Senate The Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. GrandAdmiralJello Community and Lit moderator person

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    9 votes affirming the 2d Circuit and dismissing the case on these facts. 5 votes that the ATS has no extraterritorial application at all (basically killing it). 4 votes that says the ATS has extraterritorial application, but only when I. conduct occurs in US (foreign defendants or plaintiffs) II. U.S. defendants (foreign plaintiffs or conduct) III. substantial U.S. interest at state (including but not limited to preventing the US from being a safe haven for "enemies of all mankind" per Sosa and Filartiga).

    @Mr44 I don't know who you mean by "pretty much everybody" but that's not really true at all. Not even the USG wanted to eliminate extraterritoriality entirely (though you'd have a hard time fathoming wtf the US was saying in that mess of an SG brief).

    What it spells out, though, is exactly that: the ATS has no extraterritorial application b/c there is nothing in the text or history of the statute to defeat the presumption of extraterritoriality. Thus any future ATS claims would have to involve conduct that occurs in the US, and probably by US defendants too (plaintiffs still have to be aliens, as per the text of the statute). It mostly eliminates any value in the ATS since most torts aliens can have a cause of action under in the US are probably covered by federal law.
    Last edited by GrandAdmiralJello, Apr 17, 2013
  2. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    When I said everybody, I meant it was a law that probably had one intent back when it was written, but which no one knew how to rule on for 200 years now. You wouldn't have to gut the idea of extraterritoriality completely to simply abolish it and have Congress re-do it so it says whatever narrow (or even broad) focus they want to give it. Basically, instead of some catch all legal/rights dumping ground, some sort of new law can be written now which says the US (and by extension, US entities) can honor whatever commitments they work out with someone.

    Although it probably means that in the short term, emerging markets like India and the like are going to be awash in chlorine leaks and oil spills.
  3. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    So what does everybody think about the Court's ruling Monday that DNA can be taken after an arrest, even if no charges are made?
  4. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    At face value it's troubling.
  5. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    I'm with you, Shane. It's basically saying DNA is the same as a fingerprint, a viewpoint with which I strongly disagree.
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Jun 6, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  6. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    While I am functionally against the ruling, and agreeing with Scalia makes my head hurt, is it really that different?

    Fingerprints have been used for about 150 years for crime solving. The automated (read: computerized) databasing of fingerprints has been around for, what, 20-30 years? Roughly the same period as DNA evidencing?

    You can resist a a breathalyzer test. I don't believe you can resist being fingerprinted? A system which is used for keeping a record of a unique identifier. What if the FBI and/or law enforcement said "We're no longer taking fingerprints -- we're just going to use DNA." What is functionally the difference between one unique identifier that comes off your person and may automatically self-incriminate that you can't say no to and another one, other than the technology involved?

    Disclosure: I've been fingerprinted about 4-5 times. Not for felonies. That you know of.
  7. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Well, fingerprinting is a part of the booking process (not that I have any direct experience with such), to check to see if somebody has been arrested or matches fingerprints from unsolved crimes. You can't really get that from a breathlyzer far as I know, although most times refusing one can lead to an arrest (at least I've gathered as much from hearing about all those celebrities being arrested for DUIs)

    I kind of agree with @dp4m. While I don't like this ruling, I've had to both have my fingerprints taken, and take urine drug tests for background checks in order to get jobs before (which came up clean), so while I wouldn't like it, if for instance I had to have a DNA sample taken in order to pass a background check for a job, having a q-tip swab the inside of my cheek would be no different than having ink on my fingers for several hours or having to sit on a toliet and pee into a cup.
  8. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    My issue not with the taking of DNA for information, but how that information is going to be used down the line. The rules regarding how and when DNA may be used in ordinary life are nebulous at best, and as the NSA Verizon revelations have just revealed, what we think the government is doing under the term "rule of law" may not equal what is actually happening.

    Until the rules are ironclad, I'd prefer my DNA not be "out there" in the same way my digital identity is. Too much mischief can come of it.

    Besides, what exactly does the government *need* my DNA for? Fingerprints worked just fine when one was arrested for decades; if one was suspected in another crime, then the authorities obtained a court order compelling DNA evidence. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this ruling giving the police that kind of power. Not one bit.

    Peace,

    V-03
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Jun 7, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  9. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    I remember when the police couldn't just stop you on the street for no reason whatsoever.

    You at least had to change direction in front of them, or something.
  10. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    We're white, aren't we?
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  11. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    That doesn't help me because I don't look wealthy.
  12. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    So our DNA can be taken whenever the police want, but hey, at least it can't be patented by Big Pharma.
    Summer Dreamer likes this.
  13. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    7-2 Arizona cannot require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.

