Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

wildcat09

wildcat09 29623

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

Some Satanic churches need to set up schools pronto.  Let's see what they think about that.

They'll basically do the Blackman "not a real religion" thing. They'll do the same for Islam and any other religion or religious claim that isn't fundamentally of the white supremacist Christian bent.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

sidis
sidis

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

  • Popular Post
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

Religious Schools

Legally now have the right to access taxpayer money while at the same time discriminating against taxpayers. 

 

This country is beyond stupid. 

Edited by Neonmoon
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 6
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Fresh Breath

MC Fresh Breath 4075

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Within the next five years, this Supreme Court will require states to grant equal state funding to both public schools and private religious schools.

I am pretty far from a lawyer or a constitutional scholar.  But it sure seems to violate the separation of Church and State.  And tax exempt organizations getting tax dollars seems odd.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11974

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

To me, it doesn't even have to be about religious vs. non-religious, as opposed to public vs. private.

Bizarre.

According to what I read, it sounded like Maine was already giving tuition support for private schools so long as they didn't have a religious affiliation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 22181

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

According to what I read, it sounded like Maine was already giving tuition support for private schools so long as they didn't have a religious affiliation. 

That's a little less concerning, I was wondering why it wasn't breaking the internet, figured (and hoped) there was a nuance there to make it less bad than it sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29623

Posted
Posted

The tuition support was for children who didn't have any public schools available in their area, so private was their only option for an education. Roberts will build on this decision in future cases that will have wider applicability.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11974

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The tuition support was for children who didn't have any public schools available in their area, so private was their only option for an education. Roberts will build on this decision in future cases that will have wider applicability.

No doubt we'll soon have prayer in public schools with some sort of 1st Amendment reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CooterBrown

CooterBrown 18295

Posted
Posted
How hard would it be to create a religion that has the following beliefs? Do I need to fill out a form or something?
1. be kind to others 
2. a woman's body is sacred and only she can decide which life to bring into the world, and she has the right to terminate any pregnancy she deems fit
3. peace is the greatest treasure, and weapons shall not be possessed unless hunting for food
4. Health is of one of the greatest things in the world, and one should strive to take care of oneself, and take care of others health whenever possible. 
 
 

That actually aligns really well with the Church of Satan’s tenets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3830

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, DixonHur said:

According to what I read, it sounded like Maine was already giving tuition support for private schools so long as they didn't have a religious affiliation. 

I haven't looked into this specific case, but there's been a recent string of so-called Blaine Amendment cases and it is always this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30409

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I’m putting this here because it’s headed to the Supreme Court.
 

 


If you read the thread is over the dumb and gross loyalty to Israel laws.

1a8565be67ef1eedde246b79ab7c7297.jpg

 

I mentioned this law, which Texas has, in another thread only a few weeks ago, and one of our legal eagles pointed to a case where it was declared an unconstitutional breach of the First Amendment.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/31/texas-boycott-israel-lawsuit/

Can one of esteemed esquires way in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 2047

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

I mentioned this law, which Texas has, in another thread only a few weeks ago, and one of our legal eagles pointed to a case where it was declared an unconstitutional breach of the First Amendment.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/31/texas-boycott-israel-lawsuit/

Can one of esteemed esquires way in?

The 5th Circuit has not ruled on the merits of the Texas case, IIRC, but they did uphold an injunction preventing the law from being used.  I imagine the 5th might punt the full decision on the merits until SCOTUS rules in this appeal brought out of the 8th.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87394

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Cops actually don't have to Miranda you and all gun regulations are unconstitutional.

And today isn't the worst day of the term.

Just go ahead and head on down to the National Archives and burn the Constitution.  It doesn't exist anymore. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Gap03

Gap03 3396

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
11 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Guns for everyone, but we must provide security for supreme court justices.

The conservative justices deserve to be followed around by people toting AR-15s everywhere they fucking go. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30725

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Holy shit. Even for Alito, that's fucking horrid.

The murder laws obviously don't stop murder, why do we need 'em?

These notions are the descendants of the welfare queen attacks on public support for the poor. "People are breaking the rules! Let's destroy the whole program!"

See Brisket on our brand.

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

Laxtonto 13512

Posted
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Guns for everyone, but we must provide security for supreme court justices.

Its more on the lines of "you got to allow everyone the option for conceal and carry, but can put your own set of reasonable requirements that the other 43 states run with" vs "everyone gets a gun and its the wild west".

So this really impacts California in which there is no conceal and carry option. NY has to drop the justification requirement, but instead add additional strict requirements and reasonable expectations for renewal.

 

Edited by Laxtonto
stupid autocorrect
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14675

Posted
Posted
On 6/21/2022 at 9:39 AM, Chuckie Finster said:

As a Jew growing up in Texas, it became clear to me early on that "religious freedom" is simply "freedom from other religions" for most of these folks.

"Religion" is single, as in only one religion gets freedom.

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

Brisketexan 107117

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, bolverk said:

I mentioned this law, which Texas has, in another thread only a few weeks ago, and one of our legal eagles pointed to a case where it was declared an unconstitutional breach of the First Amendment.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/31/texas-boycott-israel-lawsuit/

Can one of esteemed esquires way in?

Sure.  All of the other circuits are right, the 8th circuit is dead-wrong.

