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 Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Only one decision today, but it's a big one - the Jerusalem passport case. Court rules 6-3 in favor of the President (liberal wing + Kennedy in the majority, Thomas concurring in part).

The court finds the President has the sole power to recognize foreign governments and cannot be compelled by Congress to list Israel on passports of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem. Currently such passports simply list the city in accordance with the policy dating back to Truman that recognizes Israel as a country but does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
Only one decision today, but it's a big one - the Jerusalem passport case. Court rules 6-3 in favor of the President (liberal wing + Kennedy in the majority, Thomas concurring in part).

The court finds the President has the sole power to recognize foreign governments and cannot be compelled by Congress to list Israel on passports of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem. Currently such passports simply list the city in accordance with the policy dating back to Truman that recognizes Israel as a country but does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city.
Click to expand...

Wow. Thomas with the Liberals? He's been the one defector recently in a couple of 8-1 decisions.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

ScoobyDoo said:
Wow. Thomas with the Liberals? He's been the one defector recently in a couple of 8-1 decisions.
Click to expand...

I believe it was one of the lawyers who posts to these SCOTUS threads (or used to post to these threads) that said casting the dissenting vote was largely ceremonial and done so just to give a justice a chance to write an opposing opinion if there's some bit of minutae that might have been considered most conetentious.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

St. Clown said:
I believe it was one of the lawyers who posts to these SCOTUS threads (or used to post to these threads) that said casting the dissenting vote was largely ceremonial and done so just to give a justice a chance to write an opposing opinion if there's some bit of minutae that might have been considered most conetentious.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I can see that. Makes sense.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

St. Clown said:
I believe it was one of the lawyers who posts to these SCOTUS threads (or used to post to these threads) that said casting the dissenting vote was largely ceremonial and done so just to give a justice a chance to write an opposing opinion if there's some bit of minutae that might have been considered most conetentious.
Click to expand...

Why not just write a concurrence?

Maybe it's to avoid the symbolism of a unanimous decision? I recall that the 9-0 unanimity of Brown v Board gave it a special symbolic weight that greatly helped the desegregation effort. Imagine if, for example, Roe v Wade had been written in such a way (hint: equal protection) to be 9-0. We could have avoided 40 years of crap.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
Why not just write a concurrence?

Maybe it's to avoid the symbolism of a unanimous decision? I recall that the 9-0 unanimity of Brown v Board gave it a special symbolic weight that greatly helped the desegregation effort. Imagine if, for example, Roe v Wade had been written in such a way (hint: equal protection) to be 9-0. We could have avoided 40 years of crap.
Click to expand...

That makes sense as well.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Oh my God. That is incredible. If I wasn't out in public I'd be dying right now.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'll be honest, I was expecting someone from the derp brigade to call this an anti-Semitic decision even though the three Jewish members of the Court took the "anti-Israel" position...

I'm actually pleasantly surprised I haven't seen that yet.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
Either does the Vatican.
Click to expand...

Something tells me that the 'millions of Americans' trying to flee this land for the bastion of Vatican City won't all fit in its 1.1 square miles. Well, maybe if they repurpose St. Pete's...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

St. Clown said:
Something tells me that the 'millions of Americans' trying to flee this land for the bastion of Vatican City won't all fit in its 1.1 square miles. Well, maybe if they repurpose St. Pete's...
Click to expand...

Put them on the 'B' ark...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

St. Clown said:
Something tells me that the 'millions of Americans' trying to flee this land for the bastion of Vatican City won't all fit in its 1.1 square miles. Well, maybe if they repurpose St. Pete's...
Click to expand...

They're probably going to that one country that one guy made between Serbia and Croatia...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top