The Supremes

[Red Five 40859]

Yeah I just put my 16 year old dog to sleep. One shot knocks him out instantly. Second shot stops his heart instantly. No pain (for him). I suppose it’s too expensive on humans? Serious question, I don’t know.

[Dutchrudder 11139]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

This might be a good time to note the the decedent was originally sentenced to life without parole by a jury of his peers but the judge overruled the jury and decided he needed killing.

Oh shit, I did not look into the details.  That's horrible, I didn't even know that was an option for a judge. Would love to know how often that happens in court, what the demographics are of the judge and defendant, and see it split out by states.

[SKJ 1311]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nobody can say with certainty what would be the most "humane"way to execute someone.  No living human has died.  (Let's leave reincarnation out of this.)  Medical experts probably have more insight than most, and most of them seem to think the quickest way is the most humane way (bullet to the head, decapitation, etc.).

Here's the problem:  death penalty advocates have no concern for a humane execution.  In fact, most are interested in the LEAST humane methods.  It's bloodlust, pure and simple, and it is a huge stain on our collective "humanity".  

I have died.  

I had severe internal bleeding which was really pretty peaceful.  I felt little pain,  probably due to shock, and I felt like I was just very tired and was comfortably falling asleep... so much so that when my friend kept waking me up it was making me very angry... so there's that

[jimmyjazz 45960]

3 minutes ago, SKJ said:

I have died.  

I had severe internal bleeding which was really pretty peaceful.  I felt little pain,  probably due to shock, and I felt like I was just very tired and was comfortably falling asleep... so much so that when my friend kept waking me up it was making me very angry... so there's that

Outside of quibbling over the true definition of "died", that's at least a little encouraging.  (Takes notes.)

[SKJ 1311]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Outside of quibbling over the true definition of "died", that's at least a little encouraging.  (Takes notes.)

Well, I had no pulse and they couldn't get a vein so they had to central line me in the ambulance...

I coded three times.  Maybe I wasn't dead,  dead,  but the surgeon said I was DOA

[jimmyjazz 45960]

11 minutes ago, SKJ said:

Well, I had no pulse and they couldn't get a vein so they had to central line me in the ambulance...

I coded three times.  Maybe I wasn't dead,  dead,  but the surgeon said I was DOA

Sounds like you dodged a bullet.

Or maybe, you didn't dodge the bullet?

[Underdog 28657]

Damn.  Glad you pulled through.  So tell us, is Elvis really dead? 

[Dnaguy 11968]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

This might be a good time to note the the decedent was originally sentenced to life without parole by a jury of his peers but the judge overruled the jury and decided he needed killing.

Damn. Talk about taking this shit to an 11

[bolverk 29683]

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

Yeah I just put my 16 year old dog to sleep. One shot knocks him out instantly. Second shot stops his heart instantly. No pain (for him). I suppose it’s too expensive on humans? Serious question, I don’t know.

Man, I'm so sorry your buddy passed. It sucks to lose them.

[Bozo_Casanova 26472]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Outside of quibbling over the true definition of "died", that's at least a little encouraging.  (Takes notes.)

[Bullneck 19100]

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31484]

9 hours ago, chainsaw said:

That's pretty messed up. Can a medical expert chime in on how this is a different death experience from being hanged?

Not a medical expert, but a proper hanging does not cause death by strangulation.  It severs the spinal cord.

I have got to believe that removing oxygen from the lungs creates the same sensations as drowning.  Most unpleasant, probably cruel.

[TwiceHorn 31484]

6 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Oh shit, I did not look into the details.  That's horrible, I didn't even know that was an option for a judge. Would love to know how often that happens in court, what the demographics are of the judge and defendant, and see it split out by states.

Earlier, I corrected @InkaUtexas on this, but I was wrong.  I didn't think that was possible to reconcile with Furman v. Georgia and Gregory v. Georgia and related cases.  

It seems that Florida's override was ruled unconstitutional in 2016, as might be expected, but SCOTUS denied cert on all of those challenging Alabama's override.

 

[SKJ 1311]

5 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sounds like you dodged a bullet.

Or maybe, you didn't dodge the bullet?

