The Supremes

[DDD Dad 14335]

19 hours ago, dcbc said:

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.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Boomer Sooner, which of course Yale stole.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

7 hours 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. 

Fair, I see your point.  I'm that way on congress being as aggressive as possible but hoping we aren't going to turn another branch into trash...but I concede, maybe I'm wrong and it already is...hence the need to get in the mud there too.  

[tx 3 putt 76908]

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

[CTC2 2796]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

For the most part, there are at least as many POS sitting on federal benches as there are in any other profession. I would argue its actually more. Mostly because most develop at least a slight case of something resembling a messiah complex. 
It’s human nature. 

[Nivek 16923]

I think from my perspective, the challenge we laypersons have is that we see the weakness of our judicial system being exploited time and again and now blatant corruption, absurd decisions, and the supreme court acting like an extremist political group, not a serious group of venerated legal scholars who are interested in providing the best decisions based on their abilities who take ownership and responsibility for their projects.   

That they get to choose their own cases to take (not by some lottery, but they pick and choose) gives them incredible power to influence and corrupt the judiciary system.  That our system allows for the highest court to pass the buck on fact-finding and essentially shrug shoulders and say "facts schmacts" belies a complete failure in the eyes of this layperson.   Imagine if other industries acted like this, our physicians, our scientists, our bridge-building engineers.  ("Sorry, I told them to give me good building materials but they sent me crap, so I just built it with crap, not my fault it fell down).   

I think my biggest disappointment is how fucking jaded these assholes are.  They do not respect the position they are in, they don't give a shit about the country or those they impact, and they pick and choose cases based on how they want the outcome not about what is good for the country.  They are just horrible people and the bribes, thin-skinned reactions to criticism, the demand that they are not allowed to be protested like any other government official,  selective review, and contempt they hold for the people indicates to me they are no better or skilled than an average surly lawyer.

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Nivek
semi clarity

[TwiceHorn 31452]

9 hours ago, CTC2 said:

For the most part, there are at least as many POS sitting on federal benches as there are in any other profession. I would argue its actually more. Mostly because most develop at least a slight case of something resembling a messiah complex. 
It’s human nature. 

No real argument there.

But if the idea is that the Supremes deliberately indulged a fraud in order to strike down the statute, you have to acknowledge that the lower courts did the same to uphold the statute. Or, acknowledge that the "fraud" is not conclusively proven and not material or relevant.

Standing and case or controversy are weird.  I can articulate the tests and apply them, but I often can't reconcile the results.  I am familiar enough with the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act in practice that finding all of the jurisdictional elements here is not alarming.

People need to understand that this isn't aberrant and the DJ Act has been a useful tool to challenge civil rights violations (the conventional kind) for decades.

[wildcat09 29349]

49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No real argument there.

But if the idea is that the Supremes deliberately indulged a fraud in order to strike down the statute, you have to acknowledge that the lower courts did the same to uphold the statute. Or, acknowledge that the "fraud" is not conclusively proven and not material or relevant.

Standing and case or controversy are weird.  I can articulate the tests and apply them, but I often can't reconcile the results.  I am familiar enough with the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act in practice that finding all of the jurisdictional elements here is not alarming.

People need to understand that this isn't aberrant and the DJ Act has been a useful tool to challenge civil rights violations (the conventional kind) for decades.

You’re getting too tied up in the legal weeds. If it was actually immaterial, they wouldn’t have lied in sworn statements to courts.

The purpose of the lie isn’t to meet a legal element of the claim. It’s rhetorical. It’s to give the right wing legal movement, and the justices themselves, “facts” that they can bolster the persuasiveness of their arguments with. A boring deck action doesn’t have the same public impact as “heathen f**s tried to force this good Christian woman to endorse their sinner lifestyle! Radical left embraces satan once again!”
 

The Republican justices have a symbiotic relationship with the right wing legal movement that brings bullshit like this. The lie helps them justify a decision like this to the public and entertaining it rewards the activists for bringing the types of cases they want them to bring.  

We know how loose they’ve been willing to be with the facts in cases in the past, but why wouldn’t they knowingly entertain wholesale fabrications? Even Roberts is happy to blatantly twist the facts when it’s clear that he’s doing so. If they think the public won’t find out certain claims fundamental to the public presentation of a case are complete bullshit, there’s no reason at all to think they wouldn’t be happy to go along. I’d bet even a pretty cursory investigation of other cases brought by the ADF and similar groups would reveal similar fabrications.

