• 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!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

PhDeac said:
I have a tough time believing the states are making these moves without some advice from the Supreme Court on how to proceed. Overturning Roe has been THE public goal of the conservative legal community for the last 30+ years.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS does not advise states on how to get cases on appeal to it or what they will go for and what they won't. That is so not how the judicial system works. Once someone becomes a judge, we lawyers basically never hear from them again except when we see them on the bench. Sure, the Federalist Society has been planning a lot of things, including overturning Roe. But SCOTUS justices aren't secretly meeting with the Federalist Society as to how to word statutes so that it'll pass their constitutional muster.
 
Yeah, see I have a tough time believing that. Why wouldn't they?
 
I’m sure the states are getting advice with an eye towards appeals to the SC.


But highly doubt they are getting advice from the SC.
 
Strickland33 said:
and how would cville even know
Click to expand...

Ask any of the other lawyers here. Judges aren't supposed to give advisory opinions, and once an attorney is appointed to a judgeship, they stop hanging around with attorneys for the most part. High profile judges might give the occasional speech or interview - Scalia and RBG would do that more than most. But for the most part, judges aren't going to maintain a high public profile. And they'd never be caught dead at some liberal or conservative think tank advising them on how to get cases before the court.
 
Why wouldn't they? If their goal is to repeal Roe v. Wade, why wouldn't they take the steps to make it happen?

What would happen if say Alito was seen meeting with members of the Federalist Society or ALEC or whatever?
 
PhDeac said:
Why wouldn't they? If their goal is to repeal Roe v. Wade, why wouldn't they take the steps to make it happen?

What would happen if say Alito was seen meeting with members of the Federalist Society or ALEC or whatever?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you give the answers to a test to your students? Your goal is for them to pass.
 
I do give them the answers. That’s called teaching. The test measures how well they know, understand, and utilize the answers they were already taught in class.

Now if I gave them a test and then gave them the answers, it would be cheating and I would get fired.

So what would happen to Alito if he was found to be meeting with the Federalist Society or ALEC?
 
Last edited:
DistrictDeacon said:
Now see if you can apply this logic to the judicial system.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to. Answer the question I've posed twice. Are you saying Alito would get fired? Who would fire him? The Republican-led Senate?
 
Last edited:
There are already numerous articles that have stated why what Alabama did was too far in regards to having the Supreme Court chip away at Roe. If there was some conspiracy theory of state laws and supreme court justices apparently Alabama didn’t get the memo.
 
I'd just like one of you goodly barristers to explain why states wouldn't work with the courts to develop their strategy. So far the only response seems to be that they're not supposed to do so. I hope you all aren't that naive especially since you don't list any consequences.
 
PhDeac said:
I'd just like one of you goodly barristers to explain why states wouldn't work with the courts to develop their strategy. So far the only response seems to be that they're not supposed to do so. I hope you all aren't that naive especially since you don't list any consequences.
Click to expand...

Attorneys are bound by ethical canons as are judges. If we violate said canons, a complaint can be made, and the state bar will perform an investigation and can discipline attorneys. Same thing goes for judges. We had 1 state district court judge in our circuit removed years ago for his violations. When judges in VA are appointed, they receive training, and part of that training counsels them on how to conduct themselves off the bench. They cannot take any active part in party politics, and while they may attend official local bar functions, they're supposed to stop hanging out with attorneys so they can't be perceived as favoring some attorneys over others. They essentially become hermits, and the only times you'll see them is to say hi at a bar function or when they're on the bench. And on the bench, they are supposed to make rulings in the cases before them and nothing more. And think about the SCOTUS justices. They're as high profile as you get, but how often do you see them making public appearances? You might read about 1 making a speech somewhere, though they won't weigh in on any issues of the day when they do. And occasionally, you'll see 1 interviewed, but it's pretty rare. It's more common for retired justices to make speeches and grant interviews. John Paul Stevens in particular has done a number of interviews since retired. The 2 most public active justices in recent years have been Scalia and RBG, and I thought RBG's little public spats with Trump were unbecoming on her part.
 
So what would be the consequences of my hypothetical? Are clerks governed by the same standards?
 
I don't think there's some secret knowledge just Supreme Court justices have on how to do an abortion law just right so that it can be used to overturn Roe v. Wade. The key is just to have activist right wing judges who will find a way.
 
BiffTannen said:
Only a matter of time before Ph becomes an expert on law.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert. That's why I'm asking questions.

I do understand how people operate within society. It seems like cville is saying the legal society has informal norms that are basically enforced by an honor system.

Shoo makes a good point. It probably doesn't matter. They'll just vote however they want to anyway.
 
PhDeac said:
I'm not an expert. That's why I'm asking questions.

I do understand how people operate within society. It seems like cville is saying the legal society has informal norms that are basically enforced by an honor system.

Shoo makes a good point. It probably doesn't matter. They'll just vote however they want to anyway.
Click to expand...

How did you get “honor system” from a system that includes investigation and discipline from a licensing body?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top