CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread - Page 3

post #101 of 506
One potential precedent that I wish I could find more analysis on: does recognizing a business owner's right to use his corporation as an expression of his religious attitudes break down the institutionalized unaccountability provided by corporate laws, to the extent that CEOs and stockholders can then be sued in person for the conduct of their corporations? Because that could be a game changer in the fight against climate change, among other issues.
post #102 of 506

Well, SCOTUS dealt another blow to the average American's ability to have any real voice in their government yet again:

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justices-strike-down-political-donor-limits/

 

We need to change our textbooks to reflect that we are in fact a "Plutocratic Republic."  Though of course this will never happen.

post #103 of 506

Short of one of the anti-common human/pro-millionaire five retiring or shuffling off this mortal coil, the only thing that will stop fascism by SCOTUS degree is a constitutional amendment.  There is not other option at this point.

post #104 of 506

Welp, now we can stop paying lip service to that whole "democracy" illusion . . .

post #105 of 506

A Supreme Court Justice can be impeached.

 

Quote:
The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign or retire.[76] Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805).[77] Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970; and Abe Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign.[78]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

Unfortunately, I don't think one should start holding their breath...

post #106 of 506

So this is how liberty dies. To the thunderous plinking of gold coins piling on the floor.

post #107 of 506

Best Government money can buy.

post #108 of 506

There have been serious challenges to the rule of law before and our system of governance has found a way to bounce back.  That WILL happen with this situation.  It will take time, but I have no doubt that this level of just utterly tone-deaf Mr. Burns-level scheming is on its way out. 

post #109 of 506

It sure as hell isn't going to go down quietly, though.

post #110 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
 

There have been serious challenges to the rule of law before and our system of governance has found a way to bounce back.  That WILL happen with this situation.  It will take time, but I have no doubt that this level of just utterly tone-deaf Mr. Burns-level scheming is on its way out. 

 

....and I bet it takes all of us with it.  

post #111 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
 

 

....and I bet it takes all of us with it.  


GOP- "....if we can't have the country.....NO ONE WILL HAVE IT!!!!"

post #112 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

A Supreme Court Justice can be impeached.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

Unfortunately, I don't think one should start holding their breath...


If one of the current justices were to be impeached, which one would it have to be to have the best chance of actually being removed from the bench?

 

It would have to be Thomas or Scalia, wouldn't it? Giving the edge to Thomas since he's had the most obvious conflicts of interest through his wife.

post #113 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
 

 

....and I bet it takes all of us with it.  

 

It will certainly try and it may be richer but it's outnumbered. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
 


If one of the current justices were to be impeached, which one would it have to be to have the best chance of actually being removed from the bench?

 

It would have to be Thomas or Scalia, wouldn't it? Giving the edge to Thomas since he's had the most obvious conflicts of interest through his wife.

 

We can fancast but the Senate would have to do it and unfortunately they would never.  For some reason there's this supposition that the SCOTUS is untouchable, which is a recent phenomenon. 

 

We should all be supporting Movetoamend.org

 

A constitutional amendment is no less likely but it's something that at least regular people can participate in.

post #114 of 506

  Why can't we have nice things like publicly financed elections. I don't think people would miss long elections and the commercials  that go with them. Also it would mean members of Congress would spend all of their time working and none of it raising campaign funds.

post #115 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
 

 

We can fancast but the Senate would have to do it and unfortunately they would never.  For some reason there's this supposition that the SCOTUS is untouchable, which is a recent phenomenon. 

 

We should all be supporting Movetoamend.org

 

A constitutional amendment is no less likely but it's something that at least regular people can participate in.

A Dem controlled Senate might, but the current House obviously never would move to impeach a judge. But my point is that if there were to suddenly be massive public pressure to impeach a member of the Supreme Court, it would make sense for the public to pick a member of the court to whom an impeachment would stick to pressure their Congresspersons about.

post #116 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
 

A Dem controlled Senate might, but the current House obviously never would move to impeach a judge. But my point is that if there were to suddenly be massive public pressure to impeach a member of the Supreme Court, it would make sense for the public to pick a member of the court to whom an impeachment would stick to pressure their Congresspersons about.

