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 Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Yeah, only when it infringes upon the rights of women and the gays is it for the general welfare of the people. I took a wonderful opportunity to reveal one of your posts and you didn't disappoint.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Frequently, it seems, government passes laws to promote the welfare of people who work in government.
It is a sad thing to notice how many legislators became rich only after they were elected to the legislature, for example.
Frequently, it seems, government passes laws to promote the welfare of people who work in government.
It is a sad thing to notice how many legislators became rich only after they were elected to the legislature, for example.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Since the Obergefell decision is coming soon (next week?), a nice refresher from the best site on the interwebs.
And here's Burwell, for the hell of it.
Since the Obergefell decision is coming soon (next week?), a nice refresher from the best site on the interwebs.
And here's Burwell, for the hell of it.
unofan
Well-known member
I'd be shocked if either of them came out next week. It's not impossible, but I'd expect them both to be among the last ones released before the summer recess.
If I had to guess, I'm thinking next week are the first batch of opinions from the April sitting, meaning any unanimous ones or other quick ones. Probably also the Fair Housing Act and Reed (a first amendment case re: sign ordinances) since they're the only ones left from the January sitting, and then a couple other February ones that aren't as high profile or difficult but might still have a dissent or two.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Uno, off the top of your head, has the concern for terrorist activity in large public gatherings become a factor in the courts' analysis of time, place and manner restrictions?
Uno, off the top of your head, has the concern for terrorist activity in large public gatherings become a factor in the courts' analysis of time, place and manner restrictions?
unofan
Well-known member
I don't think so, at least off the top of my head. At the least, I don't think SCOTUS has touched on it. There could be lower courts out there that have. The closest I can recall SCOTUS getting to that was on the restrictions on speech around abortion clinics (with violence as one of the reasons for it), and they struck that one down. (MA quickly passed a new one in response).
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I guess it wouldn't affect the law (test) so much as the application of it, in which case SCOTUS would have no reason to become involved. But there is always a some balancing involved when you have to determine what is necessary to serve an important government interest.
I guess it wouldn't affect the law (test) so much as the application of it, in which case SCOTUS would have no reason to become involved. But there is always a some balancing involved when you have to determine what is necessary to serve an important government interest.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
3 more released today, none of them big ones.
More coming Thursday. 17 total to go, of which I'd probably call 4-5 of them big - gay marriage, ACA, fair housing act, death penalty drugs, and Arizona independent redistricting.
3 more released today, none of them big ones.
More coming Thursday. 17 total to go, of which I'd probably call 4-5 of them big - gay marriage, ACA, fair housing act, death penalty drugs, and Arizona independent redistricting.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
No sh*t.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
No sh*t.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I'm pretty sure I saw yesterday that it was still a 5-4 vote by the Supremes. So...........................
I'm pretty sure I saw yesterday that it was still a 5-4 vote by the Supremes. So...........................
If they declined to hear the case, then there was no vote.
unofan
Well-known member
Scalia was the only noted dissent to the denial of cert. The 5-4 case yesterday dealt with immigration visas.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
SCOTUSBlog finally released an interim stat pack for this term. Most interesting to me is that of the 5-4 opinions so far, only 3 out of 8 so far have broken along purely ideological lines, with the liberals + Kennedy winning two out of those three.
SCOTUSBlog finally released an interim stat pack for this term. Most interesting to me is that of the 5-4 opinions so far, only 3 out of 8 so far have broken along purely ideological lines, with the liberals + Kennedy winning two out of those three.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
How you define "ideological lines" if the case has no ideological component?
I can't see how ideology would affect a patent law case, for example....and it appears that more than half the cases have no discernible "ideological" component, being either a correction of procedural errors, or clarifying business / tax / trade / administrative issues.
How you define "ideological lines" if the case has no ideological component?
I can't see how ideology would affect a patent law case, for example....and it appears that more than half the cases have no discernible "ideological" component, being either a correction of procedural errors, or clarifying business / tax / trade / administrative issues.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Here's a fun albeit heavy lifting analysis of the correlation coefficients between justices on the Rehnquist Court. This was back in the day when Thomas used to polish Scalia's knob and never think for himself. Short answer: it's not surprising at all that over the whole caseload there's little significance in correlations between 4- or 5-justice blocs. The correlations actually break down pretty fast, probably because few cases activate the justices' partisanship.
Here's a fun albeit heavy lifting analysis of the correlation coefficients between justices on the Rehnquist Court. This was back in the day when Thomas used to polish Scalia's knob and never think for himself. Short answer: it's not surprising at all that over the whole caseload there's little significance in correlations between 4- or 5-justice blocs. The correlations actually break down pretty fast, probably because few cases activate the justices' partisanship.
unofan
Well-known member
Most years roughly 2/3rds of 5-4 decisions break along the ideological lines with Kennedy as the swing vote. Last year was the least ideologically split for the current makeup of the court at 60%, 2010 was the high point 88%.
- Status