• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Junebug said:
No. I’m not a fan of Thomas’s dissents, like this one, where he writes on issues that are not necessary to his vote. I would call that a form of activism. But I don’t think that a future case that chipped away at Sullivan would necessarily be the product of activism. I think activism has at least 2 manifestations: (1) reaching out to decide questions that are not presented and/or going further than is necessary to decide the case and (2) deciding cases based on policy preferences. If the right case came before the court and the court concluded that all or part of Sullivan was wrongly decided based on a well-reasoned evaluation of the original meaning of the first amendment, then, no, I wouldn’t call that activism.
Click to expand...

This is a load of shit.
 
Thomas is as big a hack as Scalia without the positives of being funny and a good writer
 
Junebug said:
No. I’m not a fan of Thomas’s dissents, like this one, where he writes on issues that are not necessary to his vote. I would call that a form of activism. But I don’t think that a future case that chipped away at Sullivan would necessarily be the product of activism. I think activism has at least 2 manifestations: (1) reaching out to decide questions that are not presented and/or going further than is necessary to decide the case and (2) deciding cases based on policy preferences. If the right case came before the court and the court concluded that all or part of Sullivan was wrongly decided based on a well-reasoned evaluation of the original meaning of the first amendment, then, no, I wouldn’t call that activism.

I haven’t read Sullivan carefully since law school. I can’t say offhand whether I agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

What’s funny is that what passes for “well-reasoned evaluation of the original meaning of the [constitution]” often involves “reaching out to decide questions that [were] not presented” over 200 years ago. Most of Scalia’s jurisprudence was him role playing as a member of the 19th century Supreme Court in order to decide cases that were never before a 19th century Supreme Court.
 
Junebug said:
In Timbs v. Indiana, Thomas issues a concurrence stating that the means of incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states is the Privileges and Immunities Clause and not the Due Process Clause. He’s said this before, in his concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago, but you guys seems like you are itching to get riled up about something, so here you go.

Being right is exhausting.
Click to expand...

Thomas has been on an island of interpretation his entire judicial career. It’s frankly astonishing he even got to the Supreme Court considering how extreme right his jurisprudence is.
 
Junebug said:
In Timbs v. Indiana, Thomas issues a concurrence stating that the means of incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states is the Privileges and Immunities Clause and not the Due Process Clause. He’s said this before, in his concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago, but you guys seems like you are itching to get riled up about something, so here you go.

Being right is exhausting.
Click to expand...

What is this post even responding to?
 
hasn't he only spoken a few times during his entire tenure as a SCOTUS justice? seems pretty worthless.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Thomas has been on an island of interpretation his entire judicial career. It’s frankly astonishing he even got to the Supreme Court considering how extreme right his jurisprudence is.
Click to expand...

Is it really? How many black conservative judges could they have gotten?
 
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-constitutional-ban-states_n_5c6d892ee4b0e2f4d8a1d166

Seems like a good thing.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help efforts to rein in police seizure of property from criminal suspects.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion in favor of Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana. Police seized Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin.

Reading a summary of her opinion in the courtroom, Ginsburg noted that governments employ fines “out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence” because fines are a source of revenue. The 85-year-old justice missed arguments last month following lung cancer surgery, but returned to the bench on Tuesday.

Timbs pleaded guilty, but faced no prison time. The biggest loss was the Land Rover he bought with some of the life insurance money he received after his father died.

Timbs still has to win one more round in court before he gets his vehicle back, but that seems to be a formality. A judge ruled that taking the car was disproportionate to the severity of the crime, which carries a maximum fine of $10,000. But Indiana’s top court said the justices had never ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines — like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights — applies to states as well as the federal government.

The case drew interest from liberal groups concerned about police abuses and conservative organizations opposed to excessive regulation. Timbs was represented by the libertarian public interest law firm Institute for Justice.
Click to expand...
 
huh, I guess she's not dead. Looking forward to the conspiracy theorists on the right apologizing.
 
SCOTUS took up some LGBTQ rights cases

Trump Admin arguing that businesses and government employers can discriminate based sexual orientation and gender identity and that LGBTQ individuals do not have protections under federal law.
 
“Comply with the Constitution.”

Republicans figured out awhile ago that the Constitution isn’t real. All it does is establish that five Justices are the “Constitution.” They could issue rulings that completely contradict the words of the Constitution and nothing would happen to them.
 
PhDeac said:
“Comply with the Constitution.”

Republicans figured out awhile ago that the Constitution isn’t real. All it does is establish that five Justices are the “Constitution.” They could issue rulings that completely contradict the words of the Constitution and nothing would happen to them.
Click to expand...

You’re out of your comfort zone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top