-
Posts
1453 -
Joined
Reputation
2210 Surly 10%Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
-
I knew this dumb bitch who named her son "Krystjon." When I saw that I said to myself, "All you have really done here is demonstrated that you know the sounds of letters." I'm sure she thought it was clever.
-
The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread
Ojo Rojo replied to Horn Dog's topic in Cloak Room
-
The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread
Ojo Rojo replied to Horn Dog's topic in Cloak Room
I know, my dudes. It was rhetorical, which is sad. -
The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread
Ojo Rojo replied to Horn Dog's topic in Cloak Room
Is this real? -
The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread
Ojo Rojo replied to Horn Dog's topic in Cloak Room
- 6389 replies
-
- 10
-
-
-
-
I mean, honestly - I welcome some World War Z type shit right now. My current routine isn't really doing it for me that much anyway. I'm down for some survivalist shit, personally.
-
What could go wrong?
-
Said no one ever. Said everyone all the time.
-
How do I give infinity rep?
-
The coup thread. Fuck the traitors to the Constitution.
Ojo Rojo replied to Willfully Horn's topic in Cloak Room
Don't disagree if it's limited to a "sanity check" for an absurd result. Sure. But here, too, is a line-drawing exercise. There are decisions that would be certain to lead to an absurd result and then there are decisions where there is a theoretically possibly absurd outcome. At what odds do you draw the line where you can't make the decision because of the result? Your line is way before mine. I admit that I haven't studied the opinion at length and so my understanding of the full effect may be imperfect, but applying your absurd result test here... Really? Why would they want that? They are not dumb enough to do create a monarchy by accident. They are not untethered from the Constitution enough to do it intentionally. On this, no fucking way. -
The coup thread. Fuck the traitors to the Constitution.
Ojo Rojo replied to Willfully Horn's topic in Cloak Room
I disagree, but now we're getting into judicial philosophies. I don't think it's a good idea for a court to consider the effect of their rulings as a guiding principle for how to rule. That makes them legislators and that function is reserved for the Congress. You can be aware of the impact and you can even spell out what the impact of the decision will be within the decision itself as a guidepost or as a plea for Congress to act. I don't think the court banned all evidence behind a presidential act; they banned evidence of motive. Again, the way it's supposed to work is if people don't like that shit, Congress has to act. I know, I know, fat chance. But that's the system we got. I also don't think SCOTUS wants a king or intended to crown one. Do you? -
The coup thread. Fuck the traitors to the Constitution.
Ojo Rojo replied to Willfully Horn's topic in Cloak Room
-
The coup thread. Fuck the traitors to the Constitution.
Ojo Rojo replied to Willfully Horn's topic in Cloak Room
We're going a long way to make a small point. If you read the opinion, it goes into why the plaintiff had standing. The standing issue was addressed at the 10th Circuit and the Supreme Court. They both found "a credible threat" that the plaintiff would be affected by the Colorado law. The plaintiff did not rely on this "phantom" customer to create the case or controversy and the courts did not rely on it either. Everyone here has said that the Supreme Court absolutely issues rulings based on hypotheticals. They cited to this case as an example. The hypothetical everyone was referring to was a made up customer that the business refused to serve. But that hypothetical customer situation is not what the case relied on for standing or for the ultimate ruling. It relied on "a credible threat" that the business would be affected by the Colorado law. There's a difference between a credible threat and a made up factual scenario. I have no problem with the credible threat standard because there is actually a lot of analysis that goes into whether something is a credible threat under the law. It's not arbitrary. So here's where you say, "AHA! But there is a credible threat of Trump using Seal Team 6 to murder a political rival or creditor!" And you would be wrong, but it's not because it is inconceivable; it's because such a thing has not yet been subjected to the credible threat standard described in the 303 Creative case. In other words, you can't assume (as a matter of logic as a normal citizen or as a sitting Supreme Court justice) that just because Trump is capable of such things because he's an unscrupulous immoral unmoored piece of shit and just because he could do it because Congress and the rest of the government utterly failed to stop him, that there is a credible threat that he actually would. -
The coup thread. Fuck the traitors to the Constitution.
Ojo Rojo replied to Willfully Horn's topic in Cloak Room
Except that the ruling in the 303 Creative wasn't based on the hypothetical.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!