The Supremes

[TwiceHorn 31529]

45 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Its weird how you refuse to consider that the court doesn't give a fuck about facts and will issue rulings to order for fedsoc and the christofascist right. Like youre so focused on "well the victim had it comin! they shouldn't have resisted and taken it to court" line of reasoning that you're (intentionally?) ignoring the cold hard reality of what this case is and represents. 

An insurrectionist senator's wife fabricated a grievance of alleged oppression, used a christofascist legal advocacy group to back the case and help shop it to the most sympathetic courts and judges, and then argued it in front of an illegitimate supreme court whose composition is one THIRD fascist appointed judges, and another third is LITERALLY GETTING BRIBED BY THE FASCIST RIGHT IN PLAIN VIEW 

Wake up and smell the fucking ashes dude. This court system is just another appendage of fascism and they will not stop until they are made to stop. 

Which court?  The two lower courts that "didn't give a fuck about the facts" and ruled in favor of the CDCR?

This whole narrative is just counterfactual.

If you're going to bitch about things, it's kind of important to be correct in what you're bitching about.  Otherwise you're no better than Magats.

Edited July 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27727]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The bitch did.  Alleging that she intended to violate the statute and that if she did, CDCR would enforce the statute against her.

Evidently, this fake case stuff happened later and was offered as sort of a backup position in case the court found her allegations inadequate.

All of the courts, from the trial court on up, found her allegations sufficient without relying on whether anyone actually asked her to create an LGBQT website or whether she actually refused to do so.

Declaratory judgments are standard shit, and here's a standard application that you will appreciate.

Patent Owner:  Hey, infringer, you infringe my patent, I can sue you.

Infringer:  No, I don't and your patent is invalid.  Sue me.

Patent Owner:  Ummmm.

Infringer:  Files Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Patent Owner's patent.

Result:  There's a valid lawsuit unless the Patent Owner can somehow convince the court that it won't sue the infringer.  And one sure-fire way to do that is to give the infringer a covenant not to sue, which is a binding agreement that they will not, in fact, sue.  If the Patent Owner is unwilling to do that, regardless of its subjective intentions, it is stuck with a lawsuit.

 

 

Hey buddy, civil rights aren't a fucking patent or IP issue. This isn't some for profit fuck fuck game. 

[jimmyjazz 46095]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The bitch did.  Alleging that she intended to violate the statute and that if she did, CDCR would enforce the statute against her.

Like I assume many, I'm struggling to wrap my head around the basics of this case.  She sued the state?  It was a known hypothetical from the jump?

[Brisketexan 105274]

24 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

what really needs to happen is a complete housecleaning of any kind of gifts, trips, or any other sort of compensation the FUCKING JUDGES are receiving from third fucking parties. this shit is infuriating. tell me that congres does insider trading? fuck that shit, it's unfair, but i guess congress people are going to find a way to grift somehow. 

but the JUDICIARY? fucking hell.

Also, a whole lot of this.  I regularly represent governmental entities.  I pretty much can't/don't/won't pay for ANYTHING for them.  The sole exception is things like, if we're having an all-day meeting in our offices, and we have sandwiches brought in, we can pay for those.  Ooooh, a $7 Jimmy Johns. 

As for federal judges, as he just retired, I'm happy to tell a story on Judge Yeakel.  We are friends -- s friendship pre-dating his time on the federal bench.  And not long after he got on the bench, he was lamenting how lonely it was, because his friends stopped asking him to lunch and such.  I said "well, that's shitty, let's go to lunch next week.  There's a new BBQ place I wanna take you to."  So, I took him to lunch at Franklin, back when Aaron was still working out of the trailer on I-35 and there wasn't much of a line.  Fantastic bbq of course.  Great company, we had lunch and talked for a long time.  In fact, he asked me if I'd ever had a criminal appointment.  When I said no, he gave me the "how-to" in case I got one.*  Lotta laughs, a good break in his day.  And....he paid for his own lunch.  We didn't even have to talk about it, that's how it was going to be.

"Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety" is NOT something public officials need to do for themselves, to keep their asses out of a sling, etc.  It's a fucking DUTY they owe to the office and the institution, so that the people don't lose faith in the office and the institution.  The mayor of Possum Tail, Texas shouldn't take bribes...NOT just because it's illegal and because he could go to jail, but because it's super, super important for the citizens of Possum Tail to know and believe that their mayor is acting in the public interest.  They may not always agree with him, they may think he's an idiot, whatever.  But they have to believe that he's there to serve the office.  Because once that trust is gone....it's ALL gone.

