Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Maraya1969

(22,441 posts)
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 03:51 PM Nov 2013

Color 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?

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Color me stupid but I have the worse time going backward and figuring out what the actual effect of (Original Post) Maraya1969 Nov 2013 OP
Well, Callmecrazy Nov 2013 #1
You have precisely described the whimsy of the judiciary. rug Nov 2013 #2
Thank you. I so appreciate when someone dumbs it down for me and just tells me the end. Maraya1969 Nov 2013 #3
Thank you NV Whino Nov 2013 #4
Glad to know pipi_k Nov 2013 #5
I thought the Supremes antiquie Nov 2013 #6
No - that was the pips. Gladys was in absentia cliffordu Nov 2013 #7
Ah, it's all clear now... antiquie Nov 2013 #8
It's okay. Most lawyers I know do too. Chan790 Nov 2013 #9
Well for one thing it doesn't help that ashling Nov 2013 #10

NV Whino

(20,886 posts)
4. Thank you
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 06:19 PM
Nov 2013

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)
5. Glad to know
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 07:21 PM
Nov 2013

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.



 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
9. It's okay. Most lawyers I know do too.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 12:55 PM
Nov 2013

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)
10. Well for one thing it doesn't help that
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:56 PM
Nov 2013

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

Latest Discussions»The DU Lounge»Color me stupid but I hav...