Shryke Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Shryke,The warrantless searches of cell phones and the recess appointments to the NLRB:http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/01/obamas-disappointing-year-at-scotusFrom the link:You can hardly, with sincerity, claim that these cases were decided on an ideological basis. Even if you disagree with their holdings I never claimed every case was, so I'm not sure what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Shryke,Okay, what do you think of those holdings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Scot, I see the warrantless searches as SCOTUS doing what any (sometimes) rational group would do: cover their asses. They could be targeted just as much as anyone. The second ruling is also correct, even if I don't agree with why how it came to be at all (namely, Republican obstructionism). And now for something different: The US Justice Department is actually punishing one of the many racist, asshole Sheriffs in this country. The US Justice Department brought the charges against Terry S. Johnson after interviewing more than 125 victims and personnel over the course of several years. The investigation found that drivers who were Hispanic were being pulled over at an alarming rate for minor traffic infractions."A Latino driver in Alamance County is as much as ten times more likely than a similarly situated non-Latino driver to be stopped by an ACSO deputy for committing a traffic infraction," the Justice Department argues.Sheriff Johnson is also accused of ordering roadblocks in Hispanic neighborhoods where minority drivers were delayed while white motorists were waved through. Statements from deputies present during staff meetings and internal emails are being used to build the case establishing a pattern of discrimination."If you stop a Mexican, don't write a citation, arrest him," Sheriff Johnson reportedly said during a 2008 staff meeting with supervisors.Federal prosecutors will also argue that the culture in the sheriff's office was seen in what happened on the streets. In 2010, a Hispanic woman was pulled over and showed a valid North Carolina driver's license to the deputy."You stole it," the deputy reportedly said. "The woman in the picture is pretty and you're ugly. We're going to deport you." And the case for the defense: Sheriff Johnson insists it is all a misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Shryke,Okay, what do you think of those holdings. The cell phone search case I'm pretty ok with. I'd have understood a ruling either way personally cause the whole issue is a fairly new development related to how much information we now carry on our persons and how that doesn't fit with previous legal ideas about searches. The second case I like less but that's more a comment on the failures of the design of your system of government. The decision seems consistent with that (terrible) system though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 "Did you hear Richardson vote? He only said 'Nay' instead of 'HELL NAY, MURICA!' What a RINO!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Sotomayor is a Roman Catholic too. Just like Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Actually, I do think it's kind of strange that the Court's religious make-up is six Roman Catholics and three Jews. (Although obviously, being a Jew doesn't carry the same presumption of religious beliefs that being a Catholic does, even if that assumption is questionable as well). But I think you would agree that it's intensely problematic to simply start assuming that people are making decisions based upon their personal characteristics rather than their stated reasons for making the decision? Surely, if we, here in this thread, were to start conversing that way, it would be impossible to have a conversation, as we would be at perfect liberty to ignore what is actually being said in favor of appeals to some deeply rooted ethnic, religious, gender, age, or sexual orientation prejudice. Maybe you're just taking the position you are because you're white, or a man, or gay, or non-religious? I mean, you can't prove that you're not. Why - we'd all be conversing like Suttree. Although come to think of it, maybe my bisexuality really is the reason I'm the "Duke of Duplicitous Discourse." It's also worth pointing out that it's incredibly unlikely that the Hobby Lobby case, in the long run, is going to mean anybody is denied access to birth control. The decision is predicated on the fact that the federal government already put an accommodation into place for religious organizations that were designed to be exempt from the ACA mandate originally. All the federal government has to do is offer the same accommodation to Hobby Lobby, and now you've got federally funded abortifacients (assuming that Plan B and the like are actually abortifacients, which apparently the jury is still out on). There is a big issue with the things said as well of course. As far as I can tell the court chose to listen to the interpretation of the Hobby Lobby owners that some classes of anti-conception agents cause abortions. While the court ignored the scientific point of view, which does not seem to agree at all with that interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 There is a big issue with the things said as well of course. As far as I can tell the court chose to listen to the interpretation of the Hobby Lobby owners that some classes of anti-conception agents cause abortions. While the court ignored the scientific point of view, which does not seem to agree at all with that interpretation. As I understand, it was the government side's responsibility to make the scientific argument, but they did not do so. One of the many disappointments surrounding this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 As I understand, it was the government side's responsibility to make the scientific argument, but they did not do so. One of the many disappointments surrounding this case. Oh, joy... eta: Is that an effect of US trial culture? Because that seems to be based more upon trying to determine who makes the best argument, rather than trying to find the (a) truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Oh, joy... eta: Is that an effect of US trial culture? Because that seems to be based more upon trying to determine who makes the best argument, rather than trying to find the (a) truth. Not sure if the truth has a place in the legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Not sure if the truth has a place in the legal system. As far as I understand it has a place in aspects of the continental system. And I believe in for example coroner's inquests as well. But not a jurist, so going on impressions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zman1863 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 The second case I like less but that's more a comment on the failures of the design of your system of government. The decision seems consistent with that (terrible) system though. There is something to this. The decision is the right one under the constitution but could be viewed as an example of a flaw in the system. I often get the impression that the justices have an ingrained bias in favor of the myth that the constitution creates a perfect system. I know I've heard a couple of them endorse the idea that political gridlock in congress is the system acting as intended- even though such a statement is historically dubious. Citing the existence of Federalist No. 10 doesn't make its contents true. But that's the simplistic historical outlook you routinely see on the court by virtue of their being insiders by the nature of their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Zman,So, adding power to the already imperial presidency is a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 The other lawsuit that could actually really mess with Obamacare is coming in a few weeks. I'd be surprised if this does anything more than eat up court time. Opponents are arguing that wording should trump clear intent, which is something from the Get Rumplestiltskin To Say His Name school of judicial philosophy. Five SCOTUS justices already voted to sustain the ACA, and I certainly doubt that John Roberts is going to give ACA opponents another bite at the apple over five words in a statute, particularly when doing so could toss millions of Americans off their health insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Tracker,Words mean things. If courts just guess at meanings they carry the same power as legislators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Tracker,Words mean things. If courts just guess at meanings they carry the same power as legislators. I don't think it's about wild guesses, Ser Scot. The courts are reading the legislation for clear intent, and (we hope) not getting hung up on a word choice. (Also, I've read that the lower court differed in its interpretation of what those words meant.) In any case, one would hope that federal judges aren't playing "cake or death" with legislation, particularly when the health millions is at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zman1863 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Zman,So, adding power to the already imperial presidency is a good idea? I wasn't contending that the holding should be different, or commenting on the particulars of the case. I was rather agreeing generally with the notion that one could disapprove of a decision on an external theoretical level while agreeing with it within its context. One can agree with the holding regarding the separation of powers and at the same time hold the opinion that the decision demonstrates the failings of the separation of powers as a system. My second paragraph was mainly a musing on how the justices as cogs in the federal system come at cases from an internal theoretical perspective that could easily be at odds with outside observers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Spirals swirling down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Pretty good jobs report numbers from BLS today. They estimate the economy added 288,000 jobs in June, and the April and May numbers were revised upwards a total of 29,000. The unemployment rate is down to 6.1%. Seems unlikely that the economy shrank during Q2, although we won't know for a while yet, so despite the decrease during Q1, we probably haven't entered a new recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 But, if you give judges the power to take policy decisions, inevitably they'll favour one set of voters over another. Believe it or not, for about 50 years this was not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Policy has been a factor in Appelate Court decisions for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.