Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards  

Go Back   Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards > General
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 04:36 PM
rmccoy
 
Posts: n/a
The rumor that Scalia will be writing the opinion started at SCOTUSblog.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wild-opinion-speculation/

If indeed Scalia is writing the opinion, that is a clear indication that we'll have a pro-individual rights opinion. It also forshadows plurality opinions as to what the level of scrutiny will be, as I have a hard time imagining 4 other justices agreeing with a strict scrutiny approach (which from oral argument seems to be where Scalia is going).

I would be nice to get some good dicta regarding the incorporation of the 2d amendment via the 14th if the Court doesn't rule on the issue directly.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 04:55 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,071
I'm pumped up.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 05:10 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
It sounds encouraging. However, I'll wait to celebrate after I read the opinion and ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 05:17 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,071
I got so pumped up I broke out a few pistols and started wiping them down.

Feels good.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 05:17 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
I have a suggestion.

If/when there really is something to celebrate, we should all get together for dinner at an appropriately worthy restaurant. I'll even drive into LA.

Anyone?
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 05:26 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,071
Definitely.

I nominate Red Lobster.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 05:30 PM
dchapman dchapman is offline
Daniel Chapman
KJ4BXR
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
I got so pumped up I broke out a few pistols and started wiping them down.

Feels good.

Dear John,

Get a girlfriend.


Daniel
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 05:33 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Definitely.

I nominate Red Lobster.

That may be appropriately worthy.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 05:47 PM
JSQ JSQ is online now
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
Sporting clays and dinner after maybe?
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 06:07 PM
thomaskimura thomaskimura is offline
Thomas Kimura
N6BZ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 178
I'm in.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old June 23rd, 2008, 06:27 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Sure. Anything for Red Lobster.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old June 24th, 2008, 03:08 AM
lucasd2002 lucasd2002 is offline
David Lucas
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
It takes a little while for this to happen, but somewhere in second-year law school, it dawns on the student what the outcome of a Supreme Court decision will be without even reading the opinion. He just has to read who authored the opinion and he knows what the outcome will be.

I think this moment occurs near the 2/3 point of the student's Constitutional Law class, whenever that occurs.
____________________
2004 D2

Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old June 24th, 2008, 07:46 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,071
We'll see how Heller reads.

If the opinion is a wishy-washy plurality opinion, then we can hit the clays course:


If the opinion is a Second Amendment Bomb, then I say we bust out the battle gear:

Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old June 24th, 2008, 03:24 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,071
It's already starting:

Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old June 24th, 2008, 04:16 PM
rmccoy
 
Posts: n/a
If anybody is interested SCOTUSblog will be live blogging as the Court reads the opinions. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

My wife has to collect and summerize the SC opinions for Ken Starr, so she's got orders to send me the decision ASAP. I can also forward it to anybody that wants it (although its easy enough to find online)
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old June 24th, 2008, 04:25 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
It's already starting:


Since National Socialism was all about denying private ownership of firearms can someone explain that picture to me.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old June 25th, 2008, 06:11 AM
rmccoy
 
Posts: n/a
No opinion today. The Court announced that it will release its remaining three opinions tomorrow at 7am (PST).
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old June 25th, 2008, 06:29 AM
thomaskimura thomaskimura is offline
Thomas Kimura
N6BZ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 178
Scotusblog is also predicting that Scalia has in fact written the majority opinion in Heller. They are not certain, however, if it's a majority opinion or a plurality opinion.

I am not sure how these predictions are made. It seems that Scotusblog is written by a number of attorneys who follow the court closely. I don't know their reputation and overall I don't know if they are a reliable source. Perhaps rmccoy has more insight.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old June 25th, 2008, 08:09 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,071
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old June 25th, 2008, 08:59 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,071
I just read Kennedy v. Lousiana.

I can't believe a majority of the Court came up with such a categorical and sweeping rule for death penalty sentencing in child rape cases. I don't think the majority opinion is crazy and I don't think every child rapist deserves to die, but to bar outright the death penalty in any child rape case where the victim was not killed is too sweeping a rule for me. What if the rapist tortured the victim and raped the victim repeatedly? That's some heinous stuff and if the victim survives the ordeal the death penalty is categorically barred? What if the rapist is a repeat offender? So long as the rapist doesn't kill his victim or victims the death penalty is categorically barred? That's too much for me.

I like this part of Alito's dissent:

Quote:
The Court’s final—and, it appears, principal—justification for its holding is that murder, the only crime for which defendants have been executed since this Court’s 1976 death penalty decisions, is unique in its moral depravity and in the severity of the injury that it inflicts on the victim and the public. See ante, at 27–28. But the Court makes little attempt to defend these conclusions.

With respect to the question of moral depravity, is it really true that every person who is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death is more morally depraved than every child rapist? Consider the following two cases. In the first, a defendant robs a convenience store and watches as his accomplice shoots the store owner. The defendant acts recklessly, but was not the triggerman and did not intend the killing. See, e.g., Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 137 (1987). In the second case, a previously convicted child rapist kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, and tortures multiple child victims. Is it clear that the first defendant is more morally depraved than the second?

