The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[unofan]

Yeah, based soley on what I posted, I can understand that perspective. Can't always provide proper context. Some of the lawmakers were so laughable. One obviously had no idea what a "magazine" was or how it worked yet she was bloviating away on how they needed to be regulated anyway. You probably heard about when the NY state gun law was drafted they worded it in such a way that all of its restrictions applied to the police too. Like passing laws in and of itself ever solves anything.

You're right. We should stop passing any and all laws. What society needs laws?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You're right. We should stop passing any and all laws. What society needs laws?

Now who's the troll?

We should stop thinking that, merely by passing a law, that it will be sufficient in and of itself to solve the problem.

or would you prefer to explain to me again how successful Prohibition was in getting people to stop drinking alcohol??

or the wonderful success we've had in eliminating illegal drug use?

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

So one has to wonder why conservatives are such fans of the Patriot Act? I mean, if criminals (in this case terrorists) are just going to figure out how to evade the law anyway, why the slavish devotion to it from the right?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Personally, I think the PATRIOT Act is an abomination.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

So one has to wonder why conservatives are such fans of the Patriot Act? I mean, if criminals (in this case terrorists) are just going to figure out how to evade the law anyway, why the slavish devotion to it from the right?

Yeah that noted right-wing extremist Obama, using its provisions, using drones, sure.

 

[Rover]

Yeah that noted right-wing extremist Obama, using its provisions, using drones, sure.

I noticed you didn't answer the question. So, since its well known that you're a little slow, I'll pose it again. If criminals are just going to figure out a way to beat the laws enacted to stop them, why do most conservatives support the Patriot Act or any anti-terrorism law? I mean, we had laws on the books pre 9/11 and they didn't prevent that, so what gives?

 

[joecct]

So one has to wonder why conservatives are such fans of the Patriot Act? I mean, if criminals (in this case terrorists) are just going to figure out how to evade the law anyway, why the slavish devotion to it from the right?

Not this one. Was obvious boondoggle from the start. Everytime they said poop, Congre$$ pooped out another Billion. Plus IMO it was a Federal power grab during a CRISIS!!! that needed to be thought out and deliberated as truly necessary.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I noticed you didn't answer the question. So, since its well known that you're a little slow, I'll pose it again. If criminals are just going to figure out a way to beat the laws enacted to stop them, why do most conservatives support the Patriot Act or any anti-terrorism law? I mean, we had laws on the books pre 9/11 and they didn't prevent that, so what gives?

So, you're arguing for no laws, since criminals could find their way around any law? Good one!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If criminals are just going to figure out a way to beat the laws enacted to stop them, why do most conservatives support the Patriot Act or any anti-terrorism law? I mean, we had laws on the books pre 9/11 and they didn't prevent that, so what gives?

Tag team trolls, eh? The statement was "laws alone are insufficient. More is needed than merely passing them."



Are you disagreeing with that statement?


or did you never learn the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition? perhaps, since that is pretty basic logic and there's no indication from you that you ever studied logic....

 

[Sar'nt]

or would you prefer to explain to me again how successful Prohibition was in getting people to stop drinking alcohol??

or the wonderful success we've had in eliminating illegal drug use?

Prohibition was very successful in reducing alcohol consumption. Also, the rate of illicit drug usage has generally been downward in the past two decades.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

NLRB rule overturned by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals:

First, three judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, struck down the NLRB's diktat that businesses put up pro-union posters in the workplace. That, the court said, violated employer free speech rights in place since Congress's 1947 Taft-Hartley Act....Before even getting to the heart of his opinion, Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote, "Although the parties have not raised it, one issue needs to be resolved before we turn to the merits of the case." That "one issue" is of course the now-famous Noel Canning case, the D.C. Circuit's January opinion which held that President Obama's non-recess recess appointments to the NLRB were illegal, and thus hundreds of past and current NLRB rulings are illegitimate. While the poster rule was not affected by Canning, the appeals court felt the need to remind the NLRB of its current, weak status.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

In CLS Bank v. Alice Corp., the CAFC rules en banc to affirm the district court's judgment that the claims in question are invalid as ineligible subject matter.

In broad terms, this is a serious blow to software patents, especially considering that the CAFC is known to be pro-patent, even to the point of sometimes flaunting Supreme Court rulings.

