tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
What is the relevance of mentioning his age or BMI? Do you have a problem with fat or old people?
Supreme Court Ruling time again
- Thread starter Yuwipi Woman
- Start date
What is the relevance of mentioning his age or BMI? Do you have a problem with fat or old people?
sparkybird
ask the bird...
Anecdotally yes. A friend of mine who went a bit weird during COVID moved from Portland, Oregon to Idaho for exactly this reason.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Anecdotally yes. A friend of mine who went a bit weird during COVID moved from Portland, Oregon to Idaho for exactly this reason.
Suppose it’s not that far away and crime rates are going down rather than up. Much cheaper to live too, and plenty of jobs. So maybe some rational reasoning in there too.
I’ve heard a bit about people with money moving from California to either Texas or Florida. Lower cost of living and no State Income Tax. That’s aside from the “shared values” business…
Last edited:
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
No doubt someone will soon try to claim Medicare entitlements or some such age-related thing, on the grounds that they’re nine months older than previously documented:
8ball
Decolonise colons!
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
and fair play to them
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
A profile of Clarence Thomas and his influence on the Supreme Court from Jill Abramson in the FT (paywall busted)
Graymalkin
Ironclad Activist
A week ago I mentioned an illuminating Doug Henwood podcast about the politics of Clarence Thomas. Here it is:
Behind the News October 19 2019
TLDL
Behind every cynical idealist is a failed revolution. Clarence Thomas is a former Radical Black Nationalist of the kooky separatist variety. The decline and domestication of the civil rights movement saw many of his particular political persuasion turn capitalist as they saw it as the only social sphere that white people couldn't fully control. They sought to carve out a separate space where black people could strive in the market and thus realize a kind of political sovereignty (Spike Lee shilling crypto to black communities springs to mind). CT also subscribes to the 'hard times make hard men. (emphasis on Men) Hard men make good times.... etc. school of history. He sees the law as a tool to force black people to adopt the kind of will to power he sees as necessary to carve out the aforementioned space in capitalism. He doesn't ask a lot of questions because his legal perspective is so different from his fellow justices, and his political goals so particular that I imagine he doesn't feel it would contribute anything (or maybe it would give his game away). He is the very definition of judicial activism and up until now maybe he hasn't been taken seriously as a legal philosopher.
Behind the News October 19 2019
TLDL
Behind every cynical idealist is a failed revolution. Clarence Thomas is a former Radical Black Nationalist of the kooky separatist variety. The decline and domestication of the civil rights movement saw many of his particular political persuasion turn capitalist as they saw it as the only social sphere that white people couldn't fully control. They sought to carve out a separate space where black people could strive in the market and thus realize a kind of political sovereignty (Spike Lee shilling crypto to black communities springs to mind). CT also subscribes to the 'hard times make hard men. (emphasis on Men) Hard men make good times.... etc. school of history. He sees the law as a tool to force black people to adopt the kind of will to power he sees as necessary to carve out the aforementioned space in capitalism. He doesn't ask a lot of questions because his legal perspective is so different from his fellow justices, and his political goals so particular that I imagine he doesn't feel it would contribute anything (or maybe it would give his game away). He is the very definition of judicial activism and up until now maybe he hasn't been taken seriously as a legal philosopher.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Good news everyone - SCOTUS just handed down a ruling on labour unions:
"Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master. They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected... even if economic injury results."
That was the sole dissent from Justice Jackson. The other 8 Justices, including the other libs, think workers are indentured servants.
www.reuters.com
"Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master. They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected... even if economic injury results."
That was the sole dissent from Justice Jackson. The other 8 Justices, including the other libs, think workers are indentured servants.
US Supreme Court hands defeat to organized labor in truckers strike case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt another setback to organized labor by making it easier for employers to sue over strikes that cause property destruction in a ruling siding with a concrete business in Washington state that sued the union representing its truck drivers after a work stoppage.
Last edited:
petee
no gods, no malarkey
* whew *
www.politico.com
"By a 6-3 vote, the court rejected the “independent state legislature” theory in a case about North Carolina’s congressional map. The once-fringe legal theory broadly argued that state courts have little — or no — authority to question state legislatures on election laws for federal contests."
Supreme Court denies state legislatures the unchecked power to set election rules
In a 6-3 ruling, the justices affirmed the power of state courts to review state laws governing federal elections — a decision that rejects a once-fringe legal theory pushed by Republicans.
www.politico.com
"By a 6-3 vote, the court rejected the “independent state legislature” theory in a case about North Carolina’s congressional map. The once-fringe legal theory broadly argued that state courts have little — or no — authority to question state legislatures on election laws for federal contests."
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
No great surprise here. They've been after Affirmative Action for years:
Somehow, I doubt if this changes the legacy system whereby family ties get you admission. If you're old, white money, you're still guaranteed admission to Harvard and Yale.
Somehow, I doubt if this changes the legacy system whereby family ties get you admission. If you're old, white money, you're still guaranteed admission to Harvard and Yale.
Yossarian
⏭️
Some strong lines from Sonia Sotomayor's dissent to overturning decades of precedent:
"The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society."
"With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life."
"The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society."
