Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by harvey birdman, Dec 8, 2015.
Kind of want to go open up a Muslim academy somewhere in Montana and bilk their tax dollars
The Supreme Court is fucking trash
this is type of stuff you are always going to get with a conservative SC. sucks, but not surprising
We've gotten terrible decisions consistently throughout its existence
Reading the start of this opinion and it is unsurprisingly some disingenuous horseshit.
Classic Roberts. What a shit decision.
Montana was dumb to offer tax credits for donating to organizations that fund private school scholarships though. Why why why do we keep commingling private and public schools.
Maybe we need another kavanaugh and rioters can just go burn down the building. Those are riots I would support
The Supreme Court is garbage. A bunch of east coast elites deciding shit for the rest of the country
So you're cool with riots when an institution isn't functioning as it should?
That was my first thought, too. Easy solution is just don't fund any private schools.
bet if we started the “Education Center for Black Panther and Islamic Co-ops.edu” and requested taxpayer funds, we could get the state to stop funding private schools altogether
P excited for what Texas will cook up
The church of the Dallas Cowboys but with Cross Shaped American flag colored AR-15s as the main symbol of holiness.
That’s not a new opinion of his. He wrote it up in the Town of Greece case. It’s actually not as ridiculous as he’s making it
Going to be hilarious to see the reactions from Evangelicals when some Muslim group gets taxpayer money or some religious group that supports gay marriage and abortion gets taxpayer money.
couple reasons. It hasn’t always been the case that the bill of rights apply to the states. It’s actually taken specific cases for them to be stated that they are in fact incorporated to applying to the states. The first amendment wasn’t held to apply to the states until like 1930-40. In addition when the amendments were drafted many states had state religion and some of those went well passed that time. So from a historical perspective and a legal perspective it’s not an unsound argument.
Are there any cases where the SC has decided in favor of the state law superseding the bill of rights?
Did all of those states get rid of the state religion on their own or did the federal government step in?
I’m obviously not an attorney so apologies if there are obvious answers to either question that I missed, but trying to get a better perspective on the decision.
By definition i can’t think of any state law that can supersede the constitution. You’ll get flavors of interpretation. But strictly saying “we don’t abide by unreasonable search and seizure,” I’m not sure how that would work.
now like I said , it hasn’t always been that the bill of rights applies to the states. So for example, the second amendment up until McDonald and Heller hadn’t been held to apply to the states. So there were all kinds of limitations on firearms that had been allowed up until then. Now those all get reviewed. So there’s been conflict in the past.
as to the state religion, my recollection is that most of those went away on their own accord. Massachusetts became less Puritan etc. and don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate state religion but I’m just noting that it’s not as crazy as it may seem
Constitution doesn’t prevent states from punishing “faithless electors” in the college. Unanimous decision. Kagan on the pen.
When was the last time we've had a faithless elector?
10 in 2016
So are they done for the day? No ruling on Trumps taxes?
Yep. Just the faithless elector, and they ruled you cant make political robocalls to cell phones
For The Washington Post (subscription required), Robert Barnes reports that “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suffered a fall at a Maryland country club last month that required an overnight stay in the hospital, a Supreme Court spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday night.” Adam Liptak reports tor The New York Times that “[t]he chief justice has twice had seizures, in 1993 and 2007, but [the spokeswoman’s] statement said his latest fall had not been caused by one.” At CNN, Ariane de Vogue and Paul LeBlanc report that “[t]he Supreme Court did not issue any statement to the media in the days after Roberts fell”; the spokeswoman, Kathy Arberg, “says she responded Tuesday night after an inquiry from the Post.”
The conspiracies this will start are gonna be hilarious
7-2 vote. Woof
This whole this is so stupid. It isn’t the employer’s health coverage, it’s the employees’. The employer shouldn’t be able to object to the healthcare decisions of the employee and they should all be mandated to provide adequate healthcare coverage for their employees. Adequate healthcare coverage includes contraceptives.
Just another reason to divorce healthcare from employment status. Employers are all fucksticks. #m4A
The bigger issue for me is treating businesses and organizations the same as people and applying rules designed to protect individuals to organizations that are used to skirt those rights.
Businesses have no souls, therefore they can have no sincerely held religious beliefs. Business do not have a right to vote, therefore they should not be able to participate in the campaigning process.
But that’s going to require a constitutional amendment or packing the court with people that get the job specifically based on that litmus test (and those people might suck on other things).
Is this today?
Today is the last day for Supreme Court decisions
That's what I was missing. Thanks.
You know that McGirt decision will be first
They’re going to announce McGirt and then announce another day of decision next Monday
It's very important. I need to know if we have to release every prisoner in the state penitentiary
Next opinion at 10:10.
How does this person own the handle Biden2020?
holy shit, what an interesting case
In a legal quirk for the ages, a 1990s capital murder case involving two Native Americans could restore tribal sovereignty to almost half of Oklahoma for the first time in a century—unless the Supreme Court intervenes, that is.
The Federal Government asked the justices last Friday to review and reverse the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Royal v. Murphy, an unusual case in which Patrick Murphy, a death-row inmate and member of the Muscogee Creek Nation, claimed Oklahoma lacked the jurisdiction to try him for the murder of another tribal member on what was part of the Creek Nation’s reservation.
Until now, state and federal officials assumed those boundaries no longer existed. To prepare Oklahoma for statehood in the late nineteenth century, Congress stripped the Creek Nation and other tribes in the territory of their courts, governments, and laws. The federal government also compelled the Creek to convert their tribal lands into allotments for private ownership by the tribe’s members, with the surplus land to be sold to white settlers. When Oklahoma joined the Union in 1907, state and federal power held total sway.
A three-judge panel in the Tenth Circuit ruled last summer, however, that Congress never explicitly abolished the Creek Nation’s reservation along the way. Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, the judges concluded, the oversight left the reservation legally intact until the present day. As a result, the panel ruled that the defendant’s murder case could only be tried in federal courts, like other major crimes between Native Americans on tribal land under current federal law.
Trump v. Vance decided 7-2 against Trump
Roberts wrote the opinion, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. Kavanaguh and Gorsuch agreed in the judgment. Thomas and Alito dissented.