I follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings ...
Displaying poll results.18782 total votes.
I follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings ...
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Resources that make it easy to follow (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's worthwhile to read the actual judgements, too. They are often surprisingly readable, as though once lawyers are on the Supreme Court they no longer have to prove how smart they are by writing badly (or maybe because they have good law clerks!). It takes a couple of web searches to understand some terms or cases they cite, is all.
Re: (Score:2)
hate to use a tired old cliché, but a citation would be nice. Is there a one-stop link to ALL SCOTUS judgements, like there is for Britain and Ireland [bailii.org]? I ask because I'm building a local mirror which is intended to be 100% fulltext searchable (which the BAILII online database currently is not) for reasons of just utter nerdiness.
Re:Resources that make it easy to follow (Score:4, Informative)
Official source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx [supremecourt.gov]
However, the official source suggests some unofficial sources, and one of them is http://www.oyez.org/cases [oyez.org], that I listed in my original post.
oyez.org is a very good resource. They briefly summarize every Supreme Court case and decision. There are links to the full written opinion, oral argument transcripts, an audio player with oral argument audio synced with the transcript, and audio of the oral opinion announcements when available.
Re: (Score:3)
I follow some district and appellate court decisions, and they're usually fairly readable, too. Motions made by attorneys can be opaque, but often follow a pretty strict form and are fairly easy to read once you figure out which boilerplate phrases basically mean simpler things.
It was pretty easy to keep up on SCOTUS cases... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Using Google Reader, I've been able to easily follow along on all SCOTUS cases for the past ~3 or 4 years, from the SCOTUSblog rss feed.
And now you're lost you mean? No rss feeds because Google drops Reader? That's really sad.
Occasional? (Score:5, Funny)
I just check in every now and then to watch Dan try to escape from this week's self-inflicted predicament, have a laugh at whatever Moose is up to and see if Harry and Christine have finally hooked up.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Funny (but no points today, alas).
(I had a thing for Markie P. pretty bad for a while, when I was about 25 or so. Just looked her up, and at age 62 she's still a major hottie. Wow.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give some kudos for 3/4 after 21 years, but how could you get Bull's name wrong????
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
21 years, that makes me feel even older
Being a Fossil is still within your rights.
Missing option as usual (Score:5, Funny)
We're missing an option here:
I am aware of America, but I didn't know they had a court system.
Re: (Score:2)
We're missing an option here:
I am aware of America, but I didn't know they had a court system.
To me, it looks more like a complex system of courtyards. Almost a maze.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
dude, you just got greased by a grue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're missing an option here:
I am aware of America, but I didn't know they had a court system.
They use Jersey Shore as courting system. It's on MTV and everything is documented.
Obligatory missing option complaint (Score:3)
Where's the "I write the rulings" option?
Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
That is to say, I would like them to rediscover the fact that we live in a constitutional republic in which the federal government's size and power is limited to only that necessary to carry specifically enumerated powers [battleswarmblog.com].
Sadly, that does not appear to be in the cards anytime soon. It makes it too hard to hand out subsidies to cronies and buy off various interest groups with taxpayer money.
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bringing up the 10th Amendment without talking about SCOTUS decisions that have shaped it,
is like bringing up the 3/5ths Compromise without mentioning that the 13th and 14th Amendments nullified it.
The Constitution is book ended by centuries of English Common Law and by centuries of Supreme Court rulings.
My point being: The Constitution never did and does not stand alone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The constitution is a living document in the sense that you can amend it. Allowing judges to interpret it however they feel like is simply dangerous, anyone who feels that to be a good thing is naive.
Don't like something in the constitution? Move to amend the constitution; that is your only legitimate option.
Re: (Score:2)
My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.
— Thomas Jefferson
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why they included Article Five.
You remember that one, right? The one describing the amendment process?
The thing about the Tenth Amendment is that it was never actually amended away. Which gives it just as much legal power as, hypothetically, the First Amendment, or the Fourth, or the Fifth.
Re: (Score:2)
The 10th wasn't removed that's true, but the world it was written for no longer exists.
In essence, constitutionally, the federal government exists to deal with all the things which cross state borders and are therefor impossible for the states to manage, while the states deal with everything else. In 1780, the number of things which crossed state borders was very small and the number of things which didn't was very large. This meant that the power of the states was large and the power of the federal governm
Re: (Score:2)
Man libertarians love that case for an example of overstepping the commerce clause, seemingly only that case though. For that matter that case isn't as cut and dried as people like to make out as the farmer was still purchasing wheat from interstate sources in addition to what he was growing, personally I think it's a stretch, but the court decision has some logic. All that aside, things like this even if they are the extreme examples they're made out to be contribute a very small percentage of the increase
Re: (Score:2)
The Commerce Clause is the basis for the War on Drugs, which is one of the more massive sources of increase in federal power. Wickard v. Filburn legitimized the use of the Commerce Clause for any economic activity that occurs in the US, so I'd say it deserves the attention it gets. The Court found in favor of the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause, so naturally there aren't any subsequent cases that deal with overstepping the Commerce Clause. Unless a court is trying to overturn this interpretati
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the point though. This particular case is somewhat ridiculous, that's why Libertarians love it because it's a perfect example of big bad government, and it almost certainly at the very least stretches the Commerce Clause to breaking point. When I say "only this case" I'm looking for other ludicrous examples of over stretching the Commerce clause, not another case on this issue.
