Wed December 26, 2012 4:35 pm
Mon January 07, 2013 12:16 am
Mon January 14, 2013 11:46 pm
Those are the profound four words that the transcript recorded as his first spoken words in oral argument since 2006.Clarence Thomas wrote:Well -- he did not -
Mon January 14, 2013 11:51 pm
Green Habit wrote:Those are the profound four words that the transcript recorded as his first spoken words in oral argument since 2006.Clarence Thomas wrote:Well -- he did not -
It sounds like he was making a joke instead of asking a question, though, so some may say his silent streak will soon continue. The audio should come out in about a week or so.
Samuel L. Jackson plays crusty, waxen Stephen as a vision of depraved loyalty and bombastic jive that cuts right past the obvious association with Uncle Tom. The movie is too modern for what Jackson is doing to be limited to 1858. He’s conjuring the house Negro, yes, but playing him as though he were Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes or Herman Cain or Michael Steele, men whom some black people find embarrassing.
Tue February 19, 2013 3:00 pm
Tue February 19, 2013 4:05 pm
Green Habit wrote:The Court just granted what could be Citizens United II--a challenge to the limits one can contribute to an individual or party. The case is McCutcheon v. FEC.
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/McCutcheon.shtml
Meanwhile, there's another case that the Court didn't act on yet which would definitely be Citizens United III: a challenge to contributions in elections, as opposed to expenditures.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... ed-states/
Tue February 26, 2013 12:15 am
SCOTUS denied cert today in that Danielczyk case that I linked to.4/5 wrote:Green Habit wrote:The Court just granted what could be Citizens United II--a challenge to the limits one can contribute to an individual or party. The case is McCutcheon v. FEC.
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/McCutcheon.shtml
Meanwhile, there's another case that the Court didn't act on yet which would definitely be Citizens United III: a challenge to contributions in elections, as opposed to expenditures.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... ed-states/
Well, this could certainly be interesting.
Tue February 26, 2013 7:49 pm
Tue February 26, 2013 8:48 pm
This Court is too strict on Article III standing in general.4/5 wrote:So the Court ruled 5-4 that Amnesty International lacked standing to bring a suit on the government's wiretapping programs.
Tue February 26, 2013 8:53 pm
Green Habit wrote:SCOTUS denied cert today in that Danielczyk case that I linked to.4/5 wrote:Green Habit wrote:The Court just granted what could be Citizens United II--a challenge to the limits one can contribute to an individual or party. The case is McCutcheon v. FEC.
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/McCutcheon.shtml
Meanwhile, there's another case that the Court didn't act on yet which would definitely be Citizens United III: a challenge to contributions in elections, as opposed to expenditures.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... ed-states/
Well, this could certainly be interesting.
Tue February 26, 2013 8:56 pm
Awwww, I was hoping for an "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?" quote. Are you asking what the case was about, or what the Court did to deny it?kahli sana wrote:Hate to be that guy, but, umm...in English? I clicked through to the link, but they just said it was denied. What does that mean?
Tue February 26, 2013 9:02 pm
Green Habit wrote:Awwww, I was hoping for an "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?" quote. Are you asking what the case was about, or what the Court did to deny it?kahli sana wrote:Hate to be that guy, but, umm...in English? I clicked through to the link, but they just said it was denied. What does that mean?
Tue February 26, 2013 9:33 pm
Hehe. There are very few cases that the Supreme Court is obligated to hear by law--the grand majority are at their discretion as to whether or not to hear them. The losing party in a case will petition a writ of certiorari, asking SCOTUS to hear the case. If four of the nine justices agree that it should be heard, the cert petition is granted--if not, it's denied--and the grand majority of cert petitions are denied. The few that are granted usually arise from some conflict among the lower courts, or if there's simply a precedent that enough Justices think is wrong.kahli sana wrote:Green Habit wrote:Awwww, I was hoping for an "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?" quote. Are you asking what the case was about, or what the Court did to deny it?kahli sana wrote:Hate to be that guy, but, umm...in English? I clicked through to the link, but they just said it was denied. What does that mean?
I think I understand the case (putting limits on biennial contributions is unconstitutional as it limits free speech and isn't supported by sufficient government interest), but the denial is where I came up question marks.
I suppose I could find an online law dictionary and look up certiorari, but asking you seems like a quicker solution with a higher likelihood of understanding.
