SCOTUS

[Peter Brown]

Today's SCOTUS rulings are all the evidence you should ever need that people like Neil Gorsuch are the type of justices that the United States needs.

I won't even belabor the board with the rulings (one is called Ramos v Louisiana), but suffice it to say that Gorsuch is the most prolific and clear writer the court has probably ever had, PLUS he's pro civil rights and wildly pro-Constitution. The fact that Trump nominated him gives Trump tremendous bona fides with people like me.

And for the hater side of my cheap analysis, Sotomajor occasionally ends up on the correct side of a case but never has legal reasoning for doing so. She sided with Gorsuch on Ramos but did not write the opinion, likely because she had no idea that the underlying issue was civil rights as pertains to the Bill of Rights, something she hardly understands and clearly despises...everything to her is a battle between rich and poor, Republican and Democrat. She is truly awful.

If this court had 8 more Gorsuch's, I would not care who was President, ever. This dude will be remembered long after he is gone as the most influential and correct jurist of this century.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/supreme ... uries.html

[a fan]

Today's SCOTUS rulings are all the evidence you should ever need that people like Neil Gorsuch are the type of justices that the United States needs.

I won't even belabor the board with the rulings (one is called Ramos v Louisiana), but suffice it to say that Gorsuch is the most prolific and clear writer the court has probably ever had, PLUS he's pro civil rights and wildly pro-Constitution

This ruling shows he's NOT a Constitutionalist, and he's making up law, just like the rest of 'em.

Show me in the Constitution where it says that a jury's decision must be unanimous?

It ain't there, my friend. If you like him, that's fine...and imho, he's well qualified for his post.

But this whole right wing claim that ANY Justice we've ever had looks at the Constitution----and nothing else---- is a big, fat, lie. They all make it up as they go. This is called "bootstrapping". They come to the conclusion they want....then they fumble around for whatever they think justifies their ruling....using everything from common sense, to precedent.

Which is fine. Being a strict Constitutionalist in every case would be a train wreck, if you ask me.....

[njbill]

Uh oh, Pete. Gorsuch with a pro civil rights ruling. I think RBG is starting to rub off on him.

[RedFromMI]

Uh oh, Pete. Gorsuch with a pro civil rights ruling. I think RBG is starting to rub off on him.

And if you look at the printed decision, the paragraphs of who agreed to which part is a mess. No obvious liberal/conservative divide in the 6-3 decision.

Oh - it only affects two states, and apparently only for verdicts past a date last year. The consequences might well be fun to sort out...

[Peter Brown]

Today's SCOTUS rulings are all the evidence you should ever need that people like Neil Gorsuch are the type of justices that the United States needs.

I won't even belabor the board with the rulings (one is called Ramos v Louisiana), but suffice it to say that Gorsuch is the most prolific and clear writer the court has probably ever had, PLUS he's pro civil rights and wildly pro-Constitution

This ruling shows he's NOT a Constitutionalist, and he's making up law, just like the rest of 'em.

Show me in the Constitution where it says that a jury's decision must be unanimous?

It ain't there, my friend. If you like him, that's fine...and imho, he's well qualified for his post.

But this whole right wing claim that ANY Justice we've ever had looks at the Constitution----and nothing else---- is a big, fat, lie. They all make it up as they go. This is called "bootstrapping". They come to the conclusion they want....then they fumble around for whatever they think justifies their ruling....using everything from common sense, to precedent.

Which is fine. Being a strict Constitutionalist in every case would be a train wreck, if you ask me.....

OK. How about this: the Constitution’s 14th Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict. Two for one. Is that good enough?

Also, in the history of our country, only two states remained outliers on non-unanimous jury decisions, one out of sheer Northwest US laziness (Oregon), and the other (Louisiana) because of longstanding racial prejudices difficult to remove from state law. It's incredible to me that 3 justices actually voted against it. Alito is a total muttonhead and so I can expect him to mindlessly go along with state abuse of citizen rights. Roberts always looks for the easiest out and making a change like this hurts his head. Kagan doesn't surprise much either, as this is yet one more head nod to the conservative/corporatist element of US society that she's no reactionary liberal (she constantly makes bone-headed virtue signals to the what she thinks is a conservative position).