"With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life."
petee
no gods, no malarkey
i really, really don't want to think that. i want to think that these people are well-versed in constitutioal law and even if i don't like it, they have valid arguments. kavanaugh and barrett (whom i have my eye on as she and i come from comparable cultural zones) voted against the stupid and deceitful "independent state legislature" doctrine, and roberts, whom bush jr parachuted into the chief justice chair, has time and again voted against the expectations of the rightwingers who at first thought he was one of them.
ketanji is a bona-fide whiz kid and the republicans who opposed her are pandering c*nts. i have to think that biden's people knew they had her on the line when they fed him the "i will appoint a black woman to the supreme court" plank. i hope i live long enough to see her as chief justice,
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
She is potentially the most qualified person who has ever been on the bench. That nonsense about her being there only because she's a black female candidate was insulting at best, and racist at worst. The truth of the matter is that there's any number of qualified people and choosing one among many has to be a difficult choice. She was a standout in any level playing field.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
They are of course well-versed in constitutional law, but they are also politicians in robes. I don't have the link to hand, but there was a study done looking at how different justices have voted and they're very consistent in finding arguments that just happen to satisfy the position they usually take. And they'll flip from one kind of argument to another to reach the conclusion they want to draw - remembering state rights when it suits them, for instance, then ignoring them when it suits them. They don't look at the constitution and decide how to vote. They decide how to vote and look at the constitution to see how they can make a legal argument to justify it.
This article is from a few years ago, but it makes the point that the votes of most of the justices can be predicted very accurately most of the time. The hundreds of pages of guff they produce to justify their positions is a waste of everyone's time really.
The Troubling Partisanship of the Supreme Court - Stanford Politics
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
Unfortunately it's hardball politics (as i'm sure you know).
McConnell Says Blocking Obama Supreme Court Pick Led to Overturning Roe
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said his decision to block former President Barack Obama from filling a Supreme Court vacancy after conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016 led directly to the reversal of the Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
www.bloomberg.com
Hypocrisy is part of the game. I don't want to think it either. That there is nothing sacred (on either side of the Atlantic).
But the left needs to adopt the cut throat tactics of the right to win. It's like being in a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back otherwise.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
Unfortunately it's hardball politics (as i'm sure you know).
McConnell Says Blocking Obama Supreme Court Pick Led to Overturning Roe
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said his decision to block former President Barack Obama from filling a Supreme Court vacancy after conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016 led directly to the reversal of the Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
as to mcconnell, absolutely. but the justices' decisions, i badly want to think, are informed. alito truly seems to be a shill (his own words convict him Samuel Alito) and thomas is no prize but i, at least, wouldn't be able to refute them, for all that's worth.
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
Problem is 'the right' get people in who'll likely lean a certain way. Same as jury selection except they're in for life. To me it's like the big defense David Irving had in the libel holocaust trial. He may be talking demonstrable bollocks but does he honestly and earnestly believe it to be true?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
They're informed in the same way that a priest's sermons are informed. You can cherry pick from the bible or koran or whatever to make all kinds of mutually exclusive points. Same with US constitutional law. You even have the equivalent of exegesis with what the originalists try to do. tbh seen from outside, a lot of it seems really quite mad, and it has definite echoes of religion. What were these men from 250 years ago thinking and intending at the time? Fuck's sake, who cares? They get treated like prophets privy to some kind of divine revelation.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
You know they aren't Constitutional originalists when they support corporations over everything else. The people who wrote it were very leary of the power of the corporation. Early American law only allowed for the formation of a corporation for a specific purpose and for a limited period of time. They weren't intended to be these immortal entities with more rights than real persons as they are today.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sure. The hypocrisy is blatant! They duck and weave and swap sides to justify their positions.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
It's becoming clearer every day that their positions are bought and paid for by wealthy "friends" who send them off on million dollar vacations. Alito and Thomas have both been caught openly accepting "gifts" and then ruling on cases involving their benefactors. Scalia died on a hunting vacation paid for by a wealthy donor who had business before the court. Even Ginsberg was known to accept free opera tickets. Its all corrupt to the core and should be reformed.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
even politicians can be widely-read and make cogent points. for example, obama's a former professor.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
Yes, they can be well-read. For example, Alito quoted a 17th century witchburner in his opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. You have to be well-read to be able to cite such a prominent jurist from history.
Alito cites judge who executed women for witchcraft and legalized spousal rape in Supreme Court draft ruling
The draft of an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked Monday night, showing the legal justifications the Supreme Court intends to use to block abortion in half of the United States. Columbia Journalism School professor Emily Bell cited an excerpt from the opinion in which Alito mentions...
www.rawstory.com
<edited to add>
My apologies, that was snarkier sounding than I intended. The snark is entirely directed at Alito.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
or have minions familiar with search engines
eta: mind you it sounds the sort of thing Republican judges would be familiar with.
Cid
Proper break this time
Yes, they can be well-read. For example, Alito quoted a 17th century witchburner in his opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. You have to be well-read to be able to cite such a prominent jurist from history.
Alito cites judge who executed women for witchcraft and legalized spousal rape in Supreme Court draft ruling
The draft of an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked Monday night, showing the legal justifications the Supreme Court intends to use to block abortion in half of the United States. Columbia Journalism School professor Emily Bell cited an excerpt from the opinion in which Alito mentions...
<edited to add>
My apologies, that was snarkier sounding than I intended. The snark is entirely directed at Alito.
He is pretty prominent. Though I think the main reason I knew about him is because he's part of a standard cautionary tale you get in UK legal education... We didn't fully abolish marital rape until 1991 (arguably 2003 when it was written into legislation) because no government could quite get around to legislating it out of existence, and the case law on it went back to Hale.
Similar threads
