Page 164 of 165 FirstFirst ... 64114154159160161162163164165 LastLast
Results 3,261 to 3,280 of 3298

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #3261
    Scooter Banks

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    8,779
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    Don’t act like it’s such an obviously correct decision when the fucking Chief Justice disagreed.
    That and these churches were treated as favorably or more favorably than other secular institutions/entities with respect to restrictions, so he is full of shit on that as well (Just like his hack, activist judges).

  2. #3262
    Quote Originally Posted by wakelaw13 View Post
    It would be a serious stretch to call the situation here a taking under the 5th amendment.
    Would it though? How is this different from an easement?

    The argument that striking down this law will invalidate building codes and governmental safety inspections strikes me as nothing more than a scare tactic. It seems to me that there is a very clear distinction between requiring a landowner to allow access to unions versus governmental safety inspectors in that the latter has a very clear public purpose whereas the former serves the public in a more attenuated way. Even if a court didn't want to go down that road, a court could easily hold that quasi-easements for governmental inspections and building codes are, by dint of their long history in developed countries, built-in limitations on the background bundle of rights that a property owner acquires when they acquire land.

  3. #3263
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    Don’t act like it’s such an obviously correct decision when the fucking Chief Justice disagreed.
    Don't act like the fucking Chief Justice disagreed with a word I posted.

    His dissent was based solely on the fact that New York moved the church/synagogue at issue into the yellow zone--with a 50% limitation on occupancy instead of the 10 / 25 person limitation--and, thus, there was no need to issue an injunction. As to the merits, he said "Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause."

    It really would help your understanding of SCOTUS opinions to read them and not rely on what tweeters tell you about it.

  4. #3264
    Scooter Banks

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    8,779
    Junebug just read the SCOTUS blog and regurgitated. Looks like he won't respond to me, but read Sotomayor's dissent if you want accuracy and not activist bullshit.

  5. #3265
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    Don't act like the fucking Chief Justice disagreed with a word I posted.

    His dissent was based solely on the fact that New York moved the church/synagogue at issue into the yellow zone--with a 50% limitation on occupancy instead of the 10 / 25 person limitation--and, thus, there was no need to issue an injunction. As to the merits, he said "Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause."

    It really would help your understanding of SCOTUS opinions to read them and not rely on what tweeters tell you about it.
    Here, I'll even make it easy for you:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...20a87_4g15.pdf

  6. #3266
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    Would it though? How is this different from an easement?

    The argument that striking down this law will invalidate building codes and governmental safety inspections strikes me as nothing more than a scare tactic. It seems to me that there is a very clear distinction between requiring a landowner to allow access to unions versus governmental safety inspectors in that the latter has a very clear public purpose whereas the former serves the public in a more attenuated way. Even if a court didn't want to go down that road, a court could easily hold that quasi-easements for governmental inspections and building codes are, by dint of their long history in developed countries, built-in limitations on the background bundle of rights that a property owner acquires when they acquire land.
    I am not aware of any easement that requires the user to submit an application to the government before using. It lacks the permanency of an easement. The types of takings recognized under the 5th amendment are highly specific and limited. This doesn’t fit in any category, which appears uncontested. That’s why they’re asking the Court to create a new type of taking. And back to my point, the “just compensation” for allowing meaningful access to labor representatives for employees most at need could be considered nominal.

    I am in favor of strong property rights. I could probably be talked into a new type of taking under more extreme circumstances than the ones in this case. But if this is a taking, I would rule that “just compensation” would be nominal. Give them $1, and let law students have a field day.

  7. #3267
    Quote Originally Posted by wakelaw13 View Post
    I am not aware of any easement that requires the user to submit an application to the government before using. It lacks the permanency of an easement. The types of takings recognized under the 5th amendment are highly specific and limited. This doesn’t fit in any category, which appears uncontested. That’s why they’re asking the Court to create a new type of taking. And back to my point, the “just compensation” for allowing meaningful access to labor representatives for employees most at need could be considered nominal.

    I am in favor of strong property rights. I could probably be talked into a new type of taking under more extreme circumstances than the ones in this case. But if this is a taking, I would rule that “just compensation” would be nominal. Give them $1, and let law students have a field day.
    I agree that the major SCOTUS takings cases involve takings that have more of an element of permanency to them than this, but, I think this could be conceptualized as analogous because, although the access allowed is intermittent, the regulation itself is permanent.

