The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsColor me stupid but I have the worse time going backward and figuring out what the actual effect of
a ruling is. Like this last one about Roe. I guess it is not good for pro-choicer but I mean the supreme court upheld something that was banned that had been appealed in a lower court after the state supreme court refused to hear it after the first court found it unconstitutional. And then the Wiley coyote jumped on the log the was moving upstream in the water that was going the opposite direction and everyone from the foot soldiers to the cooks to Nancy the Emperor's daughter ate fig leaves without washing them and ended up with a very severe case of dysentery.
Do I have that right?
Callmecrazy
(3,065 posts)Eating dirty fig leaves will give you dysentery. That part I believe, so the rest must be true too.
rug
(82,333 posts)Maraya1969
(22,441 posts)NV Whino
(20,886 posts)I can never figure out if something has passed, not passed, been banned, not been banned, or been passed/banned and then reversed. I just come to DU and find out how outraged we are supposed to be.
Had the same problem with all the Prop 8 fol-de-rol.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I'm not the only one who can't understand what the hell is going on most of the time.
Political and legalese language makes me crazy trying to figure it out. Often, someone here at DU can break it down to something resembling English. Otherwise, I'm stumped.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)told the told the Lower Guys to stop passing the buck prematurely.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)antiquie
(4,299 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)I love DU but this isn't the best place to get reasoned interpretation of what a legal ruling means. Better sources are organizations that work in the specific areas addressed: HRC, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, Amnesty.
Also, legal blogs like this prominent one run by Richard Posner and Gary Becker of the U of Chicago Law School are a good source for interpretation of the significance of legal rulings and usually in a non-partisan fashion. (Though it is necessary to know reading Becker-Posner that Richard Posner is a conservative jurist and law professor. Becker is an monetarist economist, though the majority of his work is in the areas of political science and sociology. Both are classical conservatives....think Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan rather than Bush, Bush and Cheney. It rarely affects their legal interpretation of rulings.)
A catalog of legal blogs can be found here, ranging from the topic-specific to the general:
http://www.lexmonitor.com/blogs/by_alpha/a
ashling
(25,771 posts)most of what gets out in the media is confusing at best. For instance, lately SCOTUS declined to hear some cases dealing with trap laws. To hear it from the media, you would think that they had ruled against . . . something . . . when in fact they had just declined to hear that particular case. In that event they don't announce anything - there is no ruling.
They get hundreds of cases. They vote on which ones to take. At least 4 justices have to vote to hear the case, otherwise . . nothing.
Its called the rule of four. There is all sorts of speculation as to why they didn't take the case . . . and a lot of tripe about what it means or what they "ruled."
Now I'll take off my government professor hat