 

*  Sonofabitch had Judge Sparks assign me a criminal case like two weeks later.  Sheesh.  Little low-level Honduran drug dealer.  They had him DEAD to rights, as the FBI and DEA usually do.  I still busted my ass to try to find every angle I could.

[scottsins 1969]

Like I assume many, I'm struggling to wrap my head around the basics of this case.  She sued the state?  It was a known hypothetical from the jump?

Correct.

Hey buddy, civil rights aren't a fucking patent or IP issue. This isn't some for profit fuck fuck game. 

Declaratory judgments work the same for both.

[Brisketexan 105274]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Like I assume many, I'm struggling to wrap my head around the basics of this case.  She sued the state?  It was a known hypothetical from the jump?

Guys, Twice isn't wrong here.  And the standard applies to all kinds of what are called "Declaratory Judgment" actions: The government passes a law restricting/requiring X.  A party presents a position that "I intend to do X/not do X, which the new law would make illegal.  I would like a Declaratory Judgment declaring the law void, so that I don't risk imprisonment etc. for doing/not doing X."  

99% of such cases are pretty mundane (maybe they include a constitutional question, maybe they just include a question of whether the gov't entity has the authority to pass that law/regulation, etc.).  For example, the City of Dingleberry could pass an ordinance banning all yard signs.  That ordinance could be challenged by 1) a citizen who wants to post a political sign in their yard, or 2) a house painter who wants to be able to advertise his work while he's painting a house, 3) a realtor who needs to indicate what houses are for sale, etc. etc.  They don't have to wait to post a sign, get a citation from the city, and THEN sue.  If they present a credible case that they intend to post such a sign, they can ask a court to declare the ordinance illegal.  Maybe because it violates the first amendment.  Maybe because the City of Dingleberry does not have the legal power to regulate signs (that power is expressly reserved to the state of Bumfuck, where the City of Dingleberry is found).  Maybe for some other reason.

Do I find this particular Colorado case problematic because there seems to have been some fraudulent representation to the court as a "backstop" (i.e., "hey, we also do have an actual controversy because someone actually asked us for a gay marriage website!")?  Yeah, I do.  If that was at all a "fact" being entered into the record, and a party intentionally falsely represented it, that party should have been tossed out on their ass.

[Captainant 27727]

4 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Declaratory judgments work the same for both.

Oh good point, so since some crazy bitch made up an issue and lied in her filing that was submitted under oath, and a court made a certain type of ruling, then gay people should be second class citizens if there's enough christians around. 

It makes TOTAL sense now! Those gays should know their place and that the court views their identity as a choice - one that they disapprove of. Thanks, totally not fascist court system!

[TwiceHorn 31529]

26 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Hey buddy, civil rights aren't a fucking patent or IP issue. This isn't some for profit fuck fuck game. 

Take it up with Congress, they created the DJ statute.  It applies across the board and made it irrelevant whether there was an actual dispute between two live people.

You should probably also be aware that the DJ Act has long been a tool employed by the ACLU and similar civil libertarian organizations to get court rulings faster than otherwise might occur.

Not everything is a "fuck fuck game."

Edited July 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31529]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Oh good point, so since some crazy bitch made up an issue and lied in her filing that was submitted under oath, and a court made a certain type of ruling, then gay people should be second class citizens if there's enough christians around. 

It makes TOTAL sense now! Those gays should know their place and that the court views their identity as a choice - one that they disapprove of. Thanks, totally not fascist court system!

No, you idiot twat.

It was sufficient, under the laws of the United States of America, duly passed by Congress in 1948, that the bitch allege that she intended to violate the statute and that Colorado intended to enforce it.

That's it.  That's the basis of all the courts' decisions, pro and con.  Whether there was a dummied-up request or not is utterly, completely irrelevant.  There could have been no request at all, as there was when the suit was filed, and the case would have proceeded as it did.

Edited July 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46095]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They don't have to wait to post a sign, get a citation from the city, and THEN sue.  If they present a credible case that they intend to post such a sign, they can ask a court to declare the ordinance illegal.  Maybe because it violates the first amendment.  Maybe because the City of Dingleberry does not have the legal power to regulate signs (that power is expressly reserved to the state of Bumfuck, where the City of Dingleberry is found).  Maybe for some other reason.

