Lawyerly law stuff that's interesting


#81

The very fact that the Supreme Court can do… basically anything isn’t explicitly written into the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says they can nullify laws. Jefferson even expressed concern about it.

Textualism is just pedantry. Objectivism isn’t perfect, but at least it realizes human beings aren’t God Himself.
And one could argue even God didn’t exactly do a good job writing out His laws since it’s been 3500 years and people still don’t agree on a lot of them.

Edit: Consider say… the First Amendment. As written literally nothing speech-wise could ever be illegal. Ever.
Let’s highlight the parts that don’t work:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free speech zones, libel, slander, child porn… though techincally anything you don’t SAY isn’t necessarily covered unless it’s “press”. So start a newspaper or something. Print your kiddie porn and death threats on a leaflet and pass em out. There are about a hundred exemptions to the first alone, when it clearly says there cannot be any.

2nd Amendment? Restricted all the time, despite “shall not be infringed.” I can’t buy an RPG. Textually I should be able to as well a SAW and landmines if I was so inclined. But Congress passed laws infringing on those rights. I also can’t carry in a school. Or in Congress or the White House. Clear infringement.

It just isn’t how law works or has ever worked. I get and even respect to some extent the idea of “we can’t make the law say what it doesn’t actually say.” Except, of course, that the people who say that always find exceptions for the shit they like, so we’re back at inconsistent enforcement based on the whims of the people enforcing it.


#82

More from Goresuch. Great choice by trump, he’ll fit right in.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution requires states to list same-sex parents on their child’s birth certificates. The decision was predictable: In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court held that states must extend “the constellation of [marital] benefits” to same-sex couples, and specifically mandated equal treatment with regard to “birth and death certificates.” Yet Justice Neil Gorsuch refused to accept this principle, dissenting from the court’s ruling along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Gorsuch’s dissent is legally incoherent and factually inaccurate—an amateurish effort to justify anti-gay discrimination through deeply dishonest analysis and an outright untruth.


#83

Having read the actual dissent, that’s not really an accurate portrayal of it.


#84

End result: Basically nothing. Apparently cops in 2012 couldn’t have known this was unconstitutional, even though everyone knew it was since the first smart phone took a picture.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you have a badge then it’s a panacea for everything.

Upside is that now it is established, so in the future you’ll be able to sue if they pull this crap.

Also (part of the same thread)

WTF. So… it’s literally impossible for cops to know anything? You can directly tell them and they’re not considered to know it. Are they fucking house cats?


#85

#86

You win one internet.


#87

#88

Of course it’s an Albertan…


#89

And in case the non-Canadians here don’t know it, Alberta is Canada’s Texas.


#90

I always thought it was more like Canada’s Montana.


#91

#92


Lost track of what other thread it was in, but this seems the right place for it.


#93

I was sure this was satire, but maybe not. eeek


#94

Whether your fav senator comes from the right or left, you can take comfort in knowing that they all share utter disdain for the First Amendment. Except this time, it’s not the hate speech that makes you cry, but political speech that undermines an ally.

Much as it’s understandable that AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, pushed this bill as hard as possible, as it’s certainly in Israel’s interest to do everything possible to eliminate support for the BDS boycott, this is just not allowed under the First Amendment. Not even a little bit. And that should have been too obvious for any United States Senator to ignore. But obviously not.


#95

#96

That is one of the greatest legal documents to ever exist.


#97





#98

This thread… holy crap. All the same judge.


#99

Is his name actually “Kreep”? Amazing.


#100

Well since he is in San Diego, and certain judges positions in that city are elected, I have the perfect campaign song for his opponent.

Because nothing worse than being a loser in the courts.