    Also, if a court were to conclude this regulation was a taking and that it didn't serve a public purpose, the remedy wouldn't be "just compensation." The regulation would be struck down.

  8. #3268
    There's a huge difference between walking into a store (liquor or other) for 10 - 20 minutes, a mask, some distancing and a church for an hour singing, praying, for many of these churches limited or no social distancing, masks etc. The former has nit been shown to be large scale spreading situations the latter...

    Our country is worse off now after moscow mitch's years of judicial activism that culminated in dolt 45's years and the three scotus seats. Two completely unqualified and three straight up religious activists.

  9. #3269
    Scooter Banks

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    8,779
    That's why churches were treated like, and more favorably than, concerts and the theater, because those are more apt comparisons. But we know common sense/science will never win out over religious fanaticism with this crew. Add in that they fucked up the legal application as well, and we can expect a lot of dumb shit from this current majority for a long time.

  10. #3270
    Quote Originally Posted by deaconson View Post
    There's a huge difference between walking into a store (liquor or other) for 10 - 20 minutes, a mask, some distancing and a church for an hour singing, praying, for many of these churches limited or no social distancing, masks etc. The former has nit been shown to be large scale spreading situations the latter...
    From my understanding, the regulation applies regardless of what measures the churches/synagogues take to reduce spread, such as limited attendance, social distancing, mask requirements, and prohibitions on singing. Not taking that into account is discrimination on the basis of religion, and fails to comply with strict scrutiny.

    The state can plainly justify limitations on public religious practice in response to a pandemic, among other things. They just have to come up with ways to do so that aren’t discriminatory. That should be neither controversial nor difficult to achieve, unless, of course, the dominion is the point.

  11. #3271
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    That should be neither controversial nor difficult to achieve, unless, of course, the dominion is the point.
    there's that victim narrative we all know and love.

    yes yes the whole world is set against you white christians. everyone is out to get you.

  12. #3272
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    there's that victim narrative we all know and love.

    yes yes the whole world is set against you white christians. everyone is out to get you.
    The modern evangelical christian wants to legislate, ejudicate, police, maintain societal norms based on their new and selective interpretation of the bible. All while taking tax free status and making claims that freedom of religion gives them the right to take rights away from others because they don't like those others. Oh, and they whine about infringement of their rights while demanding they be allowed to infringe on the rights of others. And what are they always crying about? You (gays and heathens) can't use the word marriage! Thats Christian! Stop the WAAAR on Christmas! We stole that date and those traditions (worshiping a tree) fair and square. It goes on and on while creating mega churches for MAXIMUM GRIFT (thanks deadpool)

  13. #3273
    You need to start getting your news from somewhere other than the Tunnels if you aren’t aware of the tension between the Orthodox Jewish community and the government in New York.

  14. #3274
    Long standing issues indeed but those do not change a word I wrote.

  15. #3275
    Quote Originally Posted by deaconson View Post
    Long standing issues indeed but those do not change a word I wrote.
    I was responding to BBD.

  16. #3276
    It’s not about f’ing religion...it’s about public health.


    Honorable, decent, and informed religious folks would eagerly comply.

    Ignorant assholes will object.
    I love mankind...it’s people I can’t stand!!

  17. #3277
    Scooter Banks

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    8,779
    Again, Junebug won't respond to me because he can't. He loses. That opinion is shit and he knows it.

  18. #3278
    Junebug and Gorsuch both mentioned bike shops. I wonder why conservative weenies love to bitch about bike shops being open but never say a word about car dealerships and mechanics being open.

  19. #3279
    Scooter Banks

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    8,779
    You know what's effectively economically useless? A church. But the supposed party of unfettered free market capitalism and life wants economically useless super spreader of death fiction events to continue so more people can die.

    And LOL at strict scrutiny for this. Sotomayor destroys that BS hypocritical bullshit. Just read her opinion. She embarrasses the lightweights like Junebug. He fancies himself an intelligent guy, and loves to condescend, but he's not a very bright dude.
    Last edited by Shooshmoo; 11-26-2020 at 08:14 PM.

  20. #3280
    imagine comparing Thomas, kavanaugh, and barret with Sotomayor... one of these things is not like the others...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •