This is How You SCOTUS

[monarch64]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/supreme-court-strikes-down-texas-abortion-clinic-regulations/

 

[E B]

 

[azstonie]

 

[AGBF]

I saw this, too, Monnie. It seems that, despite the ruling that ended up going against President Obama on immigration, the Court is tending to lean left without replacing Justice Scalia. Of course it serves the Republicans right for ignoring their Constituional duty to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, but I would rather have an intact Supreme Court.

AGBF

 

[monarch64]

I saw this, too, Monnie. It seems that, despite the ruling that ended up going against President Obama on immigration, the Court is tending to lean left without replacing Justice Scalia. Of course it serves the Republicans right for ignoring their Constituional duty to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, but I would rather have an intact Supreme Court.

AGBF

I rarely speak negatively about one party or the other (or 3rd or 4th parties) but I just can't hold back any longer: What a bunch of babies! Do your jobs! I mean, their tactics are the same as a toddler's, and I say that because I have experienced every childish trick in the book for the past couple years!

 

[monarch64]

MORE AWESOME SCOTUSING:

https://mic.com/articles/147147/in-voisine-v-u-s-scotus-just-ruled-people-convicted-of-domestic-violence-can-t-buy-guns?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=life&utm_campaign=social

 

[packrat]

I thought that was already the way it was-had no idea it wasn't. Maybe it was just an Iowa thing.

 

[monarch64]

I thought that was already the way it was-had no idea it wasn't. Maybe it was just an Iowa thing.

Shhhh! Don't let people know you don't know everything there is to know about everything! Gah!

 

[packrat]

I thought that was already the way it was-had no idea it wasn't. Maybe it was just an Iowa thing.

Shhhh! Don't let people know you don't know everything there is to know about everything! Gah!

Ha that'll learn me! How dare I not know everything about everything everywhere and everyplace!

 

[AGBF]

The on-line version of the editorial in, "The New York Times" this morning is announced with this blurb,

"The Supreme Court saw Texas’ dishonest anti-abortion law for what it is: an effort to end legal abortion."

People who want to read the editorial can click on the link. It was so succinct. I had to quote it.

Deb

 

[missy]

Thank goodness for rational thinking for once.

OMG what we women have to go through to just have the right to do with our own bodies as we please. Darn all the people who think they should have control over our reproductive rights. Makes me so angry!!!!!

 

[ame]

MORE AWESOME SCOTUSING:

https://mic.com/articles/147147/in-voisine-v-u-s-scotus-just-ruled-people-convicted-of-domestic-violence-can-t-buy-guns?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=life&utm_campaign=social

I about fell off of my ball yesterday not only over the first one, but THIS ONE. Scalia even went in favor. SCALIA. I slow clapped my hands raw. I don't get why it's only a misdemeanor, but it's better than nothing.

 

[monarch64]

Thank goodness for rational thinking for once.

OMG what we women have to go through to just have the right to do with our own bodies as we please. Darn all the people who think they should have control over our reproductive rights. Makes me so angry!!!!!

Yes, rational thought for sure! Favorite hashtag from yesterday: #NotoriousRBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg/Notorious B.I.G.)

It makes me angry, too, Missy, that people are unable (or do not want) to think critically and cannot see past their own force-fed beliefs to logic out that they are not in control of anyone else's body but their own. But I understand it. Most public schools do not teach critical thinking skills. They teach dates and events and propaganda, and conveniently leave out lots of things. And educating people means you might empower them to make their own decisions based on free will. Then where would that leave your social and military structure??? It's all such a total house of cards (the name of that series is so apropos.)

 

[minousbijoux]

I want you all to know that I love everything about this thread - I started to +1 to Monnie's first post, then read the second post and wanted to +1, then read the third and so on and so on. Every single comment, remark, observation and link is so dead on.

Love you all!

 

[redwood66]

While not SCOTUS, this comment this week makes me cringe beyond measure.

Seventh Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner: "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation. Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. ... Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights ... do not speak to today."

 

[AGBF]

While not SCOTUS, this comment this week makes me cringe beyond measure.

Seventh Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner: "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation. Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. ... Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights ... do not speak to today."

Was he talking about assault rifles or other high tech long guns (this is for the benefit of Packrat and other purists)? I cannot imagine any other reason why anyone would say such a thing. It is clearly imbecilic.

Deb

 

[ksinger]

While not SCOTUS, this comment this week makes me cringe beyond measure.

Seventh Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner: "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation. Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. ... Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights ... do not speak to today."

Was he talking about assault rifles or other high tech long guns (this is for the benefit of Packrat and other purists)? I cannot imagine any other reason why anyone would say such a thing. It is clearly imbecilic.

Deb

The entirety of Posner's response on Slate:


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/law_school_professors_need_more_practical_experience.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top

Regarding your posting, Akhil:

I don't think the Supreme Court is likely to accept advice from law professors on administrative issues, such as whether to have opinions in tie cases and whether to identify the justices voting for or against cert. The court is understandably likely to think that law professors are not in a position to advise on such issues. I also think there's a growing gap between judges (including the Supreme Court justices) and the academy, which judges tend to think is increasingly distant from the actual practice of law, staffed as it increasingly is with refugees from other disciplines—the graduate students in classics, and history, and anthropology, and so on who upon discovering there were very few well-paying positions in such fields nowadays decided to go to law school and afterward had no time to practice law before getting a law-teaching job.

I think law schools should be hiring a higher percentage of lawyers with significant practical experience. I think, for example, of Benjamin Kaplan at Harvard Law School, who went into law-teaching after 14 years in practice. There used to be many like that; there are many fewer now, especially at the leading law schools.

On a different subject, I worry that law professors are too respectful of the Supreme Court, in part perhaps because they don't want to spoil the chances of their students to obtain Supreme Court clerkships. I think the Supreme Court is at a nadir. The justices are far too uniform in background, and I don’t think there are any real stars among them; the last real star, Robert Jackson, died more than 60 years ago. I regard the posthumous encomia for Scalia as absurd. Especially those of Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow and Justice Elena Kagan.


And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.

In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.

Dick Posner