Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 12/13/2023 at 3:58 AM, tx 3 putt said:
Just to be clear here, scotus rubber stamped something they knew was in the wrong ?

Yes, because on balance - and this is important - that “being wrong” helps the GQP and fucks over minorities. Both of which are more important than the pesky “law” and shit.
That’s how this SCOTUS rolls. I’d think more of y’all would have figured that out by now, but nope. You still think they’re going to act within the old institutional parameters. Stop.
Posted
  On 12/13/2023 at 4:02 AM, Brisketexan said:


Yes, because on balance - and this is important - that “being wrong” helps the GQP and fucks over minorities. Both of which are more important than the pesky “law” and shit.
That’s how this SCOTUS rolls. I’d think more of y’all would have figured that out by now, but nope. You still think they’re going to act within the old institutional parameters. Stop.

Expand  


mark proksch randy GIF by Dream Corp LLC

Posted
  On 12/13/2023 at 1:53 AM, Gap03 said:

futurama-shocked.gif

Yeah, it's probably a clear violation, but let's think about it for a few more election cycles, and then ask them to pretty-please fix it and then consider those revised maps for a few more cycles ... fuck these cunts.

Expand  

Even for Roberts on a voting rights case, this is pretty brazen.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/us/trump-supreme-court-jan-6.html

 

  Quote

The Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide a question at the heart of the federal election-interference case against former President Donald J. Trump and hundreds of prosecutions arising from the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021: Can the government charge defendants in those cases under a federal law that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct an official congressional proceeding?

The decision to hear the case will complicate and perhaps delay the start of Mr. Trump’s trial, now scheduled to take place in Washington in March. The Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling, which may not arrive until June, will likely address the viability of two of the main counts against Mr. Trump and could severely limit efforts by the special counsel, Jack Smith, to hold the former president accountable for the violence that his supporters committed at the Capitol.

Expand  

 

  Quote

The court’s eventual decision could also invalidate convictions that have already been secured against scores of Mr. Trump’s followers who took part in the assault. That would be a devastating blow to the government’s prosecutions of the Jan. 6 cases.

The case the court agreed to hear involves Joseph Fischer, who was indicted on seven charges for his role in the Capitol attack. Prosecutors say he assaulted the police as Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 election. Like hundreds of other rioters whose actions disrupted the certification proceeding in the Capitol, Mr. Fischer was charged with the obstruction count, formally known as 18 U.S.C. 1512.

Expand  

 

  Quote

Mr. Fischer sought dismissal of a part of the indictment brought under the federal law, which was passed as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a statute aimed primarily at white-collar crime.

Judge Carl J. Nichols of the Federal District Court in Washington granted Mr. Fischer’s motion, saying that the law required defendants to take “some action with respect to a document, record or other object” — a provision that he failed to find in Mr. Fischer’s conduct at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Expand  

 

 

  Quote

A divided three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed Judge Nichols’s decision, ruling that the law “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.” Three Jan. 6 defendants, including Mr. Fischer, ultimately asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the law had been justly applied to the Capitol attack.

The obstruction charge was never an easy fit in the cases stemming from the storming of the Capitol. When it was passed in the early 2000s, the law was aimed at curbing corporate malfeasance by outlawing things like destroying documents or tampering with evidence.

Defense lawyers representing Jan. 6 rioters argued that federal prosecutors improperly stretched its scope to cover the violence that erupted at the Capitol and interfered with a proceeding in which lawmakers had gathered to certify the results of the 2020 election.

The lawyers also took issue with using the charge against people who stormed the Capitol, saying that many were not acting “corruptly” as the law requires because they believed they were protesting a stolen election.

“The statute has been used to over-criminalize the Jan. 6 cases,” said Norm Pattis, a lawyer for Jake Lang, who also appealed his obstruction conviction to the Supreme Court. “Congress never intended that.”

Mr. Pattis said the Supreme Court’s review was “significant” in hundreds of criminal cases stemming from the riot at the Capitol and was also “yet another reason the 2024 cases against Donald Trump should be delayed.”

Two of the four counts in the federal election interference indictment Mr. Trump is facing are based on the obstruction charge. Mr. Trump has been charged with personally obstructing the certification proceeding at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He is also facing a separate count of conspiring with others to obstruct the proceeding.

If the Supreme Court finds that the law does not apply to the mob attack against the Capitol, it could cripple plans by Mr. Smith to pin the violence that took place on Jan. 6 on Mr. Trump.

Recent court papers in the election case have strongly suggested that prosecutors were planning to use the obstruction charge as a way to show the jury graphic videos of the Capitol attack and perhaps even introduce testimony from rioters claiming that they stormed the building on Mr. Trump’s instructions.

