Wednesday Writs: The Case That Broke Two SCOTUS Justices

Avatar

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

11 Responses

  1. Avatar JoeSal says:

    [L1:] The unmentioned, unless your pretty up on your history of Communism in the supreme court it wouldn’t be known that Felix Frankfurter had a protege named Alger Hiss.

    Chief Justice Taft said of Frankfurter: “seems to be closely in touch with every Bolshevist, Communist movement in this country.”

    Oddly enough It became less of issue for teachers to belong to Communist organizations and to teach communist ideas in public schools during his presence in the Supreme Court.

    “Justice Frankfurter made it his mission to persuade Whittaker to see it his way, and by persuade I mean browbeat and harangue.”

    These Communist bastards are well known for their harassment even in todays political climate. The tactics are ugly and brutal as they always have been. That this communist tactic was used internally in the supreme court is caustic and show how truly corrupted the history of SCOTUS is.

    “So passionately incensed by the Court’s entrance to politics was Felix Frankfurter that he collapsed in his office of a stroke just a few weeks after the decision was announced, never to return to the bench. During his convalescence he blamed the stress of the Baker case for his ill health, and subsequent retirement.”

    I have to charge bullshit on this one also, it is a known commie tactic to feint passionate health victim hood when something they worked so hard on didn’t go their way. It is also a way to poison the well going forward, turning peoples compassion towards an end.Report

  2. Avatar Pinky says:

    L3 – Does that make sense? I mean, I can understand the invasiveness of it, but what if a pregnant woman collapses on her way to the hospital for the delivery? I know there really isn’t an equivalent for a guy, but if I had an emergency, I’d want doctors to have free range over me.Report

    • Avatar Em Carpenter says:

      This refers mainly to pap smears, which are not emergency treatment. For example, the woman in the story who was given one to look for STDs while passed out on nausea meds. It was not an emergency, and they could have waited until she was awake to give consent. Also it refers to doctors using unconscious women as training tools for med students without their consent. As far as a male equivalent, it would be like a doctor having a med student give you a prostate exam as you slept off anesthesia for some other procedure, without your knowledge.Report

    • Avatar PD Shaw says:

      I’m not sure that article was clear on the main point or maybe it was too long to read on my phone. I listened to an NPR story on this issue a couple of years ago, but agree with Em, they are doing the exams not for therapeutic reasons, but taking the opportunity of a drugged patient to train students. I believe one of the people interviewed was having some flashbacks that didn’t make much sense until she went to med school herself and put the pieces together.Report

    • Avatar Pinky says:

      IANAL, and IANAOB-GYN.Report

  3. Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

    L5: I think that is the correct result. And let’s be honest, if stores were liable for accidents and injuries caused by the users of such carts, stores would just remove them, which would result in all manner of wailing and gnashing of teeth from advocates of disabled persons and senior citizens, etc. If Giant Eagle got rid of their carts, I could see someone trying to bring an ADA action against them to get the carts back.Report

  4. Avatar PD Shaw says:

    L1: I’ll add a comment on Frankfurter. He was an adviser to FDR when the SCOTUS was continuing a tradition of striking down laws that interfered with economic liberty, including elements of the New Deal. When he was appointed to the SCOTUS in 1939, the majority was considered conservative in the sense of being pro-business, while he was in the liberal faction that favored upholding legislation. Politics and court composition changed over the years and his ideology of judicial restraint would label him as conservative.Report

  5. Avatar dragonfrog says:

    L7: Since they’ve destroyed the disciplinary records for 20 of the cops disciplined for dishonesty (under oath?) would that allow any cop’s testimony to be suspect since they *might* be one of the 20? It’s only 1% of the force that was thus untraceably disciplined. What percentage of the force does it have to be before a precautionary principle of tossing out every cop’s testimony kicks in?

    Wouldn’t that be a heck of an outcome – since the DPD destroyed discipline records and can’t prove any individual cop (who was employed at the time of the destruction) wasn’t disciplined for perjury, no DPD officer with seniority extending to the time of the records destruction can testify in any case?Report

  6. Avatar Slade the Leveller says:

    L7: In Chicago they call it “testilying”.Report