Yeah,  I took a bullet to the upper abdomen at close range... just a little guy. Bullet went in,  split my vena cava, split my sciatic nerve, hit L4, lodged in between L4 and L5

[InkaUtexas 25951]

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Earlier, I corrected @InkaUtexas on this, but I was wrong.  I didn't think that was possible to reconcile with Furman v. Georgia and Gregory v. Georgia and related cases.  

It seems that Florida's override was ruled unconstitutional in 2016, as might be expected, but SCOTUS denied cert on all of those challenging Alabama's override.

 

Thank you. I thought I had it right, state law and all that shit.

Good on you. Owe you a beer. A tree-fiddy shiner at the Posse on me.

[TwiceHorn 31484]

On 1/23/2024 at 4:10 PM, nbmishoid said:

Steal?  When Texas installs it on fed controlled land, is that stealing?   I.e in lawful taking?

First of all, I don't think that's "federal land."  

The case, from the get-go, is kind of laughable.  Generally any person or entity has a civil tort claim against another person or entity who converts their property, meaning deprives the person of use of it, whether by stealing or destruction.

Texas decided to employ this theory to attack a small aspect of federal intervention.

The whole thing is pretty ludicrous, really.

[nbmishoid 949]

Agreed.  Standard actor roles are hard to apply.  Thus my confusion 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]

[HenryJames 66069]

 

Quote

Trump-appointed Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, of abortion pill case fame, rejected the Biden administration's bid to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to block U.S. aid to the West Bank and Gaza that the plaintiffs say is unlawfully funding the Palestinian Authority.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-allows-lawsuit-challenging-aid-west-bank-gaza-proceed-2024-02-05/

[washparkhorn 9939]

Today the Supreme Court will take up the issue of whether the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, after losing the Civil War, was barred by the Fourteenth Amendment from serving as President of the United States. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

I see the Supreme Court trying to do effectively nothing with this case. But reinstate Trump to the CO ballot.

I expect

• they rule that the President is an officer of the US so therefore the 14th amendment applies to them.
• But that there is some flaw in what CO did, or that they need to follow a new test to ban a candidate based on the 14th amendment, such as a criminal prosecution by a federal court. 

Trump reminds me of a crappy employee that I had about 20 years ago. He kept doing stupid shit at work, which required me to make rules for the entire team. 

[wildcat09 29354]

The “not an officer” argument is in some ways the easiest way for them to keep Trump on the ballot, but I think it’s just way too stupid of an argument to get 5 votes. They’ll settle on that a person can’t be disqualified unless they’ve been tried and convicted of insurrection in a criminal proceeding. It’s almost as stupid of an argument, legally speaking, but it makes a certain kind of sense to non-lawyers who don’t know the precise language and the exact history behind it.

[DDD Dad 14339]

Current argument is that the amendment doesn't apply to candidates but only disqualifies someone after they've obtained the office from "holding" the office.  

Edited February 8 by DDD Dad

[South Austin 52511]

8 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Current argument is that the amendment doesn't apply to candidates but only disqualifies someone after they've obtained the office from "holding" the office.  

You can take the office, you just can't hold the office.

[Red Five 40859]

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Current argument is that the amendment doesn't apply to candidates but only disqualifies someone after they've obtained the office from "holding" the office.  

Keanu Reeves cocking his head gif.

[TexasEd 8067]

Alito carrying water 

[DDD Dad 14339]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Keanu Reeves cocking his head gif.

It's actually an interesting argument, contending that Section 3 is distinct from the age and term limit qualifications.

Just now, TexasEd said:

Alito carrying water 

And this.

[bolverk 29683]

36 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Current argument is that the amendment doesn't apply to candidates but only disqualifies someone after they've obtained the office from "holding" the office.  

It's such a weird argument to my mind. I'm listening on NPR, and earlier, someone mentioned how that generation understood the term, but then there's the Postal Act, which understood the president to be an "officer of the United States," as has been pointed out earlier. Is that a red herring? If not, why hasn't it been mentioned?

 

[DDD Dad 14339]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

It's such a weird argument to my mind. I'm listening on NPR, and earlier, someone mentioned how that generation understood the term, but then there's the Postal Act, which understood the president to be an "officer of the United States," as has been pointed out earlier. Is that a red herring? If not, why hasn't it been mentioned?