    Even more interesting was Scalia's remedy for the state: petition a currently-defunct rules committee to allow the changes, then sue them if they say no.

    I wonder what effect, if any, this may have on voter ID laws.
  14. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Not a good effect, I would imagine.
  15. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    This decision seems to only affect voter registration laws.
  16. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Well there's still ruilings to come on the Voter ID laws.
  17. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Sorry, to clarify:

    The Court came down pretty hard on Arizona, addressing the question of whether or not a state may modify a federal law. Based on the ruling, the answer seems to be a pretty resounding "no".

    In terms of voter ID laws, I think they will rule in a similar fashion, trying to balance the degree to which states may try and run afoul of federal statutes in regards to both restricting access and the appearance of restricting access. The question becomes, which side will they fall on?

    Peace,

    V-03
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Jun 17, 2013
  18. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    I think any state that is covered under the Voting Rights Act of '64 and has the appearance of violating that Act may get smacked down by the Court. Beyond that who knows with the Court these days. I certainly the gene patent verdict would be unanimous and that Clarence Thomas would be the one that wrote the Opinion.

    These last two citizen friendly ruilings does make me leery about how the Affirmative Action, DOMA and Prop 8 ruilings will go. I wonder if we're being set up for a great big Fall here as we get towards the end of the judgement annoucements.
  19. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Actually, that's not completely accurate.

    What the Court ruled is that Arizona has to accept the standardized federal voter registration form, but that they can petition that committee to modify the form to require the information that they want. However, the ruling does not apply to Arizona's state voter registration forms. As such, they didn't rule that Arizona cannot demand proof of citizenship for voter registration, only that they had to accept the federal form that doesn't require proof of citizenship (instead requiring only an affirmation under penalty of perjury that you are a citizen).

    Additionally, as SCOTUSBlog points out, this ruling could really turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for the federal government.
  20. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Thanks for the clarification. How've you been?
  21. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    On another note, the Supreme Court is shortly to decide whether or not to take up the appeal of an Oklahoma bill mandating pre-abortion ultrasounds. This would be for next year's term, with a decision coming down just in time for the mid-term elections.

    Background: the federal appeals court covering Texas upheld a similar and stricter law, while the Oklahoma state Supreme Court struck it down, citing Planned Parenthood v Casey as controlling. The article I read (which clearly had a liberal bend), pointed out that the justices writing the opinion specifically phrased their decision in a way that almost invited the USSC to step into the fray; they practically begged the Court to vacate Casey, basically saying "as long as this decision by the USSC stands, we can't allow this law to."

    My opinion? They take up the case, and Roberts narrows abortion rights to the bare minimum, loosening the reigns on what states can do to practically everything short of a ban.

    For those who think that the Obama administration and the dems are "finished" due to scandals, this is exactly the type of thing (especially in an improving economy), that potentially sink the GOP right when they should be poised to make gains. It will very interesting to see what happens in the coming year.

    Peace,

    V-03
  22. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Well, it all goes back to Roe v. Wade which is widely considered to be "an excellent decision but terrible law" by even the people who want women to have control of their bodies and abortions to be legal, no?

    So any and all spasmodic rulings sort of dovetail from that?
  23. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    I'm looking at it more from the perspective of national politics.

    When Republicans talk about the economy, jobs, and defense, historically they have won national elections.

    When they talk about abortion and gay marriage, they lose. Recently, they have lost even in territory that should have been ripe for them, ie Missouri.

    The Roberts court is a fairly conservative one, and I can't see him doing anything but finding a way to uphold these types of laws while still allowing the bare minimum of abortions to remain legal. If that becomes the case, the media will flood with never-ending discussions about this issue, and it will likely drown out all other debate, to the benefit of Democrats, who can resurrect their "war on women" monologue, and to the detriment of Republicans, who will end up being back on the defensive at a time when they should be playing offense.

    Don't believe that Democrats wouldn't tie such a decision to the Republican Party as a whole, either. It also will set the stage for the 2016 elections, putting moderate conservatives like Chris Christie in an uncomfortable position of having to define just how pro-life he is before the entire country while potentially running against a woman (Hillary Clinton, should she choose to step in).

    The GOP just doesn't need this right now, is all I'm saying. It's a great local and even regional issue for them, but it tends to ruin them nationally.

    Peace,

    V-03
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Jun 19, 2013
  24. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    You mean those unconcerned with facts?
  25. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    No, I'm simply reminding everyone that Americans tend to have short attention spans, especially when it comes to politics.

    The right headline, and people will shift their focus to something else, that's all.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.