Sotomajor again probably has no idea why she voted the way she did, other than this was a pro-prisoner decision and her natural bent is to do anything that she thinks is 'anti-America', though in this case, the decision was actually quite pro-America, so the joke's on her. Once it dawns on her that this decision actually strengthened American society, she'll retaliate with the next decision, I'm sure.

[Peter Brown]

Uh oh, Pete. Gorsuch with a pro civil rights ruling. I think RBG is starting to rub off on him.

Jeebus, to borrow a word. You really don't know the drill, do you? Gorsuch is far and away the most pro-civil rights justice on the court, if by civil rights we mean the rights of Americans and not simply the rights of people with different skin tone. RBG has veered far away from the Bill of Rights, or more accurately, her clerks have at the direction of Sotomajor (RBG barely knows her own name anymore). This decision applies to all Americans, not simply black and brown ones. but of course the history of non-unanimous jury decisions was rooted in racial prejudice so the confusion is evident by media and even some justices who have no idea that they actually strengthened American society with this decision, not simply black and brown people. Today was a great day for America.

Gorsuch is what stands between you and anarchy, tbh. If we could get 8 clones of him, every citizen of this country would sleep well at night.

[a fan]

OK. How about this: the Constitution’s 14th Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict. Two for one. Is that good enough?

No. Not even close.

My quibble is with the lie. And the lie is that Conservative Justices are strict Constitutionalists. This is a big, fat, lie. And I'm sick of that lie being bandied about, when you don't need a law degree to see that there is NO MENTION of the need for unanimous juries for a conviction anywhere in the Constitution.

I have NO problem with Gorsuch, or his ruling here. My quibble is with the lie. All judges make it up as they go, and make their own interpretation of what the INTENT of the Constitution is. Which is fine by me.

[Peter Brown]

OK. How about this: the Constitution’s 14th Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict. Two for one. Is that good enough?

No. Not even close.

My quibble is with the lie. And the lie is that Conservative Justices are strict Constitutionalists. This is a big, fat, lie. And I'm sick of that lie being bandied about, when you don't need a law degree to see that there is NO MENTION of the need for unanimous juries for a conviction anywhere in the Constitution.

I have NO problem with Gorsuch, or his ruling here. My quibble is with the lie. All judges make it up as they go, and make their own interpretation of what the INTENT of the Constitution is. Which is fine by me.

Man, just like with MDLax, no discernment of price and value.

Non unanimous jury decisions were rooted in racism and a desire to diminish the voices of black jurors. Fundamentally, and notwithstanding our country's awful past racism, the framers believed in individual rights and especially his/her fundamental rights of due process. The majority here found that value inside our Constitution (explicitly or not) to rule against non-unanimous decisions when deciding on a human being's freedom. As they should have.

[a fan]

Man, just like with MDLax, no discernment of price and value.

Non unanimous jury decisions were rooted in racism and a desire to diminish the voices of black jurors. Fundamentally, and notwithstanding our country's awful past racism, the framers believed in individual rights and especially his/her fundamental rights of due process. The majority here found that value inside our Constitution (explicitly or not) to rule against non-unanimous decisions when deciding on a human being's freedom. As they should have.

You're not reading what I'm writing.

See your above paragraph? You're adding in a bunch of actual context that is nowhere in the Constitution. If you were a strict Constitutionalist? You would NEVER bring up outside context to make a judicial ruling. Therefore, Gorsuch is not a strict Constitutionalist. That it. That's my only point here.

I have no problems with the ruling, or the way the ruling was reached.

[seacoaster]

Price and value is the phrase of the day for Pete.

