Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

this would be a huge setback to health care in the us. domino effect would be many environmental laws would be doa ....

 

 

 

this lawsuit came about because a company in texas is morally against free aids medication and std testing, because wwjd

far right lawyer group outbid dc jumped all over this and they knew the 5th would agree, because morals !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2025 at 1:11 PM, tx 3 putt said:

 

this lawsuit came about because a company in texas is morally against free aids medication and std testing, because wwjd

far right lawyer group outbid dc jumped all over this and they knew the 5th would agree, because morals !!!!

A "company" owned by Steven Hotze that hawks bullshit supplements.  And has been a plaintiff on multiple ACA/religion cases.

Because Hotze is in Texas, it's not much of a forum-shop.

And the case is really about whether the officials that decide what treatments shall be free under the ACA are officers that require appointment with advise and consent of the Senate.

Told you that's a pesky fucking issue all over the law.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's illegal for anyone in America to distribute the speech of TikTok unless that company is not owned by a country we consider to be a foreign adversary and that somehow isn't protected by the first amendment? We sure have come a long way from the days of our founders who believed the best way to counter bad speech was more good speech. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2024 at 12:08 PM, Brisketexan said:

That's the real problem with shifting the "rule of law" window downward: that new spot becomes the de facto rule.

here is a real world example. My late father was a fine man and most of his life he followed the rule of law in all practical circumstances.

While defending the town of St Vith during the battle of the bulge the Germans brought in large number of eastern front troops for the attack. On the eastern front there was no such thing as the Geneva convention or basic humanity being followed.  You killed citizens, you executed prisoners, and that is how they rolled.  Those SS troops engaged in what’s called the Malmedy Massacre, where captured US troops were machine gunned after being put in an open field. The SS shot  the bodies with pistols to be sure they were dead, and SS troops who drove by in trucks  would shoot them as well.

So how did my decent father and his comrades respond to this?  According to my dad, he said, “For a time after that we did not take SS prisoners. They were the ones who changed the rules - so we adopted the same rules…”

Breaking the rules is always enjoyable and efficient - until you are no longer the ones breaking the rules.  An often unrecognized reason not to violate the rule of law is because you cannot guarantee that you will be top dog forever, and once the rules are changed, they can be turned on you.

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

So it's illegal for anyone in America to distribute the speech of TikTok unless that company is not owned by a country we consider to be a foreign adversary and that somehow isn't protected by the first amendment? We sure have come a long way from the days of our founders who believed the best way to counter bad speech was more good speech. 

This isn't a free speech issue.  It's a national security issue, which has been an established exception to the 1st amendment for a very long time. Plus, the ban is happening at the provider level, not consumer.  My guess is that if you're hellbent on still using TikTok (instead of the dozen other apps that do the same damn thing), so'll have no problem doing so via VPN.

Even so, how does the 1st amendment guarantee the speech delivery mechanism of your choice. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Even so, how does the 1st amendment guarantee the speech delivery mechanism of your choice. 

It doesn't. The Constitution is an idea that needs to be modernized. There was simply no way for the authors to imagine life today. We need a governing document that responds to needs of our times, not the 1700s. I doubt I will see that in my lifetime

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

It doesn't. The Constitution is an idea that needs to be modernized. There was simply no way for the authors to imagine life today. We need a governing document that responds to needs of our times, not the 1700s. I doubt I will see that in my lifetime

True.  That said, the only speech mechanisms of the time were written and spoken, and both were protected against government suppression.  I think a reasonable argument could be made that ALL mechanisms were protected (at least 2 of 2).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

This isn't a free speech issue.  It's a national security issue, which has been an established exception to the 1st amendment for a very long time. Plus, the ban is happening at the provider level, not consumer.  My guess is that if you're hellbent on still using TikTok (instead of the dozen other apps that do the same damn thing), so'll have no problem doing so via VPN.

Even so, how does the 1st amendment guarantee the speech delivery mechanism of your choice. 

Your position is the government can ban a certain subset of speech as long as others are available? Would you endorse a blanket ban on books? I'd find it hard to believe that HarperCollins couldn't challenge a production ban on the basis that it's "provider level, not consumer".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Your position is the government can ban a certain subset of speech as long as others are available? Would you endorse a blanket ban on books? I'd find it hard to believe that HarperCollins couldn't challenge a production ban on the basis that it's "provider level, not consumer".

Assuming speech is actually involved, the government can ban or limit speech, or, more accurately do things that impact speech indirectly, if it has a compelling interest in doing so and the means are narrowly tailored to the the end. 

