Page 131 of 154 FirstFirst ... 3181121129130131132133141 ... LastLast
Results 2,601 to 2,620 of 3063

Thread: Legal/scotus thread

  1. #2601
    It's OVER 5,000! cajunrevenge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    uranus
    Posts
    25,147
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,485
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,792
    Thanked in
    2,710 Posts
    I dont see how thats a conflict of interest for Kagan. There may be no ethics rules for the Supreme court but there are for lower courts and none of them would be allowed to vote on anything involving their own wife.
    "Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.

    It’s over."


    Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.

  2. #2602
    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 cajunrevenge View Post
    I dont see how thats a conflict of interest for Kagan. There may be no ethics rules for the Supreme court but there are for lower courts and none of them would be allowed to vote on anything involving their own wife.
    It's standard that when you worked on a case or oversaw work on a case then you have a conflict as a judge or as opposing counsel for that case. It's pretty clear cut and if she was a lower court judge she'd have almost certainly recused herself.

    SCOTUS justices not recusing themselves when they should is nothing new though. It happens more frequently than people think.

  3. #2603
    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 zitothebrave View Post
    I mean for a lot of people it's super emotional.

    I want to know why the Court is breaking general tradition of throwing out old court opinions in favor of "strict constitutionalism" which we know of course is shenanigans as a strict constitutional approach wouldn't have made the same ruling on the gun debate earlier.
    As Aristotle said, the law is reason free from passion. Ultimately I don't take emotional outbursts free from reason seriously in regards to legal analysis. I just find them annoying.

    As far as your question goes, I have a friend who describes the court not as a group of justices but as a council of wise, learned men and women. They don't make decisions based on the law, they make decisions and then try to find legal justification.

    The same was true when Roe was decided. Roe's legal reasoning is famously poor. The court had an end they wanted to achieve, decided that way, and then tried to justify it. In ideological cases, it's what happens.

  4. #2604
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    13,131
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,412
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,817
    Thanked in
    1,314 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cajunrevenge View Post
    Clarence Thomas absolutely deserves to be impeached. He didnt recuse himself in a case where he had a serious conflict of interest.
    lol

  5. #2605
    Connoisseur of Minors zitothebrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    DANGERZONE
    Posts
    24,623
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,428
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,432
    Thanked in
    2,463 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    As Aristotle said, the law is reason free from passion. Ultimately I don't take emotional outbursts free from reason seriously in regards to legal analysis. I just find them annoying.

    As far as your question goes, I have a friend who describes the court not as a group of justices but as a council of wise, learned men and women. They don't make decisions based on the law, they make decisions and then try to find legal justification.

    The same was true when Roe was decided. Roe's legal reasoning is famously poor. The court had an end they wanted to achieve, decided that way, and then tried to justify it. In ideological cases, it's what happens.
    I don't disagree that the court has flaws in it's system. But like I said, it seems like the one general standard was the court would work around previous ruling. There are exceptions of course, but generally those exceptions came because of either a clearly unconstitutional ruling like Minersville School District v. Gobitis, which I know is what will be argued by the right, but there's a whole lot more nuance than this.

    I personalyl wish that we would just ratify the law nationally. Abortion has much more favor than not. More people believe in unregulated abortion over no abortion.
    Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg

  6. #2606
    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 zitothebrave View Post
    I don't disagree that the court has flaws in it's system. But like I said, it seems like the one general standard was the court would work around previous ruling. There are exceptions of course, but generally those exceptions came because of either a clearly unconstitutional ruling like Minersville School District v. Gobitis, which I know is what will be argued by the right, but there's a whole lot more nuance than this.

    I personalyl wish that we would just ratify the law nationally. Abortion has much more favor than not. More people believe in unregulated abortion over no abortion.
    The problem is that there's no majority sentiment in regards to abortion. There's a conception that it's either pro-choice or pro-life. It's far more of a spectrum. You have people who think abortion should never be legal, those who think it's okay if the mother's life is at risk, those who would include rape and incest in allowed abortions, those who think it's only okay in the first trimester, those who think it's okay before viability, those who think it should always be legal, and those who see it any abortion as a good thing.

    There's no majority support for any of those points on the abortion spectrum. A majority of Americans support a right to an abortion in some form but what they consider to be the extent of that right varies.

  7. #2607
    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
    Here are my thoughts on the case:

    First, let's not beat around the bush in regards to Roe and Casey. Those were cases that were 100% the court wanting a certain result and the legal reasoning to get there was terrible. The court sat as a legislature in deciding those cases. You can agree with the result or not, but the legal reasoning is bad.

    As for this case, let's be honest as well. This was an outcome driven case as well. The majority tried its best to explain why stare decisis doesn't apply but the reasoning was tortured there too. The majority cited Plessy v Ferguson / Brown v Board of Education as justification but that's kind of the legal equivalent of Godwin's Law. If you have to rely on that instance of not following stare decisis then you're probably doing something wrong.

    There was another line from the case that I absolutely loathe seeing in cases. The majority knew that its reasoning could be used to try to overturn things like gay marriage or rights to contraceptives, so the majority had to specifically say that the reasoning applies only to abortion and cannot be used in any other context. When you limit the application of a case like that it's usually a giveaway that you're not in love with your reasoning. If you've done things correctly, you shouldn't be afraid of your reasoning being used in other contexts.

    Next, I don't think people realize the court didn't pick a winner. Roe v Wade picked the pro-choice side as the winner. This case doesn't pick the pro-life side as the winner. The court could have gone a lot farther. If the court had held that a fetus is a person and has all the constitutional rights of any other person, then abortion becomes immediately illegal everywhere. All of sudden you have murder statutes applying. By tossing the issue to the states, the court basically let the game continue.

    My final point on this case is that the court did what probably should have been done in Roe v Wade. Ginsburg once said Roe v Wade was a mistake as choosing a winner shut down the abortion debate and just entrenched the sides. Her belief is that there would eventually have been a consensus on allowing abortions had the court not short circuited the debate. However, Roe v Wade was decided the way it was so there was a strong argument for stare decisis to apply. Whether it should have is something for debate though.

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

    acesfull86 (06-27-2022)

  9. #2608
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    Here are my thoughts on the case:

    First, let's not beat around the bush in regards to Roe and Casey. Those were cases that were 100% the court wanting a certain result and the legal reasoning to get there was terrible. The court sat as a legislature in deciding those cases. You can agree with the result or not, but the legal reasoning is bad.

    As for this case, let's be honest as well. This was an outcome driven case as well. The majority tried its best to explain why stare decisis doesn't apply but the reasoning was tortured there too. The majority cited Plessy v Ferguson / Brown v Board of Education as justification but that's kind of the legal equivalent of Godwin's Law. If you have to rely on that instance of not following stare decisis then you're probably doing something wrong.

    There was another line from the case that I absolutely loathe seeing in cases. The majority knew that its reasoning could be used to try to overturn things like gay marriage or rights to contraceptives, so the majority had to specifically say that the reasoning applies only to abortion and cannot be used in any other context. When you limit the application of a case like that it's usually a giveaway that you're not in love with your reasoning. If you've done things correctly, you shouldn't be afraid of your reasoning being used in other contexts.

    Next, I don't think people realize the court didn't pick a winner. Roe v Wade picked the pro-choice side as the winner. This case doesn't pick the pro-life side as the winner. The court could have gone a lot farther. If the court had held that a fetus is a person and has all the constitutional rights of any other person, then abortion becomes immediately illegal everywhere. All of sudden you have murder statutes applying. By tossing the issue to the states, the court basically let the game continue.

    My final point on this case is that the court did what probably should have been done in Roe v Wade. Ginsburg once said Roe v Wade was a mistake as choosing a winner shut down the abortion debate and just entrenched the sides. Her belief is that there would eventually have been a consensus on allowing abortions had the court not short circuited the debate. However, Roe v Wade was decided the way it was so there was a strong argument for stare decisis to apply. Whether it should have is something for debate though.
    The court took the decision out.of the hands of 9 unelected judges and gave it to the people to vote on.

    The "pro DEMOCRACY ™ people are livid

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sturg33 For This Useful Post:

    Jaw (06-27-2022), Tapate50 (06-27-2022), thethe (06-27-2022)

  11. #2609
    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 thing that has annoyed me the most is seeing some variation of the following argument over, and over, and over, and over:

    "We shouldn't tell women what to do with their body"

    That has flooded my social media and people just cannot for the life of them see the error of their logic. They can't see that this argument is based on the assumed and unproven premise that the fetus is part of the woman's body and has no rights of its own.

