This Year's Supreme Court Calander

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

This Year's Supreme Court Calander

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> This Year's Supreme Court Calander

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/5/2009 4:14:17 AM

SpinnerofTales

Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

The Supreme Court as announced what cases they'll be hearing in this coming session. It looks like an interesting crop:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8285731.stm

Thoughts? Opinions? Wagers, anyone?

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/5/2009 12:48:58 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Interesting agenda, but probably not the most interesting in history. What might be interesting though is to kick off a discussion of how we would rule on these issues. Of course we can't hear the case, that's their job, but we can sure as hell speculate. Brother can we speculate.

First of all Chicago's ban on guns would be in the toilet just like DC's. Case closed.

I couldn't car less about the dogfighting. They are animals, some of them want to fight. So do some humans, like boxers for example. If the size and weight of the dogs are pretty much equal, let them have at it. It's not like you fight a chihuahua with a bull Mastiff. Something like that is cruel treatment of an animal. Animals can take to a fight right out on the street, that's why they make leashes.

Banning movies is another story. A bit more complex of an issue. Just because you took campaign moneyu means you can't use it to make a movie ? I suspect this is more based on content, because I don't remember Micheal Moore running for President. Where do we draw the line ? Who knows. That's their job to figure it out.

I'm not quite sure what you were looking for in the way of responses. They will rule how they rule. That doesn't mean we can't discuss how we would rule. Actually Marbury v Madison gave the supreme court some awesomke powers. When they rule, they actually rule if you know what I mean. Their rulings become case law and they can also strike down ant law, federal state or local when they see fit. This is quite a concentration of power, so how they rule is an issue. Most of it may never affect us personally, but we either hang together or we shall surely hang seperately.

I'll be looking forward to see what the rest of our merry group has to say on this.

Toodles for now.

T

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/5/2009 4:01:57 PM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

Spinner, here is me thinking I was going to see some hot pics of female judges.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/5/2009 4:04:43 PM

SpinnerofTales

Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Spinner, here is me thinking I was going to see some hot pics of female judges.

Do you really want to see Sotomeyor or Ginsburg nude? Yecchh.

(in reply to Politesub53)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/6/2009 11:50:45 AM

Lorr47

Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline

The Campaign Finance case was portrayed as one of extreme importance in which the Roberts' vote will be of extreme importance.

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/6/2009 12:08:07 PM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

I dont think Sontamora is going to as terrible as some say.

I see she asks questions.

(in reply to Lorr47)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/6/2009 5:09:22 PM

einstien5201

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/29/2009
Status: offline

Gun control: Chicago loses, hands-down. It'll go just the way of DC.

Mojave cross: Honeslty, I think the court will dodge the issue by saying that either the land transfer resolves the issue or that the original plantiff had no cause to bring the case.

Animal videos: I'm not sure on this one. On the one hand, free speech seems to be the trump here, but the case reminds me of child pornography cases in which the distribution of images of illegal acts was ruled as contributing to the act. Not the same sense of outrage about animal fighting though, so we'll see.

Hillary: the Movie: I think the court will rule against Citizens United. I don't think that the length of the film disqualifies it as an advertisement. I think this is a good thing, because there's already far too much money in the election process.

Life sentences for juveniles: Not really sure where they'll fall on this one.

Terrorist support: I think this one will be struck down.

Somalian PM: Don't care.

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/6/2009 5:17:09 PM

DomImus

Posts: 2004
Joined: 3/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: einstien5201
Gun control: Chicago loses, hands-down. It'll go just the way of DC.

I'm less sure about that one. DC isn't a state or a city within a state, it's a federal district and I'm not so sure that the same thing will happen in Chicago. I see this one going 5-4 like the DC ruling but I won't bet on which way the decision falls. I'll be watching this one. It's the most interesting case to me on their docket this session.