 

I don't think so.  They'd write it off as irrational mob mentality basically because it puts the onus on them to be the bad guy and ruin some guy's career, even if he is a corrupt %$#^&%s and everyone knows it.  The only path forward is a constitutional amendment.

post #117 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post
 

  Why can't we have nice things like publicly financed elections. I don't think people would miss long elections and the commercials  that go with them. Also it would mean members of Congress would spend all of their time working and none of it raising campaign funds.

 

Maybe you'd like things better in Russia, ye commie bastard!

post #118 of 506

Will the Reagan and Bush appointees just die off already?

post #119 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarence Boddicker View Post
 

Will the Reagan and Bush appointees just die off already?


While that would be one option, I'd much rather that have Scalia, Thomas and Roberts be forced to resign in disgrace after some sort of huge scandal.

It would be more satisfying.

 

Now, what kind of scandal...hmmm? Bribery? Sex scandal?

post #120 of 506

So I was talking to one of my friends about this and he summed it up very nicely, and I will use this as a talking point from now on.

Republicans will do all in their power to prevent the rich from paying one more dollar in taxes which will help us all, but on the

flip side they will also do all in their power to ensure those same rich folks can spend as much as possible to fuck up our

government to run our lives their way. Yeah, the fact that your average voter can't see this when they head to the booth is

honestly just sad.

post #121 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeWee View Post
 

So I was talking to one of my friends about this and he summed it up very nicely, and I will use this as a talking point from now on.

Republicans will do all in their power to prevent the rich from paying one more dollar in taxes which will help us all, but on the

flip side they will also do all in their power to ensure those same rich folks can spend as much as possible to fuck up our

government to run our lives their way. Yeah, the fact that your average voter can't see this when they head to the booth is

honestly just sad.

 

to pour salt in the wound....most of the millions of dollars spent on GOP politicians/causes will no doubt be used as some sort of tax write off.....

 

" what....it's a 'charity....(whispers)for old rich white people"

post #122 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeWee View Post
 

So I was talking to one of my friends about this and he summed it up very nicely, and I will use this as a talking point from now on.

Republicans will do all in their power to prevent the rich from paying one more dollar in taxes which will help us all, but on the

flip side they will also do all in their power to ensure those same rich folks can spend as much as possible to fuck up our

government to run our lives their way. Yeah, the fact that your average voter can't see this when they head to the booth is

honestly just sad.

 

It's basically a fucked up version of Spiderman.

 

With great money, comes absolutely no fucking responsibility whatsoever. Bitches.

post #123 of 506

It's basically a fucked up version of Spiderman.

 

With great money, comes absolutely no fucking responsibility whatsoever. Bitches.

 

I spilled water on my keyboard, somehow adding Bitches just makes any statement that much better.

I had a quick visual of Chappelle playing Prince handing out pancakes.

post #124 of 506

Jon Stewart NAILED IT in this sequence.

 

ETA:  my bad, I thought the embed code would work.  I guess it doesn't.  Here's the link: Daily Show: Donors Unchained - Quid Pro Quo

 

 

 

 

post #125 of 506

That is definitely straight on point.

post #126 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
 

 

Maybe you'd like things better in Russia, ye commie bastard!


Well Russia does suddenly have some nice beach front property on the Black Sea.

post #127 of 506

Maybe I'm delusional but this could be the turning point in terms of revealing how completely out of touch with reality the five conservative justices are.  One thing Scalia hates is being the butt of jokes, but he, Roberts et al must fully own the open season they just brought on themselves.

post #128 of 506

Holy Shit....I agree with....Scalia ?!?!

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/opinion-analysis-big-new-role-for-anonymous-tipsters/

 

 

AP summary

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says an anonymous tip can be sufficient to justify a decision by police to pull a car over on suspicion of reckless or drunken driving.

 

The justices voted 5-4 Tuesday to uphold a traffic stop in northern California in which officers subsequently found marijuana in the vehicle. The officers themselves did not see any evidence of reckless driving.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas said the tip phoned in to 911 that a Ford pickup truck had run the caller off the road was sufficiently reliable to allow for the traffic stop without violating the driver's constitutional rights.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent in which he called Thomas' opinion "a freedom-destroying cocktail."

