The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Because, of course, Roberts would never actually vote for it because he happens to think that's what the law requires, right?

Not sure if serious. Have you seen the body of work of this Court?

The myth that the Court isn't just another political tool was exploded by Bush v Gore.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Not sure if serious. Have you seen the body of work of this Court?

The myth that the Court isn't just another political tool was exploded by Bush v Gore.

Kep, not disagreeing, but if the Court had not intervened, how long would we have had to wait until there was a result? And, politically, would your opinion change if the Court had come down for Gore?

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Because, of course, Roberts would never actually vote for it because he happens to think that's what the law requires, right?

Given his vote 2 years ago in the last gay marriage cases and the pretty credible stories about him switching his ACA vote at the last minute (backed up by the dissent reading like it was initially a majority opinion), that is not a likely outcome.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Given his vote 2 years ago in the last gay marriage cases and the pretty credible stories about him switching his ACA vote at the last minute (backed up by the dissent reading like it was initially a majority opinion), that is not a likely outcome.

I've never read the actual case from two years ago (I assume it was the one with the lady looking for a tax refund or something), but wasn't that the case where Roberts and other dissenters basically complained the whole lawsuit and hearing by the Supremes was a sham because the government took the same side as the lady? I don't recall reading anywhere that Roberts ever expressed any opinions on gay marriage, either for or against, in that decision.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I've never read the actual case from two years ago (I assume it was the one with the lady looking for a tax refund or something), but wasn't that the case where Roberts and other dissenters basically complained the whole lawsuit and hearing by the Supremes was a sham because the government took the same side as the lady? I don't recall reading anywhere that Roberts ever expressed any opinions on gay marriage, either for or against, in that decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Roberts basically says in his dissent in Windsor, "It should be a state decision," which is how the bigots win, at least for the short term (ultimately, demographic shifts will cause them to lose long term). He also would've voted to uphold DOMA on the merits as constitutional. While he goes out of his way to say the case was not about gay marriage itself, his argument clearly sets forth a reasoning that would lead him to vote against marriage equality as a federal matter. So again, while anything is technically possible, if Roberts joins the majority, you'd have to present strong evidence to convince me it's because he's actually changed his mind and not simply because he doesn't want the history books to show him having voted the wrong way on the modern day Plessy.

Scalia's dissent is basically everything you'd expect from someone who's dissented from all major gay rights cases. He did not mince words or couch his anti-gay views at all.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

There's a pending SCOTUS case that could prove interesting, about a lawsuit against Texas Housing Authority. The Housing Authority is required to follow two different sets of federal guidelines that contradict each other. Low-income housing tax credits are allocated based on one set of rules, and the "disparate impact" theory of "discrimination" says that, by following one set of federal rules, a different federal law is being violated (guidelines for allocating low-income housing tax credits, in practice, lead developers to build housing in "poorer" communities, while "disparate impact" says that, by locating low-income housing in communities that are already poor, the result is to reinforce de facto segregation to the extent that "low-income" and "minority" overlap).

 

[unofan]

There's a pending SCOTUS case that could prove interesting, about a lawsuit against Texas Housing Authority. The Housing Authority is required to follow two different sets of federal guidelines that contradict each other. Low-income housing tax credits are allocated based on one set of rules, and the "disparate impact" theory of "discrimination" says that, by following one set of federal rules, a different federal law is being violated (guidelines for allocating low-income housing tax credits, in practice, lead developers to build housing in "poorer" communities, while "disparate impact" says that, by locating low-income housing in communities that are already poor, the result is to reinforce de facto segregation to the extent that "low-income" and "minority" overlap).

Except that's not why it's in front of SCOTUS at all. It's not even deciding whether disparate impact claims are viable (they are, as SCOTUS itself ruled years ago in a Title VII case). SCOTUS is merely deciding whether or not the FHA is worded in a way to allow disparate impact claims under that specific law.

And following federal law is always a defense to discrimination claims. One of the biggest ways trucking companies defend their terminations are by pointing out the driver failed his or her DOT physical.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

And following federal law is always a defense to discrimination claims.

Right, first a charge is brought against you, and then you have to defend it, and only after the defense is successful can you proceed with a 'normal' life again.

The situation becomes quite complicated when guidelines issued by two different federal agencies contradict each other.

"hey, that agency said to do 'x'."
-- I don't care what they said, you have to do what I say.
"umm, this other agency said I have to do 'y'."
-- I don't care what they said, you have to do what I say.

There is absolutely no way out of that box without going to court. In the meantime you are left dangling, racking up fines by the day. Then, after the court rules, whichever agency that was ruled against suddenly becomes petty and vindictive that you would dare challenge their superior wisdom.

 

[unofan]

Right, first a charge is brought against you, and then you have to defend it, and only after the defense is successful can you proceed with a 'normal' life again.

The situation becomes quite complicated when guidelines issued by two different federal agencies contradict each other.

"hey, that agency said to do 'x'."
-- I don't care what they said, you have to do what I say.
"umm, this other agency said I have to do 'y'."
-- I don't care what they said, you have to do what I say.