Edited July 4, 2023 by wildcat09

[C-Man 27217]

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.

Oh, they believe in laws. They just think they don’t apply to them.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

Question for the lawdogs, and I would appreciate it if nobody steps out on the ledge and goes all @Brisketexan on us:

It appears to me that this ruling centers on a compulsion to create expressive content, which is (or could be) a violation of the plaintiff's 1A rights.  In theory, the court has not stipulated that it's OK for this business owner to refuse to provide all services to gay customers, but if a particular service "messages" a point of view she does not support, she doesn't have to do the work.

How strong is that differentiation, either in theory or in practice?  At its core, it would seem she could now similarly refuse to create a "Black Lives Matter" website, should that in fact run counter to her own values.  Beyond that, how close does this ruling inch us to a complete revocation of the concept of protected classes of any kind?

 

[Captainant 27656]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

But if the idea is that the Supremes deliberately indulged a fraud in order to strike down the statute, you have to acknowledge that the lower courts did the same to uphold the statute. Or, acknowledge that the "fraud" is not conclusively proven and not material or relevant.

So legally, #bothsides? Gimme a fucking break. 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

People need to understand that this isn't aberrant and the DJ Act has been a useful tool to challenge civil rights violations (the conventional kind) for decades.

You need to understand that fascists will seek out opportunities to pervert a protective law and weild the state against their imagined enemies. The DJ Act in this context is a salient example of such an action, and fits the historical context. We need to be on the lookout for such fucking EVIL acts and call them evil. 

Not fucking lecture us on how we're supposed to let the fascists just buttfuck our civil rights because a court didn't properly catch a lie 

 

Happy 4th of July, everyone. 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Captainant

[Brian Fantana 6685]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So legally, #bothsides? Gimme a fucking break. 

You need to understand that fascists will seek out opportunities to pervert a protective law and weild the state against their imagined enemies. The DJ Act in this context is a salient example of such an action, and fits the historical context. We need to be on the lookout for such fucking EVIL acts and call them evil. 

Not fucking lecture us on how we're supposed to let the fascists just buttfuck our civil rights because a court didn't properly catch a lie 

 

Happy 4th of July, everyone. 

Go touch grass.

[Brisketexan 105097]

Question for the lawdogs, and I would appreciate it if nobody steps out on the ledge and goes all [mention=593]Brisketexan[/mention] on us:
It appears to me that this ruling centers on a compulsion to create expressive content, which is (or could be) a violation of the plaintiff's 1A rights.  In theory, the court has not stipulated that it's OK for this business owner to refuse to provide all services to gay customers, but if a particular service "messages" a point of view she does not support, she doesn't have to do the work.
How strong is that differentiation, either in theory or in practice?  At its core, it would seem she could now similarly refuse to create a "Black Lives Matter" website, should that in fact run counter to her own values.  Beyond that, how close does this ruling inch us to a complete revocation of the concept of protected classes of any kind?
 

Re the customer, there is a difference between what they say/do, and what they are, and that ties into how you can be a part of that expression as a seller.
A super easy illustration to use is a t-shirt printer. A liberal printer always could legally refuse to print a shirt that has a rebel flag on it, or even one that says “white power,” because even though the message had a racial component to it, it’s still a message, not a race. Ditto for a conservative shop owner - he could always refuse to print a “queer and proud” shirt, or a “I’m ridin’ with Biden” shirt, or even a “black lives matter” shirt, for the same reasons.
But if he refused to print a shirt that says “Lopez family reunion 2023” because dirty beaners are invaders, or a shirt with a picture of an interracial couple for their wedding because god says that interracial marriages are an abomination, that SHOULD be a problem. But under the standard and excuse the SCOTUS just created, only one of those would be a problem. Both acts of refusing to print are not really based on the “message” or expression. Rather, they are based on who the people ARE (dirty beaners, mixed race couple).
Gorsuch and crew would likely agree that the refusal to print the Lopez shirt remains illegal, because the reasoning for the refusal is 1) based on racial identity alone, and 2) the printer’s political-racial beliefs. But the second refusal, which is functionally identical to the first…is a-ok, because the claimed motivation is the seller’s religious belief.
In short, it doesn’t matter what loathsome, hateful outcome you want to reach based on who someone is (gay, black, female, unmarried mother, etc), so long as you claim that your refusal to serve is based on “religious conviction,” you have a free pass.
Then the second question is “what constitutes expression?” My t-shirt example is easy, because we’re literally taking about messages. But what about other endeavors that simply include some manner of creative expression? Website design seems to fall under that. What about any number of tasks that these days have the word “artisanal” in front of them? A fine dinner? A craft cocktail at a trendy bar? Building a custom patio, with style and flair? Tailoring a dress? We’re going to see significant litigation about what constitutes creative expression so as to be protected “speech” in the coming years.

