The Supremes

[Captainant 27,656]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I still dislike the characterization of "the law" as "Calvinball."

I'm not thrilled with it either, but judges fabricating fact patterns and injuries to create sweeping civil rights rollbacks is what calvinball looks like

[Nivek 16,923]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I think safe sex was asking which SC cases have been ruled on in which basic, fundamental, George Santos-level "facts" were in dispute. 

gay website, and football prayer cases were all made up.   This shit is more scripted than Judge Wapner.  

[Pancho 44,759]

Question for the legal folk--can congress open an investigation into SC decisions or nah? (I fully understand radical republicans won't let this happen since they have control)

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

7 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Question for the legal folk--can congress open an investigation into SC decisions or nah? (I fully understand radical republicans won't let this happen since they have control)

Well, yeah congress can open an investigation as to anything they want.  The question is how stupid and futile would the investigation be.

There are some things Congress can do to the courts and the Supreme Court. Hearings as to what to do (how many new justices, what changes to make to federal court and Supreme Court jurisdiction, for example) would be productive.

[tx 3 putt 76,908]

Illegitimate court  

[Nivek 16,923]

Maybe we should take a lesson from Office Space and Mitch McConnell.  Just stop paying them.  I mean, they ruled that cops have no duty to actually do their job, so we can just stop paying them and stop allowing them the office space they currently occupy.  Move them to the janitor's closet at the local DC porn theater.  

[jimmyjazz 45,903]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

This shit is more scripted than Judge Wapner.  

Wait, wut?

[Satchel 6,938]

Progressives, unlike conservatives, are late to the party when it comes to really caring about the composition of the SC. The only thing that will get the country’s attention about this rogue court is for Democrats to make publicly compelling case for expanding it.

[scottsins 1,966]

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.

[Captainant 27,656]

6 minutes 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.

Well it's a fucking problem when the fact finders aren't finding facts. An appeal should be able to be raised on the basis of "yo, this shit didn't happen". 

Otherwise we are intentionally making ourselves more vulnerable to bad faith actors abusing the system and turning it into a weapon against their "other" groups. You know, like we see today. 

[Underdog 28,614]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

  This shit is more scripted than Judge Wapner.  

GDit, don’t do that shit to me.  Next you’ll tell me Hollywood Squares was also scripted. 

[Captainant 27,656]

So what's the chances of this ruling and case being unconstitutional on its face? Article 3 of the constitution requires an actual case or controversy in order to seek relief from the supreme court. There IS no controversy nor injury.

It should be fucking stricken from the books. I just don't understand those who say that the supreme court didn't get it wrong to rule on a hypothetical injury when theyre acting outside their constitutional boundaries 

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So what's the chances of this ruling and case being unconstitutional on its face? Article 3 of the constitution requires an actual case or controversy in order to seek relief from the supreme court. There IS no controversy nor injury.

It should be fucking stricken from the books. I just don't understand those who say that the supreme court didn't get it wrong to rule on a hypothetical injury when theyre acting outside their constitutional boundaries 

Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

This case has been percolating for about five years.  Assuming it is true that the "aggrieved party" manufactured the controversy in the first place (I have no reason to believe it was not), the state of Colorado was all too willing to go along with the fiction to manufacture a test case.

Edited July 2, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[HornOnTheBayou 8,921]

56 minutes 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.

I get that appellate courts shouldn't be fact finders. That makes total sense. But shouldn't they be able to find the basic fucking fact of "Did this thing actually happen or not?"

[Captainant 27,656]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

I guess we'll all see just how calvinball our legal system is after all, then. Because this is the second time so far the roberts court has issued a ruling to address a non-existent injury.

It's worth pointing out the consistency of pattern these cases have been following. It's always a conservative religious group lubing the truth to stoke a false grievance, and then making such a noise that they can rush it through a sympathetic lower court. And then since the legal system is so far up it's own ass, nobody dares to question or call out that they're operating in a vacuum of facts as the case progresses up the court system. 

[jimmyjazz 45,903]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

Where was the original trial, and what do the court records say about how the case was presented? 

