|
FlamingLiberal posted:"We're all trying to find the guy who did this!" Look, all's I'm saying is, if I did it...
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2023 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Murgos posted:We investigated everyone except these nine people and it we can’t figure out who did it sure is a convoluted way to say Alito did it. Also the report should not mention he did exactly this 8 years ago
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
Devor posted:Also the report should not mention he did exactly this 8 years ago We only know of the one incident from 8 years ago. He absolutely has done it before and after that incident. As have the others during considering how regularly they meet up with fellow FedSoc members and other conservative legal advocacy groups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
CmdrRiker posted:Gotchu. Thank you and god bless
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
So out of the 5 far right justices, have people sussed out who is the most likely to break off and vote with Roberts and the democrats on something close? Or is it kind of a mixed bag depending on the issue?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 06:53
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:So out of the 5 far right justices, have people sussed out who is the most likely to break off and vote with Roberts and the democrats on something close? Or is it kind of a mixed bag depending on the issue? Gorsuch is kinda good about Native American land issues, and occasionally libertarians himself into a non-awful decision on something else. Otherwise, maybe Thomas? He's vaguely inscrutable because his jurisprudence is insane. The other 3 are irredeemable trash who are entirely bought and paid for, so expecting anything from them is kind of like hoping for divine intervention twice in a row.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 07:03
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Gorsuch is kinda good about Native American land issues, and occasionally libertarians himself into a non-awful decision on something else. Otherwise, maybe Thomas? He's vaguely inscrutable because his jurisprudence is insane. The other 3 are irredeemable trash who are entirely bought and paid for, so expecting anything from them is kind of like hoping for divine intervention twice in a row. I keep seeing in the media that Kavanaugh is considered the "median justice" now but no idea why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 07:39
|
|
|
In the aggregate, he might be. Some of Thomas' opinions are so out there that he probably averages as harder right in totality when compared to Judge Beer. Like, of the 3 I dismissed as garbage, you could make the argument that since he's not a fundamentalist, someone who believes everything decided after the commerce clause was inherently unjust, or a spite elemental, he's the "middle" voice since Roberts now counts as being "left" in this current hellcourt. Its basically saying that the hard right is the middle, but I guess that's correct, given the lineup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 07:43
|
|
|
Gorsuch is the only "originalist" ever who actually believes the nonsense. I'd agree he is the only one you could reliably count on to "small government" his way into a half-decent outcome. Kavanaugh was Kennedy's clerk and by all accounts has a huge love for him, but then he joined the majority in Dobbs. So don't let the media fool you. He has no issue with horrible regressive poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:So out of the 5 far right justices, have people sussed out who is the most likely to break off and vote with Roberts and the democrats on something close? Or is it kind of a mixed bag depending on the issue? Gorsuch is such a deep believer in the Heritage Society's external narrative that he has split with the Fascist Four on criminal rights and land use a few times. Unfortunately, he doesn't split with them on the decisions that are turning us into a theocracy. It has been interesting to read libertarian media outlets that have to find anyway to criticize him. His status as a true believer rubs against the grain with the libertarians who wear the label to hide the swastika on their left armband. Someone has already pointed out that Thomas is a weirdo, but he's a Christofascist regardless. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jan 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Gorsuch is the only "originalist" ever who actually believes the nonsense. You think Thomas doesn't? I'd say that Gorsuch is a True Believer libertarian, but Thomas is a True Believer originalist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
to break with scotus kremlinology, hey, surprisingly i dont think it's come up in this thread yet: there's a distinct possibility SCOTUS will gently caress over the entirety of US internet regulation law by challenging section 230 of the communications decency act! tl;dr the wonderful technology-savvy olds that grace scotus are, for the first time ever, going to see if US law can continue to hold that online service providers (youtube and twitter in these cases, but basically anything on the internet that involves user content, which is to say, a significant chunk of it) are not liable for user content on their platforms, with some caveats https://twitter.com/daphnehk/status/1618377673813929985 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/ https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-grants-certiorari-gonzalez-v-google-and-twitter-v-taamneh-overview https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-supreme-court-takes-230 there's not a whole of indication on how the ruling may fall, but the outcome and decision contents will likely have significant implications for US internet policy. quite possibly in a very bad way