There is absolutely no way out of that box without going to court. In the meantime you are left dangling, racking up fines by the day. Then, after the court rules, whichever agency that was ruled against suddenly becomes petty and vindictive that you would dare challenge their superior wisdom.

Considering this is the area of law I've been practicing for the last five years, trust me when I say you've been misled (or are, as usual, simply full of crap, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). No one racks up fines in anti discrimination cases simply due to time passing unless they're violating court orders. State and federal agencies close most anti discrimination claims after simply gathering basic informtion from the parties. 99% of cases never make it to an administrative hearing.

Most cases you hear of are private litigation with no government involvement. A person has to file a complaint with an agency initially, but they are granted an administrative release, or "right to sue" letter, upon request as a matter of course provided certain jurisdictional issues are met.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

No one racks up fines in anti discrimination cases simply due to time passing unless they're violating court orders. State and federal agencies close most anti discrimination claims after simply gathering basic informtion from the parties. 99% of cases never make it to an administrative hearing.

Ah, you are talking strictly about anti-discrimination cases. I was speaking more generally about conflicting agency guidelines overall. Several years ago we expanded an existing parking lot onto adjacent vacant land and had to file something like 34 forms with 18 different agencies. Even though there never had been a building on the site, we had to certify that no lead paint would be released from demolition of existing structures, for example.

Actually, the problem is more in reconciling local, state and federal agency demands.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'd be interested in knowing if previous attempts at this have been challenged in court, or if the cost of the testing eventually outweighed the number of drunk/toked up welfare recipients caught and thrown off the dole.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'd be interested in knowing if previous attempts at this have been challenged in court, or if the cost of the testing eventually outweighed the number of drunk/toked up welfare recipients caught and thrown off the dole.

Well in Florida it was a massive economic and legal failure.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article4261889.html

Instead, the court cited a 2000 study done by DCF which showed that TANF recipients are less likely than the general public to use illegal drugs. During the three months the law took effect, 4,046 TANF applicants submitted to drug testing and only 108 — 2.67 percent — tested positive for drug use compared to 5.2 percent for the general public.

There are other states where somewhat similar testing laws exist but they tend to require some kind of suspicion before getting a test done.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'd be interested in knowing if previous attempts at this have been challenged in court, or if the cost of the testing eventually outweighed the number of drunk/toked up welfare recipients caught and thrown off the dole.

Ever since I read about a court challenge over a person's right not to work, I realized that lots of things can be challenged; the better question is whether the challenge is successful or not.

Regarding Walker's proposal, it sounds like he has a giant blind spot. A person can just use the public assistance money to buy something "legitimate" and then sell it to someone else and then use the money for whatever s/he wants.

I sometimes wish all politicians had to pass a basic test before they could be elected to any office: so many of them seem totally ignorant of what the word "fungible" means.


I am also reminded of a story, not sure if it is urban myth or based on truth, about a male athlete who was required to submit a urine sample for drug testing. The test results were presented to him thusly: "we have good news and bad news. The good news is, your test came back clean. The bad news is, you're pregnant."

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Not drug testing but in Maine.

This was dated in July and supposedly became effective in October.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Not drug testing but in Maine.

This was dated in July and supposedly became effective in October.

Broken link. You probably copied link text from a forum (which abbreviates for display), you need to copy the actual link.

 

[ericredaxe]

Broken link. You probably copied link text from a forum (which abbreviates for display), you need to copy the actual link.

http://madworldnews.com/welfare-abusers-screeching-halt/

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

This is an interesting read. I realize it's left slanted but it does appear to state what is going on in Alambama.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/roy-moore-ignore-federal-courts-marriage

Short synopsis? The Chief Justice of Alabama believes that if the Federal Government rules that same sex marriage is the law of the land they don't have to follow it. They can just ignore whatever Federal Laws they want to ignore.

Interesting take.

I wonder how the country would function if that really were the case?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

This is an interesting read. I realize it's left slanted but it does appear to state what is going on in Alambama.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/roy-moore-ignore-federal-courts-marriage

Short synopsis? The Chief Justice of Alabama believes that if the Federal Government rules that same sex marriage is the law of the land they don't have to follow it. They can just ignore whatever Federal Laws they want to ignore.

Interesting take.

I wonder how the country would function if that really were the case?

What's being argued is that same sex marriage does not fall under anything in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, and therefore, the 10th Amendment takes precedence.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

What's being argued is that same sex marriage does not fall under anything in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, and therefore, the 10th Amendment takes precedence.

That's still a court decision, not an Alabama decision.

 

[joecct]

This is an interesting read. I realize it's left slanted but it does appear to state what is going on in Alambama.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/roy-moore-ignore-federal-courts-marriage

Short synopsis? The Chief Justice of Alabama believes that if the Federal Government rules that same sex marriage is the law of the land they don't have to follow it. They can just ignore whatever Federal Laws they want to ignore.

Interesting take.

I wonder how the country would function if that really were the case?

The lame duck Attorney General did the same thing. Only he supported the other side of the argument.