Expand  

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
Posted
  On 12/14/2023 at 8:28 PM, Js1 said:

 

Neat

Expand  

No worries.  They'll get around to gutting it entirely when the full case comes before them.  Because they pretty much have to, if they're going to follow THEIR OWN FUCKING REASONING in Bruen.

No gun law that does anything other than ban the possession of muskets by negroes (perhaps the only gun law on the books in 1791, when the 2nd amendment was ratified) is permissible.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Well, there are multiple states with similar bans, some for several decades (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York).  California's ban is currently in the courts.  I don't know how many others are in good standing.

 

Posted

I furrow my brow with concern just like Susan Collins when they talk about the Framer’s position on gun restriction.

That is because I have an ancestor who lived in Massachusetts, who was appointed by the safety committee of the town on July 6, 1776, to seize the guns of several prominent Tories. You see, even though their neighbors hadn’t done anything wrong - they suspected that they might because they were not approving of the American revolution in public discourse.

 And then my ancestor collected them, scratched the owners’ initials in the stocks for later returns- and gave those weapons to the Berkshire County Militia to use.

Put another way, those engaged in the American revolution had not one problem with the government seizing guns from people if they thought there was gonna be a problem.   

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted
  On 12/14/2023 at 8:48 PM, Gatorubet said:

Put another way, those engaged in the American revolution had not one problem with the government seizing guns from people if they thought there was gonna be a problem.   

Expand  

'Take the gun first, go through due process second'

Posted

Stupid / novice question….
  Are bullets considered arms? 
Lets do what Chris rock said and tax the ever living fuck out of bullets or make buying bullets require a license that would require a Super extensive background check. 

Don’t infringe on a persons right to make their bullets. You can make as many as you want. 

But buying premade, bullets would require  your very cumbersome license or action to make bullets.

Get creative.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
  On 12/14/2023 at 8:48 PM, Gatorubet said:

I furrow my brow with concern just like Susan Collins when they talk about the Framer’s position on gun restriction.

That is because I have an ancestor who lived in Massachusetts, who was appointed by the safety committee of the town on July 6, 1776, to seize the guns of several prominent Tories. You see, even though their neighbors hadn’t done anything wrong - they suspected that they might because they were not approving of the American revolution in public discourse.

 And then my ancestor collected them, scratched the owners’ initials in the stocks for later returns- and gave those weapons to the Berkshire County Militia to use.

Put another way, those engaged in the American revolution had not one problem with the government seizing guns from people if they thought there was gonna be a problem.   

Expand  

I appreciate many of your takes on here.  I have a very non-specific accent.  I have lived on both coasts, abroad, the midwest, and Texas.  It is so authoritative and non-specific that I've even gotten voiceover/radio work from it.  But there are two sounds that make my fucking teeth itch.  The Massachusetts accent and the Florida accent.  So though I'd love to get lunch with you sometime, we may also have to fight in the parking lot.  I'm sure you'd win, but at least I won't have to hear that fucking "Chowdas for DeSantis" cringe tone for the 20 seconds it takes me to call the paramedics for myself.

Edited by YGIFS
Posted
  On 12/14/2023 at 9:58 PM, YGIFS said:

I appreciate many of your takes on here.  I have a very non-specific accent.  I have lived on both coasts, abroad, the midwest, and Texas.  It is so authoritative and non-specific that I've even gotten voiceover/radio work from it.  But there are two sounds that make my fucking teeth itch.  The Massachusetts accent and the Florida accent.  So though I'd love to get lunch with you sometime, we may also have to fight in the parking lot.  I'm sure you'd win, but at least I won't have to hear that fucking "Chowdas for DeSantis" cringe tone for the 20 seconds it takes me to call the paramedics for myself.

Expand  

Having lived all over the country as a child, I don’t really have an accent, unless sounding like Tom Brokaw is an accent. 

I would put money on you in the fight though. I have to say, I find a New York City accent to be the least attractive of all.  And I’m not quite sure what a Florida accent is, although you may be hating on people from Ohio.

I will buy you a drink at Mannings. 

Posted
  On 12/14/2023 at 9:02 PM, Dnaguy said:

Stupid / novice question….
  Are bullets considered arms? 
Lets do what Chris rock said and tax the ever living fuck out of bullets or make buying bullets require a license that would require a Super extensive background check. 

Don’t infringe on a persons right to make their bullets. You can make as many as you want. 

But buying premade, bullets would require  your very cumbersome license or action to make bullets.

Get creative.

