- law dawg
- 82 Comments
- 2799 Views
- AG appeals Nevada fake electors case to state Supreme Court. [TNI]
- LVCVA influencer payments hidden from taxpayers. [RJ]
- Reward for info on dog’s death hits $21.5K. [8NewsNow]
- Biden urges term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices, new ethics rules. [RJ; Nevada Current]
It’s weird how every current SCOTUS justice testified under oath about how they respect precedent and then not only do they undo 50 years of precedent, but they take the court backwards as far as respect for individual rights and now it is the far right screaming about activist judges? Really? And these aren’t activist judges? And what on earth is going on with Thomas and his wife? Anyone who argues that their behavior is acceptable isn’t being honest. Those two not only appear unstable, but they’re also complete grifters.
Please show me one piece of evidence that any of the current Republican appointed SCOTUS justice has stated that they would never overturn precedent?
You need to read better
OP here. I did not say they said they would not overturn precedent. They all testified about respecting precedent and its role in our legal system. Then they just start tossing precedent out the window. But, whatever. What’s really important here is that you read what you wanted to read and responded accordingly. Good for you, 10:45!
10:45 here
I read really good actually. The goodest reader of them all.
The original comment contained a critique of the conservative justices overturning precedent.
The point I was making is that they never made any promises to not overturn precedent, but to respect it. Respecting precedent does not preclude judges from overturning what they find to be erroneous precedent. SCOTUS has a long history of doing so, i.e. Warren Court. O.P’s comment at 11:12 clarifies that he views an interconnection between respecting precedent and “tossing precedent out the window.”
The point I was conveying is there there was never a guarantee to not overturn precedent, rather merely respect it. But respecting precedent does not include upholding, what can be deemed as, erroneous precedent.
I think there are plenty of critiques to make about whether it was appropriate to overturn the cases they did; but, I do not see a case to be made that these Justices somehow lied under oath – which is the unmistakable point that OP was attempting to make.
Just my two cents though.
@11:51 that’s not what your original comment said. Just my two cents though.
I commented on the clear inference in OP’s post. The lesser minds could not understand the inference contained in my comment and OP’s comment. So I then I provided a detailed explanation for the lesser mind. Simple.
Just my two cents though.
No you didn’t. You didn’t read to comprehend. You read what you wanted to read and commented accordingly. Then when other commenters pointed that out, you now claim you were commenting on the “inference” for the “lesser mind.”
Honestly, their behavior IS acceptable. Last time I checked SCOTUS overturned precedent all the time. Thank goodness.
Because if “separate but equal” were still law . . . .
OP here. It’s kinda weird how this is a legal blog allegedly read by lawyers who should know how to read good and stuff and yet my comment is repeatedly misquoted. I did not say anything about precedent and their behavior. The comment about precedent came first and I noted how all the judges testified that they respected precedent. The behavior comment came after my sentence about Clarence and Ginni which should suggest to you, dear reader, that I was referring to the behavior of Clarence and Ginni being grifters. But, like 10:45, good for you, 11:08.
Just like you, kiddo . . . . I can make two points in the same post.
You dont know anything about Clarance and Ginni. Only what the MSM tells you. Dare you to do some actual research and exercised some critical thinking.
Do yOuR OwN rEsEaRsH! What the fuck kind of research did you do? Did you go on a website and read something? Did your legal research class teach you that’s research? Do you know Clarence and Ginni? Did you call them up and conduct an interview for your rEsEaRcH? And BTW we do know that Ginni Thomas is on the board of Council for National Policy and we know about her text messages on January 6th. Those are objective facts. Not opinion. Not something you can go rEsEaRcH, but actual facts.
Pretty sure that in this day and age “facts” need to be researched as well as theories.
So, do yo thang, Kiddo.
Clearly you missed the point 🤡
Just following your lead, amiga.
No you weren’t, amiga. Notice the font in lower case and upper case? Okay, now go on the internet and do your rEsEaRcH and you’ll see that I was mocking you. Troll.
Did u attend Zoolander’s school for kids who can’t read good?
No, but I was once involved in a freak gasoline fight accident.
Hahahahaha chocolate mocha latte!!
I’m not at all surprised to see any conservative justice do what they (collectively) have been signaling in dissents for three decades.
The only thing about finding out that Thomas has rich benefactors that surprises me is how long it took to surface.
It’s all a farce. That’s not new, this is just exposing it for what it’s always been (through every “political” orientation the Court has ever had).
Pack the Court.
Pack the Court.
Dredd scott and separate but equal used to be precedent too. And chattel slavery.
The difference is that Dredd Scott and separate but equal limited the rights of people. As did chattel slavery. Roe did not. Roe limited the government and expanded individual liberty.
Yes, supreme court term limits. No more than 2 appointments per term so no more than 4 in 8 years. 18-year terms on a cycle so we get a new appt every 2 years.
Article III, Section 1 would like to have a word with you.
As if there would ever be a consensus to get this to pass. They are pandering all the day long.
GMAFB!
🙄
There’s some scholarship that demonstrates serving during good behavior was designed to end service at the pleasure of the crown, not to necessarily have anything to say about fixed terms.
