|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
I assume Kavanaugh voted against hearing the case because "The rapist might really like beer, and I totally sympathize with that".
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I assume Kavanaugh voted against hearing the case because "The rapist might really like beer, and I totally sympathize with that". Tara Reade has a better case than Christine Blasey Ford.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 10:34
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And Roe, which he has been very loud in wanting to overturn. Right but I wanted to go for the deep cut
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 12:03
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:This is not something that is happening, at least not in the US. I'm sure this is  but PMCs have seen a huge rise in the US military and they continued to get pushed.https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2017/10/25/soldiers-of-fortune-the-rise-of-private-military-companies-and-their-consequences-on-americas-wars/ posted:America, the country with the strongest national military, is oddly the largest customer of PMCs. According to the Congressional Research Service, roughly 10% of America’s armed forces were privately contracted during WWII, but during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the proportion has grown to a staggering 50%.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:I'm sure this is That still doesn’t mean there is anything like a replacement of the US military happening with PMC’s. We also do a bunch of different stuff when compared to WW2. The US military is an absolute juggernaut, and it isn’t being replaced by anyone. PMCs as an addition? Sure.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Tara Reade has a better case than Christine Blasey Ford. *Everyone stands and applauds this post*
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
don't... be weird, people?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
PeterCat is under a moderator challenge for posting the same exact thing in GiP.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/lawcrimenews/status/1390456594870063110
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/status/1390455114830389249
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 05:40
|
|
|
Idiot Chuds whining about Men's Rights any time women don't want to be around them are apparently going to backdoor us into a de facto ERA. This HAS to be some kind of scheme to make it so religious psychos can sue gay people for offending them by existing right? Its the 11th Circuit, this can't possibly be for anything but raw judicially legislated fascism purposes.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 09:39
|
|
|
That was a concurrence so I wouldn't get too worried.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:This HAS to be some kind of scheme to make it so religious psychos can sue gay people for offending them by existing right? Its the 11th Circuit, this can't possibly be for anything but raw judicially legislated fascism purposes. Not teaching everyone's kids about the glory of White Prosperity Gospel Jesus causes me real harm by not brainwashing a new generation of people to scam via their religious
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
Not SCOTUS, but stil a SC: https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1390409493356425226
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Can we just make this the general Supreme Court thread? There's always interesting stuff going on at the lower levels but I feel like I'm breaking the rules whenever I post about it. Particularly as this thread is four months overdue for a title change.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 12:46
|
|
|
The thread is nearly dead whenever it isn't time for a bunch of new outrageous 6-3 rulings, so I don't see why not.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 13:08
|
|
|
Make the next iteration the Judiciary 2021 thread.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Can we just make this the general Supreme Court thread? There's always interesting stuff going on at the lower levels but I feel like I'm breaking the rules whenever I post about it. Particularly as this thread is four months overdue for a title change. Yeah that's fine. I'd prefer if we had an addition to the OP about lower federal courts before we make it official but I encourage you to post about anything worth talking about.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Can we just make this the general Supreme Court thread? There's always interesting stuff going on at the lower levels but I feel like I'm breaking the rules whenever I post about it. Particularly as this thread is four months overdue for a title change. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Not SCOTUS, but stil a SC:
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Not SCOTUS, but stil a SC: A fun thing to tell transphobes is that if they've ever attended any event at a stadium or arena, they have almost certainly shared a bathroom with a trans-person and never known about it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 07:45
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Not SCOTUS, but stil a SC: Am I dumb or is that ruling an incredibly straightforward, simple reading back of the text of the law? (Or is the point that even that is surprising?)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Am I dumb or is that ruling an incredibly straightforward, simple reading back of the text of the law? (Or is the point that even that is surprising?) It is and I could also see a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling from the SCOTUS that says "nope can't change it gently caress you and gently caress that law."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It is and I could also see a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling from the SCOTUS that says "nope can't change it gently caress you and gently caress that law." On what basis?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:" gently caress you and gently caress that law." This basis
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It is and I could also see a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling from the SCOTUS that says "nope can't change it gently caress you and gently caress that law." Extremely unlikely, this is exactly the sort of straightfoward "the rules say X" that Gorsuch loves and Roberts isn't generally willing to be blatant about making nonsense rulings overturning the clear text of a law.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
What happens if we get another Kim Davis situation and a registrar with a religious objection to filing the name change comes before SCOTUS?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:On what basis? On the basis of "because gently caress you, that's why." That's the way it goes with fundies. The one dissenter in the SCOUT opinion, Thomas Rex Lee (brother of US Senator from Utah Mike Lee), is noted to have an originalist and textualist approach to law, and was considered a possible successor to Scalia (or Thomas) because of how similar their way of going about things are. Hell, his dissent even says "gender identity is not sex, and birth certificates say 'sex' on them, so you can't change them just because your gender identity isn't what your parents thought it was": https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1390412595509739529 It's that sort of "the card says moops" things that personally drives me insane. Strict adherence to the rules as written, which means interpreting them in the way that most favours your side.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Piell posted:and Roberts isn't generally willing to be blatant about making nonsense rulings overturning the clear text of a law. You mean like in Shelby county?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
The best part is that Fundamentalists are a-okay with rewriting the Jewish parts out of t bible for Jesus times but not ever changing the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
jeeves posted:The best part is that Fundamentalists are a-okay with rewriting the Jewish parts out of t bible for Jesus times but not ever changing the Constitution. That is the best part
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:That is the best part Much like my opinion of the Constitution, a document written almost two and a half centuries ago, I feel that my quote "the best part" is open to interpretation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 05:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjschwartzman/status/1392187900213796869?s=20 Scalia was the biggest baby to ever sit on the court.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:https://twitter.com/mjschwartzman/status/1392187900213796869?s=20 So, one of them was justly rejected then? 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 07:28
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:So, one of them was justly rejected then? Justice Scalia posted:If you're saying I play favorites, you're wrong. I love all my children equally. Justice Scalia, earlier that morning posted:I don't care for Gob.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1392600835482398720 edit: added context Some Guy TT fucked around with this message at 12:41 on May 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 10:12
|
|
|
Could you provide contextual comments instead of just plopping a tweet down? I'll take a million public defenders like her to be federal judges before I'll take one more Kavanaugh The tweet's sexism is also pretty poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 12:35
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1392600835482398720 Mike Davis, Mike Davis, that name sounds familiar somehow. Oh, yeah! https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1042782718248071169 https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1042778511906430977 So is he just some rando on Twitter? Of course not! https://dailyiowan.com/2019/10/25/h...mp-impeachment/ quote:University of Iowa graduate Mike Davis is a Republican strategist best known for his brash rhetoric and being a central figure in pushing through President Donald Trump’s court nominees, including the high-profile confirmation of then-judge Brett Kavanaugh. Grassley's chief nomination counsel, the guy who helped screen judicial nominees for the GOP and worked to push Gorsuch and Kavanaugh through the Judiciary Committee, is not necessarily a great source on whether a judge is suitable. Don't just drop a tweet from a fucker like this here, or anywhere in D&D, with absolutely no commentary whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
I can understand someone not being able to spout of a specific standard of review, but they should know what rational basis review means. I'm stuck wondering whether this is better or worse than one of Trump's nominees not knowing what a motion in limine is.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:15
|
|