Expand  

A good chunk of them would probably blow their trigger fingers off. Modern problems require modern solutions. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
  On 12/14/2023 at 8:28 PM, Js1 said:

 

Neat

Expand  

the state choosing to disarm its own disorganized militia would probably have been completely fine with madison's interpretation of the US constitution.

Edited by elfenix
Posted

NYT with some excellent reporting on the Dobbs fuckery and outright lying to the public by the justices

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/us/supreme-court-dobbs-roe-abortion.html

  Quote

 

Justice Ginsburg’s death hung over the process. For months, the court delayed announcing its decision to hear the case, creating the appearance of distance from her passing. The justices later allowed Mississippi to perform a bait-and-switch, widening what had been a narrower attempt to restrict abortion while she was alive into a full assault on Roe — the kind of move that has prompted dismissals of other cases.

The most glaring irregularity was the leak to Politico of Justice Alito’s draft. The identity and motive of the person who disclosed it remains unknown, but the effect of the breach is clear: It helped lock in the result, The Times found, undercutting Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer’s quest to find a middle ground.

...

But sometime before the announcement, Justice Barrett had switched her vote. Just four members of the court, the bare minimum, chose to grant, with Justice Kavanaugh taking the side of Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas. They overrode five colleagues — including all the female justices — who had an array of concerns. The men appeared to be betting that Justice Barrett would ultimately side with them, pushing her into a case she had not wanted to take.

Her reasons for the reversal are unclear. But as a professor in 2013, she had written a law review article laying out the kind of dilemma she faced in spring 2021. “If the court’s opinions change with its membership, public confidence in the court as an institution might decline,” she noted. “Its members might be seen as partisan rather than impartial and case law as fueled by power rather than reason.”

 

Expand  

The article goes into the discussion on if they'd take the case, but it's fucking striking that on January 8th, 2021 they were debating wether or not to take the case and Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas planned to mislead the public on if they'd take the case that term or not. Gorsuch approved the majority opinion literally 10 minutes after he first received it. They never fucking planned to hear any merits or legal facts. They just wanted to put women in their place. 

Two days after a violent fascist insurrection attempt, they were more worried about taking away women's rights than anything else. Let that shit fucking sink in. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 5
Posted

What a world:

  Quote

After almost a decade on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation, according to friends. He had recently started raising his young grandnephew, and Thomas’ wife was soliciting advice on how to handle the new expenses. The month before, the justice had borrowed $267,000 from a friend to buy a high-end RV.

Expand  

Hey Clarence, I think I may have identified a problem with your financial situation.

  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 12/18/2023 at 1:24 PM, jimmyjazz said:
What a world:
  Quote
After almost a decade on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation, according to friends. He had recently started raising his young grandnephew, and Thomas’ wife was soliciting advice on how to handle the new expenses. The month before, the justice had borrowed $267,000 from a friend to buy a high-end RV.
Hey Clarence, I think I may have identified a problem with your financial situation.

giphy.gif
Posted (edited)
  On 12/18/2023 at 1:24 PM, jimmyjazz said:

What a world:

Hey Clarence, I think I may have identified a problem with your financial situation.

Expand  

I went to the Bama game this year and I can tell you $267k was probably the median cost of the fans’ RVs in their RV lot. These are people that by and large live in Tuscaloosa and take their RVs to the lot every home game. They live a few miles from the stadium and still take their RVs to the lot to “tailgate”. This is their life. It was pretty astounding. 

Edited by Biff Tannen
Posted
  On 12/20/2023 at 4:20 AM, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, I went to the Georgia-Tennessee game in Athens back in the day.  Those Tennessee folks drove in a flotilla of big-ass RVs.

Expand  

At least they came from Tennessee to an away game though. The Bama fans live in the god damn town and still take their RVs. Blew my mind. 

Posted
  On 12/16/2023 at 3:16 AM, Captainant said:

NYT with some excellent reporting on the Dobbs fuckery and outright lying to the public by the justices

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/us/supreme-court-dobbs-roe-abortion.html

The article goes into the discussion on if they'd take the case, but it's fucking striking that on January 8th, 2021 they were debating wether or not to take the case and Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas planned to mislead the public on if they'd take the case that term or not. Gorsuch approved the majority opinion literally 10 minutes after he first received it. They never fucking planned to hear any merits or legal facts. They just wanted to put women in their place. 

Two days after a violent fascist insurrection attempt, they were more worried about taking away women's rights than anything else. Let that shit fucking sink in. 

Expand  

image.png.a3857a93e3f1c13b33bda118452c71ed.png

Miss me yet?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Thomas’ clerks seem like they fucking suck.

  Reveal hidden contents

 



×
×
  • Create New...