Page 86 of 154 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896136 ... LastLast
Results 1,701 to 1,720 of 3063

Thread: Legal/scotus thread

  1. #1701
    It's OVER 5,000! 57Brave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22,801
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,682
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,889
    Thanked in
    1,420 Posts
    eather Cox Richardson (TDPR) liked
    Asha Rangappa
    @AshaRangappa_
    ·
    3h
    One of the worst things to come out of the Trump era is the apparent necessity

    of having to specify the party affiliation (or appointing president) of the judge or judges

    when discussing a court opinion. It’s absolutely terrible for the rule of law and I hope it stops


    I would add nationality,race and religion
    The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.

  2. #1702
    It's OVER 5,000! Tapate50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    24,263
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,058
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,693
    Thanked in
    3,881 Posts
    It’s not isolated to the Trump tenure unless you are being willfully ignorant but please keep posting tweets
    Ivermectin Man

  3. #1703
    if my thought dreams could be seen goldfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,084
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,365
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,337
    Thanked in
    2,262 Posts
    "For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman

    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"

  4. #1704
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by goldfly View Post
    four month delay...better late than never i suppose
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  5. #1705
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,189
    Thanked in
    2,041 Posts
    The Georgia-Florida-Alabama water war is in front of the SCOTUS today. It's one of the rare original jurisdiction cases you see the SCOTUS handle (original jurisdiction means the case didn't have to go through the lower courts and be appealed to the SCOTUS, it could be filed directly with the SCOTUS). The SCOTUS appointed a special master to hear the case that sided with Georgia and now the full court is hearing the case. This case, however decided, will not be the end of this dispute but it could be a big step in the direction of either allowing Georgia more rights to water (especially Lake Lanier) or else restricting those rights to give Florida more.

    Florida's big argument is that the lack of fresh water has been detrimental to the oyster and mussel populations in Apalachicola Bay.This isn't entirely accurate as the primary thing that damaged these populations was overfishing. Georgia's best argument (and why I think they'll come out ahead) has been the degree to which they've successfully reduced water usage. Water usage has dropped in the Atlanta area in spite of significant population growth. There has also been significant improvement in agricultural water usage in Georgia.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to striker42 For This Useful Post:

    Tapate50 (02-22-2021)

  7. #1706
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  8. #1707
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  9. #1708
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Clarence Thomas is a hero
    Natural Immunity Croc

  10. #1709
    It's OVER 5,000! Tapate50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    24,263
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,058
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,693
    Thanked in
    3,881 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    The Georgia-Florida-Alabama water war is in front of the SCOTUS today. It's one of the rare original jurisdiction cases you see the SCOTUS handle (original jurisdiction means the case didn't have to go through the lower courts and be appealed to the SCOTUS, it could be filed directly with the SCOTUS). The SCOTUS appointed a special master to hear the case that sided with Georgia and now the full court is hearing the case. This case, however decided, will not be the end of this dispute but it could be a big step in the direction of either allowing Georgia more rights to water (especially Lake Lanier) or else restricting those rights to give Florida more.

    Florida's big argument is that the lack of fresh water has been detrimental to the oyster and mussel populations in Apalachicola Bay.This isn't entirely accurate as the primary thing that damaged these populations was overfishing. Georgia's best argument (and why I think they'll come out ahead) has been the degree to which they've successfully reduced water usage. Water usage has dropped in the Atlanta area in spite of significant population growth. There has also been significant improvement in agricultural water usage in Georgia.
    Oyster got hammered after the oil spill and they never have recovered. The lack of fresh water “at times” can inhibit growth for sure though. I think both had hands in the issue. We had a drought as the oyster pop was down. It’s not as much an issue as of now I think. Heck, people are farming oysters now.

    They grow slow so the spat is really protected and people are careful with it if encountered
    Ivermectin Man

  11. #1710
    if my thought dreams could be seen goldfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    21,084
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,365
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,337
    Thanked in
    2,262 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    Clarence Thomas is a hero
    Lol
    "For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman

    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"

  12. #1711
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,189
    Thanked in
    2,041 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tapate50 View Post
    Oyster got hammered after the oil spill and they never have recovered. The lack of fresh water “at times” can inhibit growth for sure though. I think both had hands in the issue. We had a drought as the oyster pop was down. It’s not as much an issue as of now I think. Heck, people are farming oysters now.