One of my solutions is this: start a website called Bigotedpieceofshit.com. Do you want to make sure that your merchant is NOT a bigoted piece of shit who refuses to serve people based on what they ARE, as opposed to what they say or do (no problem with bars that kick out assholes for being rowdy)? Search our lists! We gather the names of such businesses, based on public or verified statements/actions of the business. So, you’ll find “Karen’s web designing LLC” on our list, because they refuse to do websites for a same sex couple. Conservative America wants the right to be utter pieces of shit to be sacrosanct. Cool. Let’s use the market against them. Brutally, and without mercy. Also list the names of the owners of each such business. And what town they are in.
We need to use brutal social retribution in addition to the laws to attack christo-fascism.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

One of my solutions is this: start a website called Bigotedpieceofshit.com. Do you want to make sure that your merchant is NOT a bigoted piece of shit who refuses to serve people based on what they ARE, as opposed to what they say or do (no problem with bars that kick out assholes for being rowdy)? Search our lists! We gather the names of such businesses, based on public or verified statements/actions of the business. So, you’ll find “Karen’s web designing LLC” on our list, because they refuse to do websites for a same sex couple. Conservative America wants the right to be utter pieces of shit to be sacrosanct. Cool. Let’s use the market against them. Brutally, and without mercy. Also list the names of the owners of each such business. And what town they are in.
We need to use brutal social retribution in addition to the laws to attack christo-fascism.

Would that be considered libel against Karen?

[Sawbonz 27547]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Would that be considered libel against Karen?

I am pretty sure the truth is an absolute defense against slander and libel. One can objectively conclude She is a bigot based on refusing to serve customers. Even if she has legitimately held religious belief it is bigoted behavior.

 

 

 

Piece of shit is really just an insult. Do slander and libel laws protect against plain old name-calling?

[Brisketexan 105097]

Would that be considered libel against Karen?

Nope, not if it’s true. That’s why it needs to be based on a public position or otherwise verified. And as for the terminology “bigoted piece of shit,” that’s protected opinion speech. If she wants to sue me, she best brush up on her anti-SLAPP statutes, because I’ll beat her ass with it and then have her pay my attorneys fees because of it.
If you want to be a place of public accommodation and take the position as a matter of policy that certain people will not be supplied your goods/services because of who they are, then we can make you own that shit, with a goddamned billboard in neon light. That’s the way the First Amendment works, you pieces of shit. Freedom of speech/expression/religion doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. In fact, my imposition of consequences is JUST as protected as your bigoted speech. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

I am pretty sure the truth is an absolute defense against slander and libel. One can objectively conclude She is a bigot based on refusing to serve customers. Even if she has legitimately held religious belief it is bigoted behavior.
 
 
 
Piece of shit is really just an insult. Do slander and libel laws protect against plain old name-calling?

They do not, you gutless pussy.

[scottsins 1966]

I think from my perspective, the challenge we laypersons have is that we see the weakness of our judicial system being exploited time and again and now blatant corruption, absurd decisions, and the supreme court acting like an extremist political group, not a serious group of venerated legal scholars who are interested in providing the best decisions based on their abilities who take ownership and responsibility for their projects.   
That they get to choose their own cases to take (not by some lottery, but they pick and choose) gives them incredible power to influence and corrupt the judiciary system.  That our system allows for the highest court to pass the buck on fact-finding and essentially shrug shoulders and say "facts schmacts" belies a complete failure in the eyes of this layperson.   Imagine if other industries acted like this, our physicians, our scientists, our bridge-building engineers.  ("Sorry, I told them to give me good building materials but they sent me crap, so I just built it with crap, not my fault it fell down).   
I think my biggest disappointment is how fucking jaded these assholes are.  They do not respect the position they are in, they don't give a shit about the country or those they impact, and they pick and choose cases based on how they want the outcome not about what is good for the country.  They are just horrible people and the bribes, thin-skinned reactions to criticism, the demand that they are not allowed to be protested like any other government official,  selective review, and contempt they hold for the people indicates to me they are no better or skilled than an average surly lawyer.
 