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_ANONYMOUS_TIPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

This decision could possibly lead to some serious abuse of the law...

post #129 of 506

I love this story but it's giving me wicked false hope inklings of the possibility of getting rid of Scalia.  This b**** wouldn't step down even if he had full blown clinical Dementia.

 

Quote:

Justice Scalia Makes Epic Blunder In Supreme Court Opinion

Sahil Kapur – April 30, 2014, 6:00 AM EDT
 

It's not often that a Supreme Court justice makes a factual blunder in a formal opinion.

 

Legal experts say Justice Antonin Scalia erred in his dissent in the 6-2 decision Tuesday to uphold the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate coal pollution that moves across state lines.

 

The Reagan-appointed jurist argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with a unanimous 2001 ruling which he mistakenly said shot down EPA efforts to consider costs when setting regulations.

 

"This is not the first time EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted EPA's contention that it could consider costs in setting [National Ambient Air Quality Standards]," Scalia wrote in his dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

 

The problem: the EPA's position in the 2001 case was exactly the opposite. The agency was defending its refusal to consider cost as a counter-weight to health benefits when setting certain air quality standards. It was the trucking industry that wanted the EPA to factor in cost. The 9-0 ruling sided with the EPA. The author of the ruling that Scalia mischaracterized? Scalia himself.

 

The conservative justice's error was noted by University of California-Berkeley law professor Dan Farber, who called it "embarrassing" and a "cringeworthy blunder."

 

 

Source: TPM

post #130 of 506

I know it's a whole can of worms, but the term 'Reagan-appointed jurist' just seems so...anachronistic, and infuriating. Think of all the advances we've gone through, and yet...

 

I guess 'appointee for life' meant something different when you only lived to be 60.

post #131 of 506

I was just about to post that info about the EPA/SCOTUS ruling.

 

More specifically, I was going to wonder out loud if there is such a thing as Judicial Bipolar disorder.

post #132 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
 

I love this story but it's giving me wicked false hope inklings of the possibility of getting rid of Scalia.  This b**** wouldn't step down even if he had full blown clinical Dementia.

 

 

 

Source: TPM

 

Weird, considering opinions are almost always researched and written by law clerks, i.e. young, ambitious, and, in the case of federal courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular, the cream of the crop of the Ivy League law schools. Getting a small detail of a case wrong would be weird enough, but to get a Supreme Court case from less than 15 years ago completely backwards is just bizarre. Like "Olivier performing Hamlet and forgetting his lines in the middle of the 'To be or not to be' soliloquy" bizarre. I wonder who's clerking for Scalia right now.

post #133 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiosity Cosby View Post
 

 

Weird, considering opinions are almost always researched and written by law clerks, i.e. young, ambitious, and, in the case of federal courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular, the cream of the crop of the Ivy League law schools. Getting a small detail of a case wrong would be weird enough, but to get a Supreme Court case from less than 15 years ago completely backwards is just bizarre. Like "Olivier performing Hamlet and forgetting his lines in the middle of the 'To be or not to be' soliloquy" bizarre. I wonder who's clerking for Scalia right now.

 

But even so, he'd have to have at least reviewed it, and f***ing Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the case in question.  This is the guy basically driving the law of the land at this time.  I don't wish ill on anybody, but even when not embarrassing blunders like this, Scalia seems to be completely disconnected from reality.   

post #134 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
 

 

But even so, he'd have to have at least reviewed it, and f***ing Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the case in question.  This is the guy basically driving the law of the land at this time.  I don't wish ill on anybody, but even when not embarrassing blunders like this, Scalia seems to be completely disconnected from reality.  