Well, the credibility seems a little less clear here.  Asserting that she intends to violate the statute IF (big IF) she is asked to create a gay website is not exactly the same as asserting she intends to post a sign in her yard.  She has control over the latter, and perhaps no control over the former.  I understand this may not matter in the eyes of the court, but it's still a difference.

 

Quote

Do I find this particular Colorado case problematic because there seems to have been some fraudulent representation to the court as a "backstop" (i.e., "hey, we also do have an actual controversy because someone actually asked us for a gay marriage website!")?  Yeah, I do.  If that was at all a "fact" being entered into the record, and a party intentionally falsely represented it, that party should have been tossed out on their ass.

I mean, at some point it seems perjurous.  I don't know if that compromises the case, but it seems like she (and maybe her attorney) should be risking penalty.  Do I care about that part?  Only because I'm pissed about the ultimate outcome.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Like I assume many, I'm struggling to wrap my head around the basics of this case.  She sued the state?  It was a known hypothetical from the jump?

See the example that I added that I'm pretty sure you'll get.

The DJ Act is designed to let people under threat of civil action bring the thing when there is a simmering dispute.

It is worth noting, however, that the DJ Act does tend to increase the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and civil rights in one area in which the DJ Act is employed to get cases to federal courts sooner than they might otherwise be.  And that applies to "good guys" as well as "bad."

And that in turn gets more things to the Supreme Court and more things on the shadow docket (the Supreme Court can do more on the shadow docket with things that come up through the federal courts than things that come up from the state courts).  For example, SB8 was challenged via declaratory judgment, as are many statutes that are violative of civil rights.

And, there is an argument that the DJ Act may extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts beyond "actual cases or controversies," but it has not been successfully challenged in its 75 some odd year history.

Edited July 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27727]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There could have been no request at all, as there was when the suit was filed, and the case would have proceeded as it did.

Well at least we're finally on the same page that the supreme court is just doing whatever the fuck it wants in the absence of any factual basis. I completely agree that with the roberts court this was a foregone conclusion 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well at least we're finally on the same page that the supreme court is just doing whatever the fuck it wants in the absence of any factual basis. I completely agree that with the roberts court this was a foregone conclusion 

What about the two lower courts that upheld the statute on exactly the same basis?

BItch about the actual ruling all you want.  I probably agree with you.  But this idea that the Supreme Court willingly indulged an evidentiary fraud is bullshit of the purest ray serene.

Do facts matter to you at all? Or is it just outrage all the time?

Edited July 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27727]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What about the two lower courts that upheld the statute on exactly the same basis?

 

Do facts matter to you at all? Or is it just outrage all the time?

Dude facts haven't mattered for a fucking while. The fascists flood the zone with so much bullshit and lies, they empirically carry equal or greater weight than facts in our court system. As long as nobody catches the first lie, then it's no longer up for consideration after the fact? Like some sort of shitty no-review rule on a godawful call?

I thought the purpose of the court system was to seek out facts. Instead we have seen it legitimize a false grievance and injury, weaponize a shield law as a sword against their benefactors "out" group, and take bribes from their petitioners. 

Do outcomes matter to YOU at all? Or as long as everything follows the arbitrary rules, then you don't care?

[TwiceHorn 31529]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Dude facts haven't mattered for a fucking while. The fascists flood the zone with so much bullshit and lies, they empirically carry equal or greater weight than facts in our court system. As long as nobody catches the first lie, then it's no longer up for consideration after the fact? Like some sort of shitty no-review rule on a godawful call?

I thought the purpose of the court system was to seek out facts. Instead we have seen it legitimize a false grievance and injury, weaponize a shield law as a sword against their benefactors "out" group, and take bribes from their petitioners. 

Do outcomes matter to YOU at all? Or as long as everything follows the arbitrary rules, then you don't care?

Facts still matter to me.

They should to all of us.

The single largest problem with Magats is that they operate without regard to facts.

I have never once endorsed the holding of this case.  I am simply pointing out that this notion that the Supreme Court indulged some evidentiary fraud has nothing to do with the outcome, whatsoever.  And continuing to bleat about that aspect of it is stupid and counterfactual.

And yeah, the process fucking matters.

Right now, the GQP is attempting to impeach Joe Biden on supposition without facts and evidence tying Hunter's shenanigans to any bad acts of Joe.  And screaming for Hunter and Joe's indictment on crimes for which they have no evidence, just opinion and supposition.

