I follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings ...
Displaying poll results.18781 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8480 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7433 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Resources that make it easy to follow (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Resources that make it easy to follow (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:Resources that make it easy to follow (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:Resources that make it easy to follow (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:It was pretty easy to keep up on SCOTUS cases.. (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:Occasional? (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:Occasional? (Score:2)
I'll give some kudos for 3/4 after 21 years, but how could you get Bull's name wrong????
Re:Occasional? (Score:2)
Re:Occasional? (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:Missing option as usual (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:Missing option as usual (Score:2)
Re:Missing option as usual (Score:2)
Re:Missing option as usual (Score:3)
dude, you just got greased by a grue.
Re:Missing option as usual (Score:2)
Re:Missing option as usual (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:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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 government was small. In the 21st century, the opposite is true and to a much more extreme degree, and so the same is true of the power balance.
In essence, the power of the 10th amendment has waned because more and more of the things which need to be governed have moved into the basket the founding fathers placed in the hands of the federal government.
TL;DR For the federal government hasn't actually been granted powers it wasn't granted in the constitution, but the amount of things which now fall into the federal bucket has grown dramatically where the number of things left to the states has shrunk.
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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 in federal power.
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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 interpretation, there will never be another case addressing it.
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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 states. I know there were some issues with Medical Marijuana suppliers in California in the beginning, but my recollection was that those particular facilities were importing from illegal suppliers as opposed to growing it on their own and even then, not a whole lot came of it. The war on drugs may be failing badly, most of it may be stupid and corrupt, but from where I'm sitting it's largely not been unconstitutional.
There are undoubtedly constitutional abuses within the US to this very day, but that's not what Slashdot looks at. Slashdot's view of "unconstitutional" is anything I don't agree with where things you do are perfectly fine no matter how ridiculous they are.
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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. Same thing applies to laws or any other regulation in general. Want to change something? Sponsor a law! :) Beauty of the system. It can be changed. Not sure what might happen if a law passed changing SCOTUS in some way. I would imagine it could not be reviewed by SCOTUS. Hmmm...have to go searching...
Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (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:Missing Option (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:Voted maximum (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 brother) anyway. They might even shoot you or arrest you without a warrant and throw you into jail without a trial. So don't speak back and complain and get all negative and post about it all over the Internet and draw attention to yourself so that the government notices it. Just be passive resistant, and do nothing, because if you do something there won't be anything left of you to do something for something else later.
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:Citizens vs United (Score:2)
... who the heck is "Citizen"?
It's the boxed set to own if you're any sort of Dan Fan.
Re:Citizens vs United (Score:2)
Maybe it's Leeds United, with a catch.
Re:Citizens vs United (Score:2)
Re:Citizens vs United (Score:2)
Citizens United is a U.S. squad that only allows corporate players and practices by kicking around the American public.
Re:Citizens vs United (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:Citizens vs United (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:Citizens vs United (Score:2)
"Citizens United", NOT "Citizens vs United".
Re:Citizens vs United (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:Citizens vs United (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:Citizens vs United (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:Citizens vs United (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 directly).
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.
SCOTUS made absolutely the right decision. And given Obama's own history with money in politics, he has no credibility criticizing the decision to begin with. Obama chose to make the money-in-politics problem much worse than any of his predecessor.
Re:Citizens vs United (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, put embarrassing shit about the other one on TV mostly, and shift the impression to paint one as a goofy ass or communist nazi (who were anti-communist, amusingly) and the other as a decent upstanding citizen (who people can still hate). Get it balanced 55-45, claim it's "close" when clearly one of these assholes is going to take it and the other is already known to be the dead duck, put the loser out front on voting day until half the votes are counted, then a dramatic big-shift win.
That's pretty much the last 3 elections. The media selects the candidates and the winners.
Re:Citizens vs United (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:Citizens vs United (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 get coverage on TV for being #3... and in 3 months Ron Paul has, not 5%, but 15% of the polls behind him, so now Ron Paul needs 15% of the air time in politics coverage.
That'd be hilarious... any underdog up-and-coming candidate that became relevant would suddenly start gaining more and more media coverage, by law. Start writing the regulations, then list the ORM charts for Adverse Consequences, and how to mitigate these, and rewrite the law to fix that and try again, until you get something with acceptable downside. Because it would be hilarious. If your candidate's that good that he gains growing support, he gains growing air time... and if he's gaining growing airtime, he'll start gaining support faster. You need a real good face to stand up against that... Ron Paul would have nuked Romney just by virtue of being the most up-and-coming underdog, people jumping on the wagon of what's becoming new and trendy as it happens.
My god... the political system would be volatile, and biased toward change, especially when things are not-great... it would be amazing. Less freedom of the press would be the best thing to happen to this country ever.
Re:Citizens vs United (Score:2)
Yeah, right, because "we" are so successful at forcing corporations to do what we want. Uh huh.
Re:Citizens vs United (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:US is not the center of the world (Score:3)
The core.
Re:US is not the center of the world (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:US is not the center of the world (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:US is not the center of the world (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:Missing option (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:International precedence (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:Only for the big cases. (Score:3)
"big" and "strong, iron-fisted" are not necessarily the same.