As for the war on drugs that has been at least until very recently prosecuted with the full cooperation of the sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Federalism in the US is, in theory, much stronger than that in other federal republics. Unfortunately, it has been severely eroded by both the left and the right, as both sides try to impose their social engineering on the entire US every chance they get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Court ordered the President to give his next speech standing on his head, who would tell the Court that that's unconstitutional?
No one would have to because it's too ridiculous an example to be credible to your argument. Matter of fact, you really need to read fewer Court decisions and focus more on what the court is actually doing. [wikipedia.org] The Supreme Court sets the interpretation of law and can declare laws unconstitutional if their interpretations are too vague or too over reaching, all in terms of precedent.
Do they make mistakes (get something wrong)? Sure. Is a mistake a decision we personally don't believe is correct? Not necessarily.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Court ordered the President to give his next speech standing on his head, who would tell the Court that that's unconstitutional?
Usually in elementary school they teach about checks and balances. Andrew Jackson emphasized the point when he said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" The court is limited in its power for very good reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
The 16th Amendment was passed specifically to override the Court's decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust on how certain income taxes were handled.
Missing Option (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try, Harriet Miers.
Vital (Score:2)
Missing Option: (Score:2)
Only if they are about the constitutionality of the Cowboy Neal option.
Semi-Seriously Getting Harder (Score:2)
Following seriously, BUT... (Score:2)
Voted maximum (Score:2)
Because I'm a lawyer. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't get a straight answer, perhaps you can help because my lazy arse can't be bothered to search: is there a one-stop shop for online public access to SCOTUS decisions? If so, where?
Used To (Score:2)
I used to follow them, but since Roberts took over as Chief Justice, they've been releasing all new opinions in ROT-13. Too much of a PITA.
What I recently learned (Score:2)
from Thai relatives is that politicians and the government and judges and courts are all corrupt, take bribes, do what lobbyists say to pass laws in favor of corporations and not people.
The Thai philosophy is basically you cannot do anything about it, as even the elections are rigged, so don't worry about what you cannot control and just enjoy life. If you do worry about it and protest or complain, well the thought police will come after you to 're-educate' you in Room 101 so you'll love the government (big
Yawn (Score:2)
Stretch, yawn, Americentric, couldn't care less, yawn mutter drool.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Score:2, Insightful)
Only when the force is disturbed so much that it makes me think twice about their true allegiance...
(repost for prior botched title...)
Re:Citizens vs United (Score:5, Informative)
I know who Manchester United is - but who the heck is "Citizen"?
Re: (Score:2)
... who the heck is "Citizen"?
It's the boxed set to own if you're any sort of Dan Fan.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's Leeds United, with a catch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens United is a U.S. squad that only allows corporate players and practices by kicking around the American public.
Re: (Score:3)
I know who Manchester United is - but who the heck is "Citizen"?
Manchester City are the Citizens - it's owned by non-English, managed by non-English and most of the players are non-English, but Citizen is always valid for a certain value of "citizen"
Re: (Score:2)
I know who Manchester United is - but who the heck is "Citizen"?
Aren't they watchmakers? Maybe it's about a sponsoring deal gone bad.
Re: (Score:2)
"Citizens United", NOT "Citizens vs United".
Re: (Score:2)
"Citizens United", NOT "Citizens vs United".
That contest generally is a bit of a disappointment anyway. For your entertainment zorkmid follow Arsenal v Tottenham matches.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, what was SCOTUS thinking! Allowing a not-for-profit to finance a public political statement from donations! Next thing you know real life people might actually start participating in the political process! We all know that political statements should only be made by politicians, unions, and progressive pundits!
Re: (Score:2)
They were thinking: every purchase at K-Mart is a vote for Obama. Every gallon of gas pumped from Royal Dutch Shell is a vote for Romney.
