|
uPen posted:If a majority on the court wanted to do something about it something would have been done. They don't care about Guantanamo, or at least they didn't until recently. Even fewer members of the SCOTUS care about Gitmo detainees now than a year ago. It's extremely likely this man is going to die in Gitmo because the US doesn't want to deal with the embarrassment of freeing an innocent man they kidnapped and tortured for years.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Even fewer members of the SCOTUS care about Gitmo detainees now than a year ago. That's exactly what's gonna happen and then thirty or fifty years after his death or maybe a hundred or two hundred someone e will issue an official apology
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:a postermaster general Found my new account handle
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 09:05
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Calm down Clarence. I don't think Thomas would be happy to severely weaken his power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
Fifth circuit put a stay on the district court’s decision. Texas abortion ban is back on the books.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Fifth circuit put a stay on the district court’s decision. Texas abortion ban is back on the books. Can't really expect justice or public benefit from American courts these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Can't really expect justice or public benefit from American courts these days. It's a temporary stay of a few days to give the state time to argue for a longer stay. While I wouldn't expect much of the Fifth Circuit, it's a little premature to start complaining.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 07:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's a temporary stay of a few days to give the state time to argue for a longer stay. While I wouldn't expect much of the Fifth Circuit, it's a little premature to start complaining. No it isn't, this loving sucks
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 14:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's a temporary stay of a few days to give the state time to argue for a longer stay. While I wouldn't expect much of the Fifth Circuit, it's a little premature to start complaining. Texas already put forth a full brief. The only wait will be the DoJ response, and the fifth is gonna rule in TX’s favor while the SCOTUS again denies cert. Like I don’t want to be doomer about this, but abortion is about to be unlawful for half the country and is already unlawful in the second most populous state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
The Supreme Court is going to uphold the pending fifth circuit decision that is a rubber stamp of indicted felon ken paxton’s brief that says the federal government doesn’t have standing to sue states to stop them from violating federal law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The Supreme Court is going to uphold the pending fifth circuit decision that is a rubber stamp of indicted felon ken paxton’s brief that says the federal government doesn’t have standing to sue states to stop them from violating federal law. Has anyone written about the comparison between states rights supremacy between the state and federal government vs states supremacy between state and local governments? Seems like it’s a pretty obvious comparison between the idea of localism vs white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The Supreme Court is going to uphold the pending fifth circuit decision that is a rubber stamp of indicted felon ken paxton’s brief that says the federal government doesn’t have standing to sue states to stop them from violating federal law. Keeping a law in effect that lets unrelated third parties sue on standing grounds does sound like something modern conservative justices would do, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The Supreme Court is going to uphold the pending fifth circuit decision that is a rubber stamp of indicted felon ken paxton’s brief that says the federal government doesn’t have standing to sue states to stop them from violating federal law. Wtf is an indicted felon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Wtf is an indicted felon? Ken Paxton is. He has literally dodged trial for six years because of arguing over where the trial should be held.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Ken Paxton is. He has literally dodged trial for six years because of arguing over where the trial should be held. I think they meant you can be indicted or a convicted felon. 'Indicted felon' is not a valid term, unless I suppose you've been convicted for one felony and are under indictment for another. SolarFire2 fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
He's an indicted felon because he's guilty as gently caress and everyone knows it including him, which is why he's doing everything he can to delay the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
indicted alleged felon
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
indicted for multiple felonies*
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
purportedly inculpated for multiple alleged escalated misdemeanors in situ
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Texas already put forth a full brief. The only wait will be the DoJ response, and the fifth is gonna rule in TX’s favor while the SCOTUS again denies cert. This whole affair stinks to high heaven, but I am also morbidly curious what will happen if the SC actually commits to strike down Row v Wade since there is gently caress-all we can do about it until it reaches the highest court. That has always been the one issue that lights the fire under the asses for many, many Democrats, and if they do that a few months before midterms, that could be potentially catastrophic for the GOP during elections. Will people come out in full force to oppose, or will it be a 2020 scenario where they do come out in droves, but so do republican voters so it a win by the thinnest of margins for one party? I'm sort of half expecting legit riots to spring up across the country if/when the SC strikes it down, it seems like such a suicidal political gambit across the party board. I'd also bet quite a bit of money on the two D senator holdouts to be getting successfully primary'd with anyone else who says 'we'll nuke the filibuster' to get pro-choice codified somehow, but we'll have to