    They grow slow so the spat is really protected and people are careful with it if encountered
    I go on vacation down there every year and have talked with a lot of the locals. Almost all of them don't like Atlanta and its water consumption but they also begrudgingly admit that the fishery there was badly mismanaged. A lot of articles you read about the case quote a guy saying that back in the day you could almost walk across the Bay without touching water as you could go from boat to boat harvesting oysters. There was just no way the number of oysters being pulled out was going to be sustainable, even if they had the perfect amounts of fresh water.

    Not getting enough water likely slowed the oysters down but the industry there was doomed long before that. However, you're starting to see signs of things coming back. It's going to take a ton of time but there's some investment in new oyster beds going on down there.

    As for this case, the makeup of the court doesn't favor Florida. The Atlanta area is the home to a ton of of major companies. Coke, UPS, Home Depot, Delta, Cox, NCR, Etc. It's one of the economic powerhouses of the south. While Roberts might be taking a moderate stand on a lot of major cases, he's pretty reliably conservative where it comes to business. I don't see 5 justices letting the ghosts of the oyster industry but a limit on the growth of the Atlanta area.

  13. #1712
    It's OVER 5,000! Tapate50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    24,263
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,058
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,693
    Thanked in
    3,881 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    I go on vacation down there every year and have talked with a lot of the locals. Almost all of them don't like Atlanta and its water consumption but they also begrudgingly admit that the fishery there was badly mismanaged. A lot of articles you read about the case quote a guy saying that back in the day you could almost walk across the Bay without touching water as you could go from boat to boat harvesting oysters. There was just no way the number of oysters being pulled out was going to be sustainable, even if they had the perfect amounts of fresh water.

    Not getting enough water likely slowed the oysters down but the industry there was doomed long before that. However, you're starting to see signs of things coming back. It's going to take a ton of time but there's some investment in new oyster beds going on down there.

    As for this case, the makeup of the court doesn't favor Florida. The Atlanta area is the home to a ton of of major companies. Coke, UPS, Home Depot, Delta, Cox, NCR, Etc. It's one of the economic powerhouses of the south. While Roberts might be taking a moderate stand on a lot of major cases, he's pretty reliably conservative where it comes to business. I don't see 5 justices letting the ghosts of the oyster industry but a limit on the growth of the Atlanta area.
    We vacation there a few times per year. It’s not far from us. I love it there.

    I can vouch for the oyster men. They didn’t know any better though. They just were trying to feed families.
    Ivermectin Man

  14. #1713
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,189
    Thanked in
    2,041 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tapate50 View Post
    We vacation there a few times per year. It’s not far from us. I love it there.

    I can vouch for the oyster men. They didn’t know any better though. They just were trying to feed families.
    No doubt. It's a tough life and the only one a lot of them knew. Great area. Probably my favorite area of Florida.

  15. #1714
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,189
    Thanked in
    2,041 Posts
    https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-cour...alve-industry/

    Here's a breakdown of the oral arguments. Thomas actually asked questions which isn't surprising as the court is sitting as a fact finder in this case. A role normally reserved for a judge or jury at a trial court level.

    The interesting point one justice brought up was the fact that the water restrictions Florida asked for would cost metro Atlanta $100 million a year while the entire Apalachicola oyster industry was worth less than $7 million per year. If I'm on the court there's no way I put the restrictions on Georgia if those numbers are close to right. You could accomplish the same goal by requiring Georgia to pay money damages to Florida at a fraction of the economic cost of water restrictions to Georgia.

  16. #1715
    It's OVER 5,000! Tapate50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    24,263
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,058
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,693
    Thanked in
    3,881 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    No doubt. It's a tough life and the only one a lot of them knew. Great area. Probably my favorite area of Florida.
    Shhhh.
    Ivermectin Man

  17. #1716
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,189
    Thanked in
    2,041 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tapate50 View Post
    Shhhh.
    Oh yeah, I was kidding it's horrible. They keep leaving the gates of the pedophile prison open and does any area need that many sewage treatment plants?

  18. #1717
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,189
    Thanked in
    2,041 Posts
    I read the Thomas dissent. A lot of people miss his point. The thing that really riled him up wasn't the underlying facts. He's clear that the results in PA would not be changed by SCOTUS action. What he was upset about was the idea that the case was moot.