 

Different argument.  Whether the President is an "officer of the united states" is a different issue from whether section 3 creates a qualification that can only be enforced once the president attains the office (office and officer being two different terms).  The argument he was making is that it is premature to prevent him from being on the ballot if he has the chance to become qualified (for example by virtue of 2/3 of Congress vote).

[SydneyCarton 48108]

I'm listening, but I'm no attorney. For the most part, it sounds like all the consertive judges are pretty respectful and understanding of the arguments coming from Trump's attorneys. I think I recognize Jackson, and she seems almost dismissive of this, but everyone else except maybe ACB seems to favor the arguments of Trump's attornies. 

Can someone of the other attorneys on here chime in on your take of the proceedings? 

Clarence Thomas seems to be ready to suck Trump's dick right in the courtroom. 

Edited February 8 by SydneyCarton

[Gatorubet 30241]

48 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The “not an officer” argument is in some ways the easiest way for them to keep Trump on the ballot, but I think it’s just way too stupid of an argument to get 5 votes. They’ll settle on that a person can’t be disqualified unless they’ve been tried and convicted of insurrection in a criminal proceeding. It’s almost as stupid of an argument, legally speaking, but it makes a certain kind of sense to non-lawyers who don’t know the precise language and the exact history behind it.

Clearly, the Founding Fathers, who did not want a king or any authoritarian, definitely wanted the President to be able to commit sedition and continue to hold office in a second term. History. Duh.

[Red Five 40859]

Hey, there's Clarence. His wife was involved in the coup attempt. Cool. 

[South Austin 52511]

The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to disqualify those who served in the Confederate Army.  Did Donald Trump serve in the Confederate Army?  No?  Case closed.

[bolverk 29683]

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Different argument.  Whether the President is an "officer of the united states" is a different issue from whether section 3 creates a qualification that can only be enforced once the president attains the office (office and officer being two different terms).  The argument he was making is that it is premature to prevent him from being on the ballot if he has the chance to become qualified (for example by virtue of 2/3 of Congress vote).

But wasn't Trump an officer of the United States, after having sworn the oath, at the time of the *insurrection?

*Different argument, I know.

[DaysOff 7951]

There are no examples of removing a national candidate, Clarence, because a piece of shit like Trump never existed before.

[TexasEd 8067]

ACB has been challenging the Trump arguments.

On the disqualification argument about Congress “could” remove the disability with a 2/3 vote. If Congress wanted to remove the disability they could do it today.  The fact that they have not removed the disability for Trump means that they don’t want to and that saying they “might” do it in the future is like a prison inmate saying let me out now because the governor “might” commute my sentence in the future.

 

[SydneyCarton 48108]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to disqualify those who served in the Confederate Army.  Did Donald Trump serve in the Confederate Army?  No?  Case closed.

I mean, that is basically the exact vibe I'm getting from Thomas and Alito here. 

[DDD Dad 14339]

Just now, bolverk said:

But wasn't Trump an officer of the United States, after having sworn the oath, at the time of the *insurrection?

*Different argument, I know.

According to the petitioner, no.  "Officer of the United States is a term of art limited to officials who are appointed, not the elected offices of President and Vice President."  

[bolverk 29683]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

According to the petitioner, no.  "Officer of the United States is a term of art limited to officials who are appointed, not the elected offices of President and Vice President."  

I'm biased, clearly, but everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

this is DOA

[Gatorubet 30241]

I'm listening, but I'm no attorney. For the most part, it sounds like all the consertive judges are pretty respectful and understanding of the arguments coming from Trump's attorneys. I think I recognize Jackson, and she seems almost dismissive of this, but everyone else except maybe ACB seems to favor the arguments of Trump's attornies. 

Can someone of the other attorneys on here chime in on your take of the proceedings? 