That is no different than your insistence that Donald be indicted without developing actual evidence of his guilt.

Both are based on opinions of what the respective targets did or do or are likely to have done.  It so happens that your opinion that Trump is dirty is probably better founded than their opinion that Joe is dirty is nothing more than a coincidence.  If you're going to bring the charges you need the evidence.  That's how a fact-based reality works.

Without it, you're just pissing in the wind.

Edited July 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Josh is down with the chubby. 

That’s a beard, bro.  

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Facts still matter to me.

They should to all of us.

The single largest problem with Magats is that they operate without regard to facts.

I have never once endorsed the holding of this case.  I am simply pointing out that this notion that the Supreme Court indulged some evidentiary fraud has nothing to do with the outcome, whatsoever.  And continuing to bleat about that aspect of it is stupid and counterfactual.

And yeah, the process fucking matters.

Right now, the GQP is attempting to impeach Joe Biden on supposition without facts and evidence tying Hunter's shenanigans to any bad acts of Joe.  And screaming for Hunter and Joe's indictment on crimes for which they have no evidence, just opinion and supposition.

That is no different than your insistence that Donald be indicted without developing actual evidence of his guilt.

Both are based on opinions of what the respective targets did or do or are likely to have done.  It so happens that your opinion that Trump is dirty is probably better founded than their opinion that Joe is dirty is nothing more than a coincidence.  If you're going to bring the charges you need the evidence.  That's how a fact-based reality works.

Without it, you're just pissing in the wind.

I’m all about Dems in Congress playing hardball and getting in the mud but agree with you that the judiciary should strive to maintain some decorum.  Captain is just like ‘they’re dirty, so everything and everyone should run by magat rules’.  No thanks.  Although, I see why people think like that.  Shit is very frustrating.  

[Captainant 27727]

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I’m all about Dems in Congress playing hardball and getting in the mud but agree with you that the judiciary should strive to maintain some decorum.  Captain is just like ‘they’re dirty, so everything and everyone should run by magat rules’.  No thanks.  Although, I see why people think like that.  Shit is very frustrating.  

I'm not saying things SHOULD be that way, but I am saying that things ARE CURRENTLY that way and we need to acknowledge that the fascists are playing by different rules from good citizens. We are seeing the "good guys" stand idly by and do nothing as justices are collecting bribes and issuing completely out of pocket rulings that are countermanding legislation and fabricating fact patterns. And worse than that, we get to hear ad nauseam that it's a feature, not a bug! Because decorum and appearances of impropriety only matter if you're not a fascist. 

I want a system based on facts and consistency of rights. That ain't what we've fucking got. 

[bolverk 29708]

56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Guys, Twice isn't wrong here.  And the standard applies to all kinds of what are called "Declaratory Judgment" actions: The government passes a law restricting/requiring X.  A party presents a position that "I intend to do X/not do X, which the new law would make illegal.  I would like a Declaratory Judgment declaring the law void, so that I don't risk imprisonment etc. for doing/not doing X."  

99% of such cases are pretty mundane (maybe they include a constitutional question, maybe they just include a question of whether the gov't entity has the authority to pass that law/regulation, etc.).  For example, the City of Dingleberry could pass an ordinance banning all yard signs.  That ordinance could be challenged by 1) a citizen who wants to post a political sign in their yard, or 2) a house painter who wants to be able to advertise his work while he's painting a house, 3) a realtor who needs to indicate what houses are for sale, etc. etc.  They don't have to wait to post a sign, get a citation from the city, and THEN sue.  If they present a credible case that they intend to post such a sign, they can ask a court to declare the ordinance illegal.  Maybe because it violates the first amendment.  Maybe because the City of Dingleberry does not have the legal power to regulate signs (that power is expressly reserved to the state of Bumfuck, where the City of Dingleberry is found).  Maybe for some other reason.

Do I find this particular Colorado case problematic because there seems to have been some fraudulent representation to the court as a "backstop" (i.e., "hey, we also do have an actual controversy because someone actually asked us for a gay marriage website!")?  Yeah, I do.  If that was at all a "fact" being entered into the record, and a party intentionally falsely represented it, that party should have been tossed out on their ass.

 

Thank you. This was a very helpful explanation for a layman like me.

[Brisketexan 105274]

17 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

That’s a beard, bro.  

I mean.....is there anyone who DOESN'T see this?