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
You'd think big tech would have the ability to directly blackmail these olds. I mean, their family and kids possibly the internet even if they don't know what a computer is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You think Thomas doesn't? The problem being that originalism is extremely subjective, which made it perfect to fig leaf over conservative ideological radicalism and pretend it's really a consistent legal principle
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:The problem being that originalism is extremely subjective, which made it perfect to fig leaf over conservative ideological radicalism and pretend it's really a consistent legal principle Originalism is also inherently incoherent because the Framers were not “originalists”. It’s sort of like Biblical literalism: the Bible wasn’t even written with literalism in mind so in a sense it’s anti-Biblical. qv all the early gun regulations post 2nd Amendment that just don’t count as examples of early gun regulations because
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Gorsuch is such a deep believer in the Heritage Society's external narrative that he has split with the Fascist Four on criminal rights and land use a few times. Unfortunately, he doesn't split with them on the decisions that are turning us into a theocracy. Gorsuch was the deciding vote that firing someone for being gay is the same as firing on the basis of sex. His opinion was literally that if you'd fire a woman for being married to a woman, and you wouldn't fire a man for being married to that same woman, you fired them for being a woman. It doesn't even have to be the sole reason for the firing, or even a majority. I'm not saying he's reliable or not a terrible person, just that he's reachable on at least some issues the theocrats care about a whole lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
Conservatives reviving The Fairness Doctrine But Only The Worst Aspects And Everything Breaks would be incredibly on brand for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
i'm rooting for scotus to step up and finally put this degenerate forum into the ground once and for all
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
I don't disagree that originalism is stupid as hell, but I do believe that Thomas earnestly believes in his flavor of originalism, while I believe the others understand it's a fig leaf for being a supervillian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I don't disagree that originalism is stupid as hell, but I do believe that Thomas earnestly believes in his flavor of originalism, while I believe the others understand it's a fig leaf for being a supervillian. given the highly partisan actions of thomas' wife, i don't see how thomas would be unaware that originalism is a fig leaf
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
VSOKUL girl posted:to break with scotus kremlinology, hey, surprisingly i dont think it's come up in this thread yet: there's a distinct possibility SCOTUS will gently caress over the entirety of US internet regulation law by challenging section 230 of the communications decency act! In a 5-4 decision, Lowtax’s perma of Aatrek reversed
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
"Originalism" really means "I'm ruling based entirely on my own personal beliefs, and pretending that the founders coincidentally had the exact same personal beliefs that I do." That's all there is to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I don't disagree that originalism is stupid as hell, but I do believe that Thomas earnestly believes in his flavor of originalism, while I believe the others understand it's a fig leaf for being a supervillian. Thomas and Gorsuch both believe in their forms of originalism. Thomas will discard his originalism theory the instant it would go against his preferred outcome, whereas Gorsuch is more willing to stick it to (but will still throw it out if he feels strongly about the outcome). Alito, Barrett, and Kavanaugh only care about outcomes and have no underpinning legal theory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:qv all the early gun regulations post 2nd Amendment that just don’t count as examples of early gun regulations because Well if you take the Dobbs approach and go back to pre-constitution English common law, you find.....oops they also had gun regulations and those don't count either because
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Listen, the Revolutionary War selectively invalidates portions of common law, per the founder's participation in the war. That's why, with respect to personal weapon ownership, the founders themselves implemented controls in their own states, uhhhh, hmmm hold on
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 22:24
|
|
|
As bad as you think this list is going to be I guarantee you it's worse. https://twitter.com/LawLiberty/status/1618651029427425280?s=20&t=jGB8x17Gy5ZazLTEMYGbag
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 01:16
|
|
|
putting lawrence v texas right next to korematsu v united states is sickening
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:putting lawrence v texas right next to korematsu v united states is sickening Casey was a win for them and they have it FOURTH lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