I mean, isn't it pretty obvious the plaintiff lied?  Not that it helps the results on appeal, but shouldn't she and her attorneys be subject to penalty?  Big consolation prize.  What the fuck.

[scottsins 1,966]

Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."
Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.
This case has been percolating for about five years.  Assuming it is true that the "aggrieved party" manufactured the controversy in the first place (I have no reason to believe it was not), the state of Colorado was all too willing to go along with the fiction to manufacture a test case.

The plaintiff in this case filed the original petition prior to the fake inquire being made. Lower courts decided that there was standing to seek an injunction against the statute. IOW, SCOTUS didn’t make this ruling based on reliance on a contrived made up event. They made it under the guise that such an actual injury need not have happened anyway. It’s weird procedural history, and I’m trying to piece it together from various articles.

[HenryJames 66,044]

32 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Because this is the second time so far the roberts court has issued a ruling to address a non-existent injury.

Third if you count the student loan case.

[Nivek 16,923]

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

This case has been percolating for about five years.  Assuming it is true that the "aggrieved party" manufactured the controversy in the first place (I have no reason to believe it was not), the state of Colorado was all too willing to go along with the fiction to manufacture a test case.

Hiding behind procedures and not asking questions you don't want answers to sounds more like it was designed than the lawyers' got new clothes scenario.   

 

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

21 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Hiding behind procedures and not asking questions you don't want answers to sounds more like it was designed than the lawyers' got new clothes scenario.   

 

Well, both the lower courts found in favor of the Colorado Division of Civil Rights, that is, upholding the statute.  So, that narrative doesn't exactly hold water.  

It appears that #bothsides were happy to have their test case.  As scottsins points out, this was filed as a declaratory judgment before any action had been taken by Co. DCR.  Looks like maybe the plaintiff dummied up an actual controversy in case standing was not found, but it was and it went against her both times.

And it looks like the defendants were perfectly happy with that state of affairs until they lost.

Edited July 2, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Nivek 16,923]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, both the lower courts found in favor of the Colorado Division of Civil Rights, that is, upholding the statute.  So, that narrative doesn't exactly hold water.  

Seems to me that it just backfired.  

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

Seems to me that it just backfired.  

Yeah on the good guys.

 

[tx 3 putt 76,908]

 

[bolverk 29,670]

Article III getting lots of mentions today

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,444]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

This case has been percolating for about five years.  Assuming it is true that the "aggrieved party" manufactured the controversy in the first place (I have no reason to believe it was not), the state of Colorado was all too willing to go along with the fiction to manufacture a test case.

one of the things I've learned from your posts over the years is that the legal profession does not condemn procedural abuse or fraud among legal professionals acting strictly within their capacity as officers of the court as long as they don't do something trashy like get behind on their house payments or forge scrips to manage a pill addiction. That might make people think all those barriers to entry were for nothing and that you're all just as common as the rest of us. 

No offense, naturally. You do good work here. I just don't believe law is a norms-based institution anymore. Consider my faith undermined. 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

34 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

one of the things I've learned from your posts over the years is that the legal profession does not condemn procedural abuse or fraud among legal professionals acting strictly within their capacity as officers of the court as long as they don't do something trashy like get behind on their house payments or forge scrips to manage a pill addiction. That might make people think all those barriers to entry were for nothing and that you're all just as common as the rest of us. 

No offense, naturally. You do good work here. I just don't believe law is a norms-based institution anymore. Consider my faith undermined. 

Well, in this particular case, it took two to tango.  CDCR was just as interested, apparently, in this test case as 303 Creative and their backers.

So, if it was a fraud on the court, it was in many senses if not all of them, endorsed by both sides.

But, really more importantly. if you read the opinion, it is ENTIRELY based on declaratory judgment jurisdiction.  That is, 303 Creative's INTENTION to violate the statute, to wit:

While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans. She worries that, if she does so, Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees. Slip. Op. at 2.

So, any such fraud on the court does not affect the jurisdiction of the court or standing of the parties. None of the opinions of any of the courts were premised on the actual violation of the statue by anyone.  They all got by on the stated intention to violate it.