Ramos looks like a clean up job left by a weird plurality (Blackmum, Burger, Rehnquist and White) and Lewis Powell's unusual view of the incorporation doctrine. But here, with Pedro al Palurdo, it becomes a decision representing something he calls "constitutionalism." Because lefties "hate the Constitution." Back to aircraft.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Price and value is the phrase of the day for Pete.

Ramos looks like a clean up job left by a weird plurality (Blackmum, Burger, Rehnquist and White) and Lewis Powell's unusual view of the incorporation doctrine. But here, with Pedro al Palurdo, it becomes a decision representing something he calls "constitutionalism." Because lefties "hate the Constitution." Back to aircraft.

Must have been tossed around on CNBC today.

[Peter Brown]

Man, just like with MDLax, no discernment of price and value.

Non unanimous jury decisions were rooted in racism and a desire to diminish the voices of black jurors. Fundamentally, and notwithstanding our country's awful past racism, the framers believed in individual rights and especially his/her fundamental rights of due process. The majority here found that value inside our Constitution (explicitly or not) to rule against non-unanimous decisions when deciding on a human being's freedom. As they should have.

You're not reading what I'm writing.

See your above paragraph? You're adding in a bunch of actual context that is nowhere in the Constitution. If you were a strict Constitutionalist? You would NEVER bring up outside context to make a judicial ruling. Therefore, Gorsuch is not a strict Constitutionalist. That it. That's my only point here.

I have no problems with the ruling, or the way the ruling was reached.

You and I will disagree on what ‘constitutionalist’ means. For me, it’s upholding the true meaning on what the Framers intended. It’s absurd to require language then for specifics today. The body of Constitutional work at that time was to promote the individual against government tyranny. That effort is as old as dirt; our framers were the only ones who understood it and our country was founded on that overriding principle, underscored by today’s Ramos decision.

And by the sound of it from some other posters here, they clearly don’t grasp what government tyranny means. At all.

[a fan]

You and I will disagree on what ‘constitutionalist’ means. For me, it’s upholding the true meaning on what the Framers intended

What the heck kind of half-*ssed definition is this?

You understand that this means that Sotomayor is a Constitutionalist, right? She is giving her opinion on what the Framers intended.

You really need to spend more time thinking about these theories of yours, my man....



Dude. What a Constitutionalist means when it comes to a SC Justice is: a Justice ONLY uses the Constitution in his/her rulings. No mention of history, State laws, precedent, or any other document other than the Constitution.

We've NEVER had a Justice who did that. Not once in our history. They're all just giving their opinion, and providing a written explanation for said opinion.

[Peter Brown]

You and I will disagree on what ‘constitutionalist’ means. For me, it’s upholding the true meaning on what the Framers intended

What the heck kind of half-*ssed definition is this?

You understand that this means that Sotomayor is a Constitutionalist, right? She is giving her opinion on what the Framers intended.

You really need to spend more time thinking about these theories of yours, my man....



Dude. What a Constitutionalist means when it comes to a SC Justice is: a Justice ONLY uses the Constitution in his/her rulings. No mention of history, State laws, precedent, or any other document other than the Constitution.

We've NEVER had a Justice who did that. Not once in our history. They're all just giving their opinion, and providing a written explanation for said opinion.

I never thought I'd agree with Noam Chomsky, but seriously, the Internet has compromised the quality of debate. You have this remarkably rare ability to misread almost any intent and meaning of anyone's posts except of course the house liberal's who possess zero nuance.

Let's leave it at this, compliments of Thomas Jefferson, and a man who would be considered a true heretic by today's Democrats (and Sotomajor): I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

[a fan]

I never thought I'd agree with Noam Chomsky, but seriously, the Internet has compromised the quality of debate. .

Ordinarily, I'd agree.....but there's zero wiggle room on calling a Justice a Constitutionalist. There is no nuance for this claim, sorry.

You either cite the Constitution EXCLUSIVELY in your decisions....... or, you're not a Constitutionalist. Sorry. That's what that word means.

[ggait]

You either cite the Constitution EXCLUSIVELY in your decisions....... or, you're not a Constitutionalist. Sorry. That's what that word means.

Fan -- to be fair, no judge (since Hugo Black) even claims to be a strict constructionist. That phrase is just used by dumb politicians.

Not even Scalia or Thomas, who call themselves "originalists." I mean if the Constitution was so straightforward and simple, why waste all those fancy YLS and HLS degrees for a job that any google search could do.

Of course once you jump to originalism, things get more subjective.

If you really care, someday read Scalia's maj opinion in Heller which concludes (per originalism) that there's an individual 2nd amendment right. Then read Breyer's Heller dissent, which also goes full originalism. I think Breyer wins that argument easily on the merits, but he just didn't have enough votes on that day.

[MDlaxfan76]

OK. How about this: the Constitution’s 14th Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict. Two for one. Is that good enough?

No. Not even close.

My quibble is with the lie. And the lie is that Conservative Justices are strict Constitutionalists. This is a big, fat, lie. And I'm sick of that lie being bandied about, when you don't need a law degree to see that there is NO MENTION of the need for unanimous juries for a conviction anywhere in the Constitution.

I have NO problem with Gorsuch, or his ruling here. My quibble is with the lie. All judges make it up as they go, and make their own interpretation of what the INTENT of the Constitution is. Which is fine by me.

Man, just like with MDLax, no discernment of price and value.

Non unanimous jury decisions were rooted in racism and a desire to diminish the voices of black jurors. Fundamentally, and notwithstanding our country's awful past racism, the framers believed in individual rights and especially his/her fundamental rights of due process. The majority here found that value inside our Constitution (explicitly or not) to rule against non-unanimous decisions when deciding on a human being's freedom. As they should have.

no discernment of price and value?

did I miss something? Did we discuss price and value at some point???

I'm not sure what the hoopla here is but glad to see you favor something that addresses Jim Crow structures.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but would you have had the same view on this if Gorsuch or Kav had argued that the Constitution doesn't speak to non-unanimous verdicts, or, more likely, that the State's rights trumped any such quibbles?

Hope your 'true conservative' pals out by the still follow your logic too.

[njbill]

I had forgotten that Breyer also wrote a dissent in Heller. At least from my memory of the case, it was Stevens’ dissent that got most of the publicity. Maybe he had a better publicist.

In reading Breyer’s dissent now, I agree with it. He very effectively argued that even if the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to own firearms, the District of Columbia‘s law precluding the ownership of handguns in a high crime area was a reasonable restriction on that right. I guess Stevens’ dissent got more publicity because he took the issue head on, concluding that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to gun ownership.

Interestingly (at least to me), it looks like Kennedy was the swing vote. I have no idea whether he considered the case to be a close call, but of course at times he did vote with the liberal wing. My, how things would be different today if he had done so in Heller.

[a fan]

You either cite the Constitution EXCLUSIVELY in your decisions....... or, you're not a Constitutionalist. Sorry. That's what that word means.

Fan -- to be fair, no judge (since Hugo Black) even claims to be a strict constructionist. That phrase is just used by dumb politicians.

Yes! Well, and FoxNation, and Pete Brown here. The claim deserves to be mocked. It's patently not true.

And again: I'm only reacting to the claim. I have no problem with Gorsuch, or with Alito, or, or, or...... My only issue with Justices is that the arrive with the CV need for such an honored post. They all pass that mark with flying colors, imho.

If you really care, someday read Scalia's maj opinion in Heller which concludes (per originalism) that there's an individual 2nd amendment right. Then read Breyer's Heller dissent, which also goes full originalism. I think Breyer wins that argument easily on the merits, but he just didn't have enough votes on that day.

I have read that! You've likely forgotten, but you urged some of us to read that decision a few years back.

Hope you and your fam are safe and healthy....