 

Yeah, I don't mean to give the impression that Scalia doesn't bear any blame for this forehead-slapper. He has people to sit down and draft it for him, but he put his name on it and sure as hell should've caught that, since it was about a prior opinion that, you know, he wrote. Just because the president doesn't sit down and write his own speeches doesn't mean he isn't responsible for their content once he says them. It's just so weird that such a glaring mistake could've slipped through the cracks, given all the presumably hyper-qualified people working for him.

post #135 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiosity Cosby View Post
 

 

Yeah, I don't mean to give the impression that Scalia doesn't bear any blame for this forehead-slapper. He has people to sit down and draft it for him, but he put his name on it and sure as hell should've caught that, since it was about a prior opinion that, you know, he wrote. Just because the president doesn't sit down and write his own speeches doesn't mean he isn't responsible for their content once he says them. It's just so weird that such a glaring mistake could've slipped through the cracks, given all the presumably hyper-qualified people working for him.

 

I still say the fish stinks for the head! :)

post #136 of 506

apparently, the opinion has edited to correct the 'error'....


 

Quote:

http://legal-planet.org/2014/04/29/more-about-epas-victory/

 

[NOTE: After this was posted, the opinion on the Court's website was revised to eliminate Scalia's error. Of course, as corrected, the case no longer fits Scalia's overall thesis of the "unelected officials" trying to override Congressional policy.]

 

...does this qualify as a 'take back'   ; )

post #137 of 506
Of course, this is in keeping with Article III of the Constitution, which, among other things, clearly allows each Justice one "mulligan" or "do-over" per session. It also provides for complimentary letting out of Justices' robes to accommodate their ballooning girth.
post #138 of 506

What would have been the outcome of this decision if the majority of the prayers were of a non-xtian variety...Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Scientologist...???

I can only imagine that the outrage from the xtian community would have been, well....biblical.
 

Quote:

Supreme Court Allows Prayers at Town Meetings

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a town in upstate New York may begin its public meetings with a prayer from a “chaplain of the month.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision, said “ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond that authority of government to alter or define.”

 

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the town’s practices could not be reconciled “with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share of her government.”

 

Town officials said that members of all faiths, and atheists, were welcome to give the opening prayer. In practice, the federal appeals court in New York said, almost all of the chaplains were Christian.

 

Two town residents sued, saying the prayers ran afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion.

 

<cont>

post #139 of 506

Looks like the SCOTUS bipolar meds were working during rendering the verdict on this case...
 

Quote:

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police generally may not search the cellphones of Americans who have been arrested without a search warrant.

 

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police generally may not search the cellphones of Americans who have been arrested without a search warrant. (You can read the decision here; it's also posted below.) In a sweeping win for digital privacy rights, the justices recognized that cellphones contain "vast quantities of personal information" and are fundamentally different than other items that a person might have on his or her body when arrested.

 

"Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences," reads the opinion, which reverses the decision of the California appellate court in Riley v. California.

 

The justices concluded that officers may examine the phone’s physical aspects to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon, but may not comb through the data without a warrant. "It is true that this decision will have some impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. But the Court’s holding is not that the information on a cellphone is immune from search; it is that a warrant is generally required before a search."

 

<cont>

post #140 of 506

The Aereo decision makes no sense, will result in a ton of litigation over cloud based content distribution, and represents a Napster-esque rejection of new technologies by an existing industry.

 

I could understand some of the arguments behind the DVR-like functionality of Aereo.  What I don't understand is why the real-time streaming of yoru own, discrete, individual signal from a discrete, individual antenna that you lease somehow represents a performance, rebroadcast, or any other form of copyright infringement.

 

If I were to rent an adjacent empty lot, rent an antenna, stick the antenna in the lot, and then run the cable to my house, nobody would ever argue that the owner of the lot that I was leasing was somehow faciliating coypright infringement.  Yet, somehow, when you expand that analogy to a million people, instead of just one, the Supreme Court decided that it did, in fact, constitute infringement.

 

I can only assume that the Court was looking at the practical effects of their ruling rather than the actual law.  Or, they are octogenarians who can't grasp current technology. 

post #141 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

 

I can only assume that the Court was looking at the practical effects of their ruling rather than the actual law.  Or, they are octogenarians who can't grasp current technology. 

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

post #142 of 506
Quote:

Originally Posted by Overlord View Post

I could understand some of the arguments behind the DVR-like functionality of Aereo.  What I don't understand is why the real-time streaming of yoru own, discrete, individual signal from a discrete, individual antenna that you lease somehow represents a performance, rebroadcast, or any other form of copyright infringement.

