U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,105
I don't sit in a liquor store, I don't sit for a "little while" in a liquor store, I don't shake anyone's hand in a liquor store, other than the labels I don't read in a liquor store, I don't sing, I don't listen to a sermon and I don't pray in a liquor store and who said anything about a party?
But who says the shaking hands has to be done without gloves-if it’s not changed to elbow bumps anyway. The singing without masks?

Fact is that no outbreak has been centered around any kind of mass anyway
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,313
The suit does not affect only Catholic churches. It was also brought by Jewish communities, and would surely also affect evangelical megachurches.

The outbreak in New York began in a New Rochelle synagogue.

https://tinyurl.com/yyzah9yx
A recent outbreak in New Haven was traced to a Hispanic evangelical church.

Here's outbreaks traced to all sorts of churches
https://tinyurl.com/yye9xc6e

https://tinyurl.com/y6pbeo62
Here are 2 Catholic churches in NY with outbreaks.
 
Last edited:

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,719
The suit does not affect only Catholic churches. It was also brought by Jewish communities, and would surely also affect evangelical megachurches.

The outbreak in New York began in a New Rochelle synagogue.

[/URL]

A recent outbreak in New Haven was traced to. Hispanic evangelical church.

Here's an outbreaks traced to all sorts of churches
https://tinyurl.com/yye9xc6e
April - Monroe mayor asks Solid Rock Church to stop holding in-person services

August -

Today -
 

allezfred

Lipinski Stole My Catchphrase
Staff member
Messages
57,584

ilovepaydays

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,027
Would Louis' proposal to leave it up to the states even work? Up until now, I always wondered how the Supreme Court can say it's unconstitutional while saying it's up to the state's. But if it's constitutional, how can any state be allowed to refuse to marry a same-sex couple? That sounds like discrimination. And doesn't a marriage need to be recognized by every state anyway? If I get married in New York and get a job offer in Iowa, don't I have to have the guarantee that my marriage is recognized there as well as I'd otherwise be at a severe disadvantage and would be discriminated against?

I believe that the biggest issue with leaving this up to the states was the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was passed in 1996. I’m pretty sure that under DOMA, a state had a right to not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. It also meant that according to the federal government, same-sex marriages wouldn’t be recognized. DOMA affected those couples when it came to things like filing tax returns and qualifying for any benefits or programs as a legal spouse.
 
Last edited:

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,085
But who says the shaking hands has to be done without gloves-if it’s not changed to elbow bumps anyway. The singing without masks?

Fact is that no outbreak has been centered around any kind of mass anyway
No, fact is, that you don't sing or shake hands with everyone in liquor stores. (That said, masks reduce the spread. They don't prevent it entirely).
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,864

The outbreak in New York began in a New Rochelle synagogue.
That's misleading. New Rochelle was the first major outbreak in New York, but I don't think they can trace everything that happened in New York to that. There were people coming back from Europe and some were infected, leading to community spread that eventually impacted New Rochelle and other places.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,085
In today's Census hearing, the Justices wondered if Trump has the power to remove undocumented immigrants from the Census and also, if the case should be decided now. (I'm guessing, they're hoping they won't have to in the end?) https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...188f4a-3330-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html

Some Supreme Court justices on Monday seemed skeptical of President Trump’s claim he has the authority to exclude all undocumented immigrants from population totals when deciding congressional reapportionment. But they also wondered whether a definitive answer is needed now.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was among those wondering if the court should wait to see whether the Census Bureau can even produce useful numbers about the undocumented population, or if they would make a difference when deciding the size of each state’s congressional delegation.
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,864
I feel like there are enough places to discuss CoV19. It's well-established at this point that places of worship can have massive outbreaks, and we've known that since the first South Korean superspreading event. Unless it's directly related to court cases, it doesn't seem relevant to this thread.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,395
Well, the Supreme Court overruled state policy on this topic so I guess monitoring how that impacts the number of people who live through this ********* is worth monitoring. IMHO. When the Supreme Court makes a call, that impacts the tools all states can use in the future.
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,864
Well, the Supreme Court overruled state policy on this topic so I guess monitoring how that impacts the number of people who live through this ********* is worth monitoring. IMHO. When the Supreme Court makes a call, that impacts the tools all states can use in the future.
As I wrote, it's well-established that CoV19 can spread though places of worship. SCOTUS did not decide the case based on the argument that CoV19 does not affect churches. Anything SCOTUS does affects people through the US; that's the whole point.