National security is going to be one of the more fruitful government interests in this inquiry. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Your position is the government can ban a certain subset of speech as long as others are available? Would you endorse a blanket ban on books? I'd find it hard to believe that HarperCollins couldn't challenge a production ban on the basis that it's "provider level, not consumer".

I can't speak for TexasHooch, but I don't think that was what he was saying. I took him to mean the opposite. Anyway, this again points to how narrow and undefined our founding document is. It should be pretty obvious that it's not in our best interest to let an adversarial media platform collect data and spy on US citizens. That should be the only argument here. But because the foundation of our country isn't at all well defined, we're left trying to read between the lines. If I was spouting information that could compromise our national security, I fully believe the government has every right to suppress my ass. my rights end when they encounter yours. I wish more people understood that.

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

Your position is the government can ban a certain subset of speech as long as others are available? Would you endorse a blanket ban on books? I'd find it hard to believe that HarperCollins couldn't challenge a production ban on the basis that it's "provider level, not consumer".

No, I would not support a complete ban on books just because a particular publisher was found, apart from the content it published, to represent a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States; Just as I'm not advocating the complete ban on social media just because Tik Tok, apart from the content it hosts, represents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.

Of course, I'll stipulate that this is all predicated on Tik Tok actually fitting that description.  I will agree with you that simply being from an adversarial country shouldn't be an automatic disqualifies to operate in the United States.

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Assuming speech is actually involved, the government can ban or limit speech, or, more accurately do things that impact speech indirectly, if it has a compelling interest in doing so and the means are narrowly tailored to the the end. 

National security is going to be one of the more fruitful government interests in this inquiry. 

That is what I'm trying to argue. It has to be more than banning Tik Tok because they host videos where idiot kids encourage other idiot kids to eat Tide Pods, I'm not down with that. 

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

True.  That said, the only speech mechanisms of the time were written and spoken, and both were protected against government suppression.  I think a reasonable argument could be made that ALL mechanisms were protected (at least 2 of 2).

Sure.  But Tik Tok isn't a mechanism, It's a brand.  Electronic Media is the mechanism.  That is and should be protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that my last statement seemingly contradicts my early one when I said that the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee the delivery mechanism of your choice.  So, I'll clarify. What I mean is that we don't automatically get to set all of the terms of our "speech".  I can say what ever I want, but that doesn't mean I get a microphone and crowded theater just because I want it.  I can write whatever I want, but that doesn't mean I get to have it published wherever and by whomever I want.  I can post another video of me standing on my head, wearing only a thong, lip syncing "I want it that way", but...

I've said too much.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I can't speak for TexasHooch, but I don't think that was what he was saying. I took him to mean the opposite. Anyway, this again points to how narrow and undefined our founding document is. It should be pretty obvious that it's not in our best interest to let an adversarial media platform collect data and spy on US citizens. That should be the only argument here. But because the foundation of our country isn't at all well defined, we're left trying to read between the lines. If I was spouting information that could compromise our national security, I fully believe the government has every right to suppress my ass. my rights end when they encounter yours. I wish more people understood that.

Well, you have stated a rather classic conservative constitutional position:  that, if the Constitution is to address modern concerns that the founders could not have conceived, then it should be re-written entirely or amended rather than being bent like a nose of wax to accommodate those modern concerns.

Not saying I necessarily agree with that position, but that is more or less what underlies textualism and orignalism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you have stated a rather classic conservative constitutional position:  that, if the Constitution is to address modern concerns that the founders could not have conceived, then it should be re-written entirely or amended rather than being bent like a nose of wax to accommodate those modern concerns.

Not saying I necessarily agree with that position, but that is more or less what underlies textualism and orignalism.

Do you have that backwards or do I? I'm not a textualist or an originalist. I'm positing that the document itself is not adequate and needs to be rewritten - whether amended and added onto or a completely new document, I could give two fucks. In the nearly five decades I've been alive it's painfully obvious that the document, whether interpreted literally or against intent, is inadequate to handle modern times. It has not become more painfully obvious than in the in the last 10 years. Time to do the hard but adult thing and update our founding document. If we don't, it's going to be updated for us.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Do you have that backwards or do I? I'm not a textualist or an originalist. I'm positing that the document itself is not adequate and needs to be rewritten - whether amended and added onto or a completely new document, I could give two fucks. In the nearly five decades I've been alive it's painfully obvious that the document, whether interpreted literally or against intent, is inadequate to handle modern times. It has not become more painfully obvious than in the in the last 10 years. Time to do the hard but adult thing and update our founding document. If we don't, it's going to be updated for us.

