• 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:
"If you know at all how SCOTUS arguments work." Lol.

Tell me about your time arguing, clerking, or sweeping floors at the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I follow the Supreme Court pretty closely, I would wager certainly more closely than anyone else on here. I've read almost every opinion for the last 5 years or so, and at least half of the oral argument transcripts.

But you're right, I was never the janitor so I probably don't know anything about it
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Not only that but she had the opportunity to go to another state school and transfer into UT-Austin and graduate from there and she turned it down. Not sure if she tried to transfer from LSU to UT-Austin or not.

It's the ultimate millennial entitlement. She was a marginal candidate who didn't get into the college of her choice and she literally made a federal case out of it.
Click to expand...

Read what I actually said, Junebug.
 
MysteryMen said:
These types of "questions" are not common. There are maybe 1 or 2 cases per term where a justice says something as outrageous as what Scalia said here that suggests that he/she might be willing to subscribe to views that are well out of line with what we consider acceptable in society today.

And if you know at all how SCOTUS oral arguments work, you would know that there is no chance that Scalia brings up some random study in an amicus brief unless he thinks the point could be validly used in an opinion. Big difference from if it was an important argument in the petitioner's brief that the court would have to address. It's not just some passing fancy that he thinks could never have any merit but is just throwing out there for the hell of it.

Either way, zero chance if SCOTUS is going to further limit affirmative action (I doubt that they will straight-up ban it) that Roberts trusts Scalia to write a majority opinion that won't make the court look racist so this could very well be the only views of his that we get to see on the case. Nothing wrong with commenting on them
Click to expand...

Lmao at the idea that Scalia wouldn't bring something up unless he though it could be validly used in an opinion. Half the shit he writes in his dissents wouldn't make it to print if he were in the majority. I 100% believe that Scalia asks questions just to fuck with people sometimes. The three pages of transcript that excerpt comes from can basically be summarized as UT: "striking down this policy would make UT less diverse" Scalia: "So what".

I fully agree that Scalia is wrong on this one but don't think he should get this much flak for posing a question. It's essentially his job to draw out all of the arguments (and I thought Garre's response was great, btw).
 
Junebug said:
Dude, I don't give a fuck about this bitch. You said suing because you believe you've been discriminated against in education is the ultimate millennial entitlement. That's bullshit -- suing is the American way.
Click to expand...

10106270.jpg
 
MysteryMen said:
I follow the Supreme Court pretty closely, I would wager certainly more closely than anyone else on here. I've read almost every opinion for the last 5 years or so, and at least half of the oral argument transcripts.

But you're right, I was never the janitor so I probably don't know anything about it
Click to expand...

I know eight-year-olds that could do that. Doesn't mean they would know shit about the Supreme Court.
 
RChildress107 said:
Lmao at the idea that Scalia wouldn't bring something up unless he though it could be validly used in an opinion. Half the shit he writes in his dissents wouldn't make it to print if he were in the majority. I 100% believe that Scalia asks questions just to fuck with people sometimes. The three pages of transcript that excerpt comes from can basically be summarized as UT: "striking down this policy would make UT less diverse" Scalia: "So what".

I fully agree that Scalia is wrong on this one but don't think he should get this much flak for posing a question. It's essentially his job to draw out all of the arguments (and I thought Garre's response was great, btw).
Click to expand...

First of all, I didn't say that it would be used validly in a majority opinion, just an opinion - I was including dissents. My point was that he wasn't bringing it up as a crazy example to make a counterpoint, he was bringing it up because he believes there could be truth to it. Do you really think he doesn't?

And there's no way that he was saying it just to drag out Garre's argument. He is not going to vote for Garre's side - last thing he wants to do is set up Garre to make an easy point
 
Last edited:
MysteryMen said:
First of all, I didn't say that it would be used validly in a majority opinion, just an opinion - I was including dissents. My point was that he wasn't bringing it up as a crazy example to make a counterpoint, he was bringing it up because he believes there could be truth to it. Do you really think he doesn't?

And there's no way that he was saying it just to drag out Garre's argument. He is not going to vote for Garre's side - last thing he wants to do is set up Garre to make an easy point
Click to expand...

No. But that's based largely on my opinion of Scalia not the nature or context of the question. While I personally don't think Scalia was bringing up a crazy example to make a counterpoint, that is something that he and most of SCOTUS does on a regular basis. As a close follower of the Supreme Court you should know its dangerous to speculate as to what a Justice's question says about how they are going to decide a case. It's even more dangerous for the general media to misreport on that speculation.
 