Won't matter, though - our SCOTUS has officially stopped being about any neutrally applied rules or principles, and is strictly outcome oriented in favor of whatever the conservative position is.  I would bet a large sum of money that they'll find that boycotts of Israel are not protected political speech, but boycotts of libtard hollywood productions or some such is absolutely sacred protected political speech.  "Content-neutral" is on life support, and Alito and Thomas can't wait to pull the plug, joined by the Trio of Trump Turds.

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Holy shit. Even for Alito, that's fucking horrid.

No, it's on-brand for Alito.  He long ago crossed the rubicon to just being plain evil, and entirely results-oriented instead of consistently applying neutral law and logic.  He's the equivalent of an umpire who someone always finds a way to call balls and strikes in his team's favor, and against the other team, no matter where the pitch is actually located.  It's not about the pitch.  It's about which team it favors, that's it.  We're full-on retrograde.  It's only going to get worse.  Much worse.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 107117

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

"It's Calvinball as legal reasoning. The bad faith is just incredible."

Now, imagine being an advocate who has to advise clients on how to proceed based on what the law is today.  When they ask "okay, if this is challenged, based on the existing law and authority, do we have a strong position?"  When you have to answer "I don't know.....based on existing authority, sure.  Based on the whim of a conservative state Supreme Court, federal appellate judges [5th circuit] and SCOTUS, who are just playing Calvinball these days?  I truly have no fucking idea what the law is.  It's whatever they say it is.  So imagine what Tucker Carlson would want the law to be, and that's what we're likely to end up with."

I know lawyer after lawyer who have described the current environment as "Calvinball."  That's fucked.  That means we're not a society of the Rule of Law.  The people who make their living in this field, we are all sounding the alarm.

  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 5099

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Holy shit. Even for Alito, that's fucking horrid.

wow. that is torbushian if i have ever torbushed. the complete lack of principled men in leadership is astounding, even for me, who gave us 20 years ago. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 34109

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"It's Calvinball as legal reasoning. The bad faith is just incredible."

Now, imagine being an advocate who has to advise clients on how to proceed based on what the law is today.  When they ask "okay, if this is challenged, based on the existing law and authority, do we have a strong position?"  When you have to answer "I don't know.....based on existing authority, sure.  Based on the whim of a conservative state Supreme Court, federal appellate judges [5th circuit] and SCOTUS, who are just playing Calvinball these days?  I truly have no fucking idea what the law is.  It's whatever they say it is.  So imagine what Tucker Carlson would want the law to be, and that's what we're likely to end up with."

I know lawyer after lawyer who have described the current environment as "Calvinball."  That's fucked.  That means we're not a society of the Rule of Law.  The people who make their living in this field, we are all sounding the alarm.

but is alarm monitored or is it a dead switch? I didn't have lawyers saving democracy on my bingo card, but if they pull it off I promise to never make another lawyer joke again. maybe.

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

Brisketexan 107117

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

but is alarm monitored or is it a dead switch? I didn't have lawyers saving democracy on my bingo card, but if they pull it off I promise to never make another lawyer joke again. maybe.

It's just the same shit I've been saying from the ledge for a few years now.  And as you know, nobody is listening, nobody cares, we continue to plunge headlong into the abyss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19585

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's just the same shit I've been saying from the ledge for a few years now.  And as you know, nobody is listening, nobody cares, we continue to plunge headlong into the abyss.

Half of this country views the Court's decisions as wholly illegitimate.

That can't be good.

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

Guest

Posted
Posted

So me no lawyer, but the blips I've been reading is that SCOTUS says New York can't require a person to provide a compelling need to be able to concealed carry. Is that it?

I actually kind of agree with that, although I worry about this being a slippery slope. But, for example, you can't be disallowed free speech unless you provide a compelling need to the government. The 2nd amendment -- for as many issues as it causes -- is still there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87394

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Half of this country views the Court's decisions as wholly illegitimate.

That can't be good.

NY and Maine should just tell them to fuck off.  

We are in a Constitutional Crisis. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted

Justice Alito's concurring opinion shits on Breyer's dissent so bad. Don't think I have ever seen anything like it.

Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture 2 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN ALITO, J., concurring outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.

The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose. That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns. In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 3 ALITO, J., concurring this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s? The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self- —————— 1

The dissent makes no effort to explain the relevance of most of the incidents and statistics cited in its introductory section (post, at 1–8) (opinion of BREYER, J.). Instead, it points to studies (summarized later in its opinion) regarding the effects of “shall issue” licensing regimes on rates of homicide and other violent crimes. I note only that the dissent’s presentation of such studies is one-sided. See RAND Corporation, Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime (Apr. 22, 2022), https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealedcarry/violent-crime-html; see also Brief for William English et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (“The overwhelming weight of statistical analysis on the effects of [right-to-carry] laws on violent crime concludes that RTC laws do not result in any statistically significant increase in violent crime rates”); Brief for Arizona et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (“[P]opulation-level data on licensed carry is extensive, and the weight of the evidence confirms that objective, non-discriminatory licensed-carry laws have two results: (1) statistically significant reductions in some types of violent crime, or (2) no statistically significant effect on overall violent crime”); Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (“[O]ver the period 1991–2019 the inventory of firearms more than doubled; the number of concealed carry permits increased by at least sevenfold,” but “murder rates fell by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 per 100,000 in 2019” and “[v]iolent crimes plummeted by over half ”). 4 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN ALITO, J., concurring defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3.

And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense. No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...