Nothing has been so detrimental to the freedom of this country so much as freedom of the press, however.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what you are talking about. The "corporation" in Citizens United was a not-for-profit political activist organization, expressly created for making political statements. If you outlaw that, you might as well pretty much outlaw free speech. For profit corporations engage in fairly little political speech because it's not profitable (they just pay lobbyists di
Re: (Score:3)
And "the press" whose freedom you so cynically support is a bunch of megacorporations who use their speech primarily to advance their own interests, and secondarily to stir up controversy to sell more copies. Of course, they should be allowed to do that as well, but the kind of deference people like you have for the drivel these corporations produce is laughable.
You speak as if this invalidates the concern that the major media can talk about the #1, #2, and #4 candidates in a Presidential race and completely bypass #3 because of a media black-out on Ron Paul. Fire the Judge, because he talked about Ron Paul on TV. Cut to commercial early, lecture a news anchor about not mentioning Ron Paul, then go back on.
Ron Paul was amusing due to the above kind of antics. The pattern behavior is much more boring: Highlight two candidates, give one more favorable air time
Re: (Score:2)
In what way does pointing out that "the press" is a bunch of megacorporations "invalidate that concern"? Really, I'd love to know by what twisted logic you think your response is in any way relevant to what I wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Without heavier regulation to stop the press from favoring certain specific candidates, we're basically doomed. Unfortunately such regulation is impossible to get right, and will always be ripe for abuse.
Perhaps we should force them to let any nominee from any registered party have air time early if they're doing politics at all, and that the top-tier candidates for every party must get proportional coverage--that would be hilarious. Say the top 3 in any party. Ron Paul was #3. So now Ron Paul has to
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right, because "we" are so successful at forcing corporations to do what we want. Uh huh.
Re: (Score:2)
The SCOTUS actually ruled correctly in that case. Freedom of speech in this country applies to everybody, including to people who join together in commercial enterprises (which we call corporations). Yes, shockingly enough, corporations consist of people. The day we see corporations consisting instead of evil, Terminator-esque machines, then I'll agree with the liberals in denying them freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
The core.
Re: (Score:2)
... and where America belongs, wanting to be at the centre.
Even of America the US part is only a minority group. Over 900 million people in whole America and only a bit over 300 in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
What would you say is the center of the world, then?
If the universe is curved, it's somewhere outside of it, therefore hard to reach anyway, so why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
"What would you say is the center of the world, then?"
the Lidenbrock Sea.
(Well its as close as Verne's book takes us)
Re:Missing option (Score:5, Insightful)
If you live in the US they all involve you, whether that involvement is obvious or not.
Re:Missing option (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
mod up. Apparently the US Supreme Court has universal jurisdiction - notwithstanding the facts that its authority derives from Section 2, Article 3 of the Constitution and said jurisdiction is set out in Title 28 of the United States Code, and that it only hears cases involving preserved questions of Federal or Constitutional Law.
International precedence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I'm asking - I've actually used a couple SCOTUS cases* in argument, think it might be useful to have 'em all to refer to, in the same place (not necessarily on a computer with network access), with a fulltext search.
*Dun & Bradstreet v Greenmoss (defamation case) and BSA v Dale (freedom of association), to be specific
ALL YOUR CASE (Score:2)
ARE BELONG TO US
Re:Only for the big cases. (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you smoking? It is typically the liberal wing of the court that favors big government, though in recent years neither side has been particularly friendly to certain aspects of the Constitution. Take a look at cases involving State's Rights; you'll find the more conservative Justices are far more friendly to them, as well as to the Bill of Rights as a whole. I think you drank a bit too much Kool Aid if you really believe what you wrote.
Re: (Score:3)
"big" and "strong, iron-fisted" are not necessarily the same.
Re: (Score:3)
It's all a matter of perspective, although I hope we all can agree that the phrase "big government" should die an ignominious death. All Supreme Court rulings are big.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at cases involving State's Rights; you'll find the more conservative Justices are far more friendly to them, as well as to the Bill of Rights as a whole.
If by "State's Rights" you mean the ability for a particular state to institute draconian control over their citizens (strict abortion laws, anti-gay marriage laws), subvert EPA regulations for their corporate masters, teach harmful idiocy (creationism), and other crap that goes against the general will of the rest of the country, then yeah, the conservatives are all behind that.
Re: (Score:3)
When I talk about it, I mean it in the sense that if the federal government does not have a specifically delegated Constitutional power, then those powers are reserved for the states or the people. If it's not in The Constitution, the Feds have no business whatsoever being involved in the issue. There's nothing about 'marriage' or 'abortion' in The Constitution. Therefore, their should be ZERO federal laws regarding either.
"crap that goes against the general will of the rest of the country"
No state shoul
Re:Only for the big cases. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just so. Which is why I hope DOMA is struck down. Congress had no business passing that particular abortion....