    He wants to address the powers over elections legislatures have as opposed to courts. Since election timelines are tight, it's difficult to fully appeal a case in time. Since the same problems are capable of repetition, they should not be declared moot.

    He wanted the court to hear this case to set the rules for the future, not change anything that happened this election

  19. #1718
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,189
    Thanked in
    2,041 Posts
    There's a big case being argued in front of the SCOTUS tomorrow. Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee. This is a great example of when you should pick your battles.

    The case centers on two statutes passed by Arizona in 2016. The first disqualifies any ballot cast at the wrong precinct. The second makes it a felony for anyone other than the voter, their family, their caregiver, a postal worker, or an election official to deliver an absentee ballot (this is an anti-ballot harvesting statute). The Democratic party sued alleging these law violated the Voting Rights Act because they would disproportionately affect minority voters and were passed based on racial animus.

    The Democratic party lost at the trial court and on their initial appeal but won on an en banc review by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit found that the precinct requirement disproportionately affected minority voters as black and hispanic voters were significantly more likely to cast their ballots at the wrong precinct. The court also found that the anti-ballot harvesting statute was passed with racial animus.

    In their decision the 9th Circuit said there is a two part test to determine this. What the test is for our purposes here is less important than noting the circuits have split on what the test is so the SCOTUS pretty much has to address it at this point.

    Suffice to say the current makeup of the court is not ideal for the Democratic Party's side. The current court is very much of the mind that the Constitution gives the states the power to administer their own elections and they have not, to date, shown much consideration for the continued relevancy of the Voting Rights Act. Bringing this case when it did and on the specific statutes it did means the Democratic Party has given the SCOTUS another chance to pare down the Voting Rights Act.

    Then there's the fact that these aren't particular heinous statutes compared to other practices out there. The ballot harvesting in particular is a challenge that will be hard to sustain.

    In any event, we're likely to get a new test on how to determine whether voting laws pass muster under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. My guess is that it will be pretty deferential to the states.

  20. #1719
    It's OVER 5,000! Jaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    7,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,202
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,344
    Thanked in
    1,625 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    There's a big case being argued in front of the SCOTUS tomorrow. Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee. This is a great example of when you should pick your battles.

    The case centers on two statutes passed by Arizona in 2016. The first disqualifies any ballot cast at the wrong precinct. The second makes it a felony for anyone other than the voter, their family, their caregiver, a postal worker, or an election official to deliver an absentee ballot (this is an anti-ballot harvesting statute). The Democratic party sued alleging these law violated the Voting Rights Act because they would disproportionately affect minority voters and were passed based on racial animus.

    The Democratic party lost at the trial court and on their initial appeal but won on an en banc review by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit found that the precinct requirement disproportionately affected minority voters as black and hispanic voters were significantly more likely to cast their ballots at the wrong precinct. The court also found that the anti-ballot harvesting statute was passed with racial animus.

    In their decision the 9th Circuit said there is a two part test to determine this. What the test is for our purposes here is less important than noting the circuits have split on what the test is so the SCOTUS pretty much has to address it at this point.

    Suffice to say the current makeup of the court is not ideal for the Democratic Party's side. The current court is very much of the mind that the Constitution gives the states the power to administer their own elections and they have not, to date, shown much consideration for the continued relevancy of the Voting Rights Act. Bringing this case when it did and on the specific statutes it did means the Democratic Party has given the SCOTUS another chance to pare down the Voting Rights Act.

    Then there's the fact that these aren't particular heinous statutes compared to other practices out there. The ballot harvesting in particular is a challenge that will be hard to sustain.

    In any event, we're likely to get a new test on how to determine whether voting laws pass muster under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. My guess is that it will be pretty deferential to the states.
    Is there any type of "correlation is not causation" standard for judges?
    Go get him!

    Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club

  21. #1720
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,189
    Thanked in
    2,041 Posts
    Big case being argued right now. NCAA v. Alston. This is a case about whether student athlete compensation rules violate antitrust law. It's not going well for the NCAA. They're catching it from both sides. At this point a 9-0 decision wouldn't surprise me.

Similar Threads

  1. Cops gun down legal carrying citizen
    By zitothebrave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 07-15-2016, 02:58 PM
  2. SCOTUS
    By 57Brave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 08:21 AM
  3. 'Temporary Legal Status'
    By Hawk in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-22-2014, 10:02 AM
  4. Four big technology legal cases in 2014
    By Krgrecw in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •