read SCOTUS decisions for fun and leisure as well as policy white papers on transportation and economics. I've been a reference librarian and taken courses on GovDocs. I would be in no way comfortable with standing on the wrong side of a judge without competent legal counsel to advise me every step of the way.
Also a fig leaf to deny that the Court is a fundamentally politically institution and his role is not just an umpire calling balls and strikes.
Though in fairness, he is. It's just that his strike zone stretches from a right handed batter's thigh to the on deck circle behind him.
I think that fig leaf is more important then just that. Striking down the ACA would be the SCOTUS majority essentially declaring war on the Executive, half of Congress and the entire american left. God knows what would come of it. I don't think Roberts wanted to find out. He doesn't seem the type to try and burn this mother down.
I was reading Jack Chick tracts (because I think they're incredibly funny) and came across this gem:
This is even funnier in light of the Hobby Lobby ruling. The idea that we're even close to a SCOTUS ruling like this one is delightfully deluded.
Roberts did on the other hand hurt the ACA in two ways: His calling the mandate a tax he gave the Right tons of political ammunition. And he let GOP states fuck people by denying the Mediciad expansion.
Well yeah, we need to establish the One World Order first. Baby steps.
Chick is really mixing up villians here.
The world court is in Rome, so they're Catholic?
But, they're saying Jesus isn't the one true god...
But, also totally acknowledging a 'Father in Heaven'...
I guess in Chick's fantasy world even the evil government is still Monotheistic.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies