SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 482
  • Views: 18K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
Aware of the threat Hill and Terry posed, the U. S. Attorney General ordered Deputy Marshal David Neagle, a former chief of police in Tombstone, Arizona, to accompany Justice Field when he next rode circuit in California. That decision proved prescient, for Terry soon cornered the Justice on a train and attacked him. Intervening to protect the Justice, Neagle shot and killed Terry.
Click to expand...
Looks like Neagle was Terry's huckleberry. And this time, it's legal...
 
1. This is a big blow to LGBTQ rights nationwide.

2. From a purely political perspective, this is not a terrible thing for Dems.

3. People will suffer and likely die as a result of this ruling, and I hope we can find ways to highlight that compassionately and appropriately.

4. I can't tell you how much I hate this but trans rights is just not a winning issue right now. It won't be an issue in 20 years, but it's a loser in this moment. And I say that with a heart broken for the many trans people who will suffer as a result of our national bigotry.
 
nycfan said:
When Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered excerpts of a recent decision on environmental regulation from the bench, he segued into a zealous policy-driven admonition about government “delay upon delay” and the consequences for America’s infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Speaking of delay upon delay, from a recent WSJ article, Five Best: Books on Courtroom Dramas:

“Bleak House” is both a courtroom drama and Charles Dickens’s sprawling indictment of the British legal system. The fulcrum of the plot is a seemingly endless case, called Jarndyce and Jarndyce, over a disputed will. This convoluted “scarecrow of a suit” outlives nearly all the interested parties and outlasts even the memory of the issues in dispute. Yet the case, with its “accumulation of charges and counter-charges, and suspicions and cross-suspicions,” continues until legal costs consume the entire fortune at stake in the litigation. Jarndyce and Jarndyce concludes with a scene familiar to anyone who has experienced the anticipation and release of a judicial decision. When the case is dismissed, tension drains from the courtroom. “The people came streaming out looking flushed and hot. . . . Still they were all exceedingly amused and were more like people coming out from a farce or a juggler than from a court of justice.” Law clerks burst out laughing at the folly of it all, as the epic litigation simply “lapses and melts away.” One claimant weakly coughs up a bit of blood in despair. The lawyers defend their work—and fee bonanza—by insisting “that this has been a great cause, that this has been a protracted cause, that this has been a complex cause”—and move on to other clients.
 
hedge said:
Speaking of delay upon delay, from a recent WSJ article, Five Best: Books on Courtroom Dramas:

“Bleak House” is both a courtroom drama and Charles Dickens’s sprawling indictment of the British legal system. The fulcrum of the plot is a seemingly endless case, called Jarndyce and Jarndyce, over a disputed will. This convoluted “scarecrow of a suit” outlives nearly all the interested parties and outlasts even the memory of the issues in dispute. Yet the case, with its “accumulation of charges and counter-charges, and suspicions and cross-suspicions,” continues until legal costs consume the entire fortune at stake in the litigation. Jarndyce and Jarndyce concludes with a scene familiar to anyone who has experienced the anticipation and release of a judicial decision. When the case is dismissed, tension drains from the courtroom. “The people came streaming out looking flushed and hot. . . . Still they were all exceedingly amused and were more like people coming out from a farce or a juggler than from a court of justice.” Law clerks burst out laughing at the folly of it all, as the epic litigation simply “lapses and melts away.” One claimant weakly coughs up a bit of blood in despair. The lawyers defend their work—and fee bonanza—by insisting “that this has been a great cause, that this has been a protracted cause, that this has been a complex cause”—and move on to other clients.
Click to expand...
That's really interesting. I watched the PBS Masterpiece adaptation and really loved it. But I didn't even think about the indictment of the court system aspect, which now that you mention it, it clearly was.
 
The trans decision was the least surprising thing ever.

1. On this issue, liberals hung their hat on an argument that I have always seen as weak and unpersuasive: that discrimination on the basis of sexuality or identity is really just discrimination based on sex. That surprisingly carried the day in Bostock but I think it's a crap argument and the plaintiffs are pushing it way too far. Trans discrimination is not sex discrimination, period.

I'm not criticizing anyone for pushing that argument. It's the only one available. It's not a terrible argument, I suppose, but I just don't think it was ever going to work long-term. Trans discrimination is not actually about sex discrimination. If we didn't know that before, we sure as hell know it after this past campaign and then Trump's war on trans.

2. I'm old enough to remember when ACB was supposedly veering left. Guess not. Her opinion is a disgrace. Every single thing about this paragraph, for instance, is completely wrong:

The Sixth Circuit held that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class, and it was right to do so. To begin, transgender status is not marked by the same sort of “‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’” as race or sex. In particular, it is not defined by a trait that is “‘definitively ascertainable at the moment of birth.’” The plaintiffs here, for instance, began to experience gender dysphoria at varying ages—some from a young age, others not until the onset of puberty. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs acknowledge that some transgender individuals “detransition” later in life—in other words, they begin to identify again with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex. Accordingly, transgender status does not turn on an “immutable . . . characteristi[c].”

This stupid, ignorant woman is not going to save us. It might surprise her to learn that skin color is not definitively ascertainable at birth. Sexuality is definitely not ascertainable at birth (and yes, I know that sexuality isn't a fully protected class but that's sort of the problem.
And that last line ranks among the most braindead statements even from this court. By this logic a classification as a woman isn't immutable. In fact, millions more people choose to become not-women than choose to be no-longer-trans. But of course, being a conservative means that you never have to think about the world beyond you. ACB is a woman. She likes being a woman. So of course she's a woman forever and untimely but those trans people over there are not because some small fraction of them detransition.

Michael Jackson was living proof that skin color is not immutable. There are various skin whitening procedures available, right? So dark skin isn't definitively ascertainable at the moment of birth, and it's not immutable. Guess it shouldn't be a protected class. . . .

3. Oh, there's more bullshit:

For purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, the relevant question is whether the group has been subject to a longstanding pattern of discrimination in the law. In other words, we ask whether the group has suffered a history of de jure discrimination.

She just made that up. That is not a requirement of the 14th Amendment. It makes no sense as a requirement of the 14th Amendment. There have not been, until recently, a lot of laws regulating transsexuality because public opinion forced transsexuals into shadows. There was no need to formally oppress them so long as most people only encountered them as drug-addicted prostitutes lurking in sketchy areas of town. According to ACB, oppression only counts if it's insufficiently vitriolic to make people scared even to reveal their true identities.

The idea that trans people have not been discriminated against is so bonkers that it shouldn't require comment.
 
StrangePackage said:
No relief then.
Click to expand...
You sure? These prison cases usually involve rastafarians. Practically every one I've seen (at least from a pro bono perspective) involves that religion. I'm not sure the Supreme Court would be as put off by that as you're implying, though it would definitely help if it was a Catholic plaintiff.

I mean, if you're planning a lawsuit, like the Colorado baker, go with a conservative Christian absolutely; it will improve your chances. I'm not sure the rastafarian is doomed for that reason alone.
 
Habeus Corpus, pshaw, who needs it?

Roberts really wants to be a kingmaker.
 
So SCOTUS says Planned Parenthood can NOT sue South Carolina for eliminating Planned Parenthood eligibility for Medicaid. Is that right ?
My goodness
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top