Regarding “passing the buck on fact finding”…

The alternative would be for SCOTUS to conduct evidentiary hearings, which would be, in essence a “de novo” trial. SCOTUS reviews and decides questions of law. To do otherwise would mean trials at the highest court with witnesses taking the stand, cross examinations, etc. No thanks. A shitty Court like the current one would be able to do 1000x the amount of fuckery if that were the case.

[CTC2 2796]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No real argument there.

But if the idea is that the Supremes deliberately indulged a fraud in order to strike down the statute, you have to acknowledge that the lower courts did the same to uphold the statute. Or, acknowledge that the "fraud" is not conclusively proven and not material or relevant.

Standing and case or controversy are weird.  I can articulate the tests and apply them, but I often can't reconcile the results.  I am familiar enough with the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act in practice that finding all of the jurisdictional elements here is not alarming.

People need to understand that this isn't aberrant and the DJ Act has been a useful tool to challenge civil rights violations (the conventional kind) for decades.

My contention is that this SC really does not care about the facts. They are just looking for an excuse to institute these rulings which are consistent with a political philosophy disguised as a judicial one. 
 

Edited July 4, 2023 by CTC2

[Nivek 16923]

39 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Regarding “passing the buck on fact finding”…

The alternative would be for SCOTUS to conduct evidentiary hearings, which would be, in essence a “de novo” trial. SCOTUS reviews and decides questions of law. To do otherwise would mean trials at the highest court with witnesses taking the stand, cross examinations, etc. No thanks. A shitty Court like the current one would be able to do 1000x the amount of fuckery if that were the case.

 

One of the annoying things about the legal profession is that some of you seem like you are up your own ass with your terminology Latin when speaking to the public because that is your convention whereas "new trial" would have sufficed.    The other part is the false dilemma but maybe because of your profession, you do not have this background.   When I was the lead geophysicist at a firm, I didn't reprocess all steps and stages of a project but I did look QC tools and I did check over the project.  Considering the implications that the SCOTUS decisions have, this should be a minimum standard.  Heck, hire a fucking law clerk, paralegal to review any and all cases that are being bumped to the district level, and another to review any cases that are going to be bumped to the SCOTUS as a minimal quality control standard.  

 

 

[Horn Dog 9818]

3 hours ago, Nivek said:

I think from my perspective, the challenge we laypersons have is that we see the weakness of our judicial system being exploited time and again and now blatant corruption, absurd decisions, and the supreme court acting like an extremist political group, not a serious group of venerated legal scholars who are interested in providing the best decisions based on their abilities who take ownership and responsibility for their projects.   

That they get to choose their own cases to take (not by some lottery, but they pick and choose) gives them incredible power to influence and corrupt the judiciary system.  That our system allows for the highest court to pass the buck on fact-finding and essentially shrug shoulders and say "facts schmacts" belies a complete failure in the eyes of this layperson.   Imagine if other industries acted like this, our physicians, our scientists, our bridge-building engineers.  ("Sorry, I told them to give me good building materials but they sent me crap, so I just built it with crap, not my fault it fell down).   

I think my biggest disappointment is how fucking jaded these assholes are.  They do not respect the position they are in, they don't give a shit about the country or those they impact, and they pick and choose cases based on how they want the outcome not about what is good for the country.  They are just horrible people and the bribes, thin-skinned reactions to criticism, the demand that they are not allowed to be protested like any other government official,  selective review, and contempt they hold for the people indicates to me they are no better or skilled than an average surly lawyer.

 

Yea the founding fathers screwed the poach with the judiciary branch.  It’s like they put a lot of time and thought into putting rails on executive and leg branches but then left designing the judicial branch to the half wits of the constitutional congress.  “Hey guys lets just appoint these judges to life, let them pick and choose the cases they want to take up, impose absolutely no ethical standards and make them completely impervious to removal or constraint cause ultimate power currupts never…or something like that”.  And don’t give me some shit about judges needing to be insulated from popular opinion to be kept pure or some BS like that , cause obviously the extreme polar opposite is a much worse solution.  These dipshits designed the judiciary like my 9yr old would design a Titanic touring sub.

[DaysOff 7947]

I don't think they ever envisioned the justices being corrupt pieces of shit.

[Horn Dog 9818]

Well then they were fuckin idiots.  
“We just fought for our independence against a lifetime appointed monarch with absolute power, zero accountability, no ethical standards and impossible to get rid of, so what we should do is set up the government power structure so that the branch with ultimate power over the other two is lifetime appointed, no ethical standards, zero accountability, and essentially impossible to get rid of!  What could possibly go wrong??”

