Law Justice Kennedy Retires!!! New SCOTUS justice to be announced 9PM Monday, July 9th

[BKMMAFAN]

@waiguoren

Here's some dicta in Gibbons v Ogden which helps illustrate my point on the ICC.

Justice Marshall, writing for majority:

"It is not intended to say that these words [ICC clause] comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary." pg 22 at 194

"The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated, and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State. The genius and character of the whole government seem to be that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally, but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself." (my emphasis). at 195

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/1/case.html

 

[IGIT]

I feel it necessary, too people nowadays think if you make a disparaging comment in the direction of the left you must be a full on Trump bot.

I've voted for literally one Republican my entire life. For a city position.

hiya Fugazy,

understood.

i guess i'm unclear what your point was.

one of your co-workers seemed to grasp that Mr. Trump has appointed folks to serve his administration...and some these folks have gone on to face Federal indictments.

the other one seemed to have hope that, (all evidence to contrary, if you look at the wreckage of Mr. Trump's cabinet appointments) the POTUS would at least appoint someone competent to the office.

i get that you don't like the way younger women dress and style themselves.

- IGIT

 

[My Spot]

Disclaimer:

***I did not vote for Trump***

I have been sincerely embarrased by the behavior of the people in my very liberal workplace.

Today two sad, self loathing white people at my place of work went on and on how it was a terrible day because of this retirement.

And then I heard this actual quote

"Well, maybe, he (Trump) will appoint someone so bad, it would be like criminal, and he can get impeached, and then the judges will get impeached. Judges can be impeached right?"

Other lib reply:

"Well yeah, but it might not be that bad. I mean, like it'll be terrible but they will probably be qualified, like you know, a really bad plumber, but he is still a plumber"

-said the non-gender conforming "woman" with many face piercings and half shaved head to the other lib.

To which all I could think was, Really? That's honestly what you expect to happen?

I'd bet anything they didn't know about the Electoral College before November 2016.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

hi ho Kong!

his contention (i think) is that the conservative justice's bias is towards the "truth" - that is to say, the original intent of the framers. because their zeal is pure, their only bias would a "good" kind of bias.

the liberal justices allow their actual, human emotions and feelings interfere with their jurisprudence. liberal justices are not focused on the meaning of the constitution (circa 1787) and instead are ruled by their own, personal biases.

the premise of this argument is conservative judges have a special insight into how James Madison would have viewed an issue like net neutrality in the late 1700s.

also, waiguoren's presmise assumes that "originalism" itself is not a bias.

- IGIT

Hey buddy how you been.

I can't really add to your post because it's so spot on. Nice seeing you here.

The bias works when it about issues he's invested in

 

[Fugazy]

hiya Fugazy,

understood.

i guess i'm unclear what your point was.

one of your co-workers seemed to grasp that Mr. Trump has appointed folks to serve his administration...and some these folks have gone on to face Federal indictments.

the other one seemed to have hope that, (all evidence to contrary, if you look at the wreckage of Mr. Trump's cabinet appointments) the POTUS would at least appoint someone competent to the office.

i get that you don't like the way younger women dress and style themselves.

- IGIT

There's context to this happening that is outside of how much I can explain in this format. The people in question who were having this convo made themselves look foolish. Ig you'll just have to take my word for it.

 

[waiguoren]

Sure.

Many provisions in our various Civil Rights Acts which prohibit discrimination in places of public accommodation are based on Wickard's (and progeny) expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause; ie, any commercial activity taken in the aggregate can have an 'effect' on ICC, such that Congress can regulate it.

See Atlanta v US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States

If a mom/pop hotel, restaurant, shop, etc wanted to prohibit black from doing business, they couldn't because their actions could be considered to effect ICC; thus Title II of the Civil Rights Act of '64 was upheld. I could easily see 5 originalists reversing that on originalist/textualist grounds (there is case law from the 1830's from CJ John Marshall which went on at length about how the ICC was to be viewed as granting states more power over most commerce as opposed to our expansive interpretation today) (I posted it here years ago, I can try to find it later)

In my view, Wickard was an unjustifiable usurpation of state authority. Also, there is no reasonable connection to be drawn between Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ICC, and I agree that Title II could be overturned on originalist/textualist grounds. I think you and I would agree, however, that this would have no appreciable consequence in actual public accommodations. I believe that Title II would be ratified easily as a constitutional amendment.