In the dictionary under "self-loathing closeted midwestern gay dude," the entry is "See Hawley, Josh."  Not that his gayness matters to me at all...but his fake "christian" righteousness and amped up "morality" sure as shit does.

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm not saying things SHOULD be that way, but I am saying that things ARE CURRENTLY that way and we need to acknowledge that the fascists are playing by different rules from good citizens. We are seeing the "good guys" stand idly by and do nothing as justices are collecting bribes and issuing completely out of pocket rulings that are countermanding legislation and fabricating fact patterns. And worse than that, we get to hear ad nauseam that it's a feature, not a bug! Because decorum and appearances of impropriety only matter if you're not a fascist. 

I want a system based on facts and consistency of rights. That ain't what we've fucking got. 

You're not wrong.  And you capture the dilemma that the GQP and the modern fundagelical "conservative" movement has put us in -- our choice is that we have to destroy the village in order to save it, that sort of thing.

Do we let the fascists keep running their plays, destroying the Republic and the Rule of Law (some semblance, imperfect as it may have been, of an objective rules and norms based order)?

Or do we counter them with the only weapon that will work....using their same tactics, further degrading the Republic and the Rule of Law, albeit for better outcomes?

It's like any sport -- once one party opts out of the rules, and is getting away with it, there's only one path to competing: you need to break the same rules.  If the other side is getting away with absurd holding and pass interference, you're condemning yourself to the L column if you don't start doing the same.

Creating that dilemma is why I hate them so, so, so much.  They've broken the Republic in pursuit of their sick authoritarian fantasy world.  They took something we all should love and serve, and broke it for their own sick fucking ends.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

20 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I’m all about Dems in Congress playing hardball and getting in the mud but agree with you that the judiciary should strive to maintain some decorum.  Captain is just like ‘they’re dirty, so everything and everyone should run by magat rules’.  No thanks.  Although, I see why people think like that.  Shit is very frustrating.  

I agree that bullshit should be called as such, using colorful language etc. 

I do not think it is helpful at all to counter bullshit with more bullshit. Someone has to stay tethered to the facts. 

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 We are seeing the "good guys" stand idly by and do nothing as justices are collecting bribes and issuing completely out of pocket rulings

As a gen Xer it certainly feels that at one point in my life this open bribery would have had repercussions.  Maybe I'm naive, and maybe I'm mis-remembering my younger years.  But that this corruption is out in the open and there is no real outrage over it is amazing but at the same time now feels depressingly normal.  Perhaps this is the gaslighting effect on us all?  Given the so-called highest court in the land status, you would think that said court being so openly and  brazenly corrupt would bring a civlized country to a halt until something was done.

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105274]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I agree that bullshit should be called as such, using colorful language etc. 

I do not think it is helpful at all to counter bullshit with more bullshit. Someone has to stay tethered to the facts. 

Counterpoint: playing by the old rules (you can't hold, or commit pass interference) just means you're going to lose in a blowout.  That's the whole problem here.  When one team has opted out of the rules, and is getting away with it, what choice do you have?

By the way, the proper choice is to destroy the other team.  Ruin every one of their players.  Ruin their families.  Crush them.  Make such an example of them that nobody will ever again be tempted to opt out of the rules in such a way.

Oh....and if you're thinking that maybe you're thinking that what I'm suggesting is that we should absolutely ruin and relentlessly harass, shame, and make miserable Thomas, Aliton, and Kavanaugh (the ones we know are taking bribes)....you'd be right.  Crooks and criminals betraying the country for personal gain shouldn't be able to order a goddamned Starbucks without a crowd of people yelling in their ear calling them a treasonous piece of shit.

Don't want people harassing you everywhere you go and calling you a treasonous piece of shit?  Well then....there's one easy way to do that....DON'T BE A TREASONOUS PIECE OF SHIT.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Brisketexan

[Red Five 40881]

5 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

But that this corruption is out in the open and there is no real outrage over it is amazing but at the same time now feels depressingly normal.

Well, you see, it depends what team you play for. If RBG had received free vacations, tuition paid for, etc. it would have been a much bigger deal, because everyone would have been in agreement that that was wrong. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Red Five

[Captainant 27727]

39 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

As a gen Xer it certainly feels that at one point in my life this open bribery would have had repercussions.  Maybe I'm naive, and maybe I'm mis-remembering my younger years.  But that this corruption is out in the open and there is no real outrage over it is amazing but at the same time now feels depressingly normal.  Perhaps this is the gaslighting effect on us all?  Given the so-called highest court in the land status, you would think that said court being so openly and  brazenly corrupt would bring a civlized country to a halt until something was done.