The Court’s decision here stands in stark contrast to Atkins and Roper, in which the Court concluded that characteristics of the affected defendants—mental retardation in Atkins and youth in Roper—diminished their culpability. See Atkins, 536 U. S., at 305; Roper, 543 U. S., at 571. Nor is this case comparable to Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982), in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty where the defendant participated in a robbery during which a murder was committed but did not personally intend for lethal force to be used. I have no doubt that, under the prevailing standards of our society, robbery, the crime that the petitioner in Enmund intended to commit, does not evidence the same degree of moral depravity as the brutal rape of a young child. Indeed, I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists—predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children—are the epitome of moral depravity.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old June 25th, 2008, 09:31 AM
thomaskimura thomaskimura is offline
Thomas Kimura
N6BZ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 178
I didn't know that capital punnishment for felony murder was considered unconstitutional. I took a quick look at Enmund v. Florida. Although the case involves the murder of an elderly couple the facts are interesting:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice White
The facts of this case, taken principally from the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, are as follows. On April 1, *784 1975, at approximately 7:45 a. m., Thomas and Eunice Kersey, aged 86 and 74, were robbed and fatally shot at their farmhouse in central Florida. The evidence showed that Sampson and Jeanette Armstrong had gone to the back door of the Kersey house and **3370 asked for water for an overheated car. When Mr. Kersey came out of the house, Sampson Armstrong grabbed him, pointed a gun at him, and told Jeanette Armstrong to take his money. Mr. Kersey cried for help, and his wife came out of the house with a gun and shot Jeanette Armstrong, wounding her.

It's too bad this isn't a felony murder case where Mrs. Kersey had popped both the Armstrongs and Edmond (the getaway driver) was held liable for their deaths...
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old June 25th, 2008, 01:11 PM
rmccoy
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaskimura
Scotusblog is also predicting that Scalia has in fact written the majority opinion in Heller. They are not certain, however, if it's a majority opinion or a plurality opinion.

I am not sure how these predictions are made. It seems that Scotusblog is written by a number of attorneys who follow the court closely. I don't know their reputation and overall I don't know if they are a reliable source. Perhaps rmccoy has more insight.

SCOTUSblog as a very good rep in the field. It is run by Akin Gump's Supreme Court practice group. They have a good reputation among appellate specialists (according to my wife who was an appellate attorney prior to working at Pepperdine).
FYI, they also compile all of the Supreme Court statistics on their wiki, so if you want to debunk the canard that Justice Thomas has no mind of his own and always follows Scalia, that's where you go.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old June 25th, 2008, 02:18 PM
matttaylor matttaylor is offline
Matt Taylor
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 370
Here is our new governor's reaction to the Supreme Court's child rapist ruling:

(from this link http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/w....3ae268e7.html)

Quote:
I am outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision. It is an affront to the people of Louisiana and the jury’s unanimous decision in this case.

The opinion reflects a clear abuse of judicial authority, trampling the constitutional authority of states to act through the legislative process. The Court found, ‘there is a distinction between intentional first degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot be compared to murder in their severity and irrevocability.'

The Supreme Court is dead wrong.

It is fundamentally improper for the Supreme Court to base an important decision like this on its ‘independent judgment’ about a perceived ‘national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.’ The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis.


One thing is clear: the five members of the Court who issued the opinion do not share the same ‘standards of decency’ as the people of Louisiana. One Justice said that ‘the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.’ That is incredibly absurd. The most repugnant crimes deserve the harshest penalties, and nothing is more repugnant than the brutal rape of an eight-year-old child.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old June 26th, 2008, 03:46 AM
lucasd2002 lucasd2002 is offline
David Lucas
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 96
I'm disappointed with the Kennedy result. Their logic somewhat reminds me of Skinner v. Oklahoma which was a substantive due process case (because the 8th was not applied to state laws until the '60s, I think). Skinner involved a poorly conceived state law which I think is distinguishable from Kennedy. This is one that the Court should have left to the states.

edit: SCOTUS blog for Heller starts at 10AM EST
____________________
2004 D2

Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old June 26th, 2008, 05:57 AM
lucasd2002 lucasd2002 is offline
David Lucas
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 96
Heller affirmed. 5-4

Scalia wrote the opinion.

Breyer dissented. [there is a second but no name yet for the justice writing it]

No plurality and no concurrences. sweet.
____________________
2004 D2

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Omega Speedmaster hanchung General 3503 September 12th, 2017 12:16 PM
AMATEUR RADIO LICENSE TESTING - Feb 25th. hochung General 1872 March 29th, 2017 10:23 AM
Interesting email Exchange johnlee General 1160 July 2nd, 2010 06:13 PM
Record of SCLR Alcohol Thread johnlee General 101 July 7th, 2008 10:42 AM
Buzz Aldrin's Moon Watch Might Be Found johnlee General 19 November 16th, 2004 12:40 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:16 PM.




Copyright © 2001-2012 Expedition Exchange Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.