Re:Only for the big cases. (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:Only for the big cases. (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:Only for the big cases. (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 should be bound by the will or opinions of the rest of the country. In fact, the erosion of state sovereignty in favor of "top down" government is the reason there is so much bitterness in contemporary politics. My definition of "crap" is a federal government trying to impose "one size fits all" solutions on such a diverse country.
P.S.
I don't like the term "States' Rights" because only PEOPLE have "Rights". States/governments have "powers".
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:Only for the big cases. (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, as the current federal act doesn't actually impinge on states rights in any way(you can legally get married in any number of states) and instead impacts federal government recognition of said unions, most significantly in terms of taxation, but in either event, the federal government does constitutionally have that right. The question is not whether the federal government can pass such a law because it can. The question is whether said law is unconstitutional because it violates the civil rights of same sex couples. The kicker of this of course is that unless the SCOTUS chickens out and weasels their way out of it somehow, their decision in regards to the DOMA will apply equally to all similar state laws as states are and must be subject to the constitution).
Fundamentally while there has been a significant shift away from state autonomy over the last 150 years or so, and while there are arguments to be made as to whether this is constitutional, neither of the examples you have provided have dick all to do with states rights. Unless of course you contend that the states should not be subject to the supreme court or that the constitution does not apply to the states. We can all find cases where we wish this was the case, but I think on balance that no one sane really wants that scenario.
Re:Only for the big cases. (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 your own words, rights that do not belong to the federal government belong to the states or the PEOPLE.
Re:Only for the big cases. (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:Only for the big cases. (Score:2)
Re:Only for the big cases. (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 it weren't legal in their state? The Constitution explicitly says yes. That is, if you sign a cell phone contract in TX that has a clause illegal in CA in it, if you move to CA, the contract is still valid, even if a clause becomes unenforcable (though in practice, states could require that divorce, annulments, and adoptions only be handled in the marrying state, as those laws govern the contract).
But modern conservatives are anti-states rights because a state might not do what they want, and they want to impose their morals on everyone else. And Modern conservatives don't honor the Constitution, and don't want the full faith and credit clause applied to topics they don't like. Though I've heard conservatives argue that full faith and credit doesn't apply to marriages because the state has nothing to do with marriages in the first place, so their argument is that no marriage should follow it, but of course, they only complain if it allows gay marriages to be recognized.
But, as you note, nobody ever argues with the facts or my conclusion, they just mod me down and run. And yes, this is not the first time I've pointed this out, nor the first time I've been moded down without comment. Gotta love the -1 disagree mod.
Re:Only for the big cases. (Score:2)
Why only two? Should the federal government step in later and tell Utah it has to allow polygamy again?
Re:Only for the big cases. (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:Only for the big cases. (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 the time it was written for context and setting (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) and ruling within that framework. Some decisions are easy, others not so.
Re:Only for the big cases. (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:Only for the big cases. (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 large tablet, ask them and they might tell you a reason why they should. Field research into the topic of what people should be doing, will easily outweigh whatever thought experiments you come up with.
But regardless of whatever people should or should not be doing, the people back in 1789 went to the trouble of passing an amendment to make sure that the government would specifically lack power over arms. They decided to legislate that the question of "should" would be forced into irrelevancy, from a policy perspective.
If we have decided that some other concern is more important than a possibly-useless right, then we can re-amend the constitution to remove that limit on government, and then start making policies based upon what people should or should not be doing.
Have you heard of anyone working on that? I haven't. For that reason, I suspect the issue of an armed citizenry isn't really on anyone's radar. It's just not important or topical. People are probably more interested in more mundane and prolific killers, such as heart disease, pollution, etc. The body counts from that stuff is so high, that the idea of constitutional policy makers wasting a second on ..guns? (seriously?) .. is so absurd that no one can bring themselves to seriously propose it. We'll add a "no person shall be allowed to be a fat sedentary Cheetos-gobbling slob" amendment long before we ever get around to repealing the 2nd amendment, simply as a matter of pragmatism and priorities.
Re:Only for the big cases. (Score:2)
Re:Only for the big cases. (Score:2)
Re:Only for the big cases. (Score:2)
Re:Why follow the Supreme Court? (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 majority of citizens see cops only occasionally driving to work, virtually all law enforcement and regulation is actually handled by the individual's sense of right and wrong.
Sometimes it is because the law is being bent to political pressures rather than keeping to the standards of 'justice is blind'.
"Political pressures" is a weasel phrase that could mean anything, but I suspect it just means decisions that you don't like. And I'm sure you sincerely believe your ideas are all based on pure reason and you have no ideology.
Sometimes (unfortunately) the court bends to financial pressures and the decision favors the side that buys the better lawyers rather than poor justice.
Given that in a national case, you typically have an array of lobby groups on both sides, it's deep pockets vs deep pockets. Can you give an example of when this wasn't true?
Re:Why follow the Supreme Court? (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:Only for comic relief (Score:2)
actually, BlindRobin was corrrect.
Re:The Supreme Court poses a great threat to the U (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 corporations, unions, or other political interests to participate in the campaigns. This may require a new amendment, though.
Re:Has anyone here actually read a SCOTUS opinion? (Score:2)