♫Una Alina Habba
Oh shady lawyers who lie
New Jersey can take your license away♫
Insert the standard “I understood that reference” gif here.
Insert the standard ‘I didn’t understand that reference’ gif here.
Sorry, it’s just that every time I see the name ‘Alina Habba’ I get an Una Paloma Blanca earworm. I really, really don’t like that song.
Some things scan so perfectly it would be sinful not to share them.
Ah. Now I get it. Slim Whitman, right?
He sold more albums than the Beatles.
We should trade ear-worms for a while just for the change of pace. Mine is the Beat Farmers:
She was walkin’ down the street on a sunny day, Habba Habba Habba Habba Habba. A feeling in her bones that she’ll have her way, Habba Habba Habba Habba Habba.
Habba Habba Habba Habba, Habba Alinian…
[harmonica hook]
You come and go…
You come and go… far away!
Not sure if you were joshin…Pretty sure the Beatles sold more (some sources say 500 million albums, others 420) compared to Slim’s 70 miillion.
Counting down when AH joins Fox.
Sorry, there was an old commercial for a Slim Whitman collection and that was a line from the commercial.
I believe the same line was used for the Boxcar Willy commercial.
Re: objections - Isn’t every over-ruled objection a potential grounds for appeal? Also, won’t Team Trump say “Clearly, the judge was prejudiced. He ruled against us 95% of the time and that’s just not fair!”? Given the recent USSC history, I could see that argument flying. Disregard the fact it has no wings.
I’ve maybe missed it, but: when, in “recent USSC history,” has the percentage of rulings going one way instead of another been held in itself to signify clear proof of unfairness and prejudice?
Considering how many cases of precedent have been largely ignored or overturned rendering stare decesis almost a sick joke, I’d say you have missed quite a bit
That they’ve overturned bad precedent shouldn’t count against them; have they actually gotten a ruling wrong?
Yes, but it’s a high standard. Most rulings during trial are reviewed with an “abuse of discretion” standard, which is almost never met. Furthermore, even if a ruling or two is in error, it couild be considered “harmless” in light of all the other evidence.
I’ve seen that argument made. I’ve never seen it succeed. Appellate judges aren’t idiots, they understand that one side could be making a huge number of stupid objections.
Arguably, yes. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be so much debate about their decisions.
But that’s the point - they interpret what is legally correct in the US, not what is “right or wrong”.
And even then, it’s taken as an interpretation which may itself be overturned in the future. And that’s one reason why precedent has, until quite recently, been taken to be so important - if a different set of judges will rule differently a few years later, there’s no longer a pretense that the legal system is a good approximation of ‘justice’, whatever that is supposed to be. Overturning decades long precedent should be a weighty matter and not quite so correlated with the ideological leanings of the justices and whoever nominated and voted them there.
Is this a joke? It would literally be easier to name the few decisions that they got right, and yes, there were some. There’s a reason that the current Court, dominated by far-right ideologues, is polling with mainstream America at the worst popularity numbers in its history. Among the most egregious decisions, showing zero respect for long-standing precedent or even for basic reasoning and common sense, were Heller, Citizens United, and Dobbs, just to name a few. The sole objective was to ram through an ideological ruling because they could.
No, that’s my point: I’m speaking of getting a ruling wrong in the sense of being legally incorrect. I’d argue that Roe should’ve prompted you to say they got it egregiously wrong as opposed to being legally correct — and that overturning Roe should’ve prompted you to say now they’re getting it legally correct. I’m saying the former case is when you should’ve lost some faith in the Supreme Court, and the latter is when you should’ve gained some, solely on the basis of ‘interpreting what is legally correct.
So in your view, when Trump promised that if he got elected he would overturn Roe v Wade by packing the Supreme Court with like-minded ideologues, he was only interested in getting things “legally correct”? That when right-wing nutbars voted for him, they were only interested in getting things “legally correct”? That when Trump did as promised, and the far-right lunatics he appointed did what was expected of them, along strictly ideological lines, that said far-right lunatics were only concerned with “getting it legally correct”? Is that why the ruling was so widely condemned by constitutional scholars, because it was so awesomely “legally correct”?