 

The decision is actually only about the streaming. CNN v CSC already determined that cloud DVRs are acceptable.

 

The big sticking point is that you are paying Aereo to send you a live broadcast (and, in all likelihood, a live broadcast from a place you don't even live). Your empty lot analogy doesn't quite work because Aereo isn't just managing a lot for your antenna to be set up in, they're also setting up and maintaining the antenna and running the cable to your house for you. And offering the same service to everyone else in your neighbourhood.

 

And I don't see how this decision can be extended to other cloud based content distribution services, as all of those are being used to stream content that you either already own (Google Music, Amazon Cloud Player, whatever the iTunes cloud player service is called) or that the provider is already paying to license (Spotify, Pandora, etc).

post #143 of 506

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-recess-appointments-20140610-story.html

 

Quote:
 

The Supreme Court has ruled President Obama exceeded his power under the Constitution by filling federal positions when the Senate was on a brief break.

 

But the narrow ruling also preserved the president's power to make recess appointments in general.

 

While the president is authorized to fill "vacancies" while the Senate is on "recess," the justices decided in a 9-0 ruling that the Senate was not on a true recess in January of 2012 when Obama filled three seats on the National Labor Relations Board.

post #144 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by bendrix View Post
 

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
 

 

The big sticking point is that you are paying Aereo to send you a live broadcast (and, in all likelihood, a live broadcast from a place you don't even live). Your empty lot analogy doesn't quite work because Aereo isn't just managing a lot for your antenna to be set up in, they're also setting up and maintaining the antenna and running the cable to your house for you. And offering the same service to everyone else in your neighbourhood.

 

Aereo restricted you so that you could only obtain a live broadcast from a geographic region the device was in and where you resided. 

 

As for the empty lot argument, I don't see why leasing you the equipment and the lot somehow changes the dynamic as opposed to you owning the equipment and the lot. 

post #145 of 506

While I don't like this ruling, I do understand the rationale behind it....

 

Quote:

Court Rejects Zone to Buffer Abortion Clinic

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests, counseling and other speech near abortion clinics.

“A painted line on the sidewalk is easy to enforce, but the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a majority opinion that was joined by the court’s four-member liberal wing.

 

The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.

 

The Massachusetts law was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion who said they sought to have quiet conversations with women entering clinics to tell them about alternatives. “Petitioners are not protesters,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
 

The court was unanimous about the bottom line but divided on the reasoning, with Chief Justice Roberts writing a narrow opinion. The law blocked too much speech, he said, “sweeping in innocent individuals.”

 

<cont>

 

That being said, I wonder how the anti-choice protesters would react to having a large group visually and audibly voicing anti-religion rhetoric outside of their churches? I mean if someone were to show up and use a bullhorn to point out that religion is responsible for the death of millions of people....to say nothing of the pedophilia perpetrated and covered up by those in power.....

post #146 of 506

There's a Planned Parenthood facility 4 or 5 blocks from where I live, and usually a handful of Olds and Christ Teens protesting on the curb in front of it. I really hare to think that any woman seeking help there now has to run a gauntlet of people telling her she's a Baby Killer.

post #147 of 506

Keep in mind, the U.S. Supreme Court is buffer zone-protected. 

post #148 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post

 

As for the empty lot argument, I don't see why leasing you the equipment and the lot somehow changes the dynamic as opposed to you owning the equipment and the lot. 

Really? You don't see how somebody charging a monthly fee to build and maintain an infrastructure for serving you (and thousands of others) content that neither you nor they own is totally different than you just buying an HD antenna, tuner and slingbox for personal use?

post #149 of 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by smugbug View Post
 

Keep in mind, the U.S. Supreme Court is buffer zone-protected. 

Funny how that works, isn't it?  They won't even allow cameras in there.  

 

As far as I'm concerned, it's past time to term limit those fuckers.  And if there's any court in the land that needs a camera inside, it's THAT one.  

post #150 of 506

Yeaaa !!!!!

 

Now I can finally start a business and control a woman's health options....just like the bible says I can..

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread