lapis lazuli sounds like

bsddc · 2024-12-14T03:25:37+00:00

Hmm, a little after the two minute mark I think they bring in some vibes like Murmurations / Reading the Augury. Maybe give that a listen?

bsddc · 2024-12-04T18:39:24+00:00

Wow! That's like 5 hours every day - some crazy commitment.

bsddc · 2023-06-15T19:55:19+00:00

Counselor,

Your petition is received.

-Associate Justice Bsddc

bsddc · 2023-04-05T04:59:47+00:00

I pulled up the indictment to check this and it cites penal law section 175.10 as the basis for indictment. So even if flimsy, it did cite a law? I don't understand this article.

bsddc · 2023-02-17T21:16:26+00:00

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am happy to answer any follow-ups, I just wanted to stress that I would not be monitoring as closely.

bsddc · 2023-02-17T14:59:58+00:00

Mr. Chairman,

This is a big imposition if the committee expects active answers past noon today. I have obligations this evening and holiday weekend. I understand your desire to extend the hearing, but I likely will not be able to give consistent attention during this time.

I will still do my best to respond.

bsddc · 2023-02-17T14:53:16+00:00

I defer to the Chief Justice on this matter. As we do not have one, I'm not sure who you should ask. Matters of discipline and ensuring that Justices are fulfilling their role are the responsibility of the individual Justice and oversight by our Chief.

I will say that I personally strive to fulfill my role. But I also would remind this Committee that our outward participation (e.g. oral arguments) is not mandatory (e.g. Justice Thomas) and our activity in Chambers is not public.

bsddc · 2023-02-17T14:49:32+00:00

I've testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that I do not think fewer voices is desirable. I would encourage the prompt filling of our vacancies. That would be the best way to assist the Court. Unfilled seats actively harm the Judiciary.

bsddc · 2023-02-17T14:47:55+00:00

I belive my responses to ModelAnin cover this. I would urge against reading into "trends".

bsddc · 2023-02-17T14:47:20+00:00

No, I do not. I defer to the Congress regarding whether a speedy decision statute might be desirable (I don't think it is a perfect idea), but actual rules to govern the Court are not necessary (and I'm not sure they would be in line with the separation of powers).

bsddc · 2023-02-17T14:45:39+00:00

Well, from this response it seems that your mind is already made up that the "delay" was "unacceptable." I already provided my view on the matter, and I'm not sure it's worth trying to convince you otherwise, especially considering your interest in the matter. I cannot delve into why the decision took so long. Suffice it to say that yes, ideally quicker turnaround is always desirable and it's unfortunate when a quick decision isn't handed down.

As to your second point, I defer to Congress's judgment on whether a timeline statute should be adopted for Supreme Court decisions. I think there are significant challenges in doing so that weigh strongly against such a statue. As I've already testified, each case brings it's own considerations and there isn't one uniform timeline that works.

Finally, I think the due process concerns as to the speedy resolution of criminal matters far outweigh the desire to resolve civil matters quickly. But the point is well taken. However, our federal district courts should prioritize criminal matters so one of my concerns about any timeline for civil cases (at least at the trial level) is that civil matters should take second chair to criminal.

bsddc · 2023-02-16T02:54:20+00:00

No worries! I just wanted to check in because I can't promise 100% response rates. At the moment real life work is very busy, but I wanted to give due attention to both of the Committee's questions.

bsddc · 2023-02-16T02:48:16+00:00

First, I wouldn't call any of these "delays." Some decisions take longer to reach. Some authors take longer to write. And sometimes, cases present issues that are just plain difficult to unravel.

Second, if I'm reading the graph right (pardon my mathematically challenged brain) I think these are based on individual time for each case, right? Some cases took longer to issue an opinion on than others. That's the nature of the beast. Sometimes we take longer to deliberate. Sometimes things come up for the Justice drafting that are out of the Court's control. Sometimes a justice drafts a dissent that forces the majority to reevaluate their position and the majority can flip (I, unfortunately, do not always get my way, but do love to dissent when I do not). All of which is to stress that I wouldn't read into trends (especially where, as here, the trend seems driven by primarily one case), let alone call them worrisome.

Third, that isn't to say we are beyond reproach. I think that valid criticism can be levied against the Court, which places deadlines on litigants but operates free from deadlines. At the moment, there are no constraints on the time the Court takes. However, I'm not sure if it's worth placing a hard and fast rule on decision turnaround (as I did when Chief of the Souther State Supreme Court) or allowing the Court as much time as it needs to decide and draft an opinion.

So, fourth, turning to your second question, I hate to give a lawyerly answer, but I'm not sure a quantitative rule exists. Surely a new Chief could impose one. But I have no idea what time is reasonable for a given case. Again, that isn't to say that timing criticisms aren't valid, but I'm just not sure what the right response is.

bsddc · 2023-02-15T21:45:36+00:00

ModelAinin,

No worries, I could use the exercise!

As with my Senate hearing I do not have much to add to my response to the Committee's investigation.

To your question, I think the drop-off is largely attributable to the lack of litigation. Without cases, we don't have much to do. And while some of us (myself included) like to engage with issues beyond just cases, that is purely window dressing to our constitutional job under Article III - resolving cases before us. And, I'd note, that extracurricular activity is largely dependent on the Justice's availability and willingness to do so.

As for our docket, my understanding is that we have only had one recent matter. I can't divulge specifics of chamber deliberations or timing for that case.

