You do not need standing to file an amicus curiae. Its basically just a formal letter telling the court how you think they should rule. Think of it like trying to do the judges homework for them.
Oh, missed that. The words "leave to file" jumped out and I just assumed they were trying to join or filing their own lawsuit because SovCit!
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Also, since the thread got bumped and I don't like seeing it on the front page, but since it's here already, some other semi-positive news from earlier this week?
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case from parents in Oregon who challenged a public school's policy allowing a transgender student to use the bathroom that corresponded with his gender identity.
The petition was considered a long shot because of several complicated threshold issues, including the fact that the policy had been put in place five years ago for one student -- referred to as "student A" -- who has since graduated from the high school located in Dallas, Oregon. At issue was an individualized plan drawn up specifically for "student A."
In declining to take up the petition, the justices left in place an appeals court decision earlier this year that held that the school's policy intended to "avoid discrimination and ensure the safety and well-being of transgender students."
Second case where they're treating transgender as effectively settled law?
e: And as a note, I say semi- only because I read some commentary that this one was a ridiculous case to begin with, so we can't necessarily treat its dismissal as indicative of the court's position.
Texas lawsuit seeking to throw out the votes of predominately black citizens in four states has been rejected by SCOTUS for lack of standing
NPR is National Public Radio
Texas does not have the legal right to sue Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin because it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
Yeah, I realize it's "you have not demonstrated even the basic criteria of viability," I'm just saying that a plain English "what? fuck you" would have been more viscerally satisfying.
Yeah, I realize it's "you have not demonstrated even the basic criteria of viability," I'm just saying that a plain English "what? fuck you" would have been more viscerally satisfying.
Nah, they should have broken out some Latin for this. That's how you know you done fucked up.
+16
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I realize it's "you have not demonstrated even the basic criteria of viability," I'm just saying that a plain English "what? fuck you" would have been more viscerally satisfying.
Nah, they should have broken out some Latin for this. That's how you know you done fucked up.
Latin is like when your mom includes your middle name
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+11
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I realize it's "you have not demonstrated even the basic criteria of viability," I'm just saying that a plain English "what? fuck you" would have been more viscerally satisfying.
Nah, they should have broken out some Latin for this. That's how you know you done fucked up.
Latin is like when your mom includes your middle name
Let see if i can remember enough Catullus to placate jdarksun's request (with a little Texas flavor added):
"Quid! Te futueo et caballum tuum!"
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
+7
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i only know "Cornelia est puella romana" so i'm gonna take your word for it
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
My favorite part is that even Alito and Thomas, who believe that the court must allow filings arising within its original jurisdiction, threw in that they wouldn’t grant any other relief.
i only know "Cornelia est puella romana" so i'm gonna take your word for it
If my conjugation is correct it says:
What?! Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!
I think you're probably off on some technical aspect - probably word order, if my long-dormant recollections are still reliable - but you're definitely correct in spirit.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Latin doesn't actually care about word order super much, although there were definitely standard ways to speak and write.
When I first heard of the Texas suit, my first thought was "how can they possibly have standing in regards to another state's election?" It was a great relief to hear "they don't". But SCOTUS actually saying the judicial equivalent of "At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." brought a smile to my face.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
+3
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Overshadowed by *waves at everything* SCOTUS issued a ruling recently that pandemic or no, women *must* pick up abortion pills in person. For Reasons. Note that even with that requirement in place, the pills are not taken in Dr's offices. The dosing is done at home. And the FDA *did* remote that requirement for other drugs with worse side effects.
And every native speaker knows this is breaking the order.
Three red cars
Red three cars
It sounds odd and that proves the existence of an order.
They're not reordering the adjectives in either of those examples, though, just moving the single adjective after the vowel, which is acceptable usage for emphasis or to strike an antiquated tone. The equivalent would be "red cars three" or "three cars red."
The post noun order is specifically a reference to the latin and french construction. It isn’t a break in the order rules or even really an exception, its a variation of the order rules to apply a more formal effect or make something into a compound (and most often proper) noun.
Latin specifically was used over such a wide spread of time its hard to pin down pronunciations and sentence constructions exactly though. If you went back to ancient Rome and used modern legal constructions and pronunciations (or modern liturgical constructions and pronunciations) you would get a ton of funny looks and blank stares.
NEW: SCOTUS has booted the remaining emoluments cases against Trump as moot, and vacated the judgments against the former preisdent in the lower courts
Might as well say it’s okay if the president does it. Or “only illegal if in office for 8 years, and all appeals aren’t exhausted by then, maybe.” Those suits were filed not that many weeks after he took office.
NEW: SCOTUS has booted the remaining emoluments cases against Trump as moot, and vacated the judgments against the former preisdent in the lower courts
Might as well say it’s okay if the president does it. Or “only illegal if in office for 8 years, and all appeals aren’t exhausted by then, maybe.” Those suits were filed not that many weeks after he took office.
What a court.
Didn't the courts also allow massive delays in the hearing of these cases?
Really seems like an orobouros of suck. Continuance, continuance, continuance, oh, sorry, you're out of time.
And the fact that Trump gets to keep his illegally gotten "gifts" too, is just all sorts of fucked.
So fucking tired of the rich and connected clearly not being held to the same standard as everyone else.
No. It's unquestionably moot. The cases did not seek retrospective relief, such as damages, but rather only prospective relief—declarations and and injunctions addressing future conduct. But he can't violate the emoluments clause any more, since he's no longer president.
The author is a lawyer.
Basically, since the cases were seeking to enjoin Trump, and not seeking damages, they are rendered moot with him no longer in a position to act in the manner for which the injunction was saught.
Posts
Oh, missed that. The words "leave to file" jumped out and I just assumed they were trying to join or filing their own lawsuit because SovCit!
Texas lawsuit seeking to throw out the votes of predominately black citizens in four states has been rejected by SCOTUS for lack of standing
NPR is National Public Radio
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/07/politics/supreme-court-transgender-bathrooms-oregon/index.html
Second case where they're treating transgender as effectively settled law?
e: And as a note, I say semi- only because I read some commentary that this one was a ridiculous case to begin with, so we can't necessarily treat its dismissal as indicative of the court's position.
Source:
AP is a news organization.
Not quite the "what? fuck you" response it warranted, but still ok.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Nah, they should have broken out some Latin for this. That's how you know you done fucked up.
Latin is like when your mom includes your middle name
Let see if i can remember enough Catullus to placate jdarksun's request (with a little Texas flavor added):
"Quid! Te futueo et caballum tuum!"
~ Buckaroo Banzai
If my conjugation is correct it says:
~ Buckaroo Banzai
... that's all I got
Ecce Romani! Los lupum in sylvam es.
I think you're probably off on some technical aspect - probably word order, if my long-dormant recollections are still reliable - but you're definitely correct in spirit.
Kind of like adjectives in English don't really have to go in any particular order, but they absolutely do
License poetic.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Is planet forbidden!
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/justices-grant-fda-request-to-block-mail-delivery-of-abortion-pills/
(why this rule withstands even basic scrutiny pandemic or no I have no idea).
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
And every native speaker knows this is breaking the order.
Three red cars
Red three cars
It sounds odd and that proves the existence of an order.
They're not reordering the adjectives in either of those examples, though, just moving the single adjective after the vowel, which is acceptable usage for emphasis or to strike an antiquated tone. The equivalent would be "red cars three" or "three cars red."
See also:
Attorney general
Eggs Benedict
Warriors Three
Latin specifically was used over such a wide spread of time its hard to pin down pronunciations and sentence constructions exactly though. If you went back to ancient Rome and used modern legal constructions and pronunciations (or modern liturgical constructions and pronunciations) you would get a ton of funny looks and blank stares.
Might as well say it’s okay if the president does it. Or “only illegal if in office for 8 years, and all appeals aren’t exhausted by then, maybe.” Those suits were filed not that many weeks after he took office.
What a court.
Because accountability is for the poor.
And it is a 6-3 bench.
Didn't the courts also allow massive delays in the hearing of these cases?
Really seems like an orobouros of suck. Continuance, continuance, continuance, oh, sorry, you're out of time.
And the fact that Trump gets to keep his illegally gotten "gifts" too, is just all sorts of fucked.
So fucking tired of the rich and connected clearly not being held to the same standard as everyone else.
It will be a necessity if there are to be any legislative accomplishments.
Just because Trump is no longer in the White House doesn't mean all sins are forgiven - as this case so aptly demonstrates
The author is a lawyer.
Basically, since the cases were seeking to enjoin Trump, and not seeking damages, they are rendered moot with him no longer in a position to act in the manner for which the injunction was saught.