Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court of the United States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Oh, yeah, I have no delusions about Gorsuch either. But this was still a pleasant surprise. Frankly, I don't know how any of the esteemed legal minds on the SC voted for it, as vaguely as it was written. Maybe some of the legal minds that hang out here can enlighten me about that.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
      Oh, yeah, I have no delusions about Gorsuch either. But this was still a pleasant surprise. Frankly, I don't know how any of the esteemed legal minds on the SC voted for it, as vaguely as it was written. Maybe some of the legal minds that hang out here can enlighten me about that.
      Maybe they are brilliant but lack common sense?
      "I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
        Pleasantly surprised Gorsuch did the right thing in siding with the left-leaning judges in seeing the deportation for violent crimes law Congress put forth was dangerously vague. It seems obviously the right call to me, and it is even consistent with a similar case in 2015 when Scalia basically made the same argument. But despite these facts, the other conservative judges voted in it's favor. Gorsuch was the deciding vote. Wannabe Dictator in Chief is not pleased, but at least he has refrained from ad hominim attacks of his SC pick on Twitter. Another vote the law not the politics move like this though, and I'll bet Trump attacks him.
        I think the vague part was the problem, not the deportation. The other judges that voted for the law probably believed that a poorly written law shouldnt stand in the way of the correct decision. I agree with Gorsuch.

        I briefly read about this and was surprised that it was the Obama admin that was originally arguing in favor of deportation.
        "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." -NY Times

        "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts" - Joe Biden

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by cardboardbox View Post
          I think the vague part was the problem, not the deportation. The other judges that voted for the law probably believed that a poorly written law shouldnt stand in the way of the correct decision. I agree with Gorsuch.

          I briefly read about this and was surprised that it was the Obama admin that was originally arguing in favor of deportation.
          Oh, absolutely, it was the vague law, and the dangers of how it could be interpreted, and how hard it would be for people to know if they would be in violation, that was the issue for Gorsuch. I agree, if it were more precise in that regard, he'd have voted for it. But I'm also with you that voting for such a vague law is a horrible idea, regardless of how you feel about the underlying intent of the law. Gorsuch rightly recognized that, and frankly, I'd have hoped others would have too. I'm glad at least he did.

          Frankly, I fear Congress left it vague on purpose, trying to extend the power of the law and the whims of the state to enforce it to an unknown degree, and they banked on Gorsuch going along with that, and he didn't. So, that is a win for the rule of law over the subjective whims of those in power, which is a win for all of us.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
            Oh, yeah, I have no delusions about Gorsuch either. But this was still a pleasant surprise. Frankly, I don't know how any of the esteemed legal minds on the SC voted for it, as vaguely as it was written. Maybe some of the legal minds that hang out here can enlighten me about that.
            The argument for would fall under the concept expressed by SCOTUS justice Potter Stewart: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

            Replace "hard-core pornography" with "crimes of violence", and the concept is about the same. I happen to disagree, especially in this case, since the burglary case was pretty expressly not a crime of violence.

            But, as CBB noted, while this was a case the Trump administration supported deportation, so did the Obama administration.
            I'm just here for the baseball.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by chancellor View Post
              The argument for would fall under the concept expressed by SCOTUS justice Potter Stewart: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

              Replace "hard-core pornography" with "crimes of violence", and the concept is about the same. I happen to disagree, especially in this case, since the burglary case was pretty expressly not a crime of violence.

              But, as CBB noted, while this was a case the Trump administration supported deportation, so did the Obama administration.
              Yeah, again, I'm not trying to make a case against the underlying idea behind the law, just that I agree with you that this case did not seem to fit the definition of a violent crime, and it brought to light how vague and open to interpretation the law was. I appreciate helping me see the other side of this with the famous line by Stewart about pornography, but, again, I agree with you that it is really not the same thing here.

              Really, regardless of your thoughts about the premise of deporting violent criminals (and personally, I'm open to that idea, if violence was more clearly defined and not left vague enough to be abused so that certain "kinds" of immigrants could be unfairly targeted), this was the right decision. It is disappointing that so many decisions seem to be about politics and not about the law, so it was good to see Gorsuch, someone I'm sure I'll disagree with most of the time, choose making the right legal decision over making a political one.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
                Yeah, again, I'm not trying to make a case against the underlying idea behind the law, just that I agree with you that this case did not seem to fit the definition of a violent crime, and it brought to light how vague and open to interpretation the law was. I appreciate helping me see the other side of this with the famous line by Stewart about pornography, but, again, I agree with you that it is really not the same thing here.