[Satchel 6938]

Can’t wait until they rule that domestic abusers have a right to possess guns despite their demonstrated propensity for violence.

[Dnaguy 11947]

4 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Yea the founding fathers screwed the poach with the judiciary branch.  It’s like they put a lot of time and thought into putting rails on executive and leg branches but then left designing the judicial branch to the half wits of the constitutional congress.  “Hey guys lets just appoint these judges to life, let them pick and choose the cases they want to take up, impose absolutely no ethical standards and make them completely impervious to removal or constraint cause ultimate power currupts never…or something like that”.  And don’t give me some shit about judges needing to be insulated from popular opinion to be kept pure or some BS like that , cause obviously the extreme polar opposite is a much worse solution.  These dipshits designed the judiciary like my 9yr old would design a Titanic touring sub.

They ran out of time for the test and just started filling in ‘c’.

We’ve all been there. 
 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Dnaguy

[HenryJames 66043]

 

[bolverk 29669]

Just came here to post about that ruling. If this goes through, be ready for a shitload more disinformation on social media.

NYTimes no paywall: https://archive.ph/WFkHN

 

 

[Captainant 27656]

57 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Thank goodness we can count on the supreme court to straighten this out and not just issue a ruling devoid of factual basis of injury to further a stated political agenda

[Bama Chick 28596]

I don't think they ever envisioned the justices being corrupt pieces of shit.

Or justices living into their 80s or 90s.

The life expectancy was like 35 back then, ffs.

[Bullneck 19079]

19 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Can we finally string one of these asshole traitors up?

(for clarity, can the Justice Department use all means at their disposal to try, convict, and punish them?)

Edited July 4, 2023 by Bullneck

[Bookman 4639]

Wait, is that prior restraint?

 

 

[softlynow 1814]

7 hours ago, DaysOff said:

I don't think they ever envisioned the justices being corrupt pieces of shit.

 

6 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Well then they were fuckin idiots.  
“We just fought for our independence against a lifetime appointed monarch with absolute power, zero accountability, no ethical standards and impossible to get rid of, so what we should do is set up the government power structure so that the branch with ultimate power over the other two is lifetime appointed, no ethical standards, zero accountability, and essentially impossible to get rid of!  What could possibly go wrong??”

It’s not that they didn’t think judges could be corrupt, it’s that they never thought a political party would be so beholden to a morally-bankrupt and thoroughly ruthless ideology that the impeachment process would be completely impotent.

The failure to remove Trump proves the current GOP has no compass save the one guiding them towards more money, whether it’s dollars, riyals, rubles or yuan. No constitution can guardrail that, and clearly liberals wouldn’t know how to use ‘em anyway. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by softlynow

[scottsins 1966]

Can’t wait until they rule that domestic abusers have a right to possess guns despite their demonstrated propensity for violence.

It will still be illegal in most, if not all 50 states with someone under a protective order to possess a firearm. The case in question is for the federal statute. That statute’s language requires a finding that MAY not be met merely by being subject to a protective order. If I have time tomorrow, I’ll dig in and lay out the actual legal issue, if anyone gives a shit about what is actually up for a ruling by SCOTUS on this. I won’t use any Latin and maybe I’ll even tweet it since that’s where all of the hot takes come from that get everyone frothed up these days.

I do recall hearing a conclusory summary of what someone thought the Circuit Court decision was, and then reading the actual case and feeling much less upset about it though.

[Biff Tannen 45676]

6 hours ago, bolverk said:

Just came here to post about that ruling. If this goes through, be ready for a shitload more disinformation on social media.

NYTimes no paywall: https://archive.ph/WFkHN

 

 

Well this seems great

[TwiceHorn 31452]

14 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

You’re getting too tied up in the legal weeds. If it was actually immaterial, they wouldn’t have lied in sworn statements to courts.

The purpose of the lie isn’t to meet a legal element of the claim. It’s rhetorical. It’s to give the right wing legal movement, and the justices themselves, “facts” that they can bolster the persuasiveness of their arguments with. A boring deck action doesn’t have the same public impact as “heathen f**s tried to force this good Christian woman to endorse their sinner lifestyle! Radical left embraces satan once again!”
 

The Republican justices have a symbiotic relationship with the right wing legal movement that brings bullshit like this. The lie helps them justify a decision like this to the public and entertaining it rewards the activists for bringing the types of cases they want them to bring.  

