SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

User avatar
MKC
Posts: 4530
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:21 pm

I assume this is where someone is supposed to say don't be a moron, slippery slopes are for idiots.

User avatar
stego
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by stego » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:28 am

MKC wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:53 pm
stego wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:00 pm
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... anzin-rfra

I haven’t read anything else about this case, but it sounds like the only religious liberty at issue here is Tanvir’s right to be Muslim without becoming a government informant against other Muslims. Seems pretty distinguishable from the Christian discrimination cases
It's not about the particular RFRA violation. It's about whether you can sue government officials for money damages under the RFRA. Right now you can't. If Tanvir wins, you can, which potentially means that instead of Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cake Shop getting an order from the court saying the government can't do stuff, they get to recover money damages from government officials personally.
Ok. So I think he should win whereas the Christian discriminator should probably lose on the merits, but I get that being able to sue at all is a big deal.

I wonder why he’s not just suing on 1983 for 1st Amendment violations, can you not do that or something?

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9901
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:22 pm

Good


User avatar
MKC
Posts: 4530
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:36 pm

Nebby wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:22 pm
Good

I'm totally planning a downtown LA camping vacation.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9901
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:32 pm

ok

User avatar
Nony
Posts: 8185
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nony » Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:41 pm

Is it unconstitutional on its face or as applied? Because I have to wonder what "when no spaces available in shelters" means.

(I'm not defending the law, at all, it's stupid. Just curious how much of a win this is.)

User avatar
stego
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by stego » Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:27 pm

Nony wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:41 pm
Is it unconstitutional on its face or as applied? Because I have to wonder what "when no spaces available in shelters" means.

(I'm not defending the law, at all, it's stupid. Just curious how much of a win this is.)
As applied. The Boise statute is very broadly written, and the 9th Circuit said in Martin v City of Boise that the 8th Amendment prohibits enforcement that criminalizes homelessness. They didn't say the law could never be enforced.
"The Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, on its face, criminalizes '[o]ccupying, lodging, or sleeping in any building, structure or place, whether public or private' without permission. Boise City Code § 6-01-05."
"Our holding is a narrow one. . . . . We hold only that 'so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in [a jurisdiction] than the number of available beds [in shelters],' the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless individuals for 'involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public.' That is, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter."

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9901
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:00 pm



It'll be interesting to watch this make it's way through the courts. The original bill that passed Congress had an expiration date on which 3/4 of the states had to consent. That deadline passed long ago.

The interesting question is whether the expiration date is constitutional. Article V authorizes and delineates how to amend the constitution and it's plain language doesn't grant Congress the authority to set a timeline on which 3/4 of the states must consent.

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:19 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by ggocat » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:42 am

Nebby wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:00 pm
The interesting question is whether the expiration date is constitutional. Article V authorizes and delineates how to amend the constitution and it's plain language doesn't grant Congress the authority to set a timeline on which 3/4 of the states must consent.
That is pretty interesting and I have to imagine will make it to SCOTUS.

johnhazelwood
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:43 am

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by johnhazelwood » Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:26 am

How senseless of me to imagine that Nebby hadn't just made this string.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9901
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:55 pm

ggocat wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:42 am
Nebby wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:00 pm
The interesting question is whether the expiration date is constitutional. Article V authorizes and delineates how to amend the constitution and it's plain language doesn't grant Congress the authority to set a timeline on which 3/4 of the states must consent.
That is pretty interesting and I have to imagine will make it to SCOTUS.
FYI

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:19 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by ggocat » Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:09 pm

Looking forward to this.


User avatar
Kümmel
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:07 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Kümmel » Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:29 pm

100% Gorsuch and kav are voting to overturn roe in the upcoming abortion decisions. Kav has that weird casey/roe footnote in his concurrence. they've basically given a roadmap to justify overturning roe. my guess is that's why kagan voted with the dissenters

User avatar
ymmv
pregnant with a better version of myself
Posts: 18811
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:24 am
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by ymmv » Mon Apr 20, 2020 2:33 pm

You don’t have to overturn RvW if you just continue down the current path of rendering it meaningless through a nightmarish web of Casey cases and state measures that eliminate the possibility of getting an abortion without directly criminalizing it (though they continue to do that too, of course).

Kennedy dealt the death blow to a substantive right to choose thirty years ago. We’re already back to the pre-RvW world of “abortion doctors for rich white folks, back alley measures and forced pregnancies for the poor” in many places throughout the country.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9901
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:23 am


User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9901
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:58 pm


User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Big Tent Energy
Posts: 13161
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Mon May 04, 2020 10:30 am

SCOTUS livestreaming oral arguments is interesting.

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Big Tent Energy
Posts: 13161
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Mon May 11, 2020 10:47 am

I would not feel comfortable making the argument the government's making right now in McGirt.

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 5614
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by pancakes3 » Mon May 11, 2020 10:59 am

BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 10:47 am
I would not feel comfortable making the argument the government's making right now in McGirt.
that there wouldn't be major upheaval in the legal system?

(i'm catching up via twitter, not listening live)


User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Big Tent Energy
Posts: 13161
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Mon May 11, 2020 12:04 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 10:59 am
BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 10:47 am
I would not feel comfortable making the argument the government's making right now in McGirt.
that there wouldn't be major upheaval in the legal system?

(i'm catching up via twitter, not listening live)

Not necessarily a fair interpretation on my part but at the time it was basically that the court should look to the intent of congress to revoke a reservation based on the actions of people, who I can only assume were super racist, in the late 1800s.

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 5614
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by pancakes3 » Mon May 11, 2020 12:09 pm

BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 12:04 pm

Not necessarily a fair interpretation on my part but at the time it was basically that the court should look to the intent of congress to revoke a reservation based on the actions of people, who I can only assume were super racist, in the late 1800s.
oh, that was Oklahoma's argument, that Congress intended to revoke reservations by virtue of the act of creating the state of Oklahoma?

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Big Tent Energy
Posts: 13161
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Mon May 11, 2020 12:37 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 12:09 pm
BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 12:04 pm

Not necessarily a fair interpretation on my part but at the time it was basically that the court should look to the intent of congress to revoke a reservation based on the actions of people, who I can only assume were super racist, in the late 1800s.
oh, that was Oklahoma's argument, that Congress intended to revoke reservations by virtue of the act of creating the state of Oklahoma?
yup

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Big Tent Energy
Posts: 13161
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Mon May 11, 2020 6:10 pm

BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 12:37 pm
pancakes3 wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 12:09 pm
BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 12:04 pm

Not necessarily a fair interpretation on my part but at the time it was basically that the court should look to the intent of congress to revoke a reservation based on the actions of people, who I can only assume were super racist, in the late 1800s.
oh, that was Oklahoma's argument, that Congress intended to revoke reservations by virtue of the act of creating the state of Oklahoma?
yup
Gorsuch captures where my discomfort was coming from much more effectively with this question:


User avatar
Nony
Posts: 8185
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nony » Mon May 11, 2020 6:51 pm

Yeah, I'm not the biggest Gorsuch fan but I do think sitting on the Tenth Circuit makes him much better informed about Indian Country stuff, which people in the northeast just generally have NO frame of reference for (unless they have personal connections or make a real effort to inform themselves, of course).

I also really like the point a couple of tweets down that the justices asked about race a bunch of times, and Indian Country isn't about race, it's about a political relationship with the U.S.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests