|
Who is ready to watch the Senate judicially immunize the Trump family from all criminal liability? I'm pumped.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469, 521 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting). The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (slip op. at 17) (Thomas, J., dissenting)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
Thomas probably has a very peculiar definition of dignity just like he has peculiar definitions for everything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Crossposted from the GIP CE thread. Future fun!CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1022153648003076096
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Emoluments should be a little broader than bribes, but at least pissbaby gets a rageboner because someone ruled against him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Emoluments should be a little broader than bribes, but at least pissbaby gets a rageboner because someone ruled against him. The judge agrees. quote:For the reasons that follow, the Court determines that Plaintiffs have convincingly argued that the term “emolument” in both the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, with slight refinements that the Court will address, means any “profit,” “gain,” or “advantage” and that accordingly they have stated claims to the effect that the President, in certain instances, has violated both the Foreign and Domestic Clauses. The Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss in that respect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Brute Squad posted:The judge agrees. So would the Founders. The emoluments clause exists because they didn't want a POTUS putting the nation's interest secondary to their own self-enrichment by selling out the country to other countries (among other things).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Actually I think you will find that the founders would not have REGULATED a successful BUSINESSMAN and PATRIOT 🇺🇲🎆🎖️🇺🇲 , and furthermore
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Actually I think you will find that the founders would not have REGULATED a successful BUSINESSMAN and PATRIOT 🇺🇲🎆🎖️🇺🇲 , and furthermore
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
They were so patriotic that they rebelled and created the country they loved so much. And then they were forced to make a less States Rights form, probably because of liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:They were so patriotic that they rebelled and created the country they loved so much. And then they were forced to make a less States Rights form, probably because of liberals. See, the framers who realized that a federation of mostly-independent states was working so poorly that they commissioned another Continental Congress to...wait... Listen I'm relatively certain the framers wouldn't have wanted X, okay?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Is there a Republican talking point making the rounds that Democrats didn't request as many documents from Kagan?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Is there a Republican talking point making the rounds that Democrats didn't request as many documents from Kagan? Probably, but how long was Kagan solicitor general and how many real hosed up decisions was she a part of?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Probably, but how long was Kagan solicitor general and how many real hosed up decisions was she a part of? Politico posted:White House counsel Bob Bauer indicated in a letter last month that Kagan’s work as a lawyer and policy adviser for President Bill Clinton generated about 160,000 pages of material, including 80,000 pages of paper documents and 79,000 pages of e-mails sent or received. The Senate has (or will receive) over a million pages of documents from Kavanaugh's time on the bench, but Republicans have been doing their darnedest to block access to documents from his time as Bush's staff secretary. They have released 5,800 pages from that period. There could be more, but Republicans are going to push ahead with the confirmation vote in September, a month-ish before the National Archive will be able to produce all of those documents. It looks like Kavanaugh was more involved with Bush's torture program than he testified about in 2006, too. FronzelNeekburm fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Aug 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Well it makes sense that you'd want war criminals in all three branches of government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
wrong thread
skaboomizzy fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Aug 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 09:44
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:The Senate has (or will receive) over a million pages of documents from Kavanaugh's time on the bench, but Republicans have been doing their darnedest to block access to documents from his time as Bush's staff secretary. They have released 5,800 pages from that period. There could be more, but Republicans are going to push ahead with the confirmation vote in September, a month-ish before the National Archive will be able to produce all of those documents.  was that Kagan's documentary record was an infinitesimal fraction of Kavanaugh's and doesn't include advocating torture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Masterpiece Cake is back in the news as the owner is battling the state after he was fined for violating colorado’s anti-discrimination statutes for refusing to bake a cake to celebrate someone’s transition. Colorado governor expects it will probably be appealed to the supreme court again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
I like that this time everybody knows to be super polite and not hurt his pwecious wittle feelings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
And then "in a 5-4 decision" the court held that "lol gently caress you libs"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Masterpiece Cake is back in the news as the owner is battling the state after he was fined for violating colorado’s anti-discrimination statutes for refusing to bake a cake to celebrate someone’s transition. Colorado governor expects it will probably be appealed to the supreme court again. Man, I think we deserve confirmation that this motherfucker has actually baked a cake on more than one occasion. Is it possible he just pretends to be a baker? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
Slaan posted:And then "in a 5-4 decision" the court held that "lol gently caress you libs"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Slaan posted:And then "in a 5-4 decision" the court held that "lol gently caress you libs"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
I always thought that the first cake ruling was basically declaring a mistrial, so this second trial seems pretty inevitable if the baker didn't get the hint and kept denying cakes to protected classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
They also desperately wanted to avoid making any actual ruling on the core issue, but he was dumb enough to push it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:The last ruling was strictly about CO deliberately going after him. If they take this repeat as an afront the ruling will be far more broad this time. CO didn't go after him since the ruling happened, he's suing over another instance in 2017 when the CCRC ruled he had violated the ordnance by refusing service to a transwoman. moths posted:I like that this time everybody knows to be super polite and not hurt his pwecious wittle feelings. Unfortunately this is over something that happened a year ago so if someone on the CCRC ever said "wow what an rear end in a top hat" be prepared for another 5-4 "yes of course states can outlaw discrimination, just not any specific instance of it" decision E: Wait poo poo I forgot Kennedy is gone, they'll probably take the opportunity to overturn Brown v Board VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Aug 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Yeah, with Kennedy, they at least had to tiptoe around and pretend they cared about being nice. With Kavanaugh, they'll just declare transgender people unprotected and give the baker the thumbs up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Yeah, with Kennedy, they at least had to tiptoe around and pretend they cared about being nice. With Kavanaugh, they'll just declare transgender people unprotected and give the baker the thumbs up. not quite what the case is about colorado declared transgender people protected. the baker wants an exemption to that law if he attests that his christian faith requires him to break the law so it shouldn't apply to him. this exemption will not extend to non-christians of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
On the one hand, the person he refused to sell the cake to was a lawyer, and the cake he refused to bake was a very simple one: the plaintiff just wanted a cake with a blue outside and a pink inside. So it's likely to be a good test case. On the other hand, it happened before the Supreme Court ruling, so it's possible that someone on the Colorado commission said something not nice and bombed the whole case already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:On the one hand, the person he refused to sell the cake to was a lawyer, and the cake he refused to bake was a very simple one: the plaintiff just wanted a cake with a blue outside and a pink inside. So it's likely to be a good test case. He's going to try to characterize it as a "gender transition" cake, and the Court will say there's no cis equivalent to this type of cake, so you can't say he's discriminating by providing one but not the other. He's also claiming that the person that requested the cake was basically trolling him, including making this request: quote:I’m thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting. And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9” black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake. I can provide it for you if you don’t have the means to procure one yourself. The complaint is here, btw: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceCakeshopComplaint.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Yeah, with Kennedy, they at least had to tiptoe around and pretend they cared about being nice. With Kavanaugh, they'll just declare transgender people unprotected and give the baker the thumbs up. Transgendered people are already unprotected by the constitution (although there's an interesting argument that anti-trans discrimination would fall under gender discrimination provisions in the CRA, not like that argument would have a chance in this court tho), any broad ruling against CO's state antidiscrimination law would be some bullshit about how the constitution doesn't simply leave protection of LGBT people up to the legislature, but actually forbids state or federal governments from passing laws to protect them because something something freedom of religion. Which means my quip about overturning Brown v Board was incorrect, should have said overturning Heart of Atlanta Motel. Zeeman posted:He's going to try to characterize it as a "gender transition" cake, and the Court will say there's no cis equivalent to this type of cake, so you can't say he's discriminating by providing one but not the other. Oh that's hilarious but that's a different cake requested by someone who was trolling him, not the cake requested by the transwoman in question which was a simple blue and pink cake
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:He's going to try to characterize it as a "gender transition" cake, and the Court will say there's no cis equivalent to this type of cake, so you can't say he's discriminating by providing one but not the other. How would one distinguish between this situation and say "well it's not religious discrimination because I wouldn't make a bar mitzvah cake for non-Jews either"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Transgendered people are already unprotected by the constitution (although there's an interesting argument that anti-trans discrimination would fall under gender discrimination provisions in the CRA, not like that argument would have a chance in this court tho), any broad ruling against CO's state antidiscrimination law would be some bullshit about how the constitution doesn't simply leave protection of LGBT people up to the legislature, but actually forbids state or federal governments from passing laws to protect them because something something freedom of religion. Oh you're right, he throws that into a list of cakes that he thinks that she requested, but there's no indication that it would have been her that requested that cake
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:He's going to try to characterize it as a "gender transition" cake, and the Court will say there's no cis equivalent to this type of cake, so you can't say he's discriminating by providing one but not the other. "I want a pink cake but the inside should be blue and then the balloons drop that say 'It's a boy!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Masterpiece Cake is back in the news as the owner is battling the state after he was fined for violating colorado’s anti-discrimination statutes for refusing to bake a cake to celebrate someone’s transition. Colorado governor expects it will probably be appealed to the supreme court again. A 5-4 decision with Kennedy's replacement is going to find that icky gays aren't people and the government isn't allowed to not let people hate or discriminate against gays for being gays because Jesus would totally do the same (he wouldn't, but facts aren't important). qkkl posted:I always thought that the first cake ruling was basically declaring a mistrial, so this second trial seems pretty inevitable if the baker didn't get the hint and kept denying cakes to protected classes. The first ruling was the conservative wing using an utterly shameless excuse to not rule against the bigot, despite ruling in favor of the Muslim ban when Trump and the GOP were on record for the things that the GOP wanted to pretend existed for the Masterpiece case. This case, if taken before the SCOTUS, has a better chance of ruling that (white, christian) religious discrimination (against minorities and LGBT) in business is protected by the First Amendment than they do of ruling against this lovely bigot. There's absolutely zero chance of the GOP ever acknowledging that "we discriminate because Jesus would want it" is heresy either, because that would acknowledge that the right wing push towards theocracy is just a ruse for wanting white christian domination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:The last ruling was strictly about CO deliberately going after him. If they take this repeat as an afront the ruling will be far more broad this time. Absolutely. But that was to get Kennedy to sign off on it. The result was too narrow and punty to be otherwise. With Kavanaugh? I think they'll make an actual holding- against the transgender person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Absolutely. But that was to get Kennedy to sign off on it. The result was too narrow and punty to be otherwise. With Kavanaugh? I think they'll make an actual holding- against the transgender person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
more like religious fib-erty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:He's going to try to characterize it as a "gender transition" cake, and the Court will say there's no cis equivalent to this type of cake, so you can't say he's discriminating by providing one but not the other. Of course he's going to try to characterize it as a "gender transition" cake. But what she asked for was a cake that was one color on the outside and a second color on the inside. He's going to have to work real hard to convince anyone that a two-color cake is an inherently transgender message, and that he wouldn't make one for anyone regardless of gender status.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
They're going to rule that since the Constitution says nothing about LGBT rights then the 1st Amendment trumps the rights of LGBT people. A liberal court might rule that the "life, liberty, and property" clause trumps the religious freedom clause. If the former does happen we might actually see a new Amendment get ratified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 18:34
|
|