Tue February 26, 2013 9:44 pm
Green Habit wrote:Hehe. There are very few cases that the Supreme Court is obligated to hear by law--the grand majority are at their discretion as to whether or not to hear them. The losing party in a case will petition a writ of certiorari, asking SCOTUS to hear the case. If four of the nine justices agree that it should be heard, the cert petition is granted--if not, it's denied--and the grand majority of cert petitions are denied. The few that are granted usually arise from some conflict among the lower courts, or if there's simply a precedent that enough Justices think is wrong.kahli sana wrote:Green Habit wrote:Awwww, I was hoping for an "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?" quote. Are you asking what the case was about, or what the Court did to deny it?kahli sana wrote:Hate to be that guy, but, umm...in English? I clicked through to the link, but they just said it was denied. What does that mean?
I think I understand the case (putting limits on biennial contributions is unconstitutional as it limits free speech and isn't supported by sufficient government interest), but the denial is where I came up question marks.
I suppose I could find an online law dictionary and look up certiorari, but asking you seems like a quicker solution with a higher likelihood of understanding.
Wed February 27, 2013 2:29 pm
Green Habit wrote:This Court is too strict on Article III standing in general.4/5 wrote:So the Court ruled 5-4 that Amnesty International lacked standing to bring a suit on the government's wiretapping programs.
Thu February 28, 2013 1:28 am
Then you probably read that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is probably doomed:4/5 wrote:Thanks for bringing scotusblog to me. Probably my favorite blog on the interwebz.
Thu February 28, 2013 12:46 pm
Green Habit wrote:Then you probably read that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is probably doomed:4/5 wrote:Thanks for bringing scotusblog to me. Probably my favorite blog on the interwebz.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/argum ... ril-maybe/
I don't buy the argument that preclearance itself is unconstitutional, but I don't like the notion that it can apply to some states/localities and not others. If you're going to have preclearance, let's have it for everyone. I wonder if the Court is able to make a clever argument in that regard.
The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a -- in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was -- in the Senate, there -- it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term. Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it.
And this last enactment, not a single vote 25 in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don't think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there's a good reason for it.
Thu February 28, 2013 2:59 pm
Well, I don't think that clause (which is used in other amendments as well) can give Congress carte blanche power to do whatever it wants. For example, if it passed a law saying that it would forbid people from advocating repeal of the 15th Amendment, I'm sure that would be quickly struck down under the First Amendment. For a more real life example, the Court struck down an Oklahoma law with different drinking ages for men and women under the Equal Protection Clause, despite the presence of the 21st Amendment giving states the power to regulate alcohol.4/5 wrote:Section 2 of the 15th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
I should probably make something clearer--I don't think that Section 5 is unconstitutional. I wish it was based on the "equality of the states" argument, but unfortunately I can't find anything in the Constitution that mandates that. Then again, I'm not as clever as the Justices are, and maybe they could find a way if they so choose.4/5 wrote:I just read the last few blog posts and one said the Court already rejected the "equality of the states" argument last time. I'm on board with the idea that Congress needed to update the Section 4 preclearance formula when they renewed VRA65. But since that's unlikely I guess the next best thing would be if the Court decides that Shelby doesn't have standing (funny that I'm saying that after you just mentioned it yesterday) because any formula Congress could come up with would still require them to obtain preclearance.
Those were bad, but they weren't as bad as the death penalty comments.4/5 wrote:What do you make of Scalia's comments?The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a -- in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was -- in the Senate, there -- it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term. Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it.
And this last enactment, not a single vote 25 in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don't think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there's a good reason for it.
Thu February 28, 2013 3:20 pm
Green Habit wrote:Well, I don't think that clause (which is used in other amendments as well) can give Congress carte blanche power to do whatever it wants. For example, if it passed a law saying that it would forbid people from advocating repeal of the 15th Amendment, I'm sure that would be quickly struck down under the First Amendment. For a more real life example, the Court struck down an Oklahoma law with different drinking ages for men and women under the Equal Protection Clause, despite the presence of the 21st Amendment giving states the power to regulate alcohol.
This rings a bell but I'm drawing a blank.Green Habit wrote:Those were bad, but they weren't as bad as the death penalty comments
Thu February 28, 2013 3:35 pm
They were actually from when the Court last addressed the VRA four years ago, referring to the fact that it was passed 98-0 in the Senate:4/5 wrote:This rings a bell but I'm drawing a blank.Green Habit wrote:Those were bad, but they weren't as bad as the death penalty comments
Antonin Scalia wrote:The Israeli supreme court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.