                Really, regardless of your thoughts about the premise of deporting violent criminals (and personally, I'm open to that idea, if violence was more clearly defined and not left vague enough to be abused so that certain "kinds" of immigrants could be unfairly targeted), this was the right decision. It is disappointing that so many decisions seem to be about politics and not about the law, so it was good to see Gorsuch, someone I'm sure I'll disagree with most of the time, choose making the right legal decision over making a political one.
                if congress cleans up the law and makes it more precise and then Gorsuch rules in favor of it, will you then think it was the wrong legal decision?
                "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." -NY Times

                "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts" - Joe Biden

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by cardboardbox View Post
                  if congress cleans up the law and makes it more precise and then Gorsuch rules in favor of it, will you then think it was the wrong legal decision?
                  That is sort of an insulting questions, because it suggests I might be a hypocrite, but I'll answer.

                  I don't know. I'd have to read up more on it and that version of the law, and know more about the legal precedents and if it is in keeping with them. I'm not well-versed in the law, but in this case, even to a layperson like me, the dangers and inconsistencies of upholding such a vague and subjectively applied law seemed obvious to me. If a new version of the law did not have any legal grounds for it being overturned, than, of course, I wouldn't criticize Gorsuch or any judges for voting to uphold the law.

                  It isn't the SCs job to make laws, so my opinion of the rightness or wrongness of the law isn't really the issue any more than it should be the issue for the justices. In this case, and in others, it seems that is a factor, rather than just looking at the constitution and other legal precedents. If I have a problem with the law, I'll take it up with the legislative branch, not the SC. But if the SC makes decisions based on politics, that is a real problem. Once again, I'm glad this decision seems to have considered the dangerous legal ramifications of a law that can be so capriciously enforce, as it was in the case before them. If this law was on sound legal ground, even if I didn't like the law, I wouldn't have commented negatively on the SC ruling in its favor. Or rather, if I had, I'd be arguing against Congress's decision to create the law, not the SC's decision to rule in its favor.
                  Last edited by Sour Masher; 04-18-2018, 02:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
                    That is sort of an insulting questions, because it suggests I might be a hypocrite, but I'll answer.

                    I don't know. I'd have to read up more on it and that version of the law, and know more about the legal precedents and if it is in keeping with them. I'm not well-versed in the law, but in this case, even to a layperson like me, the dangers and inconsistencies of upholding such a vague and subjectively applied law seemed obvious to me. If a new version of the law did not have any legal grounds for it being overturned, than, of course, I wouldn't criticize Gorsuch or any judges for voting to uphold the law.

                    It isn't the SCs job to make laws, so my opinion of the rightness or wrongness of the law isn't really the issue any more than it should be the issue for the justices. In this case, and in others, it seems that is a factor, rather than just looking at the constitution and other legal precedents. If I have a problem with the law, I'll take it up with the legislative branch, not the SC. But if the SC makes decisions based on politics, that is a real problem. Once again, I'm glad this decision seems to have considered the dangerous legal ramifications of a law that can be so capriciously enforce, as it was in the case before them. If this law was on sound legal ground, even if I didn't like the law, I wouldn't have commented negatively on the SC ruling in its favor. Or rather, if I had, I'd be arguing against Congress's decision to create the law, not the SC's decision to rule in its favor.
                    thanks, I wasnt trying to insult. I guess I could have simply asked whether your praise of Gorsuch was due to him ruling against the vagueness of the law or was it due to the result of his ruling - a deportation law being struck down. Looks like you already answered.
                    "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." -NY Times

                    "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts" - Joe Biden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by cardboardbox View Post
                      thanks, I wasnt trying to insult. I guess I could have simply asked whether your praise of Gorsuch was due to him ruling against the vagueness of the law or was it due to the result of his ruling - a deportation law being struck down. Looks like you already answered.
                      I'm praising him for ruling against it for being vague despite it being a deportation law he may agree with. It is the sort of action I'd hope for from a SC justice. I have no doubt he will find legal cause to vote for and against many things that I am on the other side of, but this case gives me some hope he will put the law above his personal beliefs, which is all I can hope for. To also be clear, I would greatly prefer if he acted that way, but also shared my political ideologies, because there are lots of cases where there are reasonable legal reasons to go one way or another, and in those cases, ideology inevitably plays a factor.

