Supreme Court decision of the day

[Jason]

Now that it seems likely that Roe will be overturned I wonder if Chucky will follow through with the threats he made a couple of years ago?

 

[Blarg]

It would be great if the Supreme Court said, naw, we weren't serious. 

[Taylor]

On 1/24/2022 at 10:29 AM, Lhalo said:

Hopefully they get rid of that racist policy.

While they're at it, I hope they outlaw college legacy programs that give free rides to (mostly rich white) kids just because their grandfather attended the school 50 years ago.

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

It would be great if the Supreme Court said, naw, we weren't serious. 

It would be lol worthy, although very improbable, if the decision were unanimous.  

[Jason]

14 minutes ago, Taylor said:

While they're at it, I hope they outlaw college legacy programs that give free rides to (mostly rich white) kids just because their grandfather attended the school 50 years ago.

I’m guessing the rich grandfather has also donated a lot of money to the school. Money talks 

[Lhalo]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

While they're at it, I hope they outlaw college legacy programs that give free rides to (mostly rich white) kids just because their grandfather attended the school 50 years ago.

It must hurt to hate yourself so much. 

[Kotchman]

40 minutes ago, cals said:

You ever think maybe Taylor is incapacitated and his wife has taken over his AW account?

No doubt she had editorial veto rights. He’s still pissed George Pepperdine’s great grandchildren received free parking passes his freshman year

[Kotchman]

1 minute ago, cals said:

Yeah @Taylor, Larry isn’t even white and he loves us so much he wants to be one of us.  That has to tell you something right there.

My wife’s cousin from Azusa has been a democrat even though he jumped on Reagan’s amnesty bus. He bought house and had owned a mechanic shop there for 25 years. He’s now seen the light and seeking a white neighborhood. Says the Hispanics there are always hating on his success 

[Dtwncbad]

So many faces on TV demanding that the SC Justices “stand up for” women’s rights, or that they “hear the voices of the protesting people” in their decision, or that they “do the right thing”, etc.

We have tons of people protesting outside the homes of Justices to influence them.

I just have to wonder how many of these people understand that the Justices, if they actually attempt to do their actual job, are required to ignore all of this regardless of what problem it creates.

They are not supposed to solve problems, and they certainly have no task to even have a solution for a problem their decision creates.

Solving problems and coming up with solutions is up to the people and Congress in their actual jobs.

All of the arguments being hurled at the Justices are misplaced.  They should be hurled at Congress and State Legislators.

We have a system. For the justices it isn’t  any more complicated than, “Is the right to abortion in the Constitution or not?”  That’s it.  If the majority of Justices think it just isn’t there, then they let us know so we all know what to do next.

Is this a problem?  Then Congress needs to act.  Does this create the need for a solution?  Then Congress needs to act.

This isn’t on the Justices.

The actual issue of abortion is very difficult, and some say it really cannot be resolved because of its unique, unavoidable natural conflict at its core between a woman controlling her own body and the subsequent expense of another human life.

But I think the best possible path forward is to stay mentally organized on who does what in our system.

People like to say the overwhelming number of Americans favor the woman’s right.  Well, then isn’t the project to discover if this is actually true and attempt to amend the Constitution so that the Justices see it in black and white on paper rather than having to squint and imagine if it is implied?

And if we find out there is not enough support to actually amend the Constitution, then shouldn’t we accept that and then manage this at the State level?  Many States have already written the right into their own State Constitution so nothing the Supreme Court does will have any effect on what happens in those States.

No matter what happens, there are going to be many people unhappy.  That is just built into this issue and that will never change.

But the best we should hope for is for people to view this through the lenses of process and recognize the scope of responsibility of the Justices versus what is the job of Congress.  We have to have law and order for ANY right to have a chance to be preserved.

Asking the Justices to listen to the loud voices outside their house in their decision means you are asking them to not do their job.  Do we really want a Supreme Court that lets loud people influence their vote rather than just do what they are supposed to do (simply decide if a law or ruling is Constitutional measured against what is actually in the Constitution)?

[Jason]

23 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

So many faces on TV demanding that the SC Justices “stand up for” women’s rights, or that they “hear the voices of the protesting people” in their decision, or that they “do the right thing”, etc.

We have tons of people protesting outside the homes of Justices to influence them.

I just have to wonder how many of these people understand that the Justices, if they actually attempt to do their actual job, are required to ignore all of this regardless of what problem it creates.

