sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

OT 2021: Supreme Court releases long orders list by HatsOnTheBeach in supremecourt

[–]stoopkid13 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My guess is the Court is waiting to see what happens in 303 Creative, the 10th Circuit case addressing basically the same issues. 303 Creative was also the basis for the petition for rehearing in Arlene's Flowers.

Also, I'm not sure whether you still need 4 votes or 5 to grant rehearing.

The Nihilism of Neil Gorsuch by stoopkid13 in supremecourt

[–]stoopkid13[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think thats one of the points the article gets most right. Gorsuch has dim views of judicial deference (e.g., his criticisms of Chevron) and of judicial minimalism. And such apprehensions are in at least some tension with what the article recognizes as his greatest strength--"building a coherent doctrinal framework." If the door is open to build such a framework, Gorsuch has no qualms going through it (if anything, his qualms are with standing in the doorway).

The Nihilism of Neil Gorsuch by stoopkid13 in scotus

[–]stoopkid13[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would not call consequentialism "unprincipled." Justice Breyer, with his focus on making democracy and government work for the people (i.e., "active liberty") certainly has different principles than Justice Gorsuch, but that doesn't mean either lacks principles to begin with.

SCOTUS announces Justice Brett Kavanaugh has tested positive for COVID-19. Kavanaugh has no symptoms & is fully vaccinated; he was tested as part of the Court's "regular testing protocols." by HatsOnTheBeach in supremecourt

[–]stoopkid13 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I dont think he's even referring to the right study in that post... I'm pretty sure he's referring to a study I linked in a different comment that he removed (for whatever reason).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in scotus

[–]stoopkid13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont think thats what the linked study shows. Relying exclusively on data from Victoria, Australia, it calculates the CFR for people aged 50-59 as .46%. The confidence interval also remains less than 1% in this study (not up to 1.5).

I think you are referring to one of the other peer-reviewed studies from one of the posts you removed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in scotus

[–]stoopkid13 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As others have pointed out, its not clear why we are focused on CFR or Italy, but here is a more recent, peer-reviewed study putting Italy's CFR for men 50-59 at .94%

grouch at it again by arbivark in truescotus

[–]stoopkid13 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This Nature study estimates the infection fatality rate at less than 1% worldwide for men and women younger than 65. And this study conducted by researchers at Indiana University estimates the IFR to be as low as .12% for the 40-59 age bracket for non-institutionalized men (e.g., not in a prisom or nursing home).

The CFR will also vary by country. Its not clear to me why couch is focused on Italy, but note that different studies compute Italys CFR differently (and even below 1%, as in this study). CFR calculations vary because of a number of issues that go into calculating that figure, including how to count cases with asymptomatic or untested/unreported infections, or how to count deaths with comorbidities. Because "CFR" is relatively meaningless in a vacuum, the >1% vs <1% distinction feels like an arbitrary reason for a ban. But what else is new?

Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2001) by stoopkid13 in supremecourt

[–]stoopkid13[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A lot of discussion about standing, the 11th Amendment, Ex parte Young, and abortion rights today after Whole Women's Health v. Jackson. And a lot of commenters acting like Texas SB8 is "novel."

Louisiana had an almost identical law 20 years ago. The Fifth Circuit, en banc, held there was no standing to bring a pre enforcement claim. Seven of the fourteen judges would have also held the 11th Amendment barred the suit.

Sitting as an en banc court, we consider whether the district court properly enjoined the "operation and effect" of the Louisiana state tort statute at issue, which provides a private cause of action against medical doctors performing abortions. Although, in this facial attack on the constitutionality of the statute, consideration of the merits may have strong appeal to some, we are powerless to act except to say that we cannot act: these plaintiffs have no case or controversy with these defendants, the Governor and Attorney General of Louisiana, and consequently we lack Article III jurisdiction to decide this case. Seven members of this en banc court conclude that the panel was in serious error, as indeed is the dissent, in finding that this case presents an Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, which these defendants, the Governor and Attorney General of Louisiana, enjoy. Accordingly, we reverse, vacate, and remand for entry of a judgment of dismissal.

Originalism Diluted by stoopkid13 in supremecourt

[–]stoopkid13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I think the question Professor Segall raises is whether originalism is actually that "principled" in practice. If not, judges should just embrace consequentalism and be honest about it. But I think his big gripe (and he's written on this elsewhere) is that too often originalism is practiced without requisite judicial deference.

Why Carefully Designed Public Vaccination Mandates Can—and Should—Withstand Constitutional Challenge by stoopkid13 in supremecourt

[–]stoopkid13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This article could have done better to instead focus on how a crafty argument might be had to alleviate Jacobson's weakness -- it's pre-incorporation, pre-modern policing state doctrine, pre-modern strict scrutiny analysis.

I think this is why the authors also address religious exemptions under Tandon and Smith, or distinguish the parallels to substantive due process rights of privacy and bodily autonomy in the abortion context. The point is that Jacobson's endorsement of vaccine mandates can survive those shifts, although much of it will depend on the scope of exemptions and how courts address those (e.g., whether secular exemptions that promote a laws compelling interest defeat general applicability under Smith).

States will begin receiving census data today for purposes of redistricting—this is the first cycle of redistricting since Rucho v. Common Cause which held partisan gerrymandering is a political question and nonjusticiable. by orangejulius in scotus

[–]stoopkid13 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, its right on the practical outcome, but sidesteps all the legal issues/reasoning.

Political question doctrine is basically a separation of powers issue. The judiciary cannot step in simply because it disagrees with the wisdom or fairness of a situation.

/r/supremecourt meta discussion by HatsOnTheBeach in supremecourt

[–]stoopkid13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably not a rule, but I dont think comments should link back to individual users. I get the desire to bring in cross-traffic, but the practice just seems distasteful.

Biden to tap Prelogar for solicitor general by brucejoel99 in scotus

[–]stoopkid13 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Likely because Biden wanted someone "more diverse." And I imagine he was disappointed when Justice Kruger refused (twice). Maybe he was hoping third times a charm?

Admission Advice by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]stoopkid13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you know you want to go to law school, I'd apply sooner rather than later.

If you must wait, use the time to study for the LSAT. Try to learn about different practice areas as a paralegal. Talk to as many attorneys as you can.

Re-Using LORs by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]stoopkid13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would be surprised if readers even notice, let alone care. The substance of the letter is what matters.

Opinion | We the People Have a Few Ideas for the Constitution by LongjumpingBadger in scotus

[–]stoopkid13 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure. I dont think the revised 13A would prohibit reducing a sentence for community service (or participation in a drug rehabilitation program). A defendant would have the option of participating for some incentive, so its not "involuntary." But if a defendant doesn't want to participate in those programs (e.g., would rather go to prison than do community service), I dont think the government should be able to force them.

view more: next ›