This is much ado about nothing created by reporting that knows not of what it speaks.

ETA: Assuming that any attorney can be tagged with responsibility or knowledge of the dummied-up controversy, that should be fair game for discipline if it was presented to any of the courts, even though the courts did not rely on it.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm not concerning myself with the rectitude of dummying up a case or controversy.  I'm concerning myself with whether there is any basis for vacating the judgment of the Supreme Court or any of the others and it appears that there is none.  Zero, zilch, nada.

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[hpslugga 4,058]

On 7/1/2023 at 5:25 PM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

So let's see if I understand this.  An undisclosed benefactor paid off Kavanaugh's 200k in credit card debt, his 1.2 million dollar mortgage, and his 92k country club balance right before he became a supreme court justice, and yet he voted AGAINST student loan forgiveness? Is my understanding correct?

I wouldn’t bother pointing out the hypocrisy of the SCOTUS. For every time you can find the six stooging themselves are for the two-faced bastards they’ve always been known to be, they’ll say “fuck you, don’t care,” assuming they say anything to you at all.

Uncle Ruckus screamed bloody murder about how the Harper case was moot, yet he wants to vote in the majority on an actual fake case.

The thing you said about Kavanaugh and loan forgiveness.

Just about anything that comes out of Alito’s filthy fucking mouth.

We have to stop referring to these characters as “justices” and refer to them as what they are: carefully handpicked political operatives that are selected specifically to service an ideological agenda…and to wear a robe while doing it.

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

3 hours ago, scottsins said:

The plaintiff in this case filed the original petition prior to the fake inquire being made. Lower courts decided that there was standing to seek an injunction against the statute. IOW, SCOTUS didn’t make this ruling based on reliance on a contrived made up event. They made it under the guise that such an actual injury need not have happened anyway. It’s weird procedural history, and I’m trying to piece it together from various articles.

It's not 100% complete, but the opinions of the District Court and 10th Circuit are attached to the cert petition, as they usually are, even when unpublished or "westlaw only."  That's about the fastest way I know of to get at the history.

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

55 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Article III getting lots of mentions today

 

Neal is obviously an excellent lawyer.  He does seem to have a habit of voicing opinions based on half-baked or no knowledge of the actual facts. If he re-read pages 2-3 of the opinion, and glanced over the lower court decisions, I think he'd back way off that.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,444]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, any such fraud on the court does not affect the jurisdiction of the court or standing of the parties. None of the opinions of any of the courts were premised on the actual violation of the statue by anyone.  They all got by on the stated intention to violate it.

This is much ado about nothing created by reporting that knows not of what it speaks.

ETA: Assuming that any attorney can be tagged with responsibility or knowledge of the dummied-up controversy, that should be fair game for discipline if it was presented to any of the courts, even though the courts did not rely on it.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm not concerning myself with the rectitude of dummying up a case or controversy.  I'm concerning myself with whether there is any basis for vacating the judgment of the Supreme Court or any of the others and it appears that there is none.  Zero, zilch, nada.

[burntorangebongos 10,710]

It is sad that the malfeasance of the justices has brought us to questioning the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. But here we are.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,444]

5 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

It is sad that the malfeasance of the justices has brought us to questioning the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. But here we are.

Hey! They just ruled on a fraudulent case to legislate from the bench. They didn't continue to live in a rent controlled apartment after the leaseholder died.

[Bullneck 19,079]

[tx 3 putt 76,908]

Interesting, I had no idea he was classmates with John bolton 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,444]

26 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Interesting, I had no idea he was classmates with John bolton 

 

Maybe just in general we need fewer Yalies in government.

[Brisketexan 105,097]

Maybe just in general we need fewer Yalies in government.

Fucking Yalies, man.
My first exposure was one who showed up in my law school class. She did that stupid-ass “hiss” thing they do when they don’t like something the professor says. So fucking stupid.

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

9 hours ago, Nivek said:

Maybe we should take a lesson from Office Space and Mitch McConnell.  Just stop paying them.  I mean, they ruled that cops have no duty to actually do their job, so we can just stop paying them and stop allowing them the office space they currently occupy.  Move them to the janitor's closet at the local DC porn theater.  