They are not supposed to solve problems, and they certainly have no task to even have a solution for a problem their decision creates.

Solving problems and coming up with solutions is up to the people and Congress in their actual jobs.

All of the arguments being hurled at the Justices are misplaced.  They should be hurled at Congress and State Legislators.

We have a system. For the justices it isn’t  any more complicated than, “Is the right to abortion in the Constitution or not?”  That’s it.  If the majority of Justices think it just isn’t there, then they let us know so we all know what to do next.

Is this a problem?  Then Congress needs to act.  Does this create the need for a solution?  Then Congress needs to act.

This isn’t on the Justices.

The actual issue of abortion is very difficult, and some say it really cannot be resolved because of its unique, unavoidable natural conflict at its core between a woman controlling her own body and the subsequent expense of another human life.

But I think the best possible path forward is to stay mentally organized on who does what in our system.

People like to say the overwhelming number of Americans favor the woman’s right.  Well, then isn’t the project to discover if this is actually true and attempt to amend the Constitution so that the Justices see it in black and white on paper rather than having to squint and imagine if it is implied?

And if we find out there is not enough support to actually amend the Constitution, then shouldn’t we accept that and then manage this at the State level?  Many States have already written the right into their own State Constitution so nothing the Supreme Court does will have any effect on what happens in those States.

No matter what happens, there are going to be many people unhappy.  That is just built into this issue and that will never change.

But the best we should hope for is for people to view this through the lenses of process and recognize the scope of responsibility of the Justices versus what is the job of Congress.  We have to have law and order for ANY right to have a chance to be preserved.

Asking the Justices to listen to the loud voices outside their house in their decision means you are asking them to not do their job.  Do we really want a Supreme Court that lets loud people influence their vote rather than just do what they are supposed to do (simply decide if a law or ruling is Constitutional measured against what is actually in the Constitution)?

I agree with this. If most Americans support abortion then we will see pro choice candidates start winning more local elections as a result of Roe being overturned. I’ve said it here before that the issue of abortion is not really important to me as it ultimately doesn’t have an impact on my life. I think it’s an evil and barbaric practice though. I firmly believe that this should be up to the states and if congress wants to amend the constitution one way or the the other then more power to them.  As far as states that outlaw abortion, they need to understand that shit will be really bad for them in 15-20 years when these babies are robbing liquor stores and carjacking people. They may want to consider handing out various forms of birth control on the state’s dime so there is no excuses for irresponsible people. Those protesting this do not actually care about the constitution or rights. They definitely do not understand how this stuff works 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Jason

[Taylor]

Supreme Court rules 6-3 that prisoners convicted in state court can't present new evidence in federal court to claim wrongful conviction.

F'ing conservative utopia.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/supreme-court-prioritizes-expedience-not-justice-wrongful-convictions-2022-05-25/

[Blarg]

That would wipe out DNA evidence that wasn't part of older cases to be admissible. There is plenty wrong with this ruling and seems tilted to keep the prosecutors win records intact instead of seeking justice. 

[Jason]

When it comes to death penalty cases they need to be 110% sure of guilt. I get there are rules when it comes to evidence and court proceedings but newly discovered evidence should be looked at. 

[gotbeer]

Just to play devils advocate here.  But why is a state trial being sent to federal courts to overrule?  Shouldn't it be appealed at the state level?  If people don't like this ruling, shouldn't the state system be overhauled so that appeals of new evidence be granted?  Of course, it'll already overload an already jammed up system.  

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Just to play devils advocate here.  But why is a state trial being sent to federal courts to overrule?  Shouldn't it be appealed at the state level?  If people don't like this ruling, shouldn't the state system be overhauled so that appeals of new evidence be granted?  Of course, it'll already overload an already jammed up system.  

I thought new evidence was the purpose for going through the appellate process. Either way, any new evidence should be looked at

[gotbeer]

14 minutes ago, Jason said:

I thought new evidence was the purpose for going through the appellate process. Either way, any new evidence should be looked at

Yes, but why does a state trial need to go federal?

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Yes, but why does a state trial need to go federal?

I don’t know. I do know that they can appeal it to the Supreme Court and they may or may not choose to hear it

Edited May 27, 2022 by Jason

[Taylor]

15 hours ago, Jason said:

When it comes to death penalty cases they need to be 110% sure of guilt. I get there are rules when it comes to evidence and court proceedings but newly discovered evidence should be looked at. 

This is ultimately why I'm against the death penalty. An innocent person being executed is way more tragic than Ted Bundy having to live the rest of his life in prison.