This cultivated disaffection has an end destination, and it looks a whole lot like russias domestic political scene. A government completely decoupled from the will of the people, supported and enabled by billionaires, with a population that just assumes the worst thing is always going to be the outcome no matter what. Complete with useful idiots trying to convince everyone that everything is fine. 

[Rimbo 26052]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, you idiot twat.

It was sufficient, under the laws of the United States of America, duly passed by Congress in 1948, that the bitch allege that she intended to violate the statute and that Colorado intended to enforce it.

That's it.  That's the basis of all the courts' decisions, pro and con.  Whether there was a dummied-up request or not is utterly, completely irrelevant.  There could have been no request at all, as there was when the suit was filed, and the case would have proceeded as it did.

y'all need to stfu and listen to TwiceHorn and brisket here

y'all might actually learn something

[Underdog 28767]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean.....is there anyone who DOESN'T see this?

 

[Rimbo 26052]

42 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Counterpoint: playing by the old rules (you can't hold, or commit pass interference) just means you're going to lose in a blowout.  That's the whole problem here.  When one team has opted out of the rules, and is getting away with it, what choice do you have?

By the way, the proper choice is to destroy the other team.  Ruin every one of their players.  Ruin their families.  Crush them.  Make such an example of them that nobody will ever again be tempted to opt out of the rules in such a way.

Oh....and if you're thinking that maybe you're thinking that what I'm suggesting is that we should absolutely ruin and relentlessly harass, shame, and make miserable Thomas, Aliton, and Kavanaugh (the ones we know are taking bribes)....you'd be right.  Crooks and criminals betraying the country for personal gain shouldn't be able to order a goddamned Starbucks without a crowd of people yelling in their ear calling them a treasonous piece of shit.

Don't want people harassing you everywhere you go and calling you a treasonous piece of shit?  Well then....there's one easy way to do that....DON'T BE A TREASONOUS PIECE OF SHIT.

We do not win by becoming what our opponents are.

We lost to OU a lot lately in football. Does that mean we should become sooners? Aggy was pantsing us in recruiting. Should we have become aggy?

Not merely no, but FUCK no. Because we know we can beat them without becoming them. We've done it in the past, and we'll do it in the future.

MAGA is fucking things up right now, but that very nature that's given them short term impact is going to cause them to fall apart long term. We just have to wait a bit and push gently in the right spots when the foundation is weak, and then enjoy watching the collapse. It's already more or less happening.

Yeah, we're going to have to work to get civil rights happening in this country again. But the opposition is weak; we do not need to weaken ourselves to match.

[Brisketexan 105274]

5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

We do not win by becoming what our opponents are.

We lost to OU a lot lately in football. Does that mean we should become sooners? Aggy was pantsing us in recruiting. Should we have become aggy?

Not merely no, but FUCK no. Because we know we can beat them without becoming them. We've done it in the past, and we'll do it in the future.

MAGA is fucking things up right now, but that very nature that's given them short term impact is going to cause them to fall apart long term. We just have to wait a bit and push gently in the right spots when the foundation is weak, and then enjoy watching the collapse. It's already more or less happening.

Yeah, we're going to have to work to get civil rights happening in this country again. But the opposition is weak; we do not need to weaken ourselves to match.

Counterpoint: Japan did some really shitty stuff.  Their treatment of POWs and civilians was horrific.

In response....we developed and used the most powerful, destructive weapon the world has ever seen.  On entire cities.  Twice.

You don't beat evil fucks by playing nice.  You amp shit up and nuke their asses.

We could do the Germany analogy, too.  Holocaust type shit?  That gets you a Dresden firebombing and a Berlin in total ruin.

[TexasEd 8071]

On 7/1/2023 at 8:42 AM, cactusflinthead said:

It's started

 

Sign should say “Trump supporters and other fascist groups. “

You know, because the Venn diagram of Maga is completely inside the Fascist circle. 

[hobbes2702 13054]

22 hours ago, scottsins said:

It’s utter bullshit that the underlying case was not even an actual thing happening.

I’m not sure what SCOTUS is supposed to do about that though. You do NOT want your appellate courts becoming fact finders. That’s never been their role and it shouldn’t be.

There’s no facts to find

[pacman 7369]

Personally, if you want to find fault, you have to start with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They got duped and should have squashed the complaint as false from the start.