Lol they make way more from their billionaire "friends" than they do from the US taxpayer. I don't think they would even notice if their government paychecks stopped flowing.

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fucking Yalies, man.
My first exposure was one who showed up in my law school class. She did that stupid-ass “hiss” thing they do when they don’t like something the professor says. So fucking stupid.

Wait what? Is this real? 

Did aggy steal the hiss too?

[dcbc 14,472]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Fucking Yalies, man.
My first exposure was one who showed up in my law school class. She did that stupid-ass “hiss” thing they do when they don’t like something the professor says. So fucking stupid.

Doesn't aggy do something akin to that.  Oh, don't tell me, aggy thought of it first and Yale stole it.  Either way, lame.

 

edit: Well, clearly I didn't read the post two beneath yours.  Yet, I regret nothing.

Edited July 3, 2023 by dcbc

[Bama Chick 28,596]

I don’t give a shit if “both sides” are agreed to fake a case.

The fucking least I expect out of a judge in a case like this is to get to the bottom of it it’s actually real.

Bang all their heads together.

[Nivek 16,923]

I don’t give a shit if “both sides” are agreed to fake a case.

The fucking least I expect out of a judge in a case like this is to get to the bottom of it it’s actually real.

Bang all their heads together.

Just remember, even though they keep making political moves based on made up cases, you are the one who doesn’t know the facts and you are being mislead. Not the assholes who knowingly took violated the constitution or were just to incompetent. Either way the “that’s not my department” answer is what undermines our faith in our so called finest system in the world. At this point a team of toddlers would be make for better members, because ultimately they still try to do the right thing.

[Anastasis 23,469]

Josh is down with the chubby. 

[Js1 85,313]

14 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

[Captainant 27,656]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in this particular case, it took two to tango.  CDCR was just as interested, apparently, in this test case as 303 Creative and their backers.

So, if it was a fraud on the court, it was in many senses if not all of them, endorsed by both sides.

But, really more importantly. if you read the opinion, it is ENTIRELY based on declaratory judgment jurisdiction.  That is, 303 Creative's INTENTION to violate the statute, to wit:

While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans. She worries that, if she does so, Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees. Slip. Op. at 2.

So, any such fraud on the court does not affect the jurisdiction of the court or standing of the parties. None of the opinions of any of the courts were premised on the actual violation of the statue by anyone.  They all got by on the stated intention to violate it.

This is much ado about nothing created by reporting that knows not of what it speaks.

ETA: Assuming that any attorney can be tagged with responsibility or knowledge of the dummied-up controversy, that should be fair game for discipline if it was presented to any of the courts, even though the courts did not rely on it.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm not concerning myself with the rectitude of dummying up a case or controversy.  I'm concerning myself with whether there is any basis for vacating the judgment of the Supreme Court or any of the others and it appears that there is none.  Zero, zilch, nada.

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. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Captainant

[Pescado_Rojo 19,416]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Josh is down with the chubby. 

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

10 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I don’t give a shit if “both sides” are agreed to fake a case.

The fucking least I expect out of a judge in a case like this is to get to the bottom of it it’s actually real.

Bang all their heads together.

That's not the way any of this works.

The judge wasn't going to get to the bottom of it because there didn't have to be a fake case.

It was adequate to establish a case or controversy, jurisdiction, and standing, that the bitch expressed her intention to violate the statute and the state expressed its intention to enforce the statute.

As a general proposition, American judges are at the mercy of the facts as presented by the parties.  Unlike European judges, they tend to lack the power to make independent factual inquiries.

Also, it's kind of amusing that these fits of mindless anger are directed at the trial judge, who found against the bitch in the first place.

Edited July 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45,903]

Who brought the original case?

[hayden_horn 11,362]

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.

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Who brought the original case?

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.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[softlynow 1,814]

What needs to happen won’t. The norms of procedure and “the way things are done” always ultimately protect the corrupt and ruthless.

This is just another area where only constitutional amendments or revolution can stop the slow descent to oligarchy.