Obama-0 SCOTUS-12

Many dissenting opinions are written with the intent of giving the future appellate a roadmap to a tangential favorable decision.
 
Glenn Quagmire said:
Many dissenting opinions are written with the intent of giving the future appellate a roadmap to a tangential favorable decision.
Click to expand...
Of course you are correct. Thanks for pointing this out. It appear Justice Ginsburg has done exactly that in her Hobby Lobby dissent.
 
And with the Wheaton College case she has already been proven correct.
 
Ms Tree said:
Charles Hughes disagrees with you.
 
The importance of dissent
 

 
A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit
of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision
may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes
the court to have been betrayed... Independence does not mean
cantankerousness and ajudge may be a strong judge without being an
impossible person. Nothing is more distressing on any bench than the
exhibition of a captious, impatient, querulous spirit.'
Charles Evans Hughes
 

 
So does Street Law
 
 
Seems that some folks think that dissents are a bit more than just and Op-Ed piece.
 
Justice Stephen G. Breyer speaks about the importance of dissent
Click to expand...
 
 
And?  do i really have to post a bunch of people that agree with my stance and will it change the way you feel?
 
I wonder though if it was the other way around and the court ruled the other way how you would feel about the dissenting opinions?  i for one have always hated them, i think if i justice wants to discuss his opinion of a case he/she as a free citizen can write an oped.  it will have the same weight legally, and most likely more people will read it... seriuosly who reads the dissenting opinion except for people p*ssed off at the majority?
 
Ms Tree said:
And with the Wheaton College case she has already been proven correct.
Click to expand...
its a different case, affecting different point of the law... this doesnt prove her right.. and only a moron would think that the hobby lobby decision would be the end of this 
 
there are over 80 pending cases on the ACA that has to do with Religion, Ginsburg isn't a prophet anyone that can look at the appellate can see there will be more... because there are more
 
PHXConx said:
And?  do i really have to post a bunch of people that agree with my stance and will it change the way you feel?
 
I wonder though if it was the other way around and the court ruled the other way how you would feel about the dissenting opinions?  i for one have always hated them, i think if i justice wants to discuss his opinion of a case he/she as a free citizen can write an oped.  it will have the same weight legally, and most likely more people will read it... seriuosly who reads the dissenting opinion except for people p*ssed off at the majority?
Click to expand...
Depends on who you quote. If you quote two supreme court justices and a law site I will definitely give it consideration.

You mean like the TX sodomy case that Scalia wrote a dissent which was used to pave the way for marriage equality?

I am not talking about agreement with a dissent. I'm am talking about the importance of a dissent. An op - ed has no legal weight a d is irrelevant in so far as the law is concerned. Dissents from the bench are addressed by the majority and vice versa. They carry legal weight in that they can be looked back on for support when the court changes direction on an issue susceptible as in Brown v.
 
PHXConx said:
its a different case, affecting different point of the law... this doesnt prove her right.. and only a moron would think that the hobby lobby decision would be the end of this 
 
there are over 80 pending cases on the ACA that has to do with Religion, Ginsburg isn't a prophet anyone that can look at the appellate can see there will be more... because there are more
Click to expand...
I guess if you think Ginsburg, Kagen and Sotomayor are morons that is your right. I definitely disagree with that opinion.

Definitely not the end. This is just the first crack in the dam.
 
Ms Tree said:
I guess if you think Ginsburg, Kagen and Sotomayor are morons that is your right. I definitely disagree with that opinion.

Definitely not the end. This is just the first crack in the dam.
Click to expand...
No i think they placate to morons that do not understand the differences in between a case about non profits and a case about for profit companies one that is based on the RFRA and one that is not...  
 
its not even the first crack... the court did a similar injunction in December 2013  for the little sisters of the poor... it obviously had nothing to do with hobby lobby ginsburg kagen and sotomayor knows that but they know the people they are placating to do not... 
 
Nope. Not even close. The opinions written by Ginsburg and Sotomayor were legal arguments that would have become law with 1 or 2 more votes respectively. They are not merely writing to placate anyone.

Perhaps reading the dissents might be in order to gain a better understanding of what is being argued.
 