Quote

The CCRC has said that it is standard practice for the commission to accept complaints without verifying the identity of the filing party. The commission has also said that it is not required to verify the identity of the filing party unless there is reason to believe that the complaint is fraudulent.

It doesn't sound like they plan to make any changes to this practice either.

[Dahobbs 17654]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, the credibility seems a little less clear here.  Asserting that she intends to violate the statute IF (big IF) she is asked to create a gay website is not exactly the same as asserting she intends to post a sign in her yard.  She has control over the latter, and perhaps no control over the former.  I understand this may not matter in the eyes of the court, but it's still a difference.

See, @TwiceHorn and @Brisketexan, I actually agree with this. It was a hypothetical business with a hypothetical customer. I just don't think this is enough for standing even for a dec action. You really can't adequately test the law with vague hypotheticals like this, which is why in the ordinary course of things cases with a speculative injury would get dismissed for lack of standing. I'm also not convinced that everyone playing along at the lower levels means that SCOTUS should play along too, but that is separate issue I suppose. 

[Captainant 27727]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

MAGA is fucking things up right now, but that very nature that's given them short term impact is going to cause them to fall apart long term. We just have to wait a bit and push gently in the right spots when the foundation is weak, and then enjoy watching the collapse. It's already more or less happening.

Historically speaking, waiting out the fascists usually doesn't turn out great for that country. There's usually a shitload of atrocity and evil before they finally collapse. 

I'm not saying that the fix is to be just as shitty as MAGA, but we cannot expect them to behave as good faith participants in society. They will not be. Sorry to twice I don't have enough evidence to convict on that notion, but playing okey-doke with fascists is how you let the fascists take power. 

[jimmyjazz 46095]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

See, @TwiceHorn and @Brisketexan, I actually agree with this. 

* code for "holy crap, jj finally made a decent point"

[elfenix 34331]

Actually I think the original dec action was about her putting a phrase along the lines of "gay people need not apply" on her website

[TwiceHorn 31529]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Counterpoint: playing by the old rules (you can't hold, or commit pass interference) just means you're going to lose in a blowout.  That's the whole problem here.  When one team has opted out of the rules, and is getting away with it, what choice do you have?

By the way, the proper choice is to destroy the other team.  Ruin every one of their players.  Ruin their families.  Crush them.  Make such an example of them that nobody will ever again be tempted to opt out of the rules in such a way.

Oh....and if you're thinking that maybe you're thinking that what I'm suggesting is that we should absolutely ruin and relentlessly harass, shame, and make miserable Thomas, Aliton, and Kavanaugh (the ones we know are taking bribes)....you'd be right.  Crooks and criminals betraying the country for personal gain shouldn't be able to order a goddamned Starbucks without a crowd of people yelling in their ear calling them a treasonous piece of shit.

Don't want people harassing you everywhere you go and calling you a treasonous piece of shit?  Well then....there's one easy way to do that....DON'T BE A TREASONOUS PIECE OF SHIT.

You can do all that and still remain fact-centered.  Just don't be smug and silent about being right.

[F250 28814]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, you idiot twat.

It was sufficient, under the laws of the United States of America, duly passed by Congress in 1948, that the bitch allege that she intended to violate the statute and that Colorado intended to enforce it.

That's it.  That's the basis of all the courts' decisions, pro and con.  Whether there was a dummied-up request or not is utterly, completely irrelevant.  There could have been no request at all, as there was when the suit was filed, and the case would have proceeded as it did.

[Horn Dog 9904]

If we ever find little green men on Mars I intend to enslave them in the name of Jesus since it is my religious belief that Jesus would want me to do that.  Can I go ahead and file a law suit now on the basis that the constitution doesn’t cover martians and get this codified?

[Brisketexan 105274]

Just now, Horn Dog said:

If we ever find little green men on Mars I intend to enslave them in the name of Jesus since it is my religious belief that Jesus would want me to do that.  Can I go ahead and file a law suit now on the basis that the constitution doesn’t cover martians and get this codified?

Marvin says WTF, man?

[TwiceHorn 31529]

13 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

If we ever find little green men on Mars I intend to enslave them in the name of Jesus since it is my religious belief that Jesus would want me to do that.  Can I go ahead and file a law suit now on the basis that the constitution doesn’t cover martians and get this codified?

You would probably have some difficulty establishing jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act because of "If we ever find little green men on Mars."