                      As far as the deportation law, I honestly don't know enough about it to be firmly for or against it. My concerns, based on a superficial knowledge of it is that it could be arbitrarily and unfairly applied in ways that favor or hurt particular groups more than others, which is a problem with our whole legal system. In a vacuum where those biases don't exist or can be minimized by clarifying and limiting the law, I'm good in theory with the idea of violent criminals being deported, if the are not citizens. But I haven't thought much about the other side of this issue, and would welcome being convinced it is a bad idea.
                      Last edited by Sour Masher; 04-18-2018, 06:50 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Rumors of Justice Kennedy's pending retirement are swirling again. Early in his career, I never thought I'd be worried about Anthony Kennedy announcing his retirement, and yet here now I am. He's been the key swing vote on the Court since O'Connor's retirement, siding with the conservatives more often than not, but joining the left to create a 5-4 majority on "human dignity" type issues like recognition of equal protection for homosexuals.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
                          Rumors of Justice Kennedy's pending retirement are swirling again. Early in his career, I never thought I'd be worried about Anthony Kennedy announcing his retirement, and yet here now I am. He's been the key swing vote on the Court since O'Connor's retirement, siding with the conservatives more often than not, but joining the left to create a 5-4 majority on "human dignity" type issues like recognition of equal protection for homosexuals.
                          been hearing this off and on for at least a year. I'd be excited if it happened but I'll believe it when I see it.
                          "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." -NY Times

                          "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts" - Joe Biden

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Looks like the Gorsuch effect is in full swing. Today the Supco upheld Trump's travel ban, Allowed that faith based pregnancy centers do NOT have to notify patients that the State offers subsidized medical care, and yesterday turned back lower court decisions on gerrymandering. All, I believe, on 5-4 votes...

                            This could be the Trump legacy if he gets another judge in there...
                            "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
                            - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

                            "Your shitty future continues to offend me."
                            -Warren Ellis

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
                              Rumors of Justice Kennedy's pending retirement are swirling again. Early in his career, I never thought I'd be worried about Anthony Kennedy announcing his retirement, and yet here now I am. He's been the key swing vote on the Court since O'Connor's retirement, siding with the conservatives more often than not, but joining the left to create a 5-4 majority on "human dignity" type issues like recognition of equal protection for homosexuals.
                              What will it be like when Roberts is the swing vote?

                              Originally posted by cardboardbox View Post
                              been hearing this off and on for at least a year. I'd be excited if it happened but I'll believe it when I see it.
                              More like the last five years. Some suspect he was waiting for a couple of pet issues to come up. One of them just did in SD v Wayfair.

                              Governor Abbott is pleased with Abbott v Perez, the gerrymandering case. It will not change the districts for the November elections, but might for the 2020 general. Or, they may wait for the 2020 census, since Texas is expected to gain three more districts.

                              Originally posted by Hornsby View Post
                              Looks like the Gorsuch effect is in full swing. Today the Supco upheld Trump's travel ban, Allowed that faith based pregnancy centers do NOT have to notify patients that the State offers subsidized medical care, and yesterday turned back lower court decisions on gerrymandering. All, I believe, on 5-4 votes...

                              This could be the Trump legacy if he gets another judge in there...
                              That's a no-brainer ruling for a black letter guy like Gorsuch.

                              Trump's legacy will be in the lower federal and appeals courts. Major changes are going on.

                              J
                              Ad Astra per Aspera

                              Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

                              GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

                              Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

                              I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by onejayhawk View Post
                                What will it be like when Roberts is the swing vote?
                                One or two "surprises" in 12 years on the Court does not make Roberts a swing vote. Kennedy has "strayed" on enough important and controversial matters to legitimately be labeled a "swing" justice on the current Court. If Kennedy resigns is replaced with a Justice who will reliably vote along with Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts in the vast majority of cases, we will have a conservative Court with no real "swing vote", unless Kennedy's vacuum somehow motivates Roberts to shift dramatically from where he's been.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X