Opinion here:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1301.Opinion.5-8-2013.1.PDF

Patently-O here:
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/201...t-finds-many-software-patents-ineligible.html

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Ah, June is here, which means that SCOTUS rulings are in the pipeline:

Four big-deal cases this year. Fearless predictions, anyone?

Fisher vs UT: affirmative action goes down. Justice Roberts already previewed this one: "the best way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race."

Voting Rights: those southern states won't have to get DOJ pre-approval any more, the empirical data is clear: blacks are registering and voting at slightly higher proportions than other ethnic groups (sorry, link not handy right now).

DOMA: w-t-f were we thinking in the first place? we never should have accepted this case and so we'll bail on some technicality and let time take its course.

Patenting human genes: no clue on this one, sorry.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I think DOMA goes down but California Prop 8 is upheld. Can the Federal government dictate what has been up to now, a state decision?

Prop 8 was a proper use of California's ballot initiatives to set state policy. if you don't like it, then try again.


if you can gerrymander based on race then what does that do to affirmative action cases?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I think DOMA goes down but California Prop 8 is upheld. Can the Federal government dictate what has been up to now, a state decision?

Prop 8 was a proper use of California's ballot initiatives to set state policy. if you don't like it, then try again.


if you can gerrymander based on race then what does that do to affirmative action cases?

DOMA stays up. The Federal government has to dictate because Congress has the power to make laws necessary and proper for the income tax, according to I-8-18. Because income tax has a provision for married couples (filing separately or jointly), they therefore have the power to define that.

 

[unofan]

Ah, June is here, which means that SCOTUS rulings are in the pipeline:

Four big-deal cases this year. Fearless predictions, anyone?

Fisher vs UT: affirmative action goes down. Justice Roberts already previewed this one: "the best way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race."

Voting Rights: those southern states won't have to get DOJ pre-approval any more, the empirical data is clear: blacks are registering and voting at slightly higher proportions than other ethnic groups (sorry, link not handy right now).

DOMA: w-t-f were we thinking in the first place? we never should have accepted this case and so we'll bail on some technicality and let time take its course.

Patenting human genes: no clue on this one, sorry.

Fisher - limited shoot down. Won't explicitly say race can't be a factor, but will greatly curtail its use. 5-3 against (kagan recused).

VRA - 5-4 striking down the preclearance provision, blaming congressional inaction. Bonus: will be released on the same day as the marriage cases to hide it.

Prop 8 - DIGed. Kennedy doesn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.

DOMA - struck down 6-3. Roberts and kennedy join the liberals on federalism grounds rather than equal protection.

Human genes - uphold the patent as a process for extracting the gene, punt on the underlying issue.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Can I patent my kids and get a rights fee when they reproduce?

I think the courts should punt this one back to the legislature and tell them that the courts are tired of creating legislation when the legislature refuses to legislate.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Surprising 5 - 4 decision today on whether police can take DNA swabs from suspects who have just been arrested.

Kennedy: "they can fingerprint suspects already and that's fine; so a DNA swab is similarly instrusive and invasive, that's fine too."
Joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and ... Breyer?

Dissent from ... Scalia? Joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg.

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered an impassioned dissent, signaling his concern by reading it aloud from the bench. He likened the DNA law to the "despised" British practice of issuing general warrants in colonial days, authorizing royal officers to conduct blanket searches of the public.

The Fourth Amendment, he wrote, forbade general warrants by requiring that authorities demonstrate specific reasons to suspect an individual of a crime before they could search him or her. The DNA-sampling law was a suspicionless search used only to solve open cases, he wrote, calling that a worthy objective but one outweighed by the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Surprising 5 - 4 decision today on whether police can take DNA swabs from suspects who have just been arrested.

Kennedy: "they can fingerprint suspects already and that's fine; so a DNA swab is similarly instrusive and invasive, that's fine too."
Joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and ... Breyer?

Dissent from ... Scalia? Joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg.

Meh, I like the headline I submitted to Fark better (and it got greenlit): "Not News: SCOTUS hands down 5-4 decision. News: SCOTUS says police can take DNA samples from arrestees just like fingerprints. Fark: Scalia dissented with the hippie commune and Breyer joined the facists"

 

[French Rage]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Meh, I like the headline I submitted to Fark better (and it got greenlit): "Not News: SCOTUS hands down 5-4 decision. News: SCOTUS says police can take DNA samples from arrestees just like fingerprints. Fark: Scalia dissented with the hippie commune and Breyer joined the facists"

That was you? Congrats!