Once we do find little green men on Mars, you could probably declare your intention to enslave them, and, if they declare their intention to oppose you on constitutional grounds, you can file a lawsuit.

[Brisketexan 105274]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You would probably have some difficulty establishing jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act because of "If we ever find little green men on Mars."

Once we do find little green men on Mars, you could probably declare your intention to enslave them, and, if they declare their intention to oppose you on constitutional grounds, you can file a lawsuit.

Does a response of "I'm not hurt.....just very, very angry!" create a case or controversy?

[jimmyjazz 46095]

Wait . . . little green men are a protected class?

[Brisketexan 105274]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . little green men are a protected class?

If they say they love fundamentalist Jesus they sure as shit are.

[Rimbo 26052]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Historically speaking, waiting out the fascists usually doesn't turn out great for that country. There's usually a shitload of atrocity and evil before they finally collapse. 

I'm not saying that the fix is to be just as shitty as MAGA, but we cannot expect them to behave as good faith participants in society. They will not be. Sorry to twice I don't have enough evidence to convict on that notion, but playing okey-doke with fascists is how you let the fascists take power. 

Oh, I totally agree. I'm not saying we should do nothing; that plays into their hands.

I'm saying that we can beat them without lowering ourselves to their level.

@Brisketexan, the Dresden firebombing didn't help us win. We could've skipped it and other than a bunch of Germans being alive today who wouldn't have been otherwise, nothing changes. Not the result, not even the timeline.

[Brisketexan 105274]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I'm saying that we can beat them without lowering ourselves to their level.

No, we can't.  The only thing that works on throat-slitters is slitting their own goddamned throats.

Facts, the law, norms, ethics....none of those things are going to slow down, much less stop the Alitos and Thomas's we're dealing with.  

You play this the Chicago way:

You can't use laws and institutions to defeat people who simply act as if laws and institutions don't really exist.  That's the whole fucking problem.  When one side opts into "rule of the fist," then that's the rule now.  So.....be fucking Ali, Frazier, and Foreman all rolled into one.

[Dahobbs 17654]

11 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Oh, I totally agree. I'm not saying we should do nothing; that plays into their hands.

I'm saying that we can beat them without lowering ourselves to their level.

@Brisketexan, the Dresden firebombing didn't help us win. We could've skipped it and other than a bunch of Germans being alive today who wouldn't have been otherwise, nothing changes. Not the result, not even the timeline.

Kurt Vonnegut fans would disagree with you. 

[NWBuck 8583]

I'm just hanging out here on the ledge wondering how change is possible. 

Take realignment of the Court (say, to 13 justices, like the circuits)... That would require majorities across Congress beyond the filibuster. Those aren't possible given the gerrymandering that is happening at the state level (and that the Court is hit or miss on addressing). 

But even if congress could pull this off, it just takes one person to file a case which ends up at the current SCOTUS, and why would the current majority (led by Chief 'businesses are people' Justice) ever allow the expansion to stand (and minimize their earning power)? 

So... Yeah 

Edited July 3, 2023 by NWBuck

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

36 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

@Brisketexan, the Dresden firebombing didn't help us win. We could've skipped it and other than a bunch of Germans being alive today who wouldn't have been otherwise, nothing changes. Not the result, not even the timeline.

I’m not defending the firebombing of Dresden and would agree that it certainly appears to have been expressly intended to terrorize the population, but the claim that we would have won on the same timeline really isn’t knowable, and the implication that it has no strategic value at all doesn’t hold up.

If the Germans establish a strong defensive position with Dresden as a logistics center in spring 45 it arguably prolongs the war and potentially brings some pretty horrific scenarios into play. Germany would have still lost, of course, but what would that have looked like and how many more would have been killed?

Edited July 3, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31529]

16 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

I'm just hanging out here on the ledge wondering how change is possible. 

Take realignment of the Court (say, to 13 justices, like the circuits)... That would require majorities across Congress beyond the filibuster. Those aren't possible given the gerrymandering that is happening at the state level (and that the Court is hit or miss on addressing). 

But even if congress could pull this off, it just takes one person to file a case which ends up at the current SCOTUS, and why would the current majority (led by Chief 'businesses are people' Justice) ever allow the expansion to stand (and minimize their earning power)? 

So... Yeah 

Well, on the bright side, the current Court is creating a jurisprudence for ignoring and reversing otherwise valid precedent.  So when a different majority takes hold, they can just "calvinball" the bad shit away.  Rinse and repeat.