We know how loose they’ve been willing to be with the facts in cases in the past, but why wouldn’t they knowingly entertain wholesale fabrications? Even Roberts is happy to blatantly twist the facts when it’s clear that he’s doing so. If they think the public won’t find out certain claims fundamental to the public presentation of a case are complete bullshit, there’s no reason at all to think they wouldn’t be happy to go along. I’d bet even a pretty cursory investigation of other cases brought by the ADF and similar groups would reveal similar fabrications.

The "public presentation" of the case was always declaratory judgment jurisdiction based on the intentions of the parties and not an actual controversy.

Any supposition by anyone that someone queer had requested a website and 303 Creative refused just doesn't line up with the facts presented in the District Court's opinion, or the 10th Circuit's opinion and those facts were then "fixed" by the time the Supreme Court ruled.

If you or anyone believed that there was an 'actual controversy" like that, it's because you didn't read the cases.  In other words, you got baited by clickbait journalism.  Hell, I took the assertion at face value at first too, then I looked at it and realized it was bullshit. All of the more recent articles concede that it had no effect on the case.

You are just speculating on how depraved the court may be, or how depraved ADF or other groups are.  You may be right, you may be wrong, but in this particular case, it don't make a shit.

The Supreme Court is currently fubar.  There is plenty of real shit substantiating that conclusion.  There's no need to make shit up and this is made up shit.

Edited July 5, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31452]

11 hours ago, CTC2 said:

My contention is that this SC really does not care about the facts. They are just looking for an excuse to institute these rulings which are consistent with a political philosophy disguised as a judicial one. 
 

No Supreme Court cares about the facts.  They grant cert on cases that are as fact-neutral as they possibly can be so that rulings don't depend on particular fact scenarios.  That's been true forever.

And, there's nothing unique about deciding cases based on some political philosophy, or at least something other than some neutral legal principles.  That's been true since Marbury.

This court is just more blatant about it, less incremental, and has less regard for precedent than prior courts.

Some of yall may need to read Constitutional Fate by Phillp Bobbit.  It goes through all the constitutional interpretation regimes, details how none of them supply universal rules of decision, and how they have been used over the years to implement what boils down to political or values-based policies.

This is nothing new.  It is more extreme.

[Nivek 16923]

Or justices living into their 80s or 90s.

The life expectancy was like 35 back then, ffs.

That number reflects the infant childhood mortality than it does the adult lifespan.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

7 hours ago, Captainant said:

Thank goodness we can count on the supreme court to straighten this out and not just issue a ruling devoid of factual basis of injury to further a stated political agenda

I'm not sure this rises to a First Amendment violation.

But I'm not really comfortable with the government coming pretty close to telling outlets what to publish.  

[Captainant 27656]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But I'm not really comfortable with the government coming pretty close to telling outlets what to publish.

Man, just wait until you hear about a coordinated effort across republican state governments to ban any mention of gay or racial issues in schools and libraries! You'll REALLY be uncomfortable with the courts telling schools and libraries what is and isn't ok, and even moreso when the supreme court issues a tortured ruling to endorse the practice!

 

Your fear is already a reality. The fascists have already been using this false grievance of government censorship and forced speech to gin up their conservative protection social media legislation. You are far too sympathetic to the argument of the fascists on this one man.

 

A non-existent company declaring they want don't want to create a website for a person who doesn't exist is not the injury or strong standing that you're trying desperately to convince us that it is. The fascists found a flaw in our legal system, surprise surprise, we shouldn't be giving them a golf clap and saying "hohohoho good show old chap, you really used that arcane legal defense as an effective weapon against those gays daring to not actually ask the thing you're aggrieved over!"

[TwiceHorn 31452]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

A non-existent company declaring they want don't want to create a website for a person who doesn't exist is not the injury or strong standing that you're trying desperately to convince us that it is. The fascists found a flaw in our legal system, surprise surprise, we shouldn't be giving them a golf clap and saying "hohohoho good show old chap, you really used that arcane legal defense as an effective weapon against those gays daring to not actually ask the thing you're aggrieved over!"

This is just nonsense.  As I have said repeatedly, the DJ Act is often a friend of the civil libertarian.  It's not a flaw in the system.  You are again whinging about something you don't understand.

You're absolutely correct about the First Amendment things.  The government has no business telling people what to print or not print, no matter how benign the motive today, it's a tool of fascism tomorrow.

[Captainant 27656]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is just nonsense.  As I have said repeatedly, the DJ Act is often a friend of the civil libertarian.  It's not a flaw in the system.  You are again whinging about something you don't understand.