What fucking crown? That “scholarship” is ridiculous and you are also for bring it up. During good behavior means only one thing in the US, lifetime, unless impeached.
You realize that the history of our founding was to divorce ourselves from the British crown, yes? The historical analogue was judges serving at the pleasure of the crown, or at the pleasure of the appointing authority. But yes, let’s ignore the history.
History doesn’t matter. Just ask the Supreme Court about the Second Amendment. Hell, even the text doesn’t matter with the Second Amendment, as the Court just entirely ignores half of the text–the half they don’t like about a well regulated militia.
YOU need to do some research about 2A. LMAO.
Context is everything and well regulated militia (as you understand it) has nothing to to with the right. Beter research what that meant in the 18th century Kiddo.
Clearly the founders were talking about AR-15s in the 18th century
Knock it off. The mechanism matters not. An AR is no more dangerous than any other firearm or even an 18th c musket with a .50 ball ammo.
Just stop with the left wing talking points nonsense already. The founders never contemplated abortion on demand either, or you can guarantee they would’ve outlawed that shit.
I’m not entering the fray on the 2A stuff, but to say the founders would have outlawed abortions is incorrect. Abortifacients were often used, to varying degrees of success (roots, herbs, teas, etc.). While of course there was some opposition on moral grounds in certain colonies to the widespread practice, most generally accepted the practice as long as it was before “quickening” – anywhere from 16-25 weeks (which not-so-coincidentally aligns with the Roe v. Wade restriction).
“widespread practice” “generally accepted”
LMFAO@U
You fucking wish. Nobody believes that abortion widely occurred and you certainly have no evidence.
I love when men comment on things they know nothing about. I would be willing to be good money that you have no idea how periods work, let alone the long-standing history of women using abortifacients throughout human history. Further, our founding fathers were generally not prudish religious whackos, and it never fails to amaze me that so many think they were.
Far be it for me to point out the obvious flaws in your arguments. But, from a strictly critical analysis. . .
There is a clearly HUGE difference between “long-standing history . . . using abortifacients” and “widespread practice” “generally accepted”.
Also, your assumption that anyone opposing abortion is a “prudish religious whacko” also lacks substance.
Finally, I raised 2 daughters (and 2 sons) and have been married or 30+ years. So kindly take your condescension and pretentious blather and shove it up your ass.
Tell me you’ve never shot an AR without telling me you’ve never shot an AR.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Try googling slippery elm for starters.
6:33, I don’t think OC (opposing commenter) was saying abortifacents weren’t used or weren’t known. There have always been the old wives’ tales passed down by old wives about how you get to be an old wife/widow and not, say, dead in childbirth. Just perhaps that the use of slippery elm, among others, wasn’t something that was freely announced or generally acceptable to admit to using among polite company. See “how to avoid becoming your husband’s missing/late wife”.
Of course, this also presumes that the measure of community acceptance was whether the men in the community willingly and publicly accepted it.
OC here. Thanks for the clarification. All I was doing was pointing out the weakness and flaws in the very clearly highly emotional postings of 633.
How about just a rule against taking bribes in the form of $200k recreational vehicles, fancy vacations, etc? Impose an absolute cap of say $25k per year on outside income from speaking and writing. No gifts over $100.00 beyond that. I don’t care if someone wants to buy them lunch or a drink, but that’s it.
Well, shit. Did I miss the exposure of the quid pro quo? Who, what, where and when?
Last time I checked that was a prerequisite for a “bribe”.
That’s right. I’m sure that Harlan Crow and others were just being nice guys and had no expectation of receiving anything in return. I’m expecting my free motor home and vacation trips any day now, because they’re just nice that way.
This is just silly.
Expectation ≠ either a quid or a quo.
Yes, because those who are going to make and accept a bribe are going to be gentlemanly enough to memorialize it in a written contract. The Roberts court seems to have this narrow conceptualization of a bribe and it’s wrong.
Again, where is the quid pro quo? Cant have a “bribe” without it.
Prove it up or STFU.
I give gifts to my friends all the time and its all relative. I have had a friend for decades who cant afford it and I pay for he and I to travel to see a band that we both love a couple of times every tour. The Gorge, Red Rocks, MSG, we have been there and done that, on my dime.
If I was a billionaire, I absolutely would gift an RV.
Do you think Justices trade votes?
If I was a billionaire, I would include white Gucci loafers with all RV gifts for my friends. The gift letter would require that said friends wear said white Gucci loafers while driving the gifted RV.
Have you not heard of the Loper Bright decision? WTF? Harlan Crow got exactly what he paid for.
My question is this: do you think all this has impacted Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence? You know, his remarkably consistent jurisprudence since his emplacement on the Court. You know the jurisprudence were he isn’t afraid to stray from his other conservative colleagues i.e. Gonzalez v. Raich, the recent Rahimi decision?
I think it does. Justice Thomas complained in 2000 that he wasn’t getting paid enough and might have to retire because the SCTOTUS salaries were too low.
If you were a billionaire donor and would prefer to keep Justice Thomas on the bench rather than have him retire, then giving gifts would be a great way to keep him on the bench making favorable rulings.