Given that FSU has an entire section devoted to CoV19, I see no reason to track every new church outbreak in the US here in the SCOTUS/legal thread. But if there are interesting new legal news related to CoV19, that's certainly relevant (e.g. Alito dismissing the case that pastor in Louisiana).
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
34,121
There's a brilliant play available to stream on Amazon Prime called What the Constitution Means to Me. I highly recommend it. I was going to post this in the TV/Steaming threads, but I think it's relevant for the Supreme Court thread as well.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,395

Federal judge orders restoration of DACA program​


The judge says that DACA needs to be returned to its original guidelines as Wolf was not legally appointed the head of Homeland Security when he added restrictions.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,085

Federal judge orders restoration of DACA program​


The judge says that DACA needs to be returned to its original guidelines as Wolf was not legally appointed the head of Homeland Security when he added restrictions.
The question is, are they going to care this time?
 

Jot the Dot Dot

Headstrong Buzzard
Messages
4,020
On another thread, I expressed my vehement opposition to Asset Forfeiture, where police can stop you, and if they find an 'unreasonable' amount of cash on you, they can seize it under the 'suspicion' of it being obtained by criminal means. My argument being a question of Burden Of Proof, that the police and the courts have to make a conviction in order for that to hold and, no conviction, no seizure. Someone brought up as a counter-argument that police every day hold suspects for crimes before a court case has even begun let alone settled. I had to think about this for a while, so here is my rebuttal: Police have to charge a suspect with a specific crime (murder, attempted murder, theft, assault, etc.) and, correct me if I am wrong, have to release you if their claim fails to meet certain criteria. It would have to be an exceptional case if a suspect was found with, let's say, blood all over them that was human and wasn't their own. But asset forfeiture fails to meet such rules, there are so many cases of police seizing said found money, and keep it because they know often the cost of a person taking it to court would be greater that the seized cash, and have no other recourse.
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,864
Four unanimous opinions from SCOTUS today, including this one:
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
34,121
The Supreme Court vacated and Appeal's Court ruling on abortion in Texas. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...-court-rulings-texas-abortion-battle-n1255549

I read the article and I get what the Supreme Court did is a good thing but what exactly does it mean? What did they do exactly?
They could have ruled any challenges to the earlier earlier court decisions moot since Gov. Abbott changed the order and thus lifted his initial ban on abortions. However, petitioners (abortion advocates) asked that the Court strike down those previous rulings since Abbott made it impossible to pursue since he changed the order. The Court granted the petitioners’ request and stroke down the lower courts (mainly the 5th Circuit) rulings to uphold the abortion bans. Thus, any court seeking to use those earlier court rulings that upheld bans on abortion during times of emergencies can no longer use those cases as precedent. That’s a huge deal and a major blow for anti-abortion activists who needed legal precedent and doctrine as ammo to destroy abortion rights.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,395
Court Dismisses Emoluments case Against Trump, saying Moot Point

I of course, disagree. Allows any of the next Presidents to do the exact same thing...courts back to square one.
From George Conway:

"The plaintiffs were seeking an injunction preventing Trump from violating the Emoluments Clause in the future. But he can no longer do that, because, thankfully, he's no longer president. The case is thus moot, and that's why the Court dismissed it without recorded dissent."


"It's unquestionably moot. The cases did not seek retrospective relief, such as damages, but rather only prospective relief—declarations and injunctions addressing future conduct. But he can't violate the emoluments clause any more, since he's no longer president.

So not only was the Court right on vacating and dismissing as moot, it actually had no other choice, since the federal courts under Article III only have jurisdiction to decide live cases and controversies.

If these cases had sought damages, even if there were no right to damages (and there likely isn't), they would not be moot."
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
34,121
They probably didn't want to get into it regarding whether one has a religion where one HAS to be in-doors to fully exercise their religion. They just take the religion's word for it.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,085
They probably didn't want to get into it regarding whether one has a religion where one HAS to be in-doors to fully exercise their religion. They just take the religion's word for it.
Shouldn't they have determined if there was a religion in California that has been unable to hold services ever since the ban went into effect because the faith says it has to be indoors before handing down a ruling? Isn't that sort of what they get paid for?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information