Today in Supreme Court History: November 19, 1969

11/19/1969: Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (decided November 18, 1996): search of car was truly consensual even though police officer didn't first tell driver he was "free to go" (police asked to search, driver said yes, and drugs were found)

Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U.S. 34 (decided November 18, 1985): habeas statute does not allow federal judge to order marshals to bring state prisoners to the courthouse as witnesses; subpoena can only be served on those having custody (suit was over state prison guard brutality)

Recznik v. City of Lorain, 393 U.S. 166 (decided November 18, 1968): apartment above cigar store was not "public establishment" and therefore warrant needed for entry (police had seen parked cars outside and people entering; they entered through back door and saw a dice game in progress and made arrests for gambling)

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

These are for the 18th!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sorry! I'll post the correct summaries in a moment. Thanks for pointing this out.

[Estragon]

Hey Josh any recent developments on that leaked Dobbs draft investigation???

[bernard11]

Still waiting.

[Estragon]

An internet dollar says we never hear about it again from Josh, given today’s news.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course y'all were talking about that.

Derp!

[Sarcastr0]

I thought this was germane, if not determinative:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/us/supreme-court-leak-abortion-roe-wade.html

[Estragon]

I agree!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

One this day the ABA decided to drop the LSAT requirement for law school because it was too hard for the blacks.

lmao

[Frank Drackman]

You left out that they're adding a "Free Style Rap" section. Eminem's already gettin his rhymes together... a "Justice Mathers"??? farfetched? who thought a Tattooed Circus Freak would get erected in PA?? (I could see Arc-kansas, Lou-easy-anna, maybe even Kentucky) and he's already being touted as a 0-24 Candidate (I have serious doubts Senescent Joe will make it to 0-23, much less 0-24) as addled as he is, He'd wipe his ass with Common-law Harris, just like happened in 0-20'

Frank

[Estragon]

I wonder if the proprietors ever have a moment to reflect on the following they have cultivated here over the years.

[Estragon]

Meant to nest this one just above

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well they certainly cultivated a whole slew of dumbasses who don't know how to use the commenting system.

FYI, what I said was factually correct.

[Estragon]

Factually accurate in the same way “Michelle Obama has a penis” is accurate (according to you)?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/law-school-panel-makes-lsat-optional-vote

Stop being so ignorant all the time Estragon. You don’t want be the next Sarcastr0 or Queenie, or heaven forbid Rev. KKK do you? Or that bootlicker Nige?

[Estragon]

So as accurate, less accurate, or more accurate than “Michelle Obama has a penis”? Just trying to gauge.

Ps: ignorant of what? I didn’t dispute what you said huckleberry

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Equally accurate.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

PS. We've seen video proof of Michaels's penis.

[Estragon]

“We” certainly have not. Can’t say what you saw…

Eugene: THESE ARE YOUR PEOPLE!!!!!!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the comentariat continues a slow slide into a place purely for loud unserious people with lots of time on their hands.

*ahem*

Makes me think about theories of moderation. Hands off has an inertia that leads to this. Fully curated takes a lot of time and makes for a narrower idea space, but vastly more substantive. Is there a bright-line paradigm for how to make a broad but substantive space?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Slashdot has normal moderation, and I think you can add a tag, such as insightful, funny, etc.

What sets it apart is meta moderation, where veterans can moderate previous moderations, I believe as correct or wrong.

Then when viewing comments, you can set a filter to what level of comments to see.

It's not perfect, and too many moderators make too many personal like/dislike choices. But it's better than most and doesn't require much site intervention.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds interesting.

I want to make it clear that I think there is a space for a heavy moderator hand in some spaces, and a light one in others.

I increasingly see VC as a slow-motion example of why no hand ends badly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The bigoted ignorance that marks the comments section of the Volokh Conspiracy is not happenstance. The Volokh Conspiracy is largely what its proprietors desire; they attract, cultivate, flatter, and lather a target audience.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I wish they would just remove comments that include personal insults directed at other commenters or post authors. Maybe if that happened more conspirators would engage in the comments. As it is, I can't blame most of them for staying away.

[Purple Martin]

In the ancient days, back when VC was its own website and even after they moved to WaPo, I recall much more staff moderation. Unapologetically and without drama, much assholery simply disappeared, sometimes with notice (often from Randy Barnett), often without.

The line was seemed to be a judgement that a commenter was either consistently pushing partisan talking points with only a flimsy (or no) connection to the topic, or intentionally (mostly) trying to hinder, rather that participate in communication.

It certainly made the discussions more useful and participation more satisfying, no matter the positions held and discussed.

Closest to that commenting environment currently, is probably Marcy Wheeler's Emptywheel NatSec/Legal blog. Again, moderation is real-time, performed mostly by the founding bloggers. Again, instant, unapologetic, and effective.

btw, I find Emptywheel's research, analysis and explanation of issues—based almost entirely on public-record documentation (judicial opinions, court filings, contracts, trial and deposition transcripts, etc.)—one of the best sources on the web for thoughtful consideration of complex issues . They cite original sources and show their work, welcoming (if challenging) equally thoughtful and well-supported disagreement.

[Frank Drackman]

Bla Bla Bla, Brevity is the something, of something, Bore people much?

Frank "Out"

[Estragon]

Heartily second emptywheel

[Estragon]

They also seem to have cultivated people who don’t know how the spell the two letter preposition “on”

See how facile that was?

[Frank Drackman]

Vegetables are Sensual, People are Sensuous

[Estragon]

You got that straight, flounder

[Dan Schiavetta]

Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146 (decided November 19, 1906): Congress may exempt land held by Native Americans from taxation before they sell it but didn't do so in this case; Congress had declared in 1887 that plaintiff's tribe were now citizens so he had to pay taxes from that point forward

United States v. Cambridge Loan & Building Co., 278 U.S. 55 (decided November 19, 1928): government was estopped from collecting back taxes even though taxpayer "building and loan association" was making too much money on the outside to qualify for exemption designed for nonprofits

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (decided November 19, 1974): habeas petitioner didn't have to resubmit to state court his claim that the state statute he had been arrested under was unconstitutional; his state appeals had been exhausted but the state supreme court then issued a decision in another case agreeing that the statute was unconstitutional (this was Sharp v. Commonwealth, 1972, where the Virginia Supreme Court held that intent to distribute drugs cannot be inferred solely from the quantity possessed) (I think it can very well be inferred, unless the possessor was Hunter S. Thompson)

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Thanks!

[Dan Schiavetta]

All day I've gotten this sense of deja vu. After seeing your earlier comment I found out why.