HB71 - Requires Louisiana Schools to display the 10 commandments passes with Bipartisan Support 82 - 19 (3 Viewers)

[Dago]

I have no idea how the media makes it out to be. But I do know that they have reversed precedent in several recent cases. They probably won't in this instance, but I'm less confident of that than I was 5 or 10 years ago.

I honestly seldom read anything the media has to say about legal cases because they seldom understand the issues involved and seldom understand the actual rulings or the reasons for them because, except for a very small number, they aren't trained in how to read cases and interpret them.

And to be clear, my lack of confidence isn't really because of any perceived political ideology of the members of SCOTUS as much as it is a willingness to ignore precedent. And frankly I think for many years SCOTUS has made results based decisions that I don't think really followed the law on both sides of the political spectrum.

It would also probably surprise you which cases I think they decided correctly and which I think they didn't. Because some of those decision that I think were right went against my political leanings and some of the cases that I think were wrong were in favor of my political leanings. But, overall, I think SCOUTS tends to rule on the law and not on politics but the only cases the vast majority of people here about are the political hot potatoes.

Edit: But I will say that after reading the Politico article they do a pretty good job of getting beyond political biases and seeing some of the things that are really behind some of the rulings. I do think SCOTUS sometimes rules based on their own personal beliefs instead of ruling on the law as they should, but those beliefs aren't always political and sometimes have more to do with how they view and interpret the law than politics. After all, even people in the same party don't agree on everything.

Well said.

Unfortunately most of America is unable to separate their ideology/morality from legality

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Yep. And like I just said, I'm fairly confident the 5th Circuit will do the right thing but I'm not as confident as I once was that SCOTUS will do the right thing.

I have zero trust in the 5th Circuit. It seems they like to render rulings for the sheer purpose of having SCOTUS rightfully overrule them.

 

[Dago]

I have zero trust in the 5th Circuit. It seems they like to render rulings for the sheer purpose of having SCOTUS rightfully overrule them.

That's a disturbing thought....they just trolling the SCOTUS

 

[faceman]

That's a disturbing thought....they just trolling the SCOTUS

It's been a recurring theme lately.

Again and again, U.S. Supreme Court slaps down 5th Circuit • Louisiana Illuminator

The 5th Circuit had three rulings upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and eight overturned, more than any other court this term.

lailluminator.com

 

[Dago]

It's been a recurring theme lately.

Again and again, U.S. Supreme Court slaps down 5th Circuit • Louisiana Illuminator

The 5th Circuit had three rulings upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and eight overturned, more than any other court this term.

lailluminator.com

Appreciate the information....I wasn't up to date on it. I'd have to agree

 

[St. Widge]

I have zero trust in the 5th Circuit. It seems they like to render rulings for the sheer purpose of having SCOTUS rightfully overrule them.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to think they may act differently on a 1st Amendment issue.

And, honestly, I really haven't much kept up on all the Con Law issues or 5th Circuit Con Law rulings since law school. It's always been a major interest of mine, but I just don't really have the time to devote to it anymore since what I do has nothing to do with Con Law. I just know the 5th Circuit more or less from cases that mostly have nothing to do with Con Law.

 

[Dago]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to think they may act differently on a 1st Amendment issue.

And, honestly, I really haven't much kept up on all the Con Law issues since law school. It's always been a major interest of mine, but I just don't really have the time to devote to it anymore since what I do has nothing to do with Con Law. I just know the 5th Circuit more or less from cases that mostly have nothing to do with Con Law.

Should be an interest litmus test. Bad enough being ideologically driven but if they are fundamentalists it's exponentially worse IMO

 

[St. Widge]

Should be an interest litmus test. Bad enough being ideologically driven but if they are fundamentalists it's exponentially worse IMO

It's one of those things that is hard to know without reading all the cases. Maybe these things are politically or socially driven, but it could just be that the 5th Circuit has a bias towards a very broad interpretation of standing that SCOTUS disagrees with. That interpretation could be based on legal principles they hold or on some results based bias. It's hard to know which without reading the 5th Circuit and SCOTUS cases. I have some suspicions but it's really hard to know without reading the cases and just seeing some reporters interpretation of what is going on.

But, yeah, if they find that the ACLU or whoever brought this challenge does not have standing it would seem that they only favor a broad interpretation of standing when its the result they favor.

 

[St. Widge]

So those high school kids aren't the only ones that don't understand the Constitution:

 

[kcirdor]

Are we sure it isn't some high school kid running their social media? who am I kidding... we have people here that make dumber comments.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

So those high school kids aren't the only ones that don't understand the Constitution:

I don't want to click the link. Please say someone schooled this person about incorporation.

 

[Consigliere]

And, honestly, I really haven't much kept up on all the Con Law issues or 5th Circuit Con Law rulings since law school.

Who does? Ain't billable. All I remember is Miranda, Griswald, and something about shoes.

And "Con Law" ain't what it used to be either. There used to be "precedents" and "principles." The only "Con Law" you need to know is that the Supreme Court is 7-2 Catholic and have already demonstrated disrespect for the "precedents" that they swore to respect.

 

[superchuck500]

So those high school kids aren't the only ones that don't understand the Constitution:

The funniest is when these often very wrong constituencies proclaim their deep love of the Constitution.

I wish Bad Legal Takes would get on Threads.

 

[St. Widge]

I don't want to click the link. Please say someone schooled this person about incorporation.

That account screenshots the post when it's something dumb so you can't see the comments on the link. I think he does the screenshots to make it less harassing.

 

[St. Widge]

Who does? Ain't billable. All I remember is Miranda, Griswald, and something about shoes.

And "Con Law" ain't what it used to be either. There used to be "precedents" and "principles." The only "Con Law" you need to know is that the Supreme Court is 7-2 Catholic and have already demonstrated disrespect for the "precedents" that they swore to respect.

I guess I always hoped that one day I could get paid to do Con Law stuff, but that's not going to happen at this point.

But, yes, without having spent a lot of time reading SCOTUS opinions in many years, I do think it is now more influenced by personal beliefs and results oriented decisions. But, it's not like that has not gone on many times in the past. I think people are just more focused on it now but only for the more politically charged issues.