Page 21 of 199
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu June 23, 2016 2:13 pm
by Green Habit
So SCOTUS has ruled that the government can force you to take a Breathalyzer without a warrant, but not to take blood tests.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 8_8n59.pdf
Bad, but could have been worse, I gues. I don't like the inconsistency in this. RBG and Sotomayor would have held both as unconstitutional, while Thomas would have allowed both.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu June 23, 2016 2:18 pm
by Green Habit
Wow, Kennedy flipped on Fisher. UT's affirmative action program stands.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 1_4g15.pdf
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu June 23, 2016 2:39 pm
by Green Habit
Obama's immigration policy (DAPA) remains blocked thanks to a 4-4 tie.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri June 24, 2016 11:12 am
by B
I'm starting to feel that Kennedy will vote in whichever way lands him the most headlines.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sat June 25, 2016 7:32 pm
by @SkitchP
B wrote:
I'm starting to feel that Kennedy will vote in whichever way lands him the most headlines.
that's the Kennedy way.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon June 27, 2016 2:08 pm
by Green Habit
Texas abortion laws struck down on a clear 5-3 margin.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 4_p8k0.pdf
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon June 27, 2016 2:26 pm
by @SkitchP
Supreme court could save a lot on paper costs if they used more reasonable margins, tbh.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon June 27, 2016 9:49 pm
by B
@SkitchP wrote:B wrote:
I'm starting to feel that Kennedy will vote in whichever way lands him the most headlines.
that's the Kennedy way.
It continues!
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon June 27, 2016 10:03 pm
by Green Habit
I dunno, I think Kennedy has always been the same on both issues. He probably wishes for an ideal world in which abortion and affirmative action don't exist, but also realizes that we don't live in that ideal world.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue June 28, 2016 12:28 am
by B
Supreme Court's going to decide whether North Carolina's gerrymandering is constitutional, but not in time to affect the election this year.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue June 28, 2016 1:33 am
by Green Habit
B wrote:Supreme Court's going to decide whether North Carolina's gerrymandering is constitutional, but not in time to affect the election this year.
They gotta have their own three month summer vacation, y'know?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue July 12, 2016 9:38 pm
by Green Habit
Anyone have an opinion on Ginsburg blasting Trump? I don't seem to have a huge problem with it, but most of the people that I read on SCOTUS seem to.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue July 12, 2016 9:43 pm
by Rangi Guy
Green Habit wrote:Anyone have an opinion on Ginsburg blasting Trump? I don't seem to have a huge problem with it, but most of the people that I read on SCOTUS seem to.
She says that if Trump wins she's moving over here - should we be worried?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue July 12, 2016 9:47 pm
by Green Habit
Rangi Guy wrote:Green Habit wrote:Anyone have an opinion on Ginsburg blasting Trump? I don't seem to have a huge problem with it, but most of the people that I read on SCOTUS seem to.
She says that if Trump wins she's moving over here - should we be worried?
Nah, but even if you would be worried she's also 83 years old. But if Trump actually did win, as her comments demonstrate it's likely she'd rather die than let Trump replace her, of which complicates an exodus to New Zealand.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue July 12, 2016 10:28 pm
by Bi_3
Green Habit wrote:Anyone have an opinion on Ginsburg blasting Trump? I don't seem to have a huge problem with it, but most of the people that I read on SCOTUS seem to.
It's a bit unusual isn't it? It shatters that whole illusion of an impartial court.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed July 13, 2016 2:30 am
by Green Habit
Bi_3 wrote:Green Habit wrote:Anyone have an opinion on Ginsburg blasting Trump? I don't seem to have a huge problem with it, but most of the people that I read on SCOTUS seem to.
It's a bit unusual isn't it? It shatters that whole illusion of an impartial court.
I guess it doesn't affect me since I've long dispelled that illusion.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed July 13, 2016 2:55 pm
by B
Bi_3 wrote:Green Habit wrote:Anyone have an opinion on Ginsburg blasting Trump? I don't seem to have a huge problem with it, but most of the people that I read on SCOTUS seem to.
It's a bit unusual isn't it? It shatters that whole illusion of an impartial court.
Is it supposed to be impartial or just not beholden to anyone?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed July 13, 2016 5:47 pm
by Green Habit
B wrote:Bi_3 wrote:Green Habit wrote:Anyone have an opinion on Ginsburg blasting Trump? I don't seem to have a huge problem with it, but most of the people that I read on SCOTUS seem to.
It's a bit unusual isn't it? It shatters that whole illusion of an impartial court.
Is it supposed to be impartial or just not beholden to anyone?
Lifetime appointment prevents being beholden.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed July 13, 2016 9:52 pm
by B
NPR explained it in a way I understood. So she's violating a non-binding code of conduct. Disappointing, but I still love me some Notorious RBG.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu July 14, 2016 12:27 am
by Green Habit
B wrote:NPR explained it in a way I understood. So she's violating a non-binding code of conduct. Disappointing, but I still love me some Notorious RBG.
This code has never applied to SCOTUS. And I'd be tempted to say that it'd violate the First Amendment if someone tried to enforce it, but since it would implicate SCOTUS itself it gets complicated.