IMG_3964.gif.0e2780c56398451feb917ff30ac80cfa.gif

The minute you have a constitutional convention - or an attempt to amend the constitution - every red state wacko is going to insist on constitutional protections against trans people and climate change and bird killing windmills, and abortion…and doing away with that whole ‘immigrants get to go to our country and their children be born as citizens’ stuff.  Also, Trump gets on Mount Rushmore and Jesus is Lord over the USA.

And while those things will not happen because 2/3 of the country will not allow it, that does not mean that 2/3 of the country will agree to all of the reasonable protections against the dumb Fuckery we are experiencing will occur.  Because, you know a significant amount of the American voting population and their elected officials are all for dumb Fuckery.

 

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I can't even imagine what kind of document we would get out of a constitutional convention today, but I'm pretty sure that it would be a disaster

If it was written this year we’d get a hereditary monarchy with absolute power and codify the divine right of rule by the Trump family. There would be protections only for straight, white, Christian men. Ratification would be by plebiscite and would pass with 101% of the vote.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Do you have that backwards or do I? I'm not a textualist or an originalist. I'm positing that the document itself is not adequate and needs to be rewritten - whether amended and added onto or a completely new document, I could give two fucks. In the nearly five decades I've been alive it's painfully obvious that the document, whether interpreted literally or against intent, is inadequate to handle modern times. It has not become more painfully obvious than in the in the last 10 years. Time to do the hard but adult thing and update our founding document. If we don't, it's going to be updated for us.

You missed my point.  The textualist/originalist foundation is that the Constitution is interpretable only as understood around the time it was drafted, rather than It being a statement of principles that can be adapted to modern concerns.  

Thus, if there is something that isn't addressed by the text or original intent or understanding of the Constitution circa 1789. then the Constitution doesn't provide for it.  If the Constitution is to provide for it, it must be amended or otherwise re-written to accomplish that end.

That is both a "classically conservative" position (incremental and measured change) and a "post-modern conservative" justification for revanchism.

The more liberal position is something like the second clause of my second sentence:  the Constitution is a statement of principles from which even modern problems can be addressed and solved.

All of this is kind of a load of shit, because no single interpretive philosophy can realistically get the job done.  But your concession that the Constitution can't get it done is a justification of textualism and originalism.

And, one of the problems of rewriting the Constitution is that all of the revision would basically have to be approved by popular vote supermajority.  And, aside from current hyperpartisanship, Americans are too fucking stupid to design a proper government.

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You missed my point.  The textualist/originalist foundation is that the Constitution is interpretable only as understood around the time it was drafted, rather than It being a statement of principles that can be adapted to modern concerns.  

Thus, if there is something that isn't addressed by the text or original intent or understanding of the Constitution circa 1789. then the Constitution doesn't provide for it.  If the Constitution is to provide for it, it must be amended or otherwise re-written to accomplish that end.

That is both a "classically conservative" position (incremental and measured change) and a "post-modern conservative" justification for revanchism.

The more liberal position is something like the second clause of my second sentence:  the Constitution is a statement of principles from which even modern problems can be addressed and solved.

All of this is kind of a load of shit, because no single interpretive philosophy can realistically get the job done.  But your concession that the Constitution can't get it done is a justification of textualism and originalism.

And, one of the problems of rewriting the Constitution is that all of the revision would basically have to be approved by popular vote supermajority.  And, aside from current hyperpartisanship, Americans are too fucking stupid to design a proper government.

 

 

 

 

maybe, but I still maintain there are enough smart people out there that could get it done. again, I don't think I will ever see it, but smart people still exist. we haven't reached full Idiocracy yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2025 at 1:11 PM, HRSchenker said:

Your position is the government can ban a certain subset of speech as long as others are available? Would you endorse a blanket ban on books? I'd find it hard to believe that HarperCollins couldn't challenge a production ban on the basis that it's "provider level, not consumer".

I would think at some point we stop printing things on paper. He’s right about it not being a ban on the speech but on the platform. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

maybe, but I still maintain there are enough smart people out there that could get it done. again, I don't think I will ever see it, but smart people still exist. we haven't reached full Idiocracy yet

Oh, I think there are enough smart people, but remember, now, intelligence and education is elite or woke or some shit. So the electorate is not going to defer to the smart ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, POTUS got this ball rolling with his EO the last time around… he doesn’t “like” the ban now because he benefits both financially and politically from pulling enforcement.

IMO that’s even worse.

We know dude.

And the clock until this shit show ends doesn’t even start running until tomorrow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...