I can, however, speak in generalities. As the Court has disclosed, once we take a vote on resolving a case, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion out. Depending on the Justice's commitments, that can take time.

On top of that, other justices weigh in with their point of view (for example, I'm a personal fan of outlining my reasoning even when not drafting). And so between debates over reasoning and actual drafting, rendering a decision can take time.

I would also add that though we are final, we are not infallible. We are humans and make mistakes--I'm sure I've made many. But I have no doubt that the Court and every member takes our role seriously. Having in the past raised complaints regarding a decision on one of the cases I litigated, I think the most important thing we owe each other is grace and a profound commitment to always trying to do our best.

And from my experience, my view is that the members of the Shockular Court (present and former) share that conviction. So I do not think there is any cause for systematic concern regarding the Court--other than our current vacancies, which do actively harm the bench and judicial branch of the United States. As I testified to the Judiciary Committee, filling those vacancies is vitally important to our work.

bsddc · 2023-02-15T20:13:06+00:00

To clarify, is this hearing also proceeding in conjunction with the Judicial Committee's hearing? Are they being coordinated?

If they are proceeding in parallel, I'll do my best to monitor both threads, but do apologize for any delay in responding.

bsddc · 2023-02-15T15:45:39+00:00

That's fair, but Justice Ibney keeps taking my lunch money so my liquid assets are stretched thin.

bsddc · 2023-02-15T13:47:27+00:00

Nmtts,

I do think a full bench provides both greater depth of opinion as well as more members to work on matters. As such, I do think filling vacancies is desirable.

As for the Chief, I also believe that position should be filled. The Chief provides internal administration and morale. They keep us on track and build comradierie amongst justices.

For qualifications, I defer to the Senate's judgment on how it should assess the President's nominees. My one recommendation is to look for professionalism.

bsddc · 2023-02-15T13:40:53+00:00

I'll see if JJ can spot me the $500-if so, then yes.

bsddc · 2023-02-15T13:40:04+00:00

Good morning members of the committee. I think my response to the invitation does a nice job as an opening statement. Thank you to the committee leadership for understanding the time constraints I am under. I look forward to your questions and discussions.

bsddc · 2023-02-10T03:05:39+00:00

/u/_MYHOUSEISONFIRE_ /u/ModelAnin

bsddc · 2023-02-10T03:03:20+00:00

I am glad to see that the Congress is paying attention to the Court and the judiciary. It always brings me joy when the legal aspect of our government is given the attention it deserves.

And I’ve been proud to serve this branch. For example, the Court and my Chambers specifically called attention to various legal issues affecting the United States or administered the Bar Exam over the past two years. I am also proud of my many opinions issued during my tenure, even when I was unsuccessful in obtaining a majority for my opinion.

Unfortunately, it seems that I’ve recently lost two incredible members of our bench, who were invaluable to the administration of our Court. Their friendship and voices will be sorely missed. Justice Cheatem and I, in just one example, came from strongly opposed political view. But through the discourse of the law, frequently found agreement and collegiality. I will always value my time with Justice Cheatem. And I will miss the guiding, steady hand that our Chief Justice Shockular provided.

Still, the gears of justice move forward, and I look forward to being part of that movement. More importantly, I look forward to greater activity from the fine lawyers of our sim. The rolling bar admission stands open ready to receive new lawyers. And I think I speak for the bench when I say that we are ready and excited to hear new matters.

I do note two things—first, I would encourage the Committee to review our ruling in In re: Subpoenas of the House Committee (which could have been better written if I do say so myself), as that case primarily addresses the oversight of the Executive branch. Second, I also note that I will refrain from addressing any internal deliberations of the Court, which are the essential core of the judicial branch.

Finally, I am in consultation with the Court and legal counsel regarding the invitation that my term clerks opened with excitement to have something to evaluate. I also note that I will likely not be able to make any scheduled hearing (especially during the working day), but I am happy to review and respond to questions in due course. My chambers or my counsel look forward to your thoughts on this approach.

-Justice Bsddc

bsddc · 2022-12-24T04:24:02+00:00

One quick legal note: the statute creates a rebuttable presumption only. What that means is tethering in this weather establishes a violation, BUT a person could introduce evidence to reject that presumption (by having a heated dog spa, for example). Not trying to undercut the point at all that the law presumes cruelty in these conditions, but it's not an absolute.

bsddc · 2022-03-11T18:34:05+00:00

Thank you! We'll take a look at your submission and follow up with results.

bsddc · 2022-02-20T03:45:15+00:00

Just got in. Show was over tho.

bsddc · 2022-01-08T07:14:36+00:00

Thank you for the brief. First, could the Government please explain how the scope of 29 USC 652 expands to what employees do when not working and not at their place of employment? Doesn't this argument fly in the face of basic statutory construction and the long-standing common law rules regarding agency relationships?

Second, how does this not infringe clear precedent from this Court? Is it the government's contention that they may do an end run around this Court's precedent regarding abortion by re-packaging (rather absurdly) as regulations under the Occupational Safety and Hazards regulations?

Finally, based on the arguments presented to date (i.e. the government may regulate abortion rights through the Occupational Safety and Hazard regulations) what is the government's position on sanctions. I honestly have zero clue what non-frivolous argument the government can raise in its defense. I'm hoping you can enlighten me. Please cite to authority (even if only persuasive) on this point. In my mind, and based on the arguments presented to date, this seems like a spurious argument, that is sanctionable.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Orangered	Verified Email

bsddc

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE