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

Status
Not open for further replies.
joecct said:
Reading some of the analysis over on Scotusblog. It seems that Kennedy's opinion was not received as a great piece of legal scholarship, while Scalia's dissent was generally well received as a well thought out dissent.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It appears you read the commentary from the 2 Catholic professors and the marriage family law foundation guy and ignored the other half of the commentators which ripped Scalia's dissent to shreds.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

unofan said:
It appears you read the commentary from the 2 Catholic professors and the marriage family law foundation guy and ignored the other half of the commentators which ripped Scalia's dissent to shreds.
Click to expand...
Read Georgetown's (that fine catholic university) too. Major papers also seemed to think Kennedy's opinion was not something that will go down in history as a great legal opinion.

There seem to be others, also, that think Kennedy's reasoning was correct, but would not get a "A" from legal scholars. They also disagree with Scalia's conclusions, but he would get a "A" from the same scholars.
 
joecct said:
Read Georgetown's (that fine catholic university) too. Major papers also seemed to think Kennedy's opinion was not something that will go down in history as a great legal opinion.

There seem to be others, also, that think Kennedy's reasoning was correct, but would not get a "A" from legal scholars. They also disagree with Scalia's conclusions, but he would get a "A" from the same scholars.
Click to expand...

Newspapers, and journalists in general, know jack shiat about legal writing and scholarship. Even longtime reporters like Adam Liptik at the NY Times get it wrong or oversimplify it for their readers all the time.

As for the rest, the best that can be said about Scalia's dissent is that it is vintage Scalia - pompous and bombastic. If you agree with him, it's great. If not, it's a giant turd. He says the court should have kicked it on standing, but rather than leave it there goes full bore into the merits even though he doesn't think the court should even discuss the merits. Had he simply left it as a standing issue, it'd be a far better piece of legal writing. Conciseness counts for a lot.

Edit: this is not to say Kennedy's majority opinion is great. I generally dislike Kennedy opinions in form if not function. He plays the moderate well, but then that seeps into his writing as well. But Scalia is not an ideal legal writer either.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Question:

Forget DOMA

If State Z says that 14 is the age of consent for marriage, but State A has it as 16, is a couple who married in State Z considered married in State A if they move there?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

joecct said:
Question:

Forget DOMA

If State Z says that 14 is the age of consent for marriage, but State A has it as 16, is a couple who married in State Z considered married in State A if they move there?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Great idea from one of the few government employees I actually respect and admire: Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS. She actually does her job conscientiously and well!

Last week National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson issued an independent special report to Congress. In it she argued that the tax agency's toxic behavior would have been exposed earlier if "social welfare" groups, including most tea party groups, had the right to make their case in court. Unbelievably, in the wake of scandal, these groups still don't have the legal footing to do so.

While "public charities" are able to appeal a decision or demand one after waiting at least 270 days, "social welfare" groups don't have that right. This system hands a gavel over to the IRS to decide who deserves tax-exempt status when it should be in a judge's hands. "Judicial review would ensure that applicants do not have to wait indefinitely," Ms. Olson explained. "And it would ensure that organizations that disagree with an IRS denial can have their day in court."
Click to expand...

There already is a Tax Court specifically devoted to resolving disputes between the IRS and taxpayers. The incremental work involved here would not be that great, and it would help greatly to have some independent third-party supervision of IRS behavior.


I've read that people who call the IRS helpline for advice are given erroneous information about 20% of the time, yet if you rely on the IRS' erroneous information, you are still liable for the mistake, not them.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

New Jersey Appellate Court rules that a person who sends a text to a person while the latter person is driving a car might in some cases be held liable in civil court for damage caused by the driver.

I can't find a link to the story I read in the printed paper, but I did find several other sources, including USA Today:

TRENTON, N.J. — If you text a driver in New Jersey who gets in a crash, you could be held liable, according to a state appeals court panel.

Drivers still are obligated to obey traffic laws, not text or read messages while driving. But if a text's sender knows that the recipient will view it while driving, the sender could face civil damages, the court panel ruled Tuesday.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FreshFish said:
New Jersey Appellate Court rules that a person who sends a text to a person while the latter person is driving a car might in some cases be held liable in civil court for damage caused by the driver.

I can't find a link to the story I read in the printed paper, but I did find several other sources, including USA Today:
Click to expand...
I think I read a similar story, but my take was a little different. We'll have to wait until someone here reads the actual opinion.

I think what happened was a guy was driving his car, texting back and forth with his girlfriend. He was supposedly just reading one of her texts when he crossed the centerline and struck two people on a motorcycle, seriously injuring them. They sued him, and the girl. The theory against the girl was that she was liable due to her actions causing a distraction to the driver. No different than if a passenger in the car itself intentionally distracted a driver, causing a crash.

The appeals court agreed with this reasoning, but dismissed the claim against the girl anyway because the plaintiffs couldn't prove the girl knew the boyfriend was driving, or that he was reading the texts while driving. In other words, a reasonable person in her position needs to know, or should know, that their actions are going to cause a distraction to the driver (just like you would know if you were in the car itself).

Not completely out of the question someone is going to be held liable in a case like this, with the right facts.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

SJHovey said:
I think I read a similar story, but my take was a little different. We'll have to wait until someone here reads the actual opinion.

I think what happened was a guy was driving his car, texting back and forth with his girlfriend. He was supposedly just reading one of her texts when he crossed the centerline and struck two people on a motorcycle, seriously injuring them. They sued him, and the girl. The theory against the girl was that she was liable due to her actions causing a distraction to the driver. No different than if a passenger in the car itself intentionally distracted a driver, causing a crash.

The appeals court agreed with this reasoning, but dismissed the claim against the girl anyway because the plaintiffs couldn't prove the girl knew the boyfriend was driving, or that he was reading the texts while driving. In other words, a reasonable person in her position needs to know, or should know, that their actions are going to cause a distraction to the driver (just like you would know if you were in the car itself).

Not completely out of the question someone is going to be held liable in a case like this, with the right facts.
Click to expand...

You captured the facts of the particular case quite well.

The most salient part is that the person sending the text must "have reasonable knowledge" that the person receiving the texts is driving. For a driver either to read texts or :eek: to send texts is just absurd.

I wonder though if this also becomes precedent for making a phone call to someone while you know they are driving? It's not illegal to talk on your cell phone while driving in some states, and in other states it is not illegal to talk on a hands-free cell phone while you are driving while it is illegal to talk on a hand-held cell phone while driving.

Given the way that I've seen some drivers waving their hands around while driving (one infers they are gesturing while talking on the phone), and given studies that show how it's the act of talking itself that distracts the driver, I'd just as soon no one talk on the phone at all while driving, especially if it's an argument.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FreshFish said:
You captured the facts of the particular case quite well.

The most salient part is that the person sending the text must "have reasonable knowledge" that the person receiving the texts is driving. For a driver either to read texts or :eek: to send texts is just absurd.

I wonder though if this also becomes precedent for making a phone call to someone while you know they are driving? It's not illegal to talk on your cell phone while driving in some states, and in other states it is not illegal to talk on a hands-free cell phone while you are driving while it is illegal to talk on a hand-held cell phone while driving.

Given the way that I've seen some drivers waving their hands around while driving (one infers they are gesturing while talking on the phone), and given studies that show how it's the act of talking itself that distracts the driver, I'd just as soon no one talk on the phone at all while driving, especially if it's an argument.
Click to expand...

The simplest way to cut down on this would be to have cell phones quit working if they are traveling faster than say 15-20 mph...perhaps with an option for emergency access. Of course, this would cause an uproar among the commuters along the East Coast, and it would never fly.

I don't see this decision doing much. I also don't see it being precedent for much. Calling someone, and that person talking on the phone is a completely different distraction than carrying on a text conversation. One requires simply answering the phone (often without causing a distraction at all). The other requires a significant amount of focus.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Priceless said:
Like the Fugitive Slave law
Click to expand...
That's one (of many), though the Law was legal in the context of the Constitution and US Code at the time. However it is not the function of SCOTUS to rule on how "smart" a law is. That is the legislature's function and SCOTUS has regularly deferred to the legislature when ruling on laws. Only when the legislature steps over the constitutional line does (should) SCOTUS nullify.

Chief Justice Roberts pretty much said that PPACA was a stupid law, but a majority thought it was within Congress's prerogative to address health care and tax the American people to fund it. Many disagree (as they did with Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson), but right now the Federal establishment is trying (ineptly?) to implement PPACA and if you want medical insurance and can afford it, go ahead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top