ErIog posted:

Umm.. I tried to come up with a non-poo poo-post way to say this, but I couldn't so here goes.. "lol, wtf, why?"

Pollyanna posted:

I really hope Brexit just totally wrecks Trump's chances. It basically supported the same positions as him and now the UK's economy has tanked.

sean10mm posted:

It won't move the needle either way, because we don't care about foreigners.

However it's hilarious how he said "Brexit is great!" the day before the vote, only for the world economy to lose its poo poo the second the results were announced.

Pollyanna posted:

I just really, really want Trump to lose, and Brexit is scaring me that he won't.

sean10mm posted:

It won't move the needle either way, because we don't care about foreigners.

However it's hilarious how he said "Brexit is great!" the day before the vote, only for the world economy to lose its poo poo the second the results were announced.

Demon Of The Fall posted:

Seeing Nazis getting brained by 2x4s is cool and good

Wiltsghost posted:

Slate Action posted:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/747430730670678016

Slate Action posted:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/747430730670678016

Slate Action posted:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/747430730670678016

Slate Action posted:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/747430730670678016

Dexo posted:

Actually it was a 5-3 decision. Scalia wouldn't have even turned it.

But still gently caress Scalia.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

Ready to drink tears

quote:

Both dissents go to unusual lengths to accuse the majority of bending the rules because this is an abortion case.

Alito posted:

The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter.

Thomas posted:

[Today's] decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency “to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 954 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Slate Action posted:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/747430730670678016

quote:

It wasn’t until the McIntyres’ 17-year-old daughter Tori ran away from home so she could “attend school” that the family was more closely scrutinized. When Tori’s high school needed to know her level of education and what curriculum she had used so they could properly place her, administrators contacted her parents, who refused to cooperate. They argued that a previous Supreme Court ruling let them off the hook from compulsory, regulated education for their children beyond eighth grade.
A lawsuit resulting from that clash was temporarily resolved in 2014 when an Appeals Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s decision didn’t apply to this family:
The appeals court ruled that educational regulations did not prevent the McIntyres’ First Amendment right to “free exercise of religion.” The court said that 1972 court case which found that Amish did not have to send their children to school after the eighth grade did not exempt the McIntyres.
“No parents have ever prevailed in any reported case on a theory that they have an absolute constitutional right to educate their children in the home, completely free of any state supervision, regulation, or requirements,” the ruling stated. “They do not have an ‘absolute constitutional right to home school.’”
The family appealed the ruling all the way to the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, which ruled yesterday in their favor.
Kind of.
The 6-3 decision was mostly argued on technical grounds — the justices didn’t address the issue of whether homeschooled kids have a constitutional right to an education — and the case will now return to the lower courts. But the central issue may not be resolved.
Attempting to investigate accusations of non-learning, school district attendance officer Michael Mendoza sought proof the children were being properly educated. That prompted the McIntyres to sue, arguing that their equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment had been violated and that the school district was anti-Christian.
….
The high court found that 14th Amendment claims were not a question for Texas’ educational code.
“Whether their constitutional rights were violated remains to be decided, but it is a question the courts — not the commissioner — must decide,” Justice John Devine wrote, referring to the state’s education commissioner, Mike Morath.
You might be disappointed that the parents weren’t punished for their negligence, but that issue was sidestepped for other legal concerns.
As far as homeschooling goes, Texas only requires that parents provide a written curriculum “designed to meet basic educational goals” in core subjects, but there’s no mandatory testing to see if the kids are actually learning anything.
It’s been said before, but preventing children from being educated is a form of child abuse. The parents have every right to homeschool their kids, but if they’re neglecting that duty, someone needs to step in. When the Rapture doesn’t come, those kids are going to need a way out of the hellhole the parents are creating for them.

Dexo posted:

Wait how the hell were there 4 dissents?

If only 3 voted against.

Did Scalia write a dissent from beyond the grave?

Good Citizen posted:

Anyone have an analysis of the scope of the abortion ruling? Texas wasn't the only state with this ALEC bullshit

quote:

Governor McDonnell raises two additional claims re constitutionality of honest services statute and Hobbs Act. Court rejects those claims. Also, Governor McDonnell argues that there is insufficient evidence that he committed an official act; the Court does not rule on that question but instead sends it back to the lower courts for reconsideration under the Court's new definition of "official act."

Mr Jaunts posted:

Ugh, looks like Scotus let McDonnell off, and unanimously too. Can't win them all, I guess.

Yawgmoft posted:

I don't understand how this court is so pro corruption.

DACK FAYDEN posted:

Thomas wrote one. Thomas also joined Alito's (along with Roberts joining.) Thomas really isn't happy about this.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Tim Kaine admits what we're all thinking, is still top of Hillary's VP list.

Tim Kaine posted:

But boring is the fastest-growing demographic in this country

Yawgmoft posted:

I don't understand how this court is so pro corruption.

FlamingLiberal posted:

It seems like Roberts only thinks something is corruption if it's on video and the two participants sign a notarized affidavit saying they are corrupt .Otherwise, go hog wild.

zoux posted:

Also, it's been a real bad year for social/movement conservatives so far huh.

paranoid randroid posted:

gently caress 'em

Yawgmoft posted:

Hopefully this decision is written as broadly as possible to smack down this kind of chicanery before it starts next time.

Guess we still need a different case to stop the 18 week nonsense?

Noam Chomsky posted:

theflyingorc posted:

So, obviously this is garbage:

http://hiddenamericans.com/politics/un-official-found-dead-was-set-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton-same-day-barbell-fell-on-his-neck/

But I'm looking for the easily counterable parts of it. Trying to research the person who died is difficult because it's far-right conspiracy, but I'm guessing at least he wasn't actually testifying against Clinton? Anyone understand the connection attempting to be made more than me?

theflyingorc posted:

So, obviously this is garbage:

http://hiddenamericans.com/politics/un-official-found-dead-was-set-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton-same-day-barbell-fell-on-his-neck/

But I'm looking for the easily counterable parts of it. Trying to research the person who died is difficult because it's far-right conspiracy, but I'm guessing at least he wasn't actually testifying against Clinton? Anyone understand the connection attempting to be made more than me?

Deteriorata posted:

Why do you think facts or rational analysis of it will make any difference?

pathetic little tramp posted:

So if Trump is smart, this is his way to the top of the polls. He just has to say "If you elect Hillary, these abortion cases are only going to get further and further from banning abortion."

Trump cannot win on his charisma or his intelligence or his character or his wit or his policies, so he should try to run as "at least I'll put a right wing wacko in SCOTUS that will ban abortion"