see. White Light fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Oct 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:This whole affair stinks to high heaven, but I am also morbidly curious what will happen if the SC actually commits to strike down Row v Wade since there is gently caress-all we can do about it until it reaches the highest court. You are seeing what it looks like. When the shadow docket let SB 8 go into effect, they signaled that Roe v Wade was dead letter. SB 8 had two main things: a weird enforcement mechanism, and a clear violation of Roe. Either one of those things should have been enough to enjoin the law if SCOTUS was serious about preserving Roe as precedent, but it chose not to. You can't staple a novel question onto a clear violation of precedent, to create a good-faith, fresh question of constitutionality. The court does not want to plant a flag that says "Roe is overturned", so it's going to continue to be exactly what you see here: Democratic institutions pointing out that Roe is effectively dead, while right-wingers say it's not dead yet, and that they have more work to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
Devor posted:You are seeing what it looks like. Which will work out perfectly, because fascists will be able to run on there being "more work to do" to erode women's rights while complacent voters and centrists don't believe that the problem is that severe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Getting real worn out that each year (even the midterms) has morphed into The Most Important Election Year just to hold onto a quarter of the basic rights that the other first world countries worked out decades ago. Sucks more since I live smack in the middle of Ground Zero, where despite me voting in every local, state and national election, the Texas GOP has guaranteed that my voice will be snuffed out. I'm no doomer, I'll still vote the best I can down here to fight the tide, but it really wears down your spirit after living through this pseudo-Imperialism rule in Houston.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Getting real worn out that each year (even the midterms) has morphed into The Most Important Election Year just to hold onto a quarter of the basic rights that the other first world countries worked out decades ago. Sucks more since I live smack in the middle of Ground Zero, where despite me voting in every local, state and national election, the Texas GOP has guaranteed that my voice will be snuffed out. I don't know how much free time and energy you have, but getting involved in local volunteer and/or activism work beyond just voting might help ameliorate any despondency you're accumulating. It certainly does for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1447986330097573891?s=20quote:But no one actually disputes the necessity of emergency orders. In the piece Alito quoted, I noted that “there are some circumstances in which the Court needs to act quickly to prevent some imminent or irreversible harm. There’s nothing inherently sinister about that.” The term shadow docket was coined by a former Roberts clerk six years ago; it is not an invention of Alito’s Lügenpresse. The negative connotations it has more recently assumed are entirely a product of the Court’s selective use of the mechanism to make sweeping decisions and deliver rapid victories to right-wing causes. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Oct 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
Devor posted:The court does not want to plant a flag that says "Roe is overturned", so it's going to continue to be exactly what you see here: Democratic institutions pointing out that Roe is effectively dead, while right-wingers say it's not dead yet, and that they have more work to do. I think you’d have been right in a 5-4 court with Roberts in the ‘middle’. With the current 6-3 setup, I expect fetal personhood. The abortion debate will shift to one about contraceptives, and a large chunk of the faith-based arguments against abortion will be recycled into arguments against contraception. That’ll keep the GOP base riled up and voting to “protect the preborn babies”
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Fetal personhood and/or "abortion is murder, therefore it's illegal without exception" is almost guaranteed to be part of whatever insane decision the SCOTUS hands down. People who think that the "worst case" is abortion will be a state-level issue are deluding themselves or know full well what the religious right's end game is and they're completely ok with it. Contraceptives have already been under attack for awhile and outlawing birth control is something a lot of those extremists are pretty open about wanting to see happen too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
I don't think these cowards would dare go that far, not with packing the SCOTUS only a fingertip away from mainstream political debate. After all the work they've done to permanently entrench their judiciary power, rolling the dice on losing it all (no matter how low the odds) by trying to take a mile when they only need an inch would take a level of guts that we've never seen from this bunch of comfortable cretins. Just the fact that when they refused to block the Vigilante Law they mostly yammered about how the law had serious constitutionality questions, all but saying when they actually argued it the law would be struck down, tells me they don't have anything close to the cajones to go for Fetal Personhood, at least not in the immediate future. I could very easily see them overturning Roe in the Mississippi case, but that's a much smaller neck-stick-out than trying to create a federal abortion ban by judicial fiat. I mean, that would be a Dredd Scott level move, literally asserting primacy over the other two branches by dictating terms to them on a highly contentious partisan political question. I find it hard to believe Gorsuch or Brett Beerman or even maybe even Alito and Thomas really have the "courage," for that kind of move. Barrett may be a brainwashed theocrat, but the rest of the conservatives are just petty aristocrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Fetal personhood and/or "abortion is murder, therefore it's illegal without exception" is almost guaranteed to be part of whatever insane decision the SCOTUS hands down. People who think that the "worst case" is abortion will be a state-level issue are deluding themselves or know full well what the