Honestly amazed they’re still bother to put Korematsu on these lists. Doesn’t seem like it’ll be too much longer before they can drop the pretense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 03:54
|
|
|
What an article.quote:Some of our respondents are surely opponents of same-sex marriage; few would wish to criminalize anyone’s sexual activity; fewer still (perhaps none) would seek to restore the prohibition of contraceptives. We surmise that our respondents’ criticism of these decisions probably has less to do with the outcomes and far more to do with the fanciful legal reasoning used by the justices who reached them. Oh yeah, sure, that's almost certainly what's behind it, you called it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 09:40
|
|
|
When you meet an “originalist” ask him (it’s almost definitely “him”) if Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided. He’ll say yes (if he says no you can just laugh and point and walk away). Then ask how that decision can be squared with the “original public meaning” of the fourteenth amendment given that the very congress that voted for that amendment was itself in charge of a segregated school system in the District of Columbia. …and that’s pretty much it for originalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 11:05
|
|
|
Originalism counted a large population of this country was only 3/5ths human so maybe being super racist is a core part of their entire thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Originalism counted a large population of this country was only 3/5ths human so maybe being super racist is a core part of their entire thing? Many of the southerners joined the revolution because they expected England to outlaw slavery shortly as there was already in the late 18th century a lot of anti-slavery sentiment and judicial rulings starting to show itself in England. So, yeah, I expect that a huge part of originalism is just a fig leaf to resurrecting and enshrining long disavowed bad behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Honestly amazed they’re still bother to put Korematsu on these lists. Doesn’t seem like it’ll be too much longer before they can drop the pretense. Remember that every right winger accusation is a confession and then think about all those FEMA Death Camp accusations from right wing shitheads. Murgos posted:Many of the southerners joined the revolution because they expected England to outlaw slavery shortly as there was already in the late 18th century a lot of anti-slavery sentiment and judicial rulings starting to show itself in England. So, yeah, I expect that a huge part of originalism is just a fig leaf to resurrecting and enshrining long disavowed bad behavior. IIRC, Lafeyette later said something to the effect that had he known Washington would keep slavery intact he wouldn't have helped the revolution and would've rather England won. If Americans are going to venerate the Founders we should at least pick better ones than the wealthy slave owners who wanted their own wealth safeguarded over the ideals they hollowly claimed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
Kind of off topic from SCOTUS here, but I'm always amazed that more people don't put two and two together that the American Revolution was mostly about rich land owners wanting to be kings on their own newly conquered territory instead of paying fiefdom to a foreign king (ie: taxes). Replace "rich land owners" with "corporate billionaires" and it is amazing how poo poo never changes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:When you meet an “originalist” ask him (it’s almost definitely “him”) if Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided. He’ll say yes (if he says no you can just laugh and point and walk away). Then ask how that decision can be squared with the “original public meaning” of the fourteenth amendment given that the very congress that voted for that amendment was itself in charge of a segregated school system in the District of Columbia. Great point, but the mistake here is thinking that that originalists are consistent, or that they'll be intelligent enough to get tripped up by a clear own on their ideals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Kind of off topic from SCOTUS here, but I'm always amazed that more people don't put two and two together that the American Revolution was mostly about rich land owners wanting to be kings on their own newly conquered territory instead of paying fiefdom to a foreign king (ie: taxes). It’s just a slightly modified version of that saying about the Civil War The uneducated know that the American Revolution was about taxes The educated know that the American Revolution was about representation and liberty and self-determination The experts know that the American Revolution was about taxes
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:i'm rooting for scotus to step up and finally put this degenerate forum into the ground once and for all They would be Something Awful
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Great point, but the mistake here is thinking that that originalists are consistent, or that they'll be intelligent enough to get tripped up by a clear own on their ideals. Originalism is "what I originally believed" and working backwards to justify it
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Originalism is "what I originally believed" and working backwards to justify it It's judicial activism with a cosplay theme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 04:20
|
|
