Legal/scotus thread

[nsacpi]

Looks like the court packing bill is DOA. Pelosi has said it's not getting to the floor and that she supports Biden's commission.

This makes me speculate what the full plan is for the commission. It could be one of a couple things. First, it could just be an attempt to placate the base while not inciting the right too much. The far left is where you see the most push for court packing. These are also the people most likely to vote in primaries. The commission could give Democrats in congress cover from getting primaried. There are also Democrats in less than safe districts who can't afford to stir up voter turnout against them. The commission is less likely to stir up Republicans than an actual bill being voted on. The commission could just be a way to avoid the question for the moment.

The alternative is that the commission could be a way to try to lure in the moderates that would be necessary to pack the court. Several Democrats are already on the record in opposition of court packing. A commission that concludes there are many non-partisan benefits to packing the court could give those moderates some cover to tow the party line and get a bill through both houses. The filibuster would have to die (or at least be rolled back from judicial bills) but if you have 50 votes then I doubt the filibuster would be the stumbling block.

I'm not sure what the true purpose of this commission is. I highly doubt it's to try to uncover new truths about the SCOTUS. This isn't some new and emerging issue. There's a political reason. Either it's designed to further the idea of court packing or it's designed to suppress it.

I'm going to guess that the most substantive recommendations from the commission will have to do with the lower courts in the federal system. Some of the circuits have big backlogs of cases and need more judges.

I also had a thought about the Supreme Court and retirement ages. Maybe have every justice take senior status by age 80. Obviously it would have to be worked out what senior status entails. But it would automatically create a new opening whenever they reach 80.

 

[cajunrevenge]

Looks like the court packing bill is DOA. Pelosi has said it's not getting to the floor and that she supports Biden's commission.

This makes me speculate what the full plan is for the commission. It could be one of a couple things. First, it could just be an attempt to placate the base while not inciting the right too much. The far left is where you see the most push for court packing. These are also the people most likely to vote in primaries. The commission could give Democrats in congress cover from getting primaried. There are also Democrats in less than safe districts who can't afford to stir up voter turnout against them. The commission is less likely to stir up Republicans than an actual bill being voted on. The commission could just be a way to avoid the question for the moment.

The alternative is that the commission could be a way to try to lure in the moderates that would be necessary to pack the court. Several Democrats are already on the record in opposition of court packing. A commission that concludes there are many non-partisan benefits to packing the court could give those moderates some cover to tow the party line and get a bill through both houses. The filibuster would have to die (or at least be rolled back from judicial bills) but if you have 50 votes then I doubt the filibuster would be the stumbling block.

I'm not sure what the true purpose of this commission is. I highly doubt it's to try to uncover new truths about the SCOTUS. This isn't some new and emerging issue. There's a political reason. Either it's designed to further the idea of court packing or it's designed to suppress it.

I think the point of the commission is to push the issue past 2022. Republicans are going to run on Democrats doing it so if they still hold a majority in both sides of Congress after that its hard to argue its not the will of the people. It would be the second straight election Republicans ran on that issue and lost.

 

[striker42]

A disappointing oral argument today over free speech rights of students for conduct outside of school. A girl in Pennsylvania didn't make the cheer squad and then posted on Snapchat something to the effect of "F--- cheerleading, f--- softball, f--- school". The cheer coach found out about this and had the girl suspended.

Schools have long been able to regulate student speech in school that would be disruptive to the school's operations. You can't have kids protesting in the middle of class and preventing other kids from learning. But this is a statement that occurred on a social media app (which we've all been consistently reminded is owned by a private company) while this kid was at home.

The ACLU argued that statements made on an app off campus can't be regulated by the school. That the first amendment bars it. The attorneys for the school (and for the federal government as they're siding with the school for some reason) argued that the statements off campus can still have an on campus effect as students might read them on campus.

The justices appeared to be lost in the weeds on this one and missed a massive point. Schools are not there to raise children. They're there to educate children. A student behaving poorly even if it reaches the level of cyber bullying is not the school's responsibility. So long as the student is not breaking rules while at school, it's not the school's job to intervene.

States can pass laws regulating behavior outside of schools. But school officials should not have that power. The justices seemed to miss that point. The behavior of kids outside of school is largely the domain of the parents.

Edit: Apparently the girl didn't make the varsity team and was suspended from the team after the snapchat outburst.

 

[nsacpi]

A disappointing oral argument today over free speech rights of students for conduct outside of school. A girl in Pennsylvania didn't make the cheer squad and then posted on Snapchat something to the effect of "F--- cheerleading, f--- softball, f--- school". The cheer coach found out about this and had the girl suspended.

Schools have long been able to regulate student speech in school that would be disruptive to the school's operations. You can't have kids protesting in the middle of class and preventing other kids from learning. But this is a statement that occurred on a social media app (which we've all been consistently reminded is owned by a private company) while this kid was at home.

The ACLU argued that statements made on an app off campus can't be regulated by the school. That the first amendment bars it. The attorneys for the school (and for the federal government as they're siding with the school for some reason) argued that the statements off campus can still have an on campus effect as students might read them on campus.

The justices appeared to be lost in the weeds on this one and missed a massive point. Schools are not there to raise children. They're there to educate children. A student behaving poorly even if it reaches the level of cyber bullying is not the school's responsibility. So long as the student is not breaking rules while at school, it's not the school's job to intervene.

States can pass laws regulating behavior outside of schools. But school officials should not have that power. The justices seemed to miss that point. The behavior of kids outside of school is largely the domain of the parents.

Edit: Apparently the girl didn't make the varsity team and was suspended from the team after the snapchat outburst.

It's a tough case. I think the standard that allows schools to regulate student speech is to prevent disruption to the learning environment. And with modern technology a lot of that kind of disruptive speech can take place off of school grounds. In this particular instance, I don't think what she said falls within the disruption to the learning environment ambit.

 

[cajunrevenge]

I dont think it's a tough case at all. What it is is a case of old farts who havent been in grade school since atleast the 80's who cant imagine a school official abusing the "distupting the learning enviroment" clause. I will look at the decision when I get home but if I was the judge I would be asking why that teacher still has a job and isnt being charged with a crime.

 

[nsacpi]

I dont think it's a tough case at all. What it is is a case of old farts who havent been in grade school since atleast the 80's who cant imagine a school official abusing the "distupting the learning enviroment" clause. I will look at the decision when I get home but if I was the judge I would be asking why that teacher still has a job and isnt being charged with a crime.

The lower courts ruled in favor of the girl. The Supreme Court is taking up an appeal.

 

[striker42]

There are so many reasons I don't like the idea of schools punishing kids for speech outside of school. First, how can we teach our kids that freedom of speech is important when they have to sit there and watch the government suppress their speech? If we're showing them no respect for their freedom of speech then they're not going to assign any value to that freedom.

Next, parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. I don't want my kid's school disciplining my kid for things my kid is doing while under my supervision. If I don't have a problem with my kid venting on snapchat at home, then that's my business. The school can't come tell me how to raise my kid.

Then there's the fact that government has other options here than suppressing speech. If the school is concerned with kids off campus speech on social media being read at school and disrupting school, then ban kids from reading social media at school. If you're afraid of cyber bullying that's occurring outside of school, state legislatures can act on that. Ultimately, if it's occurring off school grounds it's either up to parents or legislatures to regulate the conduct, not schools.

Giving schools the power to regulate children outside of school presents so many problems. You're essentially making educators child police at that point.

 

[Krgrecw]

There are so many reasons I don't like the idea of schools punishing kids for speech outside of school. First, how can we teach our kids that freedom of speech is important when they have to sit there and watch the government suppress their speech? If we're showing them no respect for their freedom of speech then they're not going to assign any value to that freedom.

Next, parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. I don't want my kid's school disciplining my kid for things my kid is doing while under my supervision. If I don't have a problem with my kid venting on snapchat at home, then that's my business. The school can't come tell me how to raise my kid.

Then there's the fact that government has other options here than suppressing speech. If the school is concerned with kids off campus speech on social media being read at school and disrupting school, then ban kids from reading social media at school. If you're afraid of cyber bullying that's occurring outside of school, state legislatures can act on that. Ultimately, if it's occurring off school grounds it's either up to parents or legislatures to regulate the conduct, not schools.

Giving schools the power to regulate children outside of school presents so many problems. You're essentially making educators child police at that point.

Wouldn’t letting schools regulate children’s actions outside of school set a precedent to letting jobs regulate an employees speech outside of work?

 

[nsacpi]

There are so many reasons I don't like the idea of schools punishing kids for speech outside of school. First, how can we teach our kids that freedom of speech is important when they have to sit there and watch the government suppress their speech? If we're showing them no respect for their freedom of speech then they're not going to assign any value to that freedom.

Next, parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. I don't want my kid's school disciplining my kid for things my kid is doing while under my supervision. If I don't have a problem with my kid venting on snapchat at home, then that's my business. The school can't come tell me how to raise my kid.

Then there's the fact that government has other options here than suppressing speech. If the school is concerned with kids off campus speech on social media being read at school and disrupting school, then ban kids from reading social media at school. If you're afraid of cyber bullying that's occurring outside of school, state legislatures can act on that. Ultimately, if it's occurring off school grounds it's either up to parents or legislatures to regulate the conduct, not schools.

Giving schools the power to regulate children outside of school presents so many problems. You're essentially making educators child police at that point.

In principle parents and legislatures can deal with cyberbullying. In practice you have situations where some kids are afraid to come to school. If school principals can nip that in the bud by having a talk with (and if necessary suspending) the culprits, they should have that power.

