What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The States: Where We Wish Texas Would Secede Already

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iowa's Supreme Court, which has lurched far right in the last 5 years thanks to 2 mandatory retirements and the sudden passing of the former chief justice, pulled its own Dobbs this morning and explicitly overruled a 4-year-old case that found abortion was a fundamental right protected by the state constitution. The controlling opinion was relatively narrow beyond that (basically reverting back to the federal undue burden standard), but explicitly invited further challenges.

2 of the 5 in the majority would have gone farther and say abortion is only subject to rational basis review (under the Iowa Constitution) - basically giving the government unlimited ability to ban it.

The lone remaining liberal (until July, when he faces mandatory retirement) dissented. The other moderate shock was the Chief Justice dissenting on the major points. She would've upheld the prior case under stare decises.
 
Giving where these Courts are going right now is stare decises even relevant anymore? I don't think so. Alito has thrown it in the toilet, taken a shit on it, and flushed it has he not? And here you have posted yet another example at a State level.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Giving where these Courts are going right now is stare decises even relevant anymore? I don't think so. Alito has thrown it in the toilet, taken a **** on it, and flushed it has he not? And here you have posted yet another example at a State level.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is kind of an interesting question. I'm curious what the lawyers (and former lawyers) on the board think about this.

Does stare decisis have a place in law anymore? I mean this seriously. Is the concept more or less dead? Mortally wounded? Was it ever a thing to begin with?

If you think it does have a place, why do you think that? What would change your mind?
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Actually, this is kind of an interesting question. I'm curious what the lawyers (and former lawyers) on the board think about this.

Does stare decisis have a place in law anymore? I mean this seriously. Is the concept more or less dead? Mortally wounded? Was it ever a thing to begin with?

If you think it does have a place, why do you think that? What would change your mind?
Click to expand...

Because consistency is good for the law. Sudden changes and volatility suck. There's a reason the LSAT has logic games as a component, because half of the law is being able to extrapolate X given Y and Z. Without stare decisis, you can't do that.

It's not dead - for 90% of issues it'll always be around. But I think we're entering a period where the political leanings of the judges can reliably determine the outcomes of cases, and that's horrendous. They'll couch it in terms of judicial "philosophy," but that's just a facade for the public. Ironically, Thomas may be one of the few it's true for; he's just so far out there on his own little island that it's tough to tell.
 
Montana National Guard soldiers are deployed around the Yellowstone region, where they say they have rescued dozens of people from this week’s severe floods and ushered travelers along ravaged roads. The FEMA administrator is now in the state, surveying the destruction. Montana Red Cross officials are operating evacuation centers across the area. But one key figure is not on the ground at this historic disaster: Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R).

Either way, the political fallout is likely to linger. “In a moment of unprecedented disaster and economic uncertainty, Gianforte purposefully kept Montanans in the dark about where he was, and who was actually in charge,” Sheila Hogan, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party, said in a statement.
Click to expand...

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...0BHHnG6Vry6UhY8lvlrXIg-dBTt1nLm14gXs3ViWj_Wx8
 
unofan said:
Because consistency is good for the law. Sudden changes and volatility suck. There's a reason the LSAT has logic games as a component, because half of the law is being able to extrapolate X given Y and Z. Without stare decisis, you can't do that.

It's not dead - for 90% of issues it'll always be around. But I think we're entering a period where the political leanings of the judges can reliably determine the outcomes of cases, and that's horrendous. They'll couch it in terms of judicial "philosophy," but that's just a facade for the public. Ironically, Thomas may be one of the few it's true for; he's just so far out there on his own little island that it's tough to tell.
Click to expand...

Gracias.
 
I've always hated pols showing up at disasters. It's a cynical photoshoot that impedes rescue work.

On the other hand, anything that stems the rise of Nazism in America. End the Right; save the world.
 
The Texas Republican platform has been updated from mildly crazy to full blown bat-sh** insanity.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/18/republican-party-texas-convention-cornyn/

Among the items touched on: Biden's win was illegitimate, homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice, and Texas schoolchildren are to learn about the humanity of the preborn child.


Also:
The new platform would call for:
  • Requiring Texas students “to learn about the humanity of the preborn child,” including teaching that life begins at fertilization and requiring students to listen to live ultrasounds of gestating fetuses.
  • Amending the Texas Constitution to remove the Legislature’s power “to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
  • Treating homosexuality as “an abnormal lifestyle choice,” language that was not included in the 2018 or 2020 party platforms.
  • Deeming gender identity disorder “a genuine and extremely rare mental health condition,” requiring official documents to adhere to “biological gender,” and allowing civil penalties and monetary compensation to “de-transitioners” who have received gender-affirming surgery, which the platform calls a form of medical malpractice.
  • Changing the U.S. Constitution to cement the number of Supreme Court justices at nine and repeal the 16th Amendment of 1913, which created the federal income tax.
  • Ensuring “freedom to travel” by opposing Biden’s Clean Energy Plan and “California-style, anti-driver policies,” including efforts to turn traffic lanes over for use by pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit.
  • Declaring “all businesses and jobs as essential and a fundamental right,” a response to COVID-19 mandates by Texas cities that required customers to wear masks and limited business hours.
  • Abolishing the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank, and guaranteeing the right to use alternatives to cash, including cryptocurrencies.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top