Re: (Score:2)
And the federal government has no laws regarding abortion, well aside from some about not funding it with tax dollars. Roe vs Wade is based on the idea that abortion is protected by a non enumerated right. Conservatives like to get their knickers in a twist about things like non enumerated rights, but the constitution explicitly states that they exist and that the constitution is not intended to be an exhaustive list of everything that should be protected.
The DOMA is actually a little bit more complicated,
Re: (Score:2)
Roe v Wade does not grant any additional power to the federal government, it limits the power of the states, but it limits them in favor of the citizens of these united states. The supreme court determined that there was a non enumerated right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution and that this right was in conflict with state and federal laws banning abortion. It did not take power away from the states and give it to the federal government, it took power away from the states and gave it to CITIZENS.
By
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not in The Constitution, the Feds have no business whatsoever being involved in the issue. There's nothing about 'marriage' or 'abortion' in The Constitution. Therefore, their should be ZERO federal laws regarding either.
Can you point me to the federal law that requires abortion be legal in all 50 states? Or is it that the federal government was following the Constitution when they evaluated the new idea of medically safe abortions against the rights guaranteed to the people? Oh, that's right, if the government supports the people's rights, it's an insane power grab by protecting the rights of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Should a state be allowed to declare a marriage to be between any two people? "conservative" views (states rights) says yes. Should another state be required to honor that marriage, even if i
Re: (Score:2)
Why only two? Should the federal government step in later and tell Utah it has to allow polygamy again?
Re: (Score:3)
Should the federal government step in later and tell Utah it has to allow polygamy again?
What. just numbers? Why not "people"? Why can't I marry my dog, or my car? If you are going to try to make the argument sound trivial by avoiding the actual issue, you can do so in a much more entertaining manner. Man/apple pie marriages would spike, followed closely by burn admissions in hospitals, and divorce for spousal genital abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually the news will warn when the big cases hit. Depending on the case and the implied absolutelness of the decision, I'll read a decision in its entirety to gauge for myself the implications. I'm waiting to see whether "states rights" wins the gay rights case, or whether the conservatives on the Supreme Court will ignore the Constitution yet again, and rule on the side of a strong iron-fisted central government as the conservatives usually back, at least where required to squash personal freedom.
The US Supreme Court is known as "the court of last resort" for a reason - they focus on finer distinctions of the law, usually leaving broad, easy-peasy stuff to the lower courts. When the Supremes decide to consider a case it will be it will be as an activist roll - determing "Spirit of the law" as opposed to "Technical wording of the law." Techincal wording usually leaves a lot of wiggle room, which the SCOTUS tends to nail down, in the scope of the arguments. Spirit of the law means thinking back to
Re: (Score:2)
does anyone really think Thomas Jefferson intended the Gentleman Farmer to defend himself with an AR-15 some day? Of course they do, and that's why there is the concept of Spirit of the Law, Thomas himself would be shocked and probably add "not to exceed 1 round, manually loaded" in there somewhere, but I digress
The armies of the day were almost all private. Privateers and mercenaries made up much of the fighting forces, and you can't conscript a militia, mercenary or privateer that didn't have their own weapons at the same level of the standing army. Since the intention was to allow the people to rise up, they should be able to have arms no less than the government, otherwise it would be impractical or impossible to rise up.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows? Research it in the field.
I, for one, only have two hands and the last thing I want is to have to carry more fucking gear around, so I have a bias against pretty much everything. I can't think of any reason why most people should be walking around with guns, just as I can't think of any reason why people ought to be walking around with 10" tablet computers. But if you ever see someone with a gun or a l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The law as it stands now is transitory and fickle.
First, the SCOTUS doesn't write law, they interpret what it means. And their interpretation has certainly changed at times, but it typically takes decades. If it is transitory, it's not so transitory that you can expect to see many reversals within your lifetime.
What has been and will be decided by these 9 lawyers will appear to be the absolute rule that we must all live by, and by which we must bend our will. After all it is called the *supreme* court. However this is not so.
No one's saying that at all; your ridiculous straw man describes an oligarchy of 9 god-like beings. "Supreme" just means it's the final authority on what the law, as understood within the limits of the Constitution, means. In a world where the vast
Re: (Score:3)
In a free society, courts are a pragmatic mechanism for resolving differences peacefully, not a moral authority.
It's only people intrinsically opposed to liberty--Christian conservatives and progressives--who try to abuse courts as moral authorities. I gather you're one or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, BlindRobin was corrrect.
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations are treated as groups of citizens, not as citizens themselves. It's hard, perhaps impossible to separate the right of people to assemble and to speak freely (which may require money) without overriding the First Amendment.
That's not to say I agree with the outcome. I think the "super-PACs" have proven to be an enormously corrupting influence on the electoral system much faster than the Court thought would happen. At this point, I wouldn't mind restricting the ability for all groups, whether
Re: (Score:2)