The Supreme Court

Engage in discussions about news, politics, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Bi_3
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 16452
Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Bi_3 »

Green Habit wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Green Habit wrote:Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.
Image
I think the trollier one is someone starting their own religion and building their own school for it.
Like this?

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/star- ... /overview/
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
User avatar
elliseamos
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 8900
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by elliseamos »

Um, Maine is all for more people moving up north.

Especially if you'll vote non-crazy.

All are welcome.

Also, once enough of you move there, the taxes will allow an f'n public school be built and we'll all move on from this story.
User avatar
Norah
Poster of the Year
Posts: 37452
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Norah »

Now they say they're releasing opinions on Friday as well as tomorrow. Is a late add to the calendar like this that unusual?
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

Norris wrote:Now they say they're releasing opinions on Friday as well as tomorrow. Is a late add to the calendar like this that unusual?
Nope, it tends to happen this time of year when they finally figure out when they have opinions ready to go.
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf
User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by McParadigm »

(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

Yeah, that §1983/Miranda opinion is a really bad one that's going to duck a lot of criticism because everyone's going to be yelling over the gun case instead.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_gfbh.pdf
User avatar
4/5
See you in another life, brother
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by 4/5 »

It won't be the tweet-length summary of the Roberts court, but I wonder if the most important long term legacy won't be the narrowing of judicial authority and legal standing, in turn tilting the citizen/government balance strongly towards governments by taking away people's ability to take legal action against governments/officials.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

User avatar
Norah
Poster of the Year
Posts: 37452
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Norah »

Green Habit wrote:
Norris wrote:Now they say they're releasing opinions on Friday as well as tomorrow. Is a late add to the calendar like this that unusual?
Nope, it tends to happen this time of year when they finally figure out when they have opinions ready to go.
Thank you.
simple schoolboy
Misplaced My Sponge
Posts: 5934
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by simple schoolboy »

Green Habit wrote:Yeah, that §1983/Miranda opinion is a really bad one that's going to duck a lot of criticism because everyone's going to be yelling over the gun case instead.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_gfbh.pdf
Government officials have this sweet spot where they have immunity for their actions under the theory that they are fulfilling some necessary state action but it turns out they have almost no obligation to do specific acts so everything is at their discretion.

Immunity almost makes sense if they had real obligations.
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

User avatar
blueviper
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4143
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 2:03 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by blueviper »

Yikes.

This opens the door for Plan B and other contraceptive banning.

Looks like it was a 5-4 decision.
St. Louis (1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2022)
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

The sum of the opinions is 213 fucking pages (classic Alito) but I was able to get the jist by reading a few paragraphs, and it was all that I expected.
User avatar
Bi_3
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 16452
Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Bi_3 »

Green Habit wrote:The sum of the opinions is 213 fucking pages (classic Alito) but I was able to get the jist by reading a few paragraphs, and it was all that I expected.
Is there somewhere you would recommend that calmly, objectively, and without Handmaiden's Tale references explains why Alito is wrong in this case?
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

blueviper wrote:Yikes.

This opens the door for Plan B and other contraceptive banning.

Looks like it was a 5-4 decision.
That's the big question ahead. There may be enough popular opposition to abortion in some places, but I think most people will (rightly) lose their shit over losing their contraception.
User avatar
Mickey
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 9715
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am
Location: Tristes Tropiques

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Mickey »

According to Thomas it opens the door to saying "states rights" about a lot more then just contraceptives.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
User avatar
Mickey
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 9715
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am
Location: Tristes Tropiques

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Mickey »

Green Habit wrote:
blueviper wrote:Yikes.

This opens the door for Plan B and other contraceptive banning.

Looks like it was a 5-4 decision.
That's the big question ahead. There may be enough popular opposition to abortion in some places, but I think most people will (rightly) lose their shit over losing their contraception.
I don't know how much that matters, a lot of state legislatures are only nominally representative and full abortion bans are not popular.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by Green Habit »

Bi_3 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:The sum of the opinions is 213 fucking pages (classic Alito) but I was able to get the jist by reading a few paragraphs, and it was all that I expected.
Is there somewhere you would recommend that calmly, objectively, and without Handmaiden's Tale references explains why Alito is wrong in this case?
I'm away from the computer right now but if I find something later I’ll post it here.
User avatar
blueviper
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4143
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 2:03 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by blueviper »

is there a specific section of the Constitution that was being used to uphold R v W ?
St. Louis (1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2022)
User avatar
4/5
See you in another life, brother
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: The Supreme Court

Post by 4/5 »

Mickey wrote:According to Thomas it opens the door to saying "states rights" about a lot more then just contraceptives.
If Scalia was alive that wouldn't have been a solo dissent. He "warned" in Lawrence that it was going to lead to all sorts of apocalyptic things like the same-sex marriage.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

Post Reply