US Supreme Court Discussions
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
They would be no matter what.
Like Russian propaganda machine, the right will make whatever claims it finds useful, regardless of reality.
Like Russian propaganda machine, the right will make whatever claims it finds useful, regardless of reality.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46116
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
Most likely we will never know the truth (despite the investigation being conducted by Col. Gail Curley, the Marshal of the Supreme Court, at Chief Justice Robert's behest. But I continue to believe that it is far more likely that it was a misguided liberal that did it. It is exactly the kind of self-defeating action that I have seen over and over, followed by repetition of how awful the other side is.N.E. Brigand wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 6:31 pm(And that's one reason to suppose that Alito's draft was leaked by a conservative trying to keep Roberts from succeeding in getting Barrett or Kavanaugh to defect, which the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial last week appears to have indicated he was trying to do. The right remembers what happened ten years ago! If in the final decision they don't side with Alito, they will be painted as "traitors" by the right.)
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- RoseMorninStar
- Posts: 12888
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:07 am
- Location: North Shire
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
I know little of how the Supreme court (or any court) operates. I am aware of self-defeating types of actions to which you (V) refer & it is frustrating. But I don't think the righteousness/determination/yen + opportunity for the right leaning side of the court should be understated.
Supreme Court leaker mystery deepens in 24-hours since Roe v. Wade draft came out: analysis
Supreme Court leaker mystery deepens in 24-hours since Roe v. Wade draft came out: analysis
My heart is forever in the Shire.
-
- Posts: 6950
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
The popular and fast talking conservative commentator Ben Shapiro says that the Supreme Court should use the first available opportunity to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that made same-sex marriage legal everywhere in the U.S.
-
- Posts: 6950
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
I do think it's hilarious that the Marshal of the Supreme Court, a figure unknown to most Americans who was the subject of a bizarre left-wing* conspiracy theory in 2017, suddenly is in the news (although it's not the same person in the Marshal's job now as it was four years ago).Voronwë the Faithful wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 6:49 pm Most likely we will never know the truth (despite the investigation being conducted by Col. Gail Curley, the Marshal of the Supreme Court, at Chief Justice Robert's behest.) But I continue to believe that it is far more likely that it was a misguided liberal that did it. It is exactly the kind of self-defeating action that I have seen over and over, followed by repetition of how awful the other side is.
*Sort of: the left-wing theorist had been a Tory member of the British parliament and an employee of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.; she began writing about Donald Trump's ties to Russia in late 2016. She even had a couple legitimate scoops about that subject. I cited one of her pieces here just as she started losing her mind.
- Dave_LF
- Wrong within normal parameters
- Posts: 6806
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
- Location: The other side of Michigan
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
N.E. Brigand wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 9:49 pm The popular and fast talking conservative commentator Ben Shapiro says that the Supreme Court should use the first available opportunity to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that made same-sex marriage legal everywhere in the U.S.
-
- Posts: 6950
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
Random thought for this thread. A friend of mine, a retired law school professor, once told me that her dream would be for the Supreme Court to overturn the various 1800s decisions that found that corporations are persons deserving of certain rights, especially Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886), which extended 14th Amendment protections to corporations (weirdly not in the text of the decision but only in the headnote). Some later Supreme Court justices disagreed with that particular decision, but I don't believe there's been any serious effort to undo it. Speaking from my very uninformed perspective, I do feel that, for example, you can't be a person if you can't go to jail.
-
- Posts: 6950
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
Grist for the mill:
(1) Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo -- who previously observed that NBC somehow was able to publish a piece about Chief Justice Roberts's efforts to get one of the Court's newer conservatives to back a slightly more moderate position just 90 minutes after Politico published Justice Alito's draft opinion Monday, which suggests that the story has been developing in the press for some time -- notes that on April 26, after reading the aforementioned conservative Wall Street Journal editorial which showed an unusual knowledge of Supreme Court deliberations on this case, the conservative law professor Josh Blackman, well known in online legal circles, asked on his blog: "Has there been a leak?" and even said then that the WSJ editorial is "evidence" of a leak. So a week before Alito's draft appeared, a conservative suggested that conservatives were being leaked information.
(2) In New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait notes today that a new Wall Street Journal editorial seems unwittingly to further support this theory. The new WSJ piece says, "The question to ask in a case like this is always, cui bono? Who benefits?" And then after arguing that it must have been a liberal who shared Alito's draft opinion with the media, the editorial says, "Our guess is that the leak is likely to backfire at the Court. A Justice who switches his or her vote now would be open to ridicule for wilting under pressure." So conservatives bono?
Still, none of that rules out a liberal having done it. As Marshall says: "Logic only gets you so far since people are dumb and often do counterproductive things."
(NBC just reported that 70 people had direct access to Alito's draft.)
(1) Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo -- who previously observed that NBC somehow was able to publish a piece about Chief Justice Roberts's efforts to get one of the Court's newer conservatives to back a slightly more moderate position just 90 minutes after Politico published Justice Alito's draft opinion Monday, which suggests that the story has been developing in the press for some time -- notes that on April 26, after reading the aforementioned conservative Wall Street Journal editorial which showed an unusual knowledge of Supreme Court deliberations on this case, the conservative law professor Josh Blackman, well known in online legal circles, asked on his blog: "Has there been a leak?" and even said then that the WSJ editorial is "evidence" of a leak. So a week before Alito's draft appeared, a conservative suggested that conservatives were being leaked information.
(2) In New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait notes today that a new Wall Street Journal editorial seems unwittingly to further support this theory. The new WSJ piece says, "The question to ask in a case like this is always, cui bono? Who benefits?" And then after arguing that it must have been a liberal who shared Alito's draft opinion with the media, the editorial says, "Our guess is that the leak is likely to backfire at the Court. A Justice who switches his or her vote now would be open to ridicule for wilting under pressure." So conservatives bono?
Still, none of that rules out a liberal having done it. As Marshall says: "Logic only gets you so far since people are dumb and often do counterproductive things."
(NBC just reported that 70 people had direct access to Alito's draft.)
-
- Posts: 6950
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
In 1973, one of Justice Lewis Powell's clerks shared news of the decision in Roe v. Wade "on background" with a Time reporter on the understanding that his story wouldn't be published until just after the release of the decision. But then a Court scheduling delay meant that the magazine hit the newsstands hours before the decision was officially announced. The clerk apologized and offered to resign, but Justice Powell wouldn't hear of it, and Chief Justice Burger let him keep his job.
No, it's not the same thing as this week's news. But there is a sort of "bookends" feel to the two stories.
No, it's not the same thing as this week's news. But there is a sort of "bookends" feel to the two stories.
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
I think he's wrong on both counts.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
-
- Posts: 6950
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
The Washington Post is reporting that "according to three conservatives close to the Court," the 5-4 majority overturning Roe stands, although the actual language of the opinion has changed since the February draft published by Politico last week.
That's at least the fourth leak about this case (1. Wall Street Journal on Apr. 26 says it's believed Alito has authored a 5-4 draft overturning Roe but Roberts is trying to get Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett to join his more moderate opinion; 2. Politico on May 2 releases Alito's draft; 3. CNN on May 2 says Roberts would uphold the Mississippi abortion law but leave Roe in place; 4. This Post story).
That's at least the fourth leak about this case (1. Wall Street Journal on Apr. 26 says it's believed Alito has authored a 5-4 draft overturning Roe but Roberts is trying to get Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett to join his more moderate opinion; 2. Politico on May 2 releases Alito's draft; 3. CNN on May 2 says Roberts would uphold the Mississippi abortion law but leave Roe in place; 4. This Post story).
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
WTF?
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
- elengil
- Cat-egorical Herbitual Creativi-Tea
- Posts: 6248
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:45 pm
- Location: Between the Mountains and the Sea
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
Imma echo that WTF sentiment.
Does anyone have the actual ruling?
Nevermind it was further down on the twitter thread: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_g31h.pdf
Does anyone have the actual ruling?
Nevermind it was further down on the twitter thread: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_g31h.pdf
The dumbest thing I've ever bought
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
-
- Posts: 6950
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
The area shown on that map in which the Border Patrol has substantial leeway to accost people is old news. (It's bad, but not new.) It's the specific nature of their protection from certain lawsuits when they go beyond merely stopping you that is new.
(I'm annoyed that the map labels Toledo but not Cleveland.)
(I'm annoyed that the map labels Toledo but not Cleveland.)
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
Well yes, stripping 4th Amendment rights from 2/3 of Americans is... Actually not that new, border patrol already had ridiculous overreach. But having no recourse against it *at all* is new and appalling.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46116
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
Separation of church and state? What separation?
Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs
Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- RoseMorninStar
- Posts: 12888
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:07 am
- Location: North Shire
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
Our neighbor worked with/through Liberty University/institute to try to do this, and other religiously led things in our town. They already have religious liberty, it's just that we, the taxpayers, should not have to fund it.
My heart is forever in the Shire.
-
- Posts: 6950
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
The majority opinion, concurrences, and dissent can't even agree on the basic facts of this case. The majority and concurrences say the coach was quietly praying on his own. The dissent says that the prayers regularly involved dozens of people -- and they even include photographs!Voronwë the Faithful wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:04 pm Separation of church and state? What separation?
Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs
Edit: I quoted V's post from last week thinking -- because of the reference to separation of church and state -- that it was a different decision on an Establishment Clauses matter that was issued today. Here's that case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 8_i425.pdf
Last edited by N.E. Brigand on Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Eldy
- Drowning in Anadûnê
- Posts: 1503
- Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:44 am
- Location: Maryland, United States
- Contact:
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
Yeah, I saw something about that in a tweet that a friend shared on Discord. Bizarre stuff.N.E. Brigand wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:29 pmThe majority opinion, concurrences, and dissent can't even agree on the basic facts of this case. The majority and concurrences say the coach was quietly praying on his own. The dissent says that the prayers regularly involved dozens of people -- and they even include photographs!
Hidden text.
Re: US Supreme Court Discussions
I wonder how it would have gone if the coach was a devout Muslim spreading his prayer rug out on the field...
When you can do nothing what can you do?