Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

That Gorsuch ruling that SCOTUS just zinged 8-zip really does look pretty craven. When you're too vicious for Alito, time to check yourself.

Under Gorsuch’s opinion in Luke P., a school district complies with the law so long as they provide educational benefits that “must merely be ‘more than de minimis.’”

“De minimis” is a Latin phrase meaning “so minor as to merit disregard.” So Gorsuch essentially concluded that school districts comply with their obligation to disabled students so long as they provide those students with a little more than nothing.

All eight justices rejected Gorsuch’s approach. IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act), Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “is markedly more demanding than the ‘merely more than de minimis’ test applied by the Tenth Circuit.” Indeed, Roberts added, Gorsuch’s approach would effectively strip many disabled students of their right to an education.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

That Gorsuch ruling that SCOTUS just zinged 8-zip really does look pretty craven. When you're too vicious for Alito, time to check yourself.

It would be interesting to see the details of this like the frozen trucker.

The court wasn't deciding on a constitutional issue. It was deciding the applicability of a law.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Nope, except as it relates to the government doing the killing. 5th amendment says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government without due process. The corollary is that you can be deprived of those things with due process.

Criminal law is almost always left up to the states. Murder is only a federal crime under certain circumstances, because the federal government doesn't have general police powers.

A general principle to remember is that, with some exceptions, the Constitution applies solely to governments and says what they must, can, and cannot do. It very rarely applies to private individuals.

Gay marriage is legal because the 14th amendment prohibits the government from discriminating when issuing marriage licenses. A private business firing someone who is gay is still legal in many states because they haven't chosen to make such actions illegal.

I get all that but I am still confused...there are guidelines set up that protect workers from unsafe work environments both federally and statewide? Wouldnt this law be in conflict with that in this instance?

Honest questions by the way because when I was studying law this wasnt the stuff we were studying.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

That Gorsuch ruling that SCOTUS just zinged 8-zip really does look pretty craven. When you're too vicious for Alito, time to check yourself.

Yeah not sure how Gorsuch thought that was going to hold up when he made his decision.

It is definitely interesting to look into cases when the judges are being vetted. Their reaction is often more telling after the fact than the opinion was originally.

 

[unofan]

I get all that but I am still confused...there are guidelines set up that protect workers from unsafe work environments both federally and statewide? Wouldnt this law be in conflict with that in this instance?

Honest questions by the way because when I was studying law this wasnt the stuff we were studying.

If one federal statute conflicts with another federal statute, judges are to attempt to interpret them in a way so that both will survive. Where that is impossible (law X says red things are banned, law Y says red things cannot be banned), there have been entire forests that have been killed to try to determine which survives and which doesn't.

More to the point, though, there may not have been a conflict here. This is likely the workplace safety law applicable to truckers, and it just happened to have a gap in coverage, at least as far as Gorsuch saw it. That may be a flaw in the law, but it's not necessarily in conflict with anything else.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

How about not "changing the facts" of the case and simply judge it as is? More false equivalence from the board's best.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

If one federal statute conflicts with another federal statute, judges are to attempt to interpret them in a way so that both will survive. Where that is impossible (law X says red things are banned, law Y says red things cannot be banned), there have been entire forests that have been killed to try to determine which survives and which doesn't.

More to the point, though, there may not have been a conflict here. This is likely the workplace safety law applicable to truckers, and it just happened to have a gap in coverage, at least as far as Gorsuch saw it. That may be a flaw in the law, but it's not necessarily in conflict with anything else.

Cool thanks for the info

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Looks like the Dems got some balls for Christmas*.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced on Thursday that he will oppose President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and said Senate Republicans will need to muster up 60 votes to confirm Gorsuch, suggesting that Democrats will filibuster his confirmation.

"After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court," Schumer said on the Senate floor. "His nomination will have a cloture vote. He will have to earn 60 votes for confirmation. My vote will be no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same."

Regrettable, but you can't negotiate with terrorists.

* I mean Eid Al-Fitr, of course.

 

[unofan]

Looks like the Dems got some balls for Christmas*.



Regrettable, but you can't negotiate with terrorists.

* I mean Eid Al-Fitr, of course.

I get that the base is clamoring for this, but it's still the wrong call, IMO. This isn't the nominee that you force the nuclear option on.

Now when Ginsburg dies and they replace her with Cletus, you can't stop it.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I get that the base is clamoring for this, but it's still the wrong call, IMO. This isn't the nominee that you force the nuclear option on.

Now when Ginsburg dies and they replace her with Cletus, you can't stop it.

Yep. I would just let this one go.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Looks like the Dems got some balls for Christmas*.



Regrettable, but you can't negotiate with terrorists.

* I mean Eid Al-Fitr, of course.

Yep, Chuckie picked the wrong time to grow a pair.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

What if Notorious RBG doesnt kick the bucket?

 

[bronconick]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Tell them we'll vote after an independent investigation into Trump and Russia is completed.

 

[unofan]

What if Notorious RBG doesnt kick the bucket?

Still the wrong call. You don't go to the extreme for a judge that isn't extreme. And yes, I understand the GOP did exactly that and was rewarded for doing so, but you don't go all-in with a 2-7 off suit unless you absolutely have to. And the Dems don't have to for this Justice.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I get that the base is clamoring for this, but it's still the wrong call, IMO. This isn't the nominee that you force the nuclear option on.

Now when Ginsburg dies and they replace her with Cletus, you can't stop it.

I hear what you're saying, but this is payback for Garland. The GOP is stealing a seat. If they're gonna do that, it's going to be 52-48. I'm not gonna help them.

This is a special case.

 

[unofan]

I hear what you're saying, but this is payback for Garland. The GOP is stealing a seat. If they're gonna do that, it's going to be 52-48. I'm not gonna help them.

This is a special case.

They stole the seat, so now you act out of anger instead of strategically.

They really better hope RBG and Breyer survive the next 3.5 years, or this will be penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

They stole the seat, so now you act out of anger instead of strategically.

They really better hope RBG and Breyer survive the next 3.5 years, or this will be penny wise and pound foolish.

I agree. They better hope. Course they hoped they would win the election too and we see how that panned out.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

They stole the seat, so now you act out of anger instead of strategically.

Not anger, no. But what the GOP did cannot be allowed to succeed, or they'll do it again. You can't give in to terrorism.

 

[unofan]

Not anger, no. But what the GOP did cannot be allowed to succeed, or they'll do it again. You can't give in to terrorism.

It already succeeded. You're crying over spilt milk.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It already succeeded. You're crying over spilt milk.

And you are naive if you think keeping our powder dry for RBG's successor is going to make a bit of difference. The first time the GOP needs to nuke 60 they'll do it. They're not statesmen, they're hoodlums. You are trying to hold on to Roberts Rules when the other side is burning villages.

I understand your argument from an ethical POV. But you're selling is as pragmatic, and it isn't. The GOP is beyond reason and beyond law if they can get away with it; there is no upside to appealing to the angels of the voters' better nature because they don't pay attention. So it comes down to how you deal with a mad dog -- you put it down, you don't reason with it.