Profile for Approval polls and such located here... [Link]
The Supreme Court orginally had 6 members from 1789 to 1807. The court gained a member (7 members) in 1807. Then it gained an 8th and 9th member in 1837. A 10th member was added in 1863. But in 1866, Congress passed a law declaring that the next three justices to retire won't be replaced. One justice (Justice Catron) retired in 1866 and another (Justice Wayne) retired in 1867. But in 1869, a law was passed adding a 9th Supreme Court seat, that was filled in 1870. This size has remained since 1869.
Container for the Justice Catron seat: [Link]
Container for the Justice Wayne seat: [Link]
I couldn't sleep Saturday night/Sunday morning mostly because I kept surfin' the Youtubes for funny skateboarder/narc fight videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yMl60C-zXI
I couldn't sleep Saturday night/Sunday morning mostly because I kept surfin' the Youtubes for funny skateboarder/narc fight videos.
What exactly is the objection to skateboarding? Over the course of the last 25-30 years, that is something which has managed to totally elude me. I don't understand why someone cares if someone else is riding a skateboard.
What exactly is the objection to skateboarding? Over the course of the last 25-30 years, that is something which has managed to totally elude me. I don't understand why someone cares if someone else is riding a skateboard.
What exactly is the objection to skateboarding? Over the course of the last 25-30 years, that is something which has managed to totally elude me. I don't understand why someone cares if someone else is riding a skateboard.
Some people firmly believe that allowing kids to enjoy themselves leads to juvenile delinquency.
Hikikomori Blitzkrieg!: What exactly is the objection to skateboarding? Over the course of the last 25-30 years, that is something which has managed to totally elude me. I don't understand why someone cares if someone else is riding a skateboard.
Some people firmly believe that allowing kids to enjoy themselves leads to juvenile delinquency.
This may sound premature, but if the SC strikes the bill in its entirety, is there any hope for the VRA?
I mean seriously. There is no legal justification for striking the entire bill, so if it happens, it is pretty clear we are stuck with the most activist court possible, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
This may sound premature, but if the SC strikes the bill in its entirety, is there any hope for the VRA?
I mean seriously. There is no legal justification for striking the entire bill, so if it happens, it is pretty clear we are stuck with the most activist court possible, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
There is no legal justification for striking the entire bill, so if it happens, it is pretty clear we are stuck with the most activist court possible, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
It seems like only Scalia and presumably Thomas were eager to strike the whole bill. That said, we'll find out in June if there is an outer boundary on what this activist court could do. If the court were to specifically strike down the Medicaid expansion, the effects would be far deeper even than striking down the Affordable Care Act.
TX DEM: There is no legal justification for striking the entire bill, so if it happens, it is pretty clear we are stuck with the most activist court possible, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
It seems like only Scalia and presumably Thomas were eager to strike the whole bill. That said, we'll find out in June if there is an outer boundary on what this activist court could do. If the court were to specifically strike down the Medicaid expansion, the effects would be far deeper even than striking down the Affordable Care Act.
It's only mid April and already I feel like the June release of the decision in HHS v. Florida is dragging on forever. I want to read every word of it from beginning to end so badly. I find Commerce Clause jurisprudence so fascinating. I really hope there are multiple concurrences and dissents. Scalia's, as always, will be particularly entertaining to read, especially is he ends up in the minority.
It's only mid April and already I feel like the June release of the decision in HHS v. Florida is dragging on forever. I want to read every word of it from beginning to end so badly. I find Commerce Clause jurisprudence so fascinating. I really hope there are multiple concurrences and dissents. Scalia's, as always, will be particularly entertaining to read, especially is he ends up in the minority.
The Supreme Court has released audio of the oral arguments on Arizona's immigration law:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Supreme-Court-Oral-Argument-on-Arizonas-Immigration-Law/10737430228-3/
The Supreme Court has released audio of the oral arguments on Arizona's immigration law:
A couple of divided opinions handed down today, along seemingly odd lines:
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter
Issue: Whether the government is required to pay all of the contract support costs incurred by a tribal contractor under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq., where Congress has imposed an express statutory cap on the appropriations available to pay such costs and the Secretary cannot pay all such costs for all tribal contractors without exceeding the statutory cap.
Ruling: 5-4. The federal government must pay each Tribe's contract support costs in full even when Congress has put a ceiling on those costs.
Sotomayor writing for the majority, consisting of herself and Justices Kagan, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas.
Roberts wrote the dissent for himself, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito.
Williams v. Illinois
Issue: Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts violates the Confrontation Clause, when the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts.
Ruling: 5-4 (Really, 4-4-1) The form of testimony in this case does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Alito wrote an opinion for 4 justices: himself, Roberts, Kennedy and Breyer. Thomas concurs in the judgment only. Kagan wrote a dissent for herself, Scalia, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
A couple of divided opinions handed down today, along seemingly odd lines:
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter
Issue: Whether the government is required to pay all of the contract support costs incurred by a tribal contractor under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq., where Congress has imposed an express statutory cap on the appropriations available to pay such costs and the Secretary cannot pay all such costs for all tribal contractors without exceeding the statutory cap.
Ruling: 5-4. The federal government must pay each Tribe's contract support costs in full even when Congress has put a ceiling on those costs.
Sotomayor writing for the majority, consisting of herself and Justices Kagan, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas.
Roberts wrote the dissent for himself, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito.
Williams v. Illinois
Issue: Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts violates the Confrontation Clause, when the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts.