When the injunction was issued for the Little Sisters, I am sure the court knew that the Hobby case would be on the docket.  Since the cases are related, the court does not like to say OK one day and then reverse the decision the next.  Same reason the circuit courts placed their decision on hold in IN and UT regarding marriage equality.  Let the final court have the final say.
 
PHXConx said:
No i think they placate to morons...
Click to expand...
Really?

Dissenting opinions of the SCOTUS placate to morons?

We studied many of those in law school. They are key to providing balance to the thinking behind the decisions.

They are an important part of our legal process in this country, like it or not.

I do not agree with many of the courts decisions, but I respect.the rule of law and the process.
 
Ms Tree said:
Nope. Not even close. The opinions written by Ginsburg and Sotomayor were legal arguments that would have become law with 1 or 2 more votes respectively. They are not merely writing to placate anyone.

Perhaps reading the dissents might be in order to gain a better understanding of what is being argued. .
Click to expand...
omg really thats your argument well if they had one or 2 more votes it would have been law...(and thats not true either, the law in hobby is the same as before, they just enforced it by ruling that the ACA violated RFRA.  they didnt write law... that was written in 1993.)
 
yea and if romney got a couple million more votes he would have been president... but they didnt so its not "law"  
 
if you want a better understanding of what is being argued listen or read the arguments.. listen or read the questions and answers that were given, you can see then why later on the justices ruled the way they did...  not read the dissent and wish they got more votes...  
 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx 
 
PHXConx said:
omg really thats your argument well if they had one or 2 more votes it would have been law...(and thats not true either, the law in hobby is the same as before, they just enforced it by ruling that the ACA violated RFRA.  they didnt write law... that was written in 1993.)
 
yea and if romney got a couple million more votes he would have been president... but they didnt so its not "law"  
 
if you want a better understanding of what is being argued listen or read the arguments.. listen or read the questions and answers that were given, you can see then why later on the justices ruled the way they did...  not read the dissent and wish they got more votes...  
 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx
Click to expand...
Their decision would have governed how the law was applied.  Is that better?  And yes that is my argument.  The dissent is a legal argument that is read by jurists all over the country, some times they even use the dissent to support a reverse in decision as in Brown.  The idea that it is to placate people is laughable.
 
I read both and I agree with Ginsburg's concerns which have already been born out in the Wheaton case.  I think Alito's argument is flawed and the Wheaton case supports that view.  One day the alternative is legal and 72 hrs later it i s unconstitutional.  Bad law.
 
 
Glenn Quagmire said:
Really?

Dissenting opinions of the SCOTUS placate to morons?

 
Click to expand...
 
 
thats not what i said 
 
this is a multi post response go back and read what i said  and you wont be putting words in my mouth...  
 
Ms Tree said:
Their decision would have governed how the law was applied.  Is that better?  And yes that is my argument.  The dissent is a legal argument that is read by jurists all over the country, some times they even use the dissent to support a reverse in decision as in Brown.  The idea that it is to placate people is laughable.
 
I read both and I agree with Ginsburg's concerns which have already been born out in the Wheaton case.  I think Alito's argument is flawed and the Wheaton case supports that view.  One day the alternative is legal and 72 hrs later it i s unconstitutional.  Bad law.
Click to expand...
no its not better, so you think romney's opinions on what obama had done since 2012 is binding because had he got those extra votes he would be president and his voice should be heard...
 
both arguments are equally ridiculous 
 
you dont understand either the wheaton case or hobby lobby or the ACA
 
because you dont understand the ACA and how it deals differently with for profit and not for profit companies in respects to the contraceptive mandate.   and why hobby lobby decision being so narrow can not affect wheaton, because of how the law handles it.  
 
in fact i dont think wheaton has a leg to stand on. the injunction just protects wheaton until full arguments are heard... 
 
because of the hobby lobby case, wheaton may not have a leg to stand on.. and will probably lose and here is the reason why 
 
hobby lobby was based on the fact that for profit companies were treated differently than their not for profit counter parts, where the not for profit counterparts had an out for religious objections.  that hobby lobby because of the RFRA requires if possible a less restrictive alternative and pointed to that of the HHS rules for not for profit companies... 
 
Since non profit companies already have an less restrictive alternative then this case based on hobby  doesnt have a leg to stand on... the court has placed an injunction because they say they have a diffrent legal challenge outside of RFRA... thats why they placed it, until after legal arguments have been heard...  
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top