    Even without this decision a woman's right to an abortion was not absolute. Even in states that have zero regulations on when you can get an abortion, women are still limited in their rights to get one. Suppose a woman can't afford an abortion and so robs her next door neighbor for the money. The woman's right to an abortion does not trump the neighbor's right to their property. Basically, the right to an abortion existed until it infringed upon the rights of others. So if a fetus had rights then the woman getting the abortion would be infringing upon the rights of the fetus.

    The central question in abortion is always what rights does a fetus have. If a fetus has no rights, then any regulation on it would be infringing upon a woman's rights to her own body. However, if a fetus has rights of it's own then it's not a simple case of woman deciding what to do with her body as the right to make decisions about your body is limited when it conflicts with the rights of others.

    However, this is a question no one wants to discuss because it doesn't have an easy answer. There's no objective way of proving when legal rights accrue or when moral duties begin. It's far simpler to just assume your belief in that regard is correct and then argue that abortion regulations are evil attempts to control women's bodies (for the record, the same assumption is made by the pro-life side when they shout abortion is murder).

    I honestly don't care what your answer to the question of what rights a fetus has is. I just want people to examine their beliefs and realize that their moral outrage is based on a very difficult question that no one can answer with complete certainty and which people can disagree on.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to striker42 For This Useful Post:

    acesfull86 (06-27-2022), thethe (06-27-2022)

  13. #2610
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    How the f is this not a 9-0 decision


  14. #2611
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    How the f is this not a 9-0 decision

    Because we don't have jurists on the bench from the left. They are straight activists and want to fundamentally change the country to their communist utopia ****hole.
    Natural Immunity Croc

  15. #2612
    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
    Last edited by thethe; 06-27-2022 at 09:47 AM.
    Natural Immunity Croc

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to thethe For This Useful Post:

    Tapate50 (06-27-2022)

  17. #2613
    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 thethe View Post
    This.
    Ivermectin Man

  18. #2614
    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
    Natural Immunity Croc

  19. #2615
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Covid provided us with the understanding that they don't actually believe this bull ****... it's always been about the ability to kill their kid. "my body my choice" can forever be laughed away as nonsense in their arguments

    "I can't fix my life, but I can fix the world" said the socialist

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to sturg33 For This Useful Post:

    Tapate50 (06-27-2022)

  21. #2616
    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
    So many fake narrative/outrages have been revealed. They are a party/movement that believes in nothing.
    Natural Immunity Croc

  22. #2617
    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
    Natural Immunity Croc

  23. #2618
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    Why don't lawmakers who pass these illegal laws go to jail?

  24. #2619
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,587
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,096
    Thanked in
    5,758 Posts
    Scrolling through the takes on twitter, from our "highly educated" blue check journal lists, really highlights how terrible the higher education system has become.

    It has produced a bunch on ignorant cry babies who know nothing about our system or how it works

    Remarkable the stupidity of the experts and academics

  25. #2620
    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 nsacpi View Post
    the jurisprudence on the second amendment has changed quite a bit over the years...i'd be happy to go back 150 years on it
    This take always cracks me up. The founders just watched a make shift Navy of privately owned ships bearing privately owned cannon fight the largest Navy in the world. To believe they would be upset by citizens carrying 10, 15, 30 round semi autos around is... interesting. All the years of jurisprudence that you reminisce about were years that it was blatantly wrong.

    it seems to me that public safety is a competing interest that is of sufficient fundamental importance to compete with various rights enumerated in the constitution...this is generally recognized for example in limitations on speech (can't yell fire in a crowded theater)...once upon a time (150 years ago and actually much more recently as well) courts were more willing to accept that public safety considerations provided state (and federal) governments a certain amount of latitude to constrain the right to bear arms...it will take a while but the pendulum is likely to swing back on that one
    The "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" crew really, really need to look up the origin of that phrase.

    And the Supreme Court has had a socially leftward, centralized government philosophy for longer than anyone on this forum has been alive. That didn't make it correct. We've seen them repeatedly (abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, etc) advance the social Left cause when the left couldn't do it through legislation. I'm enjoying the correction that's occurring now. Passionately.
    Go get him!

    Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Jaw For This Useful Post:

    thethe (06-27-2022)

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
  •