_____________________________

"Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable." Sidney J. harris

(in reply to einstien5201)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/6/2009 5:20:10 PM

Elipsis

Posts: 301
Joined: 7/8/2009
Status: offline

quote:

FREE SPEECH CHALLENGE OVER DOG-FIGHTING VIDEO The court will consider whether the conviction of Robert Stevens for distributing videos depicting dog-fighting under a law aimed at curtailing animal cruelty violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech. The 1999 law was intended to prevent depictions of animal cruelty, but a federal appeals court found that it restricted Stevens' right to free speech and threw out the conviction. He argued that the videos were intended to educate people about the pit bull breed and that he was not trying to promote illegal dog-fighting. The case has prompted debate over the restrictions that the government can place on free speech without falling foul of the First Amendment.

This argument sounds incredibly weak to me, and I'm quite the fan of the First Amendment.

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/6/2009 9:21:06 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

The most important case on the docket is the Hilary movie case. The court seems poised to make corporations de facto citizens with full first amendment free speech rights. This would mean no limits on corporate spending on political issues. Can't think of much of anything that would be worse for the nation than that but most court watchers have this as 5 - 4 in favor of expanding the rights with the Courts conservative bloc and Kennedy forming the majority.

(in reply to Elipsis)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/6/2009 9:40:18 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Actually Eli, I wouldn't defend on that basis. I would defend on the basis of "So What ? ". Animals fight, they have for millenia. Humans fight in all sorts of activities. Some like to do it. If both owners are OK with it and the dogs are well matched physically, and the dogs want to do it, let them fight their little hearts out. Of course with a jury full of bleeding hearts and a judge who owns 42 cats I might find myself going away for a while, but at least I'll be damnned for what I am.

I would never force a dog into it, but if it showed the tendency and wanted to, well, let it happen. When I used to spar, once I got kicked twenty feet across the room. And I have witnesses. Didn't phase me a bit. I could be bleeding and not know it for hours. Some people as well as dogs just want to do it.

Asserting our rights is sometimes not that simple. People who love animals, well they are fine. But there is a line drawn. Animals are not people. Is it fair what we do to horses and cows ? How about a bit of veal for dinner ?

In other words the fulcrum of my defense would be that this is a depiction of a perfectly lawful activity and therefore is lawful. Perhaps should only be distributed to adults, no problem with that. But is inherently lawful. This is simply a video depiction. Hey, what about all those war movies ? You would show the kiddies that instead ? What sense does that make ?

People just ain't got no damn creativity these days I swear.

T

(in reply to Elipsis)

Profile

Post #: 11

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/6/2009 9:43:38 PM

einstien5201

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/29/2009
Status: offline

Ah, but in quite a few places dogfighting is illegal. Remember Michael Vick?

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 12

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/7/2009 5:30:45 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

People fighting is illegal as well, oh wait, there are boxing rings. People have died in them. But it was OK.

There are plenty of ways to defend the case. Let me put it this way, if I put out a video of me doing drugs, who is to say I was not in Amsterdam at the time ? Then must I restrict that video to be shown only in places where such things are legal ? If so, Cheech and Chong will be in alot of trouble. To claim it was an act, and not real is not going to fly, so then where do we stand ?

Then we can get into news shows depicting crimes caught on store cameras etc., they are not an act, are the media also to be rounded up and tried for their high crimes ? (a nice thought, but not likely)

I think I could agrue the case quite effectively. In fact I think I could've won the Napster caase. What I would really like to see is a challenge to USC2257. (or is that 2237 ?)

Yes I have been told I would make a really good lawyer. Not sure how to take it though.

T

(in reply to einstien5201)

Profile

Post #: 13

RE: This Year's Supreme Court Calander - 10/7/2009 6:43:57 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Term, yeah, that's the law of nature that animals tear each other to pieces when left to their own devices.
Me and all my friends used to love to watch dogs fighting when we were kids in the 1950's. Most were strays, some pets.
But it was fun watching "wild nature" like that. Hell, I like watching my cat Bubba dismantle another tomcat in the back yard.

I hope they rule against that Somalian guy though. WTF are they doing letting Somalians into the U.S. for?

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 10/7/2009 6:45:31 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 14