And in this case, the fascists have found a tactic to let them prosecute an imagined culture war issue as if it actually did happen. With this massive success on a sticky social issue, it'll turn into the "turn my grievancepost into a legal matter" button for the fascists. After they realized they could get away with cases that didn't actually happen - the praying coach in fact punishing players for not doing his christian prayer, MOHELA not actually being injured or seeking compensation but being the plaintiff nonetheless - they started pressing that button more and more. 

 

What makes it so effective is that well intentioned folks like you will get so twisted up explaining it's actually a good thing the fascists can do this, that the conversation will always stay on DA RULEZZZZ rather than on the actual real social outcomes this completely political ruling is going to be enforcing across the country. 

 

All because a non existent business wanted to deny a fake customer? Give me a goddamn break. This is what oppression looks like in early stages. All it takes is a republican executive and then the fascists will have fuel and a spark plug to enact even greater social changes while they enjoy unilateral control over the interpretation of the law

Edited July 5, 2023 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31452]

28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And in this case, the fascists have found a tactic to let them prosecute an imagined culture war issue as if it actually did happen. With this massive success on a sticky social issue, it'll turn into the "turn my grievancepost into a legal matter" button for the fascists. After they realized they could get away with cases that didn't actually happen - the praying coach in fact punishing players for not doing his christian prayer, MOHELA not actually being injured or seeking compensation but being the plaintiff nonetheless - they started pressing that button more and more. 

 

What makes it so effective is that well intentioned folks like you will get so twisted up explaining it's actually a good thing the fascists can do this, that the conversation will always stay on DA RULEZZZZ rather than on the actual real social outcomes this completely political ruling is going to be enforcing across the country. 

 

All because a non existent business wanted to deny a fake customer? Give me a goddamn break. This is what oppression looks like in early stages. All it takes is a republican executive and then the fascists will have fuel and a spark plug to enact even greater social changes while they enjoy unilateral control over the interpretation of the law

Like I said previously, the right is employing tactics originally employed by "the left" (really just entities identified with the left and that's an important distinction) and employing them more ruthlessly and efficiently.

Still, its a goes both ways thing.  Care to hazard a guess how Allen v. Milligan was instituted?  Had anyone voted under the unlawful redistricting plan?  Was there a "live dispute"?  Or was it an inevitable outcome based on the intentions of the parties?  

Edited July 5, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27656]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Still, its a goes both ways thing.  Care to hazard a guess how Allen v. Milligan was instituted?  Had anyone voted under the unlawful redistricting plan?  Was there a "live dispute"?  Or was it an inevitable outcome based on the intentions of the parties?  

Racial discrimination against black people in Alabama is a thing that has actually happened. We had an entire fucking war over it if you'll recall back when armybrat was a teenager. There is an actual, knowable, and historically significant injury being protected against there.

There is not a pattern of anti-christian discrimination in this country, like was being protected against in Merrill v Milligan. You are taking the fascists bait and agreeing to frame this as a reasonable grievance, where they had to FABRICATE THE ENTIRE RAISON D'ETRE FOR THE LAWSUIT. 

You are giving equal credibility to both arguments, when the fascists are just grievance posting. Say, you wouldn't happen to be related to Blacklab would you?

[Biff Tannen 45676]

Can we rename this thread the Captain vs Twice slapfight thread?

[TwiceHorn 31452]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Racial discrimination against black people in Alabama is a thing that has actually happened. We had an entire fucking war over it if you'll recall back when armybrat was a teenager. There is an actual, knowable, and historically significant injury being protected against there.

There is not a pattern of anti-christian discrimination in this country, like was being protected against in Merrill v Milligan. You are taking the fascists bait and agreeing to frame this as a reasonable grievance, where they had to FABRICATE THE ENTIRE RAISON D'ETRE FOR THE LAWSUIT. 

You are giving equal credibility to both arguments, when the fascists are just grievance posting. Say, you wouldn't happen to be related to Blacklab would you?

It's not an argument.

It's a procedural device.  You know, the process.   The ones you don't want to stick to when you don't like the outcome.  Process should only be available for the good guys.

[DDD Dad 14335]

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Racial discrimination against black people in Alabama is a thing that has actually happened. We had an entire fucking war over it if you'll recall back when armybrat was a teenager. There is an actual, knowable, and historically significant injury being protected against there.