religious right's end game is and they're completely ok with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I don't think these cowards would dare go that far, not with packing the SCOTUS only a fingertip away from mainstream political debate. Af. They aren't even thinking in those terms. The limiting factor on their actions right now is not the fear of any consequences, it's their swiftling dwindling sense of personal shame. That's why they're all going on speaking tours about the supposed importance of a supposedly impartial court. They don't fear personal consequences, merely personal embarrassment. They're not worrying about losing power, they're worrying the waiter might spit in their food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:This whole affair stinks to high heaven, but I am also morbidly curious what will happen if the SC actually commits to strike down Row v Wade since there is gently caress-all we can do about it until it reaches the highest court. What difference does an election make? We've seen a few times in the last 50 years where universal outrage swings the legislature for a bit and then things settle back down to the mean. The legislature cannot restore rights taken away by the supreme court. I have no doubt that the democrats would try very hard to turn such a ruling into an occasion to get people to vote for them (and to donate to them), but they'll never have the guts to restore anyone's rights. They can't even undo Trump's 2018 tax cuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I don't think these cowards would dare go that far, not with packing the SCOTUS only a fingertip away from mainstream political debate. It's not and there's absolutely no reason to believe moderates will support it (the GOP obviously won't) even if you end up with progressives demanding it. People like Manchin won't even give voting rights the time of day. Anyone who thinks he'll consider expanding the courts (especially in response to the end of Roe when he is also anti-choice) is crazy. Manchin would sooner flip to the GOP than join Dems in expanding the courts in response to the end of Roe and he's not the only anti-choice Democrat in Congress. Antifa Turkeesian posted:The legislature cannot restore rights taken away by the supreme court. They absolutely can. The problem is that the Legislature and Executive have no desire for that showdown. It didn't happen when they stole an election for Bush, or when they gutted the VRA in a nakedly political act when the court's authority to do so was dubious at best given that Congress had exercised their authority under the 14th when they reauthorized the VRA. Roberts' ruling was basically "gently caress you it's gone because I want it gone (and so does the GOP)."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:What difference does an election make? We've seen a few times in the last 50 years where universal outrage swings the legislature for a bit and then things settle back down to the mean. The legislature cannot restore rights taken away by the supreme court. I have no doubt that the democrats would try very hard to turn such a ruling into an occasion to get people to vote for them (and to donate to them), but they'll never have the guts to restore anyone's rights. They can't even undo Trump's 2018 tax cuts. The legislature can absolutely restore rights taken by the Court, at least in theory. The Supreme Court's rise to supremacy hasn't been because it's more powerful, but because it's more consistent. The Supreme Court, with only a few members who serve long-term appointments and normally aren't accountable to politics, is much better at holding its position and taking a stand, at least compared to a divided legislature that rarely gets decisive majorities for long and is constantly preoccupied with political posturing and infighting. Because of that, even though the three branches are equal in terms of actual power, the Supreme Court usually wins feuds with the other branches in the long-term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 00:47
|
|
|
We'll have to wait until the book drops to confirm because the Daily Mail is about as suspect as it gets but https://twitter.com/AlexThomp/status/1448346419400675338?s=20 quote:Couric called a friend, David Brooks, a New York Times journalist, who advised her that Ginsburg probably didn't understand the question, even though she was still serving on the Supreme Court at the time. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Oct 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Well here's a thing we know RBG said about Kaep: https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-colin-kaepernick/index.html So I can 100% believe that RBG said that to Couric. I can also believe that Couric is stupid enough to think that a sitting member of the SCOTUS doesn't understand a question about racial justice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Did anyone stop and think that it's bizarre we're singing the national anthem at every sports ball game in the first place
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 13:29
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Did anyone stop and think that it's bizarre we're singing the national anthem at every sports ball game in the first place It is and started during/after World War II. But for the NFL players didn't have to stand at the sidelines until 2009. I've only gone to one NFL game a couple seasons ago and it was Military Week or some poo poo so they had massive flags during the pregame including the conspiracy theory POW/MIA one and had some folks do their re-enlistment ceremony in the endzone during some break. Real weird poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
Also that a supposedly liberal justice couldn't make that connection, let alone the one about historical oppression of people of color. These people really are full of their own hot air.
Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Oct 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Did anyone stop and think that it's bizarre we're singing the national anthem at every sports ball game in the first place At the time it started it was more a relief to see southerners sing it while still in living memory of the civil war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
After WW2 it fell out of fashion for a while, we started doing it again after 9/11 and haven't stopped yet
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 15:16
|
|
