The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Although that's how the Think Progress story makes it sound , (shockingly) that's not what actually happened. The party happened in 2008, Bolton was arrested and suspended from the team. When a grand jury failed to return an indictment in January of 2009, he was let back on the team. With the courts refusing to convict the kid, I'm not sure what exactly the school was supposed to do legally except let him back on the team. The not cheering incident happened the following month.

In November of 2009, when a grand jury did indict him, the school kicked him off the football team and kicked him out of school. He didn't actually plea to anything until 2010.

Timeline of events.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/rape-high-...ight-school-district/story?id=11972052&page=1

Important to note

A rape kit was assembled in October 2008 and DNA evidence collected, H.S. said, but she and her family were told that a backlog of cases meant it would be more than a year before processing got started.

And cheerleaders aren't considered athletes so... **** em.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Timeline of events.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/rape-high-...ight-school-district/story?id=11972052&page=1

Important to note
And cheerleaders aren't considered athletes so... **** em.

I'm still not sure what exactly the school district was supposed to do differently, besides have a little more tact obviously. Do we really want accusations to be sufficient enough to kick someone off a team/out of an activity/ out of a school?

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I'm still not sure what exactly the school district was supposed to do differently, besides have a little more tact obviously. Do we really want accusations to be sufficient enough to kick someone off a team/out of an activity/ out of a school?

Any links that actual say why they declined to indict him and what was the situation there? Was he still a suspect and they were just waiting for that year long test to get completed? Ya know, cause there so backed up on rape kits that it takes a year just to get started on it.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Any links that actual say why they declined to indict him and what was the situation there? Was he still a suspect and they were just waiting for that year long test to get completed? Ya know, cause there so backed up on rape kits that it takes a year just to get started on it.

The one story I saw blamed the ambiguous "racial tensions" or something like that. Half-black, half-white jury or something close to that.

Again though, I'm still waiting for a suggestion on what exactly the school district was supposed to have done differently with regard to Bolton.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

With the courts refusing to convict the kid, I'm not sure what exactly the school was supposed to do legally except let him back on the team.

Legally? That has nothing to do with it. There's no right to be a cheerleader, but there's no right to be on a sports team, either. The standard of conduct to participate in varsity athletics can certainly be higher than for a normal student, and the burden of proof can be well short of "beyond reasonable doubt." Just ask 2-time All American senior member of the UVa lacrosse team, Shameel Bratton, who was kicked off the team merely for violating team rules (and no laws at all).

OJ was innocent, too, but he still had to pay the damages.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Legally? That has nothing to do with it. There's no right to be a cheerleader, but there's no right to be on a sports team, either. The standard of conduct to participate in varsity athletics can certainly be higher than for a normal student, and the burden of proof can be well short of "beyond reasonable doubt." Just ask 2-time All American senior member of the UVa lacrosse team, Shameel Bratton, who was kicked off the team merely for violating team rules (and no laws at all).

OJ was innocent, too, but he still had to pay the damages.

You're right, legally was the wrong word to use there.

Still, my original point still stands. The school did not let him play while he had already pled to the assault, which is what some are claiming. As soon as the kid was indicted by the grand jury, he was tossed off the team and out of school.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The district cant do anything...every decision is the wrong one in some way or another. That said they should not have kicked her off the team because she refused to cheer for the guy. That is ridiculous.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kentucky v. King gets decided today - written by Alito, says cops can enter a dwelling without a warrent even when they create their own exigent circumstances. 8-1 decision, with Ginsburg dissenting. Good for tough on crime proponents, bad for the 4th amendment, especially after Indiana's state supreme court recently ruled that it is illegal to resist a cop illegally entering one's home - the 4th Amendment's getting hammered this week.

Court also released a unanimous opinion in an ERISA case, which will mean nothing to anyone not an ERISA attorney or plan administrator.

Third opinion was Schindler Elevator v. U.S. - 5-3 decision with the opinion by Thomas - liberal wing dissented (Kagan recused) dealing with FOIA responses.

Which means the violent video game case is still sitting out there like a big mahtzah ball. Hopefully next week.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kentucky v. King gets decided today - written by Alito, says cops can enter a dwelling without a warrent even when they create their own exigent circumstances. 8-1 decision, with Ginsburg dissenting. Good for tough on crime proponents, bad for the 4th amendment, especially after Indiana's state supreme court recently ruled that it is illegal to resist a cop illegally entering one's home - the 4th Amendment's getting hammered this week.

Christ, the Court should just bring back writs of assistance, already.

BTW, if it's illegal to resist the illegal entry of a cop into your house, and evidence obtained illegally can still be used against you, what exactly is the 4th amendment worth?