 

[Gregolian]

Lmao. Why tho?

I really REALLY wanted to post:
"Well, you're into fashion and BOSS made the originals so....."

 

[waiguoren]

@waiguoren

Here's some dicta in Gibbons v Ogden which helps illustrate my point on the ICC.

Justice Marshall, writing for majority:

"It is not intended to say that these words [ICC clause] comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary." pg 22 at 194

"The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated, and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State. The genius and character of the whole government seem to be that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally, but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself." (my emphasis). at 195

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/1/case.html

I think my response above addresses this.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

I heard LeBron is a free agent.

I thought he was King James. Isn't Judge a demotion?

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I think my response above addresses this.

Post-Lochner, a reverse of Wickard could/would invalidate innumerable federal laws centered around current ICC interpretation. It would be one of the biggest changes in US jurisprudence in a century, for sure.

Could you respond to Taney's opinion in Dred Scott? Even if you agree with his reasoning (I agree its sound if you NEVER stray from originalist textualism), would you admit that it was clearly a ruling based on the sole theory of judicial interpretation shared by a majority of current SCOTUS Justices (assuming Trump appoints a Thomas clone) It's in post 299

 

[SaiWa]

I'd bet anything they didn't know about the Electoral College before November 2016.

I once explained the electoral college to an acquaintance.. It was a few days before the 2016 election. He said something that was puzzling and then I asked him if he knew what the electoral college was in the election. Once I realized he didn't I explained it to him. Dude's a pilot.. for Delta...

yeah... there's lots of them out there...

 

[My Spot]

I once explained the electoral college to an acquaintance.. It was a few days before the 2016 election. He said something that was puzzling and then I asked him if he knew what the electoral college was in the election. Once I realized he didn't I explained it to him. Dude's a pilot.. for Delta...

yeah... there's lots of them out there...

That's what gets me. These are smart, college-educated adults who didn't know what it was.

 

[second sight]

Wasn't Kennedy the deciding vote on the ACA that determined the tax wasn't a tax but was a fine that wasn't really a fine either when that was in front of them? I can't remember the details but I always thought even though he was a Reagan appointee he was more middle than almost anyone else.

No

 

[second sight]

Where can you get those MAGA hats, I’m climbing aboard this train

 

[Strychnine]

They don't have the numbers to do so.

Let me rephrase while quoting you.....

They don't have the BA//S to do so.

 

[GetTheseHands]

 

[Madmick]

He's a pretty liberal republican from what I remember. I don't follow politics closely anymore. Repubicans nominated another "turncoat" not too long ago. Man my memory is bad.

The determination to revisit Roe comes amid renewed speculation about the possible retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, which would give anti-abortion forces their best opportunity in a generation to weaken or strike down the ruling that made abortion legal. The Ronald Reagan appointee has ruled in favor of abortion rights, most notably by switching his vote during deliberations in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 decision that upheld the Roe precedent.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/15/abortion-trump-supreme-court-roe-wade-473601

If Republicans try to re-outlaw abortion via the SCOTUS every dream that @VivaRevolution has had for every US election will come true.

 

[GetTheseHands]

That's what gets me. These are smart, college-educated adults who didn't know what it was.

The smartest people in the room who have charts and graphs to prove it don't understand we are not a democracy

 

[GetTheseHands]

If Republicans try to re-outlaw abortion via the SCOTUS every dream that @VivaRevolution has had for every US election will come true.

Appealing Roe vs Wade doesn't automatically outlaw abortion, the decision goes back to the states like it always should have

 

[waiguoren]

If Republicans try to re-outlaw abortion via the SCOTUS every dream that @VivaRevolution has had for every US election will come true.

Is it your view that overturning Roe would outlaw abortion nationwide? That's false.