Look, Scalia is a hypocrite and an asshole. He's done plenty to degrade the public's view of the Court (and IMO to degrade the actual Court itself) but I don't think it's helpful or accurate to misrepresent a question during oral argument as Scalia's personal views on the subject, no matter how confident you are that the question reflects his views.
 
RChildress107 said:
Look, Scalia is a hypocrite and an asshole. He's done plenty to degrade the public's view of the Court (and IMO to degrade the actual Court itself) but I don't think it's helpful or accurate to misrepresent a question during oral argument as Scalia's personal views on the subject, no matter how confident you are that the question reflects his views.
Click to expand...

I posted this on the other thread, but reports indicate that the amicus brief was filed by Richard Sander, UCLA Law prof and author of the controversial Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It. It appears as though Scalia distorted (grossly simplified) Sander & Taylor's argument, itself based on questionable assumptions, data and methods. Perhaps Ph can weigh in on the latter.

But y'all can judge for yourself whether or not Scalia did Sander & Taylor's argument justice or whether it was just more partisan gesticulating from "a hypocrite and an asshole" that we're stuck with.
 
Strickland33 said:
I posted this on the other thread, but reports indicate that the amicus brief was filed by Richard Sander, UCLA Law prof and author of the controversial Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It. It appears as though Scalia distorted (grossly simplified) Sander & Taylor's argument, itself based on questionable assumptions, data and methods. Perhaps Ph can weigh in on the latter.

But y'all can judge for yourself whether or not Scalia did Sander & Taylor's argument justice or whether it was just more partisan gesticulating from "a hypocrite and an asshole" that we're stuck with.
Click to expand...

Was going to post this on the other thread but it seems more discussion is happening here:

The argument that Scalia was maybe getting at (if we are being kind) is certainly dubious at best (as are most arguments against AA, IMO). But if there weren't people (or more importantly judges) buying those arguments in the first place this case wouldn't have made it to SCOTUS. UT's counsel should be prepared to answer that argument and I thought he did a great job with it.
 
RChildress107 said:
Was going to post this on the other thread but it seems more discussion is happening here:

The argument that Scalia was maybe getting at (if we are being kind) is certainly dubious at best (as are most arguments against AA, IMO). But if there weren't people (or more importantly judges) buying those arguments in the first place this case wouldn't have made it to SCOTUS. UT's counsel should be prepared to answer that argument and I thought he did a great job with it.
Click to expand...

He definitely did.
 
I also think it's worth pointing out that when he's asking that question he presumes that his audience is well versed with the briefs and the various arguments at play. He's not trying to accurately represent those arguments to the public (yet again why the general media should be extremely cautious when reporting on oral arguments).

I still think I'm being generous to Scalia, but in a forum where the public is not the audience and the questions are not rehearsed I think he deserves some generosity.
 
Thanks for that last run of posts guys. Definitely informative, especially as a warning to not read too much into what gets said in the limited amount of court time represented in the transcripts.
 
Spent a good amount of time quasi-defending Scalia so I'll close by noting that he is an intellectually dishonest dick who has pretty much singlehandedly rolled back the progress of the Warren Court with a constitutional theory that doesn't even bother trying be consistent.
 
Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog, who has likely seen an oral argument in federal court before, provided the following in his analysis of the Fisher oral argument:

"But Scalia's argument became quite clumsy, and raised some eyebrows, when he suggested that maybe the University of Texas needs fewer minority students, and he suggested that many of them find that the classes are 'too fast' for them at such high-rank institutions, and thus prefer to go to lower-ranked, ''slower-track schools'"

Denniston has held his current position for quite a while at SCOTUSblog - I wonder why he used "suggested" instead of "asked" or "cited a brief." MAKES YOU WONDER...
 
Last edited:
Also if you read the transcript there is no question from Scalia. He may be relying on amicus briefs or on studies (whoever "they contend" is) but he ends the "question" by saying "I don't think it - - it - - it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the university of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible."

Is it just "question by inference?" Also I'll just provide that while I'm sure others have seen more oral arguments in federal court than I have, that I've been present for a solid number of arguments in both federal district court and the first circuit and understand how the process normally works.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog, who has likely seen an oral argument in federal court before, provided the following in his analysis of the Fisher oral argument:

"But Scalia's argument became quite clumsy, and raised some eyebrows, when he suggested that maybe the University of Texas needs fewer minority students, and he suggested that many of them find that the classes are 'too fast' for them at such high-rank institutions, and thus prefer to go to lower-ranked, ''slower-track schools'"

Denniston has held his current position for quite a while at SCOTUSblog - I wonder why he used "suggested" instead of "asked" or "cited a brief." MAKES YOU WONDER...
Click to expand...

Has he been a clerk or janitor at the Supreme Court? Otherwise he has no room to talk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top