Regardless, it’s bananas to me that SCOTUS isn’t held to the same ethics rules as literally every other federal judge. That should be the minimum standard.
Sorry but a $200k RV is pretty meager, as far as RVs go.
Use 2024 dollars, not 1999.
It was an 8 year old Prevost, that went for $267k. That would be $500k today. But the prevost would likely be even more.
From my little libertarian heart. The only time I have seen liberals/democrats support restriction on the Supreme Court is when they lost power. For decades they cheered super legislating and disregard for stare decisis because they benefitted from the arrangement.
Too often we had 5 lawyers creating new constitutional amendments for a nation of 300+ Million without ever having asked the people if they wanted it. In the process they ignored constitutional features designed to reduce friction and garner widespread support in a large nation like ours before major changes are made. The tyranny of the ultra-minority has ended, and I am filled with joy as the strike down one sacred cow after another. June and early July has become my World Cup Finals. If they get to Whitaker I will get a tattoo with their names.
I’ m not trying to convince you of anything and know I may have lost you as a reader, but I just want you to know how happy I am.
Amen. From the bottom of my heart. Amen.
Love this
Tyranny of the ultra-minority? Okay Jan. Have you seen the polling on Roe? Also, libertarianism is such bullshit. You’re a libertarian until you’re not which is usually right about the time you need something.
Your vitriol only makes me happier. Watching the constitutional abomination of Roe v Wade get struck down after so many tries is heartwarming. If Roe v. Wade gets codified into a constitutional amendment, then we should all respect the will of the people who have exercised their right to governance. That is how it is supposed to work. How we get there matters because all it takes is for five lawyers to go the other way to reveal the lie Roe has been living for decades. PS. the only thing I need is for them to strike down Whitaker. Love, 2:46.
Your wife hates you.
We took a vote, and it looks like 2:46 is still well liked. Vote was 6-3.
I agree with James Madison on this. Although Federalist Paper 51 appears to be long forgotten, its was so very prescient. It’s high time for the legislative and executive branches to place necessary checks & balances on overreach by the judiciary. At a minimum, having a standard & binding code of ethics for SCOTUS justices to comply with doesn’t seem like that big of an ask.
I agree, but what’s the enforcement mechanism? The risk, of course, is that putting the partisan branches in charge risks descent into prosecutions like the investigations of Benghazi, Hunter Biden’s laptop and Hillary’s emails. Do we have a Special Counsel? Who appoints? The President? How do we avoid a Special Counsel like Ken Starr?
The enforcement is impeachment. Which can be used at anytime for any reason. Which IMO makes an ethics code irrelevant.
But let’s be honest that we’re not going to impeach Justice Thomas for his alleged misconduct.
Then why are we discussing this? Allegations mean nothing.
LVCVA
The convention folks do appear to operate a slush fund, sometimes necessary for marketing, but more often indulging self importance.
But it’s hard to understand how a governmental unit can claim a “trade secret” which is nothing more than a payment.
Hey, if the Tulsa CVA finds out that we’re paying influencers then they’re going to do it and suddenly everyone is in Tulsa instead of Vegas.
What if the Harper Valley PTA finds out?
HV PTA
Then you will have to wear a longer skirt.
Hahahaha got it!
The real “term limits” conversation should be about CONGRESS (which will never ever happen for obvious reasons, but one can dream!). Calling someone a career politician is a fancy way of saying they are a “prostitute”!
Congress has built-in term limits. Reps have to face the voters every 2 years. I mean, if you oppose someone that badly, get your shit together and run against them. If voter apathy is your complaint, perhaps you need to be more inspirational. A few percentage points bump in voter participation can land “the right candidate” most offices. If you can’t convince the voters, maybe the problem isn’t actually the incumbent.
Yes, the problem is not McConnell, Pelosi, Biden, etc. and all the other politicans (on BOTH sides of the aisle) that accrue 10 figure net worths on a meager 150k/year salary over the span of decades.
they are better investors than you. *wink wink*
You can’t ever be voted out of the Supreme Court. It’s very apples and oranges.
if term limits are good for supreme court why isnt the president pushing for them in the federal district courts and lower federal courts of appeal?
That would be nice. We can all agree that this president isn’t getting any of this done in the next ~6 months. It’s just posturing. But, yes, lifetime federal courts of appeal judges are likely more impactful and definitely held less to account for their rulings, publicly.
Agenda item for tomorrow’s NV Bar Elder Law Section meeting: “Outreach from Probate & Trust Section (and Judge Sturman) for joint statement opposing removal of probate from state bar exam.”
Yeah, this was discussed in the probate section meeting. Probate and trust law implicates many other areas of law. It is very much to the detriment of the public to not test this. Keeping it on the test incentivizes students to take the class in law school. The fewer topics on the bar exam, the more students will take fluff, bullshit classes like Law & Gender, Law & Media, Law & Skibbidy Rizz their 2L and 3L years. The Academy has proven to be a VERY ineffective and inattentive gatekeeper.
What morons are proposing these changes to the bar exam?
UNLV. Dean Grinwald at the law school. The state bar. The people who benefit from growing the number of attorneys running through Boyd’s mill or paying dues.