3 ms·

With an issue like this? Roll the dice, honestly. I lose track of whether the conservative members of the court are pro-constitution, pro-defendant or pro-poli

With an issue like this? Roll the dice, honestly. I lose track of whether the conservative members of the court are pro-constitution, pro-defendant or pro-police in criminal justice issues like this. Over the last decade (realizing the court has changed a lot) they've made some pretty decent pro-rights decisions in criminal cases where people thought they would be pro-police. Their recent decisions are garbage fires, though.

chaboud 2y ago
The simplest way to figure out the current court is to apply a “Republican Party” filter before any judgment is applied. Texas arguing against adhering to treaties? Texas wins. New York trying to give air passengers the right to not sit in a hot-boxed airplane for eight hours? Sorry blue-staters. The court tends to attempt to narrow the scope of these party-first decisions, but it’s clear that they’re playing for party above country or sanity. After that, the court is a mush-mash of deeply thoughtless polarized opinions, resulting in the senseless goat rodeo we presently have, but it’s much easier to figure out who will tilt which way after you apply the party filter.
- hiatus 2y ago
  > New York trying to give air passengers the right to not sit in a hot-boxed airplane for eight hours? Aside but which case was this?
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    Likely Air Transport Association of America, Inc. v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2008). In this case, New York attempted to enforce a Passenger Bill of Rights law that required airlines to provide adequate food, water, ventilation, and restroom facilities during lengthy tarmac delays. However, the law was struck down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal law preempts state regulations in aviation matters.
    - hiatus 2y ago
      This is 16 year old case that didn't file for Supreme Court review so it is strange the parent comment would use it as an example of "The simplest way to figure out the current court...".

chaboud 2y ago

The simplest way to figure out the current court is to apply a “Republican Party” filter before any judgment is applied. Texas arguing against adhering to treaties? Texas wins. New York trying to give air passengers the right to not sit in a hot-boxed airplane for eight hours? Sorry blue-staters. The court tends to attempt to narrow the scope of these party-first decisions, but it’s clear that they’re playing for party above country or sanity. After that, the court is a mush-mash of deeply thoughtless polarized opinions, resulting in the senseless goat rodeo we presently have, but it’s much easier to figure out who will tilt which way after you apply the party filter.

hiatus 2y ago
> New York trying to give air passengers the right to not sit in a hot-boxed airplane for eight hours? Aside but which case was this?
- qingcharles 2y ago
  Likely Air Transport Association of America, Inc. v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2008). In this case, New York attempted to enforce a Passenger Bill of Rights law that required airlines to provide adequate food, water, ventilation, and restroom facilities during lengthy tarmac delays. However, the law was struck down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal law preempts state regulations in aviation matters.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    This is 16 year old case that didn't file for Supreme Court review so it is strange the parent comment would use it as an example of "The simplest way to figure out the current court...".