There are other ways to deal with this. I know of one parent of a 10-year old girl who was being bullied. He found the bully one day getting off the school bus and told her he was going to beat the **** out of her if she continued bullying his daughter. It worked. But I don't think that's a good approach.

 

[striker42]

Wouldn’t letting schools regulate children’s actions outside of school set a precedent to letting jobs regulate an employees speech outside of work?

Jobs can regulate employees speech outside of work. The first amendment only applies to government actors, not private actors. I could see a similar argument being made for government workers though. "You spoke out against the president outside of work. That's disruptive to the work place so you're fired."

 

[cajunrevenge]

Let me tell you about another case. A school gave out free laptops to students...... which they take home with them..... school officials then used the camera function remotely to spy on the kids and tried to punish some for stuff they saw on the cameras. FBI immediately declared their investigation closed because they "didnt see criminal intent". Which is another way of saying "no the law doesnt apply to these people, they work for the government".

 

[Jaw]

Let me tell you about another case. A school gave out free laptops to students...... which they take home with them..... school officials then used the camera function remotely to spy on the kids and tried to punish some for stuff they saw on the cameras. FBI immediately declared their investigation closed because they "didnt see criminal intent". Which is another way of saying "no the law doesnt apply to these people, they work for the government".

Yeah, hard to imagine the FBI landing on the side that's against unconstitutional invasion of privacy. This stuff and the Patriot Act are the type of abuses that everyone should be against, and the the courts are supposed to keep from happening.

 

[Jaw]

Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the state of NY's nearly unobtainable "may issue" carry permits. A combination of states and district courts has done an impressive job of whittling away at the Second since the Heller ruling. Being required to prove a need to carry a gun caused by extraordinary circumstances certainly infringes upon a person's right to bear arms.

Thanks to the appointment of the three most recent Supreme Court justices, I'm optimistic on this one.

 

[striker42]

Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the state of NY's nearly unobtainable "may issue" carry permits. A combination of states and district courts has done an impressive job of whittling away at the Second since the Heller ruling. Being required to prove a need to carry a gun caused by extraordinary circumstances certainly infringes upon a person's right to bear arms.

Thanks to the appointment of the three most recent Supreme Court justices, I'm optimistic on this one.

I don't get a lot of the regulations on guns states are trying. They're really, really ineffective. The people who tend to comply with these regulations are responsible gun owners who aren't really a danger. The people who are the dangers aren't going to comply. So the effect isn't really greater safety.

I have no problem with reasonable gun regulations. I just want them to be based on research and be well thought out. So many of the regulations are passed because of a knee jerk reaction based on people fearing or not liking guns.

 

[sturg33]

I don't get a lot of the regulations on guns states are trying. They're really, really ineffective. The people who tend to comply with these regulations are responsible gun owners who aren't really a danger. The people who are the dangers aren't going to comply. So the effect isn't really greater safety.

I have no problem with reasonable gun regulations. I just want them to be based on research and be well thought out. So many of the regulations are passed because of a knee jerk reaction based on people fearing or not liking guns.

It is a constant effort to make it more difficult for good people to want to get a gun

 

[Krgrecw]

It is a constant effort to make it more difficult for good people to want to get a gun

That and the media will never mention the true statistics about who commits the murders and those guns are always illegal.

 

[nsacpi]

As a policy matter, I think those of us concerned about gun violence should focus on two things:

1) The nexus between guns and mental illness. Do a better job of reducing the number of mentally ill and unstable people that have guns.

2) Raise the price of guns and ammo through taxes. Divert the proceeds into a fund for victims of gun violence. Treat guns and gun violence as a public health issue and take an approach similar to the one we have taken with cigarettes.

Obviously, this will not solve all problems. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[striker42]

It is a constant effort to make it more difficult for good people to want to get a gun

The biggest issue to me are mentally ill people getting guns. However, people keep trying to target guns instead of admitting that we had a mental healthcare problem in this country. I have pretty good health insurance and the mental health coverage is still absolutely laughable. We've basically made it impossible for huge portions of the population to get the help they need. In any legislation addressing mass shootings, addressing mental healthcare needs to be the first thing addressed.

 

[Krgrecw]

As a policy matter, I think those of us concerned about gun violence should focus on two things:

1) The nexus between guns and mental illness. Do a better job of reducing the number of mentally ill and unstable people that have guns.

2) Raise the price of guns and ammo through taxes. Divert the proceeds into a fund for victims of gun violence. Treat guns and gun violence as a public health issue and take an approach similar to the one we have taken with cigarettes.

Obviously, this will not solve all problems. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And that’s the problem. How would either of those ideas help Chicago, Baltimore, NoLa? They wouldn’t. They’d have no effect on the increasing murder rates

 

[nsacpi]

And that’s the problem. How would either of those ideas help Chicago, Baltimore, NoLa? They wouldn’t. They’d have no effect on the increasing murder rates

Same way higher cigarette taxes have reduced lung disease in those places.