There is not a pattern of anti-christian discrimination in this country, like was being protected against in Merrill v Milligan. You are taking the fascists bait and agreeing to frame this as a reasonable grievance, where they had to FABRICATE THE ENTIRE RAISON D'ETRE FOR THE LAWSUIT. 

You are giving equal credibility to both arguments, when the fascists are just grievance posting. Say, you wouldn't happen to be related to Blacklab would you?

Derka sock?

[scottsins 1966]

It will still be illegal in most, if not all 50 states with someone under a protective order to possess a firearm. The case in question is for the federal statute. That statute’s language requires a finding that MAY not be met merely by being subject to a protective order. If I have time tomorrow, I’ll dig in and lay out the actual legal issue, if anyone gives a shit about what is actually up for a ruling by SCOTUS on this. I won’t use any Latin and maybe I’ll even tweet it since that’s where all of the hot takes come from that get everyone frothed up these days.

I do recall hearing a conclusory summary of what someone thought the Circuit Court decision was, and then reading the actual case and feeling much less upset about it though.

Pause all of this. I was thinking of another case along these same lines, but Rahimi actually relates to interpreting the federal firearm statute in light of Bruen. I think that this will be another 6-3 shitshow with a result that I find ridiculous. The only way to avoid a terrible result would be to somehow throw out their brand new shiny bullshit Bruen test, which obviously ain’t going to happen.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

13 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Pause all of this. I was thinking of another case along these same lines, but Rahimi actually relates to interpreting the federal firearm statute in light of Bruen. I think that this will be another 6-3 shitshow with a result that I find ridiculous. The only way to avoid a terrible result would be to somehow throw out their brand new shiny bullshit Bruen test, which obviously ain’t going to happen.

Yeah, this is a real shitshow.  I have kind of mixed feelings about it because I feel like 922 has been used to abuse people and I generally like it when federal criminal statutes go away or get whittled to nothing.

But this, this is fucking nuts.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

23 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Question for the lawdogs, and I would appreciate it if nobody steps out on the ledge and goes all @Brisketexan on us:

It appears to me that this ruling centers on a compulsion to create expressive content, which is (or could be) a violation of the plaintiff's 1A rights.  In theory, the court has not stipulated that it's OK for this business owner to refuse to provide all services to gay customers, but if a particular service "messages" a point of view she does not support, she doesn't have to do the work.

How strong is that differentiation, either in theory or in practice?  At its core, it would seem she could now similarly refuse to create a "Black Lives Matter" website, should that in fact run counter to her own values.  Beyond that, how close does this ruling inch us to a complete revocation of the concept of protected classes of any kind?

 

It doesn't do much to erode protected classes overall I don't think, although it certainly devalues the rights of one protected class when pitted against 1st Amendment rights, but it's not just the expression part of 1A, but also the religious freedom aspect, so probably pretty narrow in application.  But where it goes from here, who knows.

One irony of all of this bitching about the "made up dispute" here is an implicit admission that this is going to be a pretty rare fact pattern where an LGBTQ person or couple attempts to engage the services of an openly LGBTQ-unfriendly business, gets refused service, and the business gets punished by CDCR.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One irony of all of this bitching about the "made up dispute" here is an implicit admission that this is going to be a pretty rare fact pattern where an LGBTQ person or couple attempts to engage the services of an openly LGBTQ-unfriendly business, gets refused service, and the business gets punished by CDCR.

Wasn't that punishment anticipated in the original lawsuit?  I realize SCOTUS drilled down to the "expression" aspect, but I don't think anybody expects CDCR to do anything but punish in most cases.  The concern is that they get further hamstrung on appeal, right?

[TwiceHorn 31452]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wasn't that punishment anticipated in the original lawsuit?  I realize SCOTUS drilled down to the "expression" aspect, but I don't think anybody expects CDCR to do anything but punish in most cases.  The concern is that they get further hamstrung on appeal, right?

Not sure what you mean by further hamstrung on appeal.

But, under pretty non-controversial laws of the US, it is often sufficient to allege that there is a statute that the government intends to enforce and that you intend to violate to confer jurisdiction to evaluate the constitutionality of that statute.  Not really sure why that bothers people so much other than they're looking for any excuse to undo the decision.\

A curious example.  In Roe v. Wade, it was almost moot because she was no longer pregnant at the time of decision.  But the Court made an exception as a case "capable of repetition, yet evading review."

Oops, Roe in fact was brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act.  What. Do. You. Know.  Those goddamn flaws in the justice system.

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by TwiceHorn