KillingtonZone.com

Judging by some of the comments in the Trump, Muslim and other assorted threads, we clearly have a number of constitutional scholars here on KZone, ready to offer opinions on any issue that may (or has) reached the court. I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread dedicated to the intellectual and legal wisdom available on the board so that, years from now, future scholars can look back and research available opinions for free.

First, though, because court decisions generally build on prior cases and precedents, I thought I might refer people to two books that provide a lot of insight into the arguments that have gone before and still resonate today.

1. In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action by Caroline Kennedy and Ellen Alderman. This book provides a really good historical perspective on arguments in law that have gone on since the birth of our country and which continue to be relevant today. It also shows how rights compete and legal interpretations develop and change over time.

2. Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World by Linda Hirshman. Not only is this book a side by side biography of the first two women on the court who came from completely different backgrounds, but it really gives insight into how the court reaches decisions, blends differences of opinion, moves the law forward (or backward) and how personalities interact.

For those here who insist that only the written words of a law or original intent apply, or for those who see the constitution as a living, breathing document where new more current interpretations of law are valid, both are worth reading.

I'm gonna assume most of us want to argue the case from our perspective as if we were on the bench vs trying to predict what the actual court will decide...most of the commentary here flows back and forth between what we wish would happen, what we think might happen, and some sort argument to either support that argument or point out the perceived absurdity of the opposition...

honestly I don't think the wording of the second amendment allows for ANY infringement of ANY kind, in any way shape or form...however, I'm not advocating for the public availability of any weapon one might have the means to purchase...that doesn't mean that because I accept what certainly entails restrictions that there is now a precedent that more restrictions are also permissible to me...and that's where we get into the "politics" of law...I agree w a restriction on say owning a howitzer even if I don;t necessarily find it to be constitutionally correct, but if agreeing with that means that I now have agreed that future restrictions are by default constitutionally correct then I am not likely to support a restriction on howitzers...

so how do we keep politics out of the courtroom? I don't think we can honestly...and thus any conversation regarding SCOTUS has to include the political aspect as well...I don't see a way around it...

Amid all the usual handwringing over the Court and its various split decisions, there was a near unanimous decision (only Sotomayor dissented) the other day that could have far reaching impact on class action suits. In a case against Bristol Myers brought in California, the Court ruled against so-called jurisdiction shopping by ruling that since most of the plaintiffs were not residents of California and the company is not headquartered in the state (among other factors) the suit cannot be brought in California.

Johnson & Johnson, which has had several major judgments against it in Missouri for alleged harm caused by talcum powder, is already using this decision to further its appeals of those judgments.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_1qm1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bubba wrote:the Court ruled against so-called jurisdiction shopping

IMHO, as it should.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

Bubba wrote:the Court ruled against so-called jurisdiction shopping

IMHO, as it should.

When I have time, I'd like to read Sotomayor's dissent.

Gorsuch didn't have to show his cards today ..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-2 ... retirement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have let the entire ban take effect immediately.

surprising nearly no one...

I would re-phrase this opinion as

It matters far less what you say, and matters far more what you actually do.

Coydog wrote:

Mister Moose wrote: If you allow a character test of the author of any lawful order, instead of examining the order itself, you have departed from a nation of laws.

Of course, the entire question is whether the order is lawful, i.e. constitutional. We no longer allow poll taxes, literacy tests at the voting booth and certain types of gerrymandering because of the obviously discriminatory intent, direct or constructive. As it should, SCOTUS will examine the order in full context.

Mister Moose wrote:
What is "full context"?

The language is that certain countries will be excluded. There is no prohibition or US law on discrimination on countries. My point was you cannot go outside the language of the order based on some "full context" outside-the-order fishing expedition.

Red Clover, Red Clover, "Full context" is over.

Mister Moose wrote:I would re-phrase this opinion as

It matters far less what you say, and matters far more what you actually do.

Coydog wrote:

Mister Moose wrote: If you allow a character test of the author of any lawful order, instead of examining the order itself, you have departed from a nation of laws.

Of course, the entire question is whether the order is lawful, i.e. constitutional. We no longer allow poll taxes, literacy tests at the voting booth and certain types of gerrymandering because of the obviously discriminatory intent, direct or constructive. As it should, SCOTUS will examine the order in full context.

Mister Moose wrote:
What is "full context"?

The language is that certain countries will be excluded. There is no prohibition or US law on discrimination on countries. My point was you cannot go outside the language of the order based on some "full context" outside-the-order fishing expedition.

Red Clover, Red Clover, "Full context" is over.

madhatter wrote:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-2 ... retirement

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have let the entire ban take effect immediately.

surprising nearly no one...

so the next question is how do we determine who qualifies as "bona dude" perhaps we'll find out in october...

or perhaps they meant "bona duce"

Lots of crow being served today ...

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Lots of crow being served today ...

F#U#C#K
YOU
Hawaii
California
Washington

COVFEFE

madhatter wrote: so the next question is how do we determine who qualifies as "bona dude" perhaps we'll find out in october...

You don't have to wait. The stay of the previously issued injunctions (i.e. removal) applies to refugees or others without any connection to the US. Anyone who meets the relationship test can still enter as stated by the Court:

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

The Hawaii injunction extends beyond §2(c) to bar enforcement of the §6(a) suspension of refugee admissions and the §6(b) refugee cap. In our view, the equitable balance struck above applies in this context as well. An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security. See supra, at 9–11; Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 307 (1981).The Government’s application to stay the injunction with respect to §§6(a) and (b) is accordingly granted in part. Section 6(a) may not be enforced against an individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Nor may §6(b); that is, such a person may not be excluded pursuant to §6(b), even if the 50,000 person cap has been reached or exceeded. As applied to all other individuals, the provisions may take effect.

Bubba wrote:

madhatter wrote: so the next question is how do we determine who qualifies as "bona dude" perhaps we'll find out in october...

You don't have to wait. The stay of the previously issued injunctions (i.e. removal) applies to refugees or others without any connection to the US. Anyone who meets the relationship test can still enter as stated by the Court:

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

The Hawaii injunction extends beyond §2(c) to bar enforcement of the §6(a) suspension of refugee admissions and the §6(b) refugee cap. In our view, the equitable balance struck above applies in this context as well. An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security. See supra, at 9–11; Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 307 (1981).The Government’s application to stay the injunction with respect to §§6(a) and (b) is accordingly granted in part. Section 6(a) may not be enforced against an individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Nor may §6(b); that is, such a person may not be excluded pursuant to §6(b), even if the 50,000 person cap has been reached or exceeded. As applied to all other individuals, the provisions may take effect.

guess that went right over yer head, but yer still a "good dude" ....

Gonna be interesting to see DHS and State Dept determining relationship 'legitimacy' over the next couple months
Both have lots of challenges already on their dockets. The SC may kick the can in October on account of not wanting to rule on a temporary ban that accomplishes nearly nothing with respect to the stated cause of National Security.

Rookie Drumpho administration should have given this much more thought and floated Version 3.0 on Jan 27th.
Gump initially positioned this as a 90 day ban .. 'until we figure out what the heck is going on..'
Now .. 5 months of wasted time and effort to achieve a cheap victory lap from a podium rooted in quicksand.

Ready .. Fire .. Aim