Unlike Judge Judy and the TV judges, a good judge with the proper judicial demeanor will not be rude or snarky to someone delivering an appellate argument.  You might get skewered a bit in the actual decision and the logic of your argument or your ability to correctly understand case precedent might be indirectly questioned -  but I do not expect disrespect or Snark from SCOTUS in an oral argument. 
Also, don’t read too much into the justices’ demeanor in asking questions. They often ask questions to drill down on a certain point.  What seems to be a friendly judge talking with counsel is often that Justice narrowing a point and getting admissions, so that Justice can later do a kill-shot on that point.  

[South Austin 52511]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, that is basically the exact vibe I'm getting from Thomas and Alito here. 

I'm not even listening, and I'm not surprised one bit that they are again trotting out the folly of originalism.  By all means, yes, let's engraft an expiration date on the Insurrectionist Clause.  They already advocate one for the Equal Protection Clause.

[Brisketexan 105149]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I see the Supreme Court trying to do effectively nothing with this case. But reinstate Trump to the CO ballot.

I expect

• they rule that the President is an officer of the US so therefore the 14th amendment applies to them.
• But that there is some flaw in what CO did, or that they need to follow a new test to ban a candidate based on the 14th amendment, such as a criminal prosecution by a federal court. 

Trump reminds me of a crappy employee that I had about 20 years ago. He kept doing stupid shit at work, which required me to make rules for the entire team. 

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The “not an officer” argument is in some ways the easiest way for them to keep Trump on the ballot, but I think it’s just way too stupid of an argument to get 5 votes. They’ll settle on that a person can’t be disqualified unless they’ve been tried and convicted of insurrection in a criminal proceeding. It’s almost as stupid of an argument, legally speaking, but it makes a certain kind of sense to non-lawyers who don’t know the precise language and the exact history behind it.

I think that these two posts above are most likely how it is going to go.

17 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Different argument.  Whether the President is an "officer of the united states" is a different issue from whether section 3 creates a qualification that can only be enforced once the president attains the office (office and officer being two different terms).  The argument he was making is that it is premature to prevent him from being on the ballot if he has the chance to become qualified (for example by virtue of 2/3 of Congress vote).

That's actually an interesting argument.  Can a state exclude someone who is not presently qualified, but conceivably could BECOME qualified before taking the office?  That's actually a decent legal question.

[Dnaguy 11968]

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

this is DOA

This.

Supreme Court:

"Why should we have to make a call or interpret the constitution?! This seems like a big deal with a lot of implications."

[South Austin 52511]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's actually an interesting argument.  Can a state exclude someone who is not presently qualified, but conceivably could BECOME qualified before taking the office?  That's actually a decent legal question.

Interesting, but on the surface I think it runs into a jurisdictional ripeness argument.

[Gatorubet 30241]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I think that these two posts above are most likely how it is going to go.

That's actually an interesting argument.  Can a state exclude someone who is not presently qualified, but conceivably could BECOME qualified before taking the office?  That's actually a decent legal question.

I would be happy if they split the baby, and came out with a decision that affirmed that his actions met the definition of committing sedition -  but that sedition is not enough to disqualify him under the 14th amendment at this time.

I would also be happy with a fivesome with Victoria’s Secret models. I think I have a better shot at the second one than the first one. 

Edited February 8 by Gatorubet

[Brisketexan 105149]

Just now, South Austin said:

Interesting, but on the surface I think it runs into a jurisdictional ripeness argument.

Which seems like a circular one, which would favor Trump's position.  Because excluding him from the ballot, when he might become eligible, cannot later be cured.  Whereas allowing him to be on the ballot, he wins, but does not get Congressional clearance to hold the office, can be cured (he's not eligible....but then, shit, I have no idea what you do at that point).  It's a fucking mess.

Our system did not contemplate a POTUS committing treason and insurrection, then running again, and winning popular support.  Our failsafes have all failed, and there's no clean way out.

[South Austin 52511]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

I would be happy if they split the baby, and came out with a decision that affirmed that his actions met the definition of committing edition -  but this addition is not enough to disqualify him under the 14th amendment at this time.

Wait, has he been indicated for edition?

[Js1 85346]

Me catching up on this thread this morning and reading all the fancy legal jargon:

[Gatorubet 30241]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Wait, has he been indicated for edition?

The better question is, when will our AI Overlords get decent voice recognition software in an iPhone?