Ruling: 5-4 (Really, 4-4-1) The form of testimony in this case does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Alito wrote an opinion for 4 justices: himself, Roberts, Kennedy and Breyer. Thomas concurs in the judgment only. Kagan wrote a dissent for herself, Scalia, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
The Court has added today as a decision day, in addition to its normal decision days, i.e. Monday and Thursday, and "one or more" opinions are expected to be handed down today. Not necessarily an indication that a ruling in any particular case will be handed down - more likely it just means they're in a rush to get the rest of their decisions out before the term ends. But I thought it was noteworthy enough to post nonetheless.
The Court has added today as a decision day, in addition to its normal decision days, i.e. Monday and Thursday, and "one or more" opinions are expected to be handed down today. Not necessarily an indication that a ruling in any particular case will be handed down - more likely it just means they're in a rush to get the rest of their decisions out before the term ends. But I thought it was noteworthy enough to post nonetheless.
1. Roberts
2. Kennedy
3. Breyer
4. Stevens
5. Alito
6. Sotomayor
7. Scalia
8. Ginsburg
9. Thomas
Looking back, I have to wonder what in the hell I was thinking when coming up with these inconsistent and completely random rankings. Or why I was apparently tolerant of Roberts at one point. Any attempt at a recollection is obscured by a cloud of smoke now.
Jason: 1. Roberts
2. Kennedy
3. Breyer
4. Stevens
5. Alito
6. Sotomayor
7. Scalia
8. Ginsburg
9. Thomas
Looking back, I have to wonder what in the hell I was thinking when coming up with these inconsistent and completely random rankings. Or why I was apparently tolerant of Roberts at one point. Any attempt at a recollection is obscured by a cloud of smoke now.
Perhaps a cloud of smoke was responsible for that list in the first place?
I actually don't think Roberts is a raving partisan, nor do I think Kennedy is. I think both of them do try to adhere to judicial principles they believe in. On health care, for instance, I honestly believe what Neal Katyal (former solicitor general who argued the ACA cases in the appellate courts) said the other day, i.e. that they're probably both genuinely torn between conflicting principles on the decision, and that they both probably consider it the hardest vote they'll ever have to cast at the Court. I don't think either of them is just going to vote a certain way to stick it to Obama/liberals, or because they're partisan Republicans. I also have at least some respect for Thomas's consistency and candor about not giving a damn about precedent. The complaints about Scalia being much more a political activist and advocate than a jurist interested in principled consistency, however, are all true. I haven't formed a solid opinion about Alito in that regard yet.
Perhaps a cloud of smoke was responsible for that list in the first place?
I actually don't think Roberts is a raving partisan, nor do I think Kennedy is. I think both of them do try to adhere to judicial principles they believe in. On health care, for instance, I honestly believe what Neal Katyal (former solicitor general who argued the ACA cases in the appellate courts) said the other day, i.e. that they're probably both genuinely torn between conflicting principles on the decision, and that they both probably consider it the hardest vote they'll ever have to cast at the Court. I don't think either of them is just going to vote a certain way to stick it to Obama/liberals, or because they're partisan Republicans. I also have at least some respect for Thomas's consistency and candor about not giving a damn about precedent. The complaints about Scalia being much more a political activist and advocate than a jurist interested in principled consistency, however, are all true. I haven't formed a solid opinion about Alito in that regard yet.
Instead of tv networks showing the footage of the SCOTUS group photo in front of the red curtain non-stop with talking about the court, it would be much more fun and entertaining if they would put the nine judges into the boxes like during the opening sequence of The Brady Bunch.
Instead of tv networks showing the footage of the SCOTUS group photo in front of the red curtain non-stop with talking about the court, it would be much more fun and entertaining if they would put the nine judges into the boxes like during the opening sequence of The Brady Bunch.
At the risk of sounding like a rambling stoner or something, does anyone know how the judges of the Supreme Court came to be called justices? I'm assuming it comes from England somehow. I bring it up because it struck me the other day that it actually sounds kind of pretentiouus if you think about it, as if these nine people are the very embodiment of the overrarching goal of the entire field of law. It's kind of like if we referred to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as "freedoms" or something.
At the risk of sounding like a rambling stoner or something, does anyone know how the judges of the Supreme Court came to be called justices? I'm assuming it comes from England somehow. I bring it up because it struck me the other day that it actually sounds kind of pretentiouus if you think about it, as if these nine people are the very embodiment of the overrarching goal of the entire field of law. It's kind of like if we referred to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as "freedoms" or something.
At the risk of sounding like a rambling stoner or something, does anyone know how the judges of the Supreme Court came to be called justices? I'm assuming it comes from England somehow. I bring it up because it struck me the other day that it actually sounds kind of pretentiouus if you think about it, as if these nine people are the very embodiment of the overrarching goal of the entire field of law. It's kind of like if we referred to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as "freedoms" or something.
Dude, like, even the word "justice" gets funny when you say it a lot. Justice. Jusstiss. Juuhhstiss. Just ice. Hahaha.
Brandonius Maximus: At the risk of sounding like a rambling stoner or something, does anyone know how the judges of the Supreme Court came to be called justices? I'm assuming it comes from England somehow. I bring it up because it struck me the other day that it actually sounds kind of pretentiouus if you think about it, as if these nine people are the very embodiment of the overrarching goal of the entire field of law. It's kind of like if we referred to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as "freedoms" or something.
Dude, like, even the word "justice" gets funny when you say it a lot. Justice. Jusstiss. Juuhhstiss. Just ice. Hahaha.
At the risk of sounding like a rambling stoner or something, does anyone know how the judges of the Supreme Court came to be called justices?
Traditionally, a judge needs a degree in law and experience practicing law. A Justice does not.
Brandonius Maximus: At the risk of sounding like a rambling stoner or something, does anyone know how the judges of the Supreme Court came to be called justices?
Traditionally, a judge needs a degree in law and experience practicing law. A Justice does not.
D:6454