 

[Jason]

10 minutes ago, Taylor said:

This is ultimately why I'm against the death penalty. An innocent person being executed is way more tragic than Ted Bundy having to live the rest of his life in prison.

 

Yeah, that is a reasonable position. Just like abortion, I don’t have a real opinion either way on the death penalty 

[Kotchman]

Yes , we sentence an innocent child to death but let’s reserve judgment for 40 years for people who are guilty 99% of the time. Seems logical 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Kotchman

[jsnpritchett]

2 hours ago, Taylor said:

This is ultimately why I'm against the death penalty. An innocent person being executed is way more tragic than Ted Bundy having to live the rest of his life in prison.

 

I'm in a weird place with my thinking on the death penalty.  I was the jury foreman on a fairly high profile death penalty case 11 years ago.  We found him guilty and then recommended the death penalty in the penalty phase. Given the evidence in this particular case, there is zero doubt in my mind that the individual was guilty of the crimes for which he was accused. 

But obviously there have been a number of other cases in which innocent people have been convicted and put to death.  

So where's the line? I honestly don't know anymore.  It's also further complicated for me, because CA hasn't actually executed anyone on death row in 16 years, so even a death sentence effectively becomes life in prison, anyway. 

[jsnpritchett]

1 hour ago, jsnpritchett said:

I'm in a weird place with my thinking on the death penalty.  I was the jury foreman on a fairly high profile death penalty case 11 years ago.  We found him guilty and then recommended the death penalty in the penalty phase. Given the evidence in this particular case, there is zero doubt in my mind that the individual was guilty of the crimes for which he was accused. 

But obviously there have been a number of other cases in which innocent people have been convicted and put to death.  

So where's the line? I honestly don't know anymore.  It's also further complicated for me, because CA hasn't actually executed anyone on death row in 16 years, so even a death sentence effectively becomes life in prison, anyway. 

(Yes, I'm quoting my own post...)

Also, it just hit me that during the deliberation on that trial, it was at this exact time of year.  We had been deliberating for 3 days (if my memory is correct) and went back on the Friday before Memorial Day to continue.  The court actually called the press and the family members back to the courtroom because they assumed we'd want to deliver a verdict before the holiday weekend, rather than having to come back the following week to continue.  I guess that says something about what the system thinks of most jurors...(Note: no, we did not decide that Friday and we did in fact come back the following Tuesday to finish deliberations.)

[Dtwncbad]

On 5/25/2022 at 9:41 PM, Taylor said:

Supreme Court rules 6-3 that prisoners convicted in state court can't present new evidence in federal court to claim wrongful conviction.

F'ing conservative utopia.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/supreme-court-prioritizes-expedience-not-justice-wrongful-convictions-2022-05-25/

Taylor you are quick to label this a “conservative” thing.

Do you honestly believe that conservative judges want truly innocent people to be executed?

Maybe the decision is a bit more complicated that that?  And maybe this would be another moment in time when a Supreme Court ruling identifies the need for some specific legislation.

I guess I again wonder why so many people want to blame the Supreme Court for a problem their decision identifies rather than appreciating that their decision identifies something specific that Congress (or State legislators) clearly needs to address.

[Jason]

16 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Taylor you are quick to label this a “conservative” thing.

Do you honestly believe that conservative judges want truly innocent people to be executed?

Maybe the decision is a bit more complicated that that?  And maybe this would be another moment in time when a Supreme Court ruling identifies the need for some specific legislation.

I guess I again wonder why so many people want to blame the Supreme Court for a problem their decision identifies rather than appreciating that their decision identifies something specific that Congress (or State legislators) clearly needs to address.

The problem is people view the SCOTUS through an ideological lens and it’s shouldn’t be 

[Taylor]

3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Taylor you are quick to label this a “conservative” thing.

Do you honestly believe that conservative judges want truly innocent people to be executed?

Maybe the decision is a bit more complicated that that?  And maybe this would be another moment in time when a Supreme Court ruling identifies the need for some specific legislation.

I guess I again wonder why so many people want to blame the Supreme Court for a problem their decision identifies rather than appreciating that their decision identifies something specific that Congress (or State legislators) clearly needs to address.

 

2 hours ago, Jason said:

The problem is people view the SCOTUS through an ideological lens and it’s shouldn’t be 

 

So the six conservative justices ruled yes, and the three liberal justices ruled no. What does that tell you?