U S Supreme Court - all related issues - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-02-2010, 10:36 AM   #76
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:25 AM
I think I have to side with the conservatives on this one.

Remaining silent for 3 hours and then saying something isn't remaining silent.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 12:19 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:25 PM
It would be fair if police also had to tell them that suspects have to at least state that they want to remain silent. Might make it easier for both sides.
If he said he understood, but then sometimes said something or nodded then I think he cannot later say that those things that incriminated him should have fallen under the right to be silent, while the rest was okay.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 11:05 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:25 AM
Quote:
Two-Thirds of Americans Can’t Name Any U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Says New FindLaw.com Survey

EAGAN, Minn., June 1 /CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM/ — Nearly two-thirds of Americans cannot name any members of the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new national survey by FindLaw.com (Lawyer, Lawyers, Attorney, Attorneys, Law, Legal Information - FindLaw), the most popular legal information website. Even as Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan awaits Senate confirmation hearings to replace retiring justice John Paul Stevens, only 35 percent of Americans can name even one member of the nation’s highest court.

Clarence Thomas is the most well known justice but could be named by only 19 percent of Americans.

Only 1 percent of Americans could correctly name all nine current members of the Supreme Court.
Wow, lack of SCOTUS knowledge isn't a problem in this forum. Applaud yourself fellow FYM'ers.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 11:14 PM   #79
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:25 AM
Explain to us how this makes sense indy

Once again you get another
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 11:20 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:25 AM
What don't you understand about a compliment?

There are probably a dozen posters here that could name all 9 justices in a second and many more that could name 7 or 8. Way, way above normal.

Jeez, get some fresh air BVS.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 11:37 PM   #81
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
What don't you understand about a compliment?

There are probably a dozen posters here that could name all 9 justices in a second and many more that could name 7 or 8. Way, way above normal.

Jeez, get some fresh air BVS.
Sorry it's just normally you use the sarcastically...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2010, 11:52 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:25 AM
I could name all 9 and most of the 9 they replaced, but because of geography, I've already been proven to be a dumb ass on another glorious FYM thread.

__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 12:08 AM   #83
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I think I have to side with the conservatives on this one.

Remaining silent for 3 hours and then saying something isn't remaining silent.
Exactly.

I don't know if Sotomayor et al are just reading precedent too strictly or the law too literally or what the deal is.

I am especially surprised at Breyer, usually he comes down on the side of law enforcement over the criminal element. And he is more of a practical than a theoretical or ideological justice like Scalia.

You pipe up, agree to be questioned, acknowledge and do this repeatedly, you are not being silent. Why did the cops keep questioning when the overwhelming balance of the time he was silent? Because he had given them some information, so they were using their interrogations training to try and get more. Its not like they took the guy, hung him upside down and pulled out finger nails until he confessed.

If the guy wanted to remain silent, he would have got up and left, told them to just bring him to his cell, or done whatever every other suspect on the face of the earth does when they want to remain silent. This just smacks of "Bucky the lawyer had a slick idea, and somehow, it worked as far as the 6th District Court of Appeals."

To my small mind, if there were no allegations of improper conduct on the part of the police in this case, then this should have been a slam dunk 9-0 for SCOTUS.

After all, the rationale for Miranda was to prevent the widespread practice of police forcibly extracting confessions, without regard to guilt or innocence. I have studied Miranda quite a bit, and I can't think of anyone outside the Supreme Court, liberal or conservative, who would see something wrong with how this guy was interrogated.

Well, since there are plenty of times where I disagree with the conservatives and some where I disagree with the liberals(none more strongly than here) I think we can all understand what Madison and the other founders saw as the necessary evil of judicial supremacy.

It is definitely an evil- but you just can't trust the branches of government accountable to the majority to restrain themselves and protect minorities.

That fact there is, despite it being a big, 80000 pound elephant argument, the only argument for judicial supremacy.

If that is not clear from naked reasoning, then things like Bush V Gore from the conservatives, and this from the liberals should make it crystal clear.

The judiciary is far from the smartest, most well reasoned, practical and effective branch of government
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2010, 12:14 AM   #84
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Wow, lack of SCOTUS knowledge isn't a problem in this forum. Applaud yourself fellow FYM'ers.
That is very scary, but not surprising at all to anyone who follows this stuff like we do.

Reminds me of what my Dad used to say.

"People think Judge Judy is a Supreme Court Justice."

More accurate and less rhetorical flourish, apparently, than I thought at the time!

Thanks for sharing, Indy!

How was the race?
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 06:08 PM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Supreme court decision

Justices Allow Search of Your Texts

Quote:
“The court must proceed with care when considering the whole concept of privacy expectations in communications made on electronic equipment owned by a government employer,” Justice Kennedy wrote in a part of the opinion joined by every member of the court except Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Cell phone and text message communications are so pervasive that some persons may consider them to be essential means or necessary instruments for self-expression, even self-identification,” Justice Kennedy went on. “On the other hand, the ubiquity of those devices has made them generally affordable, so one could counter that employees who need cell phones or similar devices for personal matters can purchase and pay for their own.”

The decision did not address the privacy rights of people employed by private companies.
know your rights

you got the right to be fired
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2010, 03:23 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Supreme court decision

Quote:
Supreme Court rules for disclosure of initiative signatures
In a case triggered by the battle over same-sex marriage in California, justices rule 8-1 that the names of those who signed ballot petitions for Proposition 8 can be made public without violating their free speech rights.

By Kathleen Hennessey, Tribune Washington Bureau

11:42 AM PDT, June 24, 2010

Reporting from Washington


In a case triggered by the battle over same-sex marriage in California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that disclosing the names of people who sign initiative petitions generally does not violate their right to free speech.

The 8-1 decision is a victory for gay rights advocates who have used the 'outing' of same-sex marriage foes as a political tactic. Same-sex marriage opponents in Washington state argued that the signatures should remain secret – like ballots – under the protection of the 1st Amendment. They also claimed that, given the controversial topic, they face a particular threat of harassment and intimidation that requires anonymity.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts came down on the side of disclosure, ruling that in most cases the benefit of public petitions outweighed the "only modest burdens" that come with the disclosure. The court left it to the lower court to decide whether privacy is warranted in this particularly controversial petition; however a majority of justices seemed unsympathetic to the argument.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision was somewhat of a surprise, given that many had believed that by taking up the case the high court had indicated it was partial to the 1st Amendment argument.

The case arrived at the court after a gay rights group said it planned to publicize the names of those who signed a Washington state petition seeking to repeal a same-sex domestic partner law. The names were public record under state law and the group, Boston-based KnowThyNeighbor.org, said the move was an attempt to generate useful discussion between political adversaries.

After the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to release the petition, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the claim, blocking the release of some 138,000 names just before election day.

The advocacy group Protect Marriage Washington appealed to the court, saying signers of the petition had reason to fear retaliation for their political views. They pointed to reports of harassment, scorn and verbal abuse lodged at those who signed initiative petitions for California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

But in his decision, Roberts wrote that plaintiffs did not present enough evidence that such concerns applied to the vast majority of petitions used to change state laws. Disclosing the names of signers can prevent fraud and promote open government, and those benefits outweigh the privacy concerns raised by the plaintiffs, Roberts wrote.

"Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures," Roberts wrote. "Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot.

Five of the justices – conservative Antonin Scalia and the four liberals on the court – indicated they did not see the need for anonymity even in the midst of heated political discussions.

In a concurring opinion signed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Sonia Sotomayor, and written by Sotomayor, the judges argue that the act of signing a petition often happens in public, has a history of being considered public record and does not carry with it the expectation of privacy.

"Even when a referendum involves a particularly controversial subject and some petition signers fear harassment from non-state actors, a State's important interests in "protect[ing] the integrity and reliability of the initiative process" remain undiminished, and the State retains significant discretion in advancing those interests," Sotomayor wrote.

one dissenting vote - Clarence Thomas

How does he get to his conclusion?
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2010, 10:35 AM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 12:25 PM
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2010, 11:03 AM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 12:25 PM
CNN

Court rules against Christian group in discrimination case

The Supreme Court has ruled against a Christian campus group that sued after a California law school denied it official recognition because the student organization limits its core membership to those who share its beliefs on faith and marriage.

At issue was the conflict between a public university's anti-discrimination policies and a private group's freedom of religion and association.

The ruling was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was on the bench a day after her husband passed away.

The law school, wrote Ginsburg, "caught in the crossfire between a group's desire to exclude and students' demand for equal access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership."

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today's decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country." He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in this contentious case.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2010, 10:40 AM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 12:25 PM

How embarrassing...

Kagan mum on Twilight debate 'Edward v. Jacob'



(NECN: Washington, D.C.) - It is the classic debate amongst Twilight fans: Edward or Jacob?

The third film in the Twilight saga, Eclipse, opened at midnight in theatres on Wednesday, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) decided to bring this bit of pop-culture into the Senate hearings concerning the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The hearings have been going on since Monday, with Kagan answering questions throughout each day.

"I guess it means you missed the midnight debut of the third Twilight movie last night," Sen. Klobuchar said. "We did not miss it in our household, and it culminated in three 15-year-old girls sleeping over at 3 a.m."

"I didn't see that," Kagan said.

"I keep wanting to ask you about the famous case of Edward v. Jacob, or The Vampire v. The Werewolf," Sen. Klobuchar said, opening her questioning with a bit of lightheartedness.

"I wish you wouldn't," Kagan said with a laugh.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2010, 12:26 PM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:25 PM
something tells me that Ms. Kagan might be on Team Bella ...





__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com