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Christ, the Court should just bring back writs of assistance, already.

BTW, if it's illegal to resist the illegal entry of a cop into your house, and evidence obtained illegally can still be used against you, what exactly is the 4th amendment worth?

It's just a god****ed piece of paper.

 

[True Blue Fan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The supreme court has a long and distinguished history of completely ignoring the original intent of the constitution, originalist jurists are now almost extinct. Activist judges who use their own personal beliefs and opinions to render decisions when the constitution is quite clear about it is reprehensible.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Christ, the Court should just bring back writs of assistance, already.

BTW, if it's illegal to resist the illegal entry of a cop into your house, and evidence obtained illegally can still be used against you, what exactly is the 4th amendment worth?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

But hey, it was an 8-1 decision. At least it wasn't "polarizing"! Bipartisanship is awesome or something!

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

But hey, it was an 8-1 decision. At least it wasn't "polarizing"! Bipartisanship is awesome or something!

Yeah, it's great when both parties agree to trash the Constitution (Patriot Act, torture, etc).

I wonder if Ginsburg's dissent reads, in full:

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Christ, the Court should just bring back writs of assistance, already.

BTW, if it's illegal to resist the illegal entry of a cop into your house, and evidence obtained illegally can still be used against you, what exactly is the 4th amendment worth?

How in the hell was that 8-1?

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

How in the hell was that 8-1?

the resisting entry case was an Indiana state case, which was a 3-2 decision (and, i'd bet, a likely 5-4 decision in either direction if SCOTUS decides to hear it next year).

Today's 8-1 decision involved cops smelling marijuana and entering an apartment without a warrant. The majority said "cops did nothing wrong by knocking on the door and yelling "police!", thereby causing noises inside, thereby giving them the circumstances necessary to enter without a warrant." Ginsburg said: "They had probable cause to get a warrant, and they had the time to get one. The only reason they needed to enter the apartment without a warrant is because of their own actions."

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Another big one released today, as the Court affirms the lower court panels that California must reduce its prison overcrowding in Brown v. Plata (formerly Governator v. Plata) by a 5-4 vote (Kennedy writing, joined by the liberal wing). Scalia dissented, joined by Thomas; Alito also dissented, joined by Roberts. The lower court's ruling was that the overcrowded prisons denied prisoners proper medical treatment, and after California failed to come up with any other alternatives that worked after 4 years, the courts then decided they had to reduce prison population to 137.5% of capacity. SCOTUS affirmed that ruling, meaning California must either build more prisons, or release prisoners within 2 years to comply with the trial court's decision.

One other opinion is out today - General Dynamics v. U.S., a case involving the state-secrets doctrine and civil lawsuits. Unanimous decision by Scalia reversed the Federal Circuit Court. U.S. sued defense contractors for breach of contract, then used the state-secrets doctrine to prevent the contractors from arguing defenses at trial. SCOTUS held that in such instances, the proper remedy is to leave the parties as they were on the day the petition was filed.
Edit: There's more to it, of course, but essentially it means where the gov't invokes the state-secrets doctrine, neither the gov't nor the other party can change the status quo using the courts, since the inability to consider the state secrets prevent the court from reaching an informed decision either way.

More opinions expected Thursday before the long holiday weekend.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I wonder what percentage of the California prison population is there either directly (by sentencing) or indirectly (criminal activity in the absence of a legitimate economy) due to the war on drugs? Because... there's a start.

It would be ironic if the reason we finally grew up on this charade was it was just too **** expensive to maintain.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Edit: There's more to it, of course, but essentially it means where the gov't invokes the state-secrets doctrine, neither the gov't nor the other party can change the status quo using the courts, since the inability to consider the state secrets prevent the court from reaching an informed decision either way.

Isn't that like pleading the 5th, if pleading the 5th meant shutting up the person who could be a witness against you?

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Isn't that like pleading the 5th, if pleading the 5th meant shutting up the person who could be a witness against you?

Kinda.

There's no good criminal analogy simply because this kind of issue is unlikely to come up in a criminal matter. The closest would be where the defendant claims entrapment as a defense, and the government somehow prevents evidence of the entrapment from coming in.

That's sort of what happened here.
The contractors sued the U.S. government, which said "state secrets" prevent disclosure of key portions of the claim. Contractor loses.
The government then counter sued, claiming breach by the contractors, which was basically admitted with a caveat; the contractors said "yes, we breached, but our defense is that you breached first." The gov't said, "state secrets bar you from arguing that." Court says "fine, but that doesn't mean the government gets to win by default."