Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by harvey birdman, Dec 8, 2015.
boot licking preparation
Im prob wrong because Im just a dumb laymen, but his questions seem pretty benign. Gorsuch seems like he's not buying their argument at all. Alito is trying to tee up the argument for them, but they're too dumb to hit it
Gonna be sweet when this goes 5-4 on party lines
public arguments are always just theater, even people on the scotus beat say trying to read the tea leaves of what they'll vote never works
Alito is such a shit bird, partisan hack.
Boring Joe is worth his weight in Supreme Court nominations.
Conservatives are going to lose their god damn minds when a power-hungry Democrat gets elected after all the shit they are letting Trump get away with, especially if SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump on this. Will be a bloodbath for Conservative ideals and largely wont be shit they can do about it if they don’t have a majority in Congress.
How did it go today? I wasn't able to follow at all. Any hints on how they were leaning? Going to be embarrassing if they overturn all the lower courts bc of political pressure.
in a normal world, the case is a slam dunk.
In this world, it will take Roberts or Gorsuch to come over to the liberal side.
Any idea when they'll rule on it?
5-4 along party lines imo
Was asking how, not when. But yea if it goes that way, it's embarrassing. This isn't a left/right issue. It's a checks and balances issue. It's embarrassing that the case is even going to them. Every POTUS before Trump just complied.
You dumbass, they'll just block it all using the supreme court.
Just read through this guys twitter thread to see how it went
... pretty sure the assumption of the post is that the Democrats use their majorities to expand the court and pack it.
This shit all needs to be leaked in October
The Democrats would never do that, they're spineless cowards
Imagine how many mythical moderates they would offend with such an action
the first case went not-so-well in relation to the conservative judges youre going to have to persuade to do the right thing. The attorney arguing for-the-subpoena did not outline a limiting principle, and these white men are going to ignore the Clinton case.
I think the second case, Vance, could see a Roberts or Gorsuch swing things to split the baby. Ultimately, their aim is to avoid anything controversial and not upset donald's reelection chances.
Nice job issuing the decision during Pride month too.
Never thought I’d see the day that phony textualism would come back and bite those ghouls in the ass. Well fucking played.
Phony textualism? You don't think actual text of the law should be paramount to the legal analysis? I thought the decision was well written and followed the only plausible argument that could bring transgender and sexual orientation into the protection of Title VII. I went into oral arguments siding with the conservative view, but was won over in oral arguments in the way the Court focused its questioning around the causation issue (which, admittedly, I hadn't really considered) rather than the meaning of "sex," which the Court unanimously agreed upon. I think the dissents were strong, too, and frankly don't think either outcome would have made bad law. Alito pointed out examples of where the Court's reasoning would not hold up and presented a good argument (which the plaintiffs conceded in oral argument) that Title VII shouldn't always necessarily include transgender/sexual orientation discrimination. Perhaps the majority opinion was too broad. I need to read it through. I've only skimmed it so far. While the dissents' separation of powers arguments were persuasive, that argument alone can't defeat the text of the law. This was a tough case imo.
I'm surprised Gorsuch and perhaps a couple of the liberal judges didn't join here
Textualism is dumb for a lot of reasons none bigger than the fact that it conveniently chooses to ignore that language is inherently subjective. Statutory interpretation should be based on more than just the words on the paper because those words can often be interpreted in several ways. Legislative intent matters as well because it allows for our laws to be fluid to match a constantly changing world.
Unless your motivations go beyond mere interpretation and instead lie somewhere less noble. Like, for example, maintaining white male power structures at the expense of everybody else.
If the language is ambiguous, textualism gives way to other interpretive factors that are intended to provide evidence of the meaning of the law. To let those factors come in in the face of unambiguous text makes the court another legislature and undermines the constitutional structure and the rule of law. Courts should never make decisions based on public opinion or ever-changing notions of morality or fairness.
Btw, if the court followed legislative intent in this decision, it would have been a 9-0 decision against the plaintiffs.
To add to my last post, interpretation shouldn't be fluid for the sake of a "constantly changing world." Good law properly applied should be be capable of application to all people and times. If it's not, then there are legislative mechanisms to fix the bad law. It isn't a suicide pact. What we can't have is the Court inserting itself into the legislative role to rewrite the law
Eat shit Alito
Can't disagree with any of that. I think we may differ on what constitutes ambiguous language. What I was trying to get at is that when laws are enacted, they can't possibly account for every future situation that might arise. They can do their best, and well crafted law will account for almost all situations, but I don't see what is to be gained by rigid interpretation of a dated law. The mechanisms you talk about to change laws can also be used to correct Supreme Court interpretations that the legislature doesn't agree with.
Also when you have a Senate that is flagrantly and intentionally abdicating its duties that complicates things further for the Court. Maybe theoretically it shouldn't but practically it does.
I'm surprised by this. Heller left a lot open and invited the court to make future rulings to outline the parameters of its rule. But it's not by accident that there weren't four justices willing to accept any of the cases.
theres a tentative peace on gun rights on the court
A law is ambiguous if it lends itself to more than one meaning. I can't think of any examples off hand as to how changes in future circumstances make the words of prior laws ambiguous. Maybe these changes cause the law to become bad law because its application to new situations yields bad results or maybe the meaning of the words of the law are vague or less certain when applied to new circumstance; but these aren't matters of ambiguity. Rigid application that yields bad results is an invitation for the legislature to change the law (or not and face the consequences with the voters).
That would be a very John Roberts result.
This theory works, but the application does not. Our legislature is broken beyond repair.
This. The centrality of SCOTUS to American life, and these increasingly feisty legislative interpretative disputes, is directly caused by Congress’s abdication of its role
These issues with the legislature—which are nothing new—are political matters, not matters for the court. The court doesn’t have authority to render decisions out of legislative expediency, not should it.
someone care to unpack the pipeline ruling? im not good at law
It does when there is room in the law to do so. Your belief that the law is perfectly clear is very effectively rebutted by justices that describe themselves as textualists managed to come down on both sides of this case.
The doctrine of textualism is nothing more than a way for smart people to frame their own biases. It’s a religion in that its adherents assert the word of god is clear and immutable even as other devotees come to very different conclusions. It’s time to grow up and realize that in order to an effective justice system we must have justices with a strong sense of morality independent of the law as that is what is going to be reflected in their rulings.
Just as it always has been.
My 15 seconds of research seems to indicate it was mostly about the ability of the executive branch to do a thing. They have apparently been empowered to do that thing.
A judicial system developed by Judge’s “morality independent of the law.” What could go wrong
i guess pretending these aren't all politically motivated decisions makes you feel better?
case about who has the authority to issue pipeline permits under Appalachian Trail
—Forest Service or Parks Service. Court ruled Forestry Service had authority
this two step where we understand where an ideological movement started and why it was created but pretend it is somehow separated from the movement that created it is bizarre
like whats the goal of the federalist society and all their workshops, ideological pressure on law schools, taking over of the SC nominating process, on and on?