|
FlamingLiberal posted:It’s a temporary stay. I see a lot of concern that SCOTUS may still ultimately rule in Florida’s favor when the case gets to them Going to be fun to see what sort of dumb bullshit excuse they use to justify it while allowing kids to see R-rated movies with a parent/guardian, being allowed to play M-rated games...etc. Assuming they don't go Full Puritan and nuke those.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
The rulings like this seem to hang between the two extremes of maximized corporate profit versus Puritanical societal control. Super awesome that it seems to just be one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Well states reserving the right to enact deeply prejudiced and inconsistent laws is deeply rooted in our history and tradition, so…
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Going to be fun to see what sort of dumb bullshit excuse they use to justify it while allowing kids to see R-rated movies with a parent/guardian, being allowed to play M-rated games...etc. There's always the possibility of an ESRB/MPAA equivalent for books. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ugarles/status/1727155665444147629?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2023 14:07
|
|
|
Shocking https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1735381660009455995?s=20 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
... huh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
I can't figure SCOTUS out on gun stuff anymore. You would think that would qualify under the decision from last year that severely restricted what gun regs would survive a court challenge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
They just denied an emergency stay, the case hasn't even made it to them yet. Here is the article that contextless tweet mentions but does not bother linking to https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-declines-block-illinois-assault-rifle-ban-2023-12-14/
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2023 01:20
|
|
|
okay yeah makes sense, there's no particular reason to drop a stay so people can buy an AR RIGHT NOW IMMEDIATELY IT'S AN EMERGENCY
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2023 01:39
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not a surprise, I admittedly was when I read the headline and then after further reading....was like oh, once it actually gets to them it's def dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
A preliminary stay would have been nice for what it meant about the merits of the case, but I wouldn't expect it from them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
I assume everyone already knows but SCOTUS was asked to take up Trump's claims to immunity, with Trump's lawyers asked to respond by the 20th.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 12:45
|
|
|
SixFigureSandwich posted:I assume everyone already knows but SCOTUS was asked to take up Trump's claims to immunity, with Trump's lawyers asked to respond by the 20th. Wait, what happened?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Wait, what happened? District court made a ruling denying immunity, Trump appealed, prosecutor said “we all know where this is headed, can you just deal with it now so I can do the trial?” https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/special-counsel-asks-justices-to-weigh-in-now-on-presidential-immunity/
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
And to be clear, Trump's argument here is literally (either, both, make a pick): "If it's the president, it's not illegal." / "The president can pardon himself of any crime, and I did." Which, if true, would mean that Biden could personally kick down the door to the supreme court while carrying a gun, shoot all the conservative justices, and it would be fine. Which is why I doubt the SC would be interested in that precedent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
The only thing that can stop a bad president with a gun is a good president with a gun 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
Since the Supreme Court (of Minority Rule for Minority Rule) did this same poo poo in 2000, the current fear is that they will side with Trump but then rule that “it only applies in this one time lalalala fingers in our ears!” Which basically means this country had a good run for a while but of course rich people ruined it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Since the Supreme Court (of Minority Rule for Minority Rule) did this same poo poo in 2000, the current fear is that they will side with Trump but then rule that “it only applies in this one time lalalala fingers in our ears!” Nothing would piss off rich people more than getting lumped in with Trump for this. Which is why I'm okay with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
It turns out all the lavish gifts and vacations were to keep him on the court as many people suspected. https://x.com/eisingerj/status/1736730240661991779?s=20 https://x.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1736777762185351579?s=20 A “Delicate Matter”: Clarence Thomas’ Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
The idea that these immoral oligarchs pick up $274,000+ per year to rule over America and still have the gall to complain about their poverty and get further handouts from their political patrons should be offensive to every patriotic American. Their corruption is so blatant that if they weren't in charge of the courts for life, they'd be jailed immediately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Eh, they actually are underpaid relative to other attorneys at that level. If we only look at nominal salary and not, you know, all the grifting. The real issue is the obvious partisan quid pro quo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It turns out all the lavish gifts and vacations were to keep him on the court as many people suspected. Just his base pay as a member of the SCOTUS is something like 260k a year. Even if he and Ginni weren't corrupt as hell and never did anything like collect speaking fees, it's wild (but not unsurprising) that those two are loving terrible with money to that degree. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, they actually are underpaid relative to other attorneys at that level. If we only look at nominal salary and not, you know, all the grifting. The speaking fees and book deals for high level officials are loving wild. IIRC, even low level nobodies can get thousands (and travel expenses covered) to speak at colleges and other places. People like a member of the SCOTUS can easily get 6 figures for a single appearance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:degree. Oh yes but that's obviously grifting. Across the board.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, they actually are underpaid relative to other attorneys at that level. If we only look at nominal salary and not, you know, all the grifting. High level attorneys need to deliver on things for their clients. They spend their entire career building up to that payout. Modern justices are plucked from relative obscurity, they are chosen for political reliability rather than any legal capability, and their work product is generally derided for their legal incoherence. They have much more in common with a member of congress ($174k per year) than a white-shoe lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh yes but that's obviously grifting. Across the board. Oh definitely. Especially for poo poo like graduations because almost no college student cares to listen to some random rich and/or politically connected person talk at them when they want to go celebrate their graduation or be doing literally anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:. Modern justices are plucked from relative obscurity, That's not really the case for new nominees. It was true for Thomas when he was appointed but these days new SC nominees almost always have ivy league backgrounds and extensive resumes. See: Ketanji Brown Jackson.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It turns out all the lavish gifts and vacations were to keep him on the court as many people suspected. I wonder why Clarence "I'll Retire Unless A Bunch Of Nice Strangers Give Me Millions Of Dollars  " Thomas ruled that it's not a bribe unless you state on video that you're giving money for a corrupt purpose and you're fully aware it's a bribe
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I wonder why Clarence "I'll Retire Unless A Bunch Of Nice Strangers Give Me Millions Of Dollars He's a strict textualist, you see
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Papercut posted:He's a strict textualist, you see None of the financial instruments or transactions involved existed in the 18th century, so clearly none of them can be banned under the Constitution
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's not really the case for new nominees. It was true for Thomas when he was appointed but these days new SC nominees almost always have ivy league backgrounds and extensive resumes. See: Ketanji Brown Jackson. People know who Jackson and other newer justices are more due to social media and other changes in technology over the last 20 years. If Thomas was nominated today people would be no more or less familiar with him than they were with beerman or the handmaiden whether you're talking about the public at large or the actual people making the decision on who to nomination (Leo Leo and other Federalist Society garbage).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's not really the case for new nominees. It was true for Thomas when he was appointed but these days new SC nominees almost always have ivy league backgrounds and extensive resumes. See: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Thomas went to Yale and was an EEOC chair and circuit court judge before being nominated, I don’t think that he was any different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Oh definitely. Especially for poo poo like graduations because almost no college student cares to listen to some random rich and/or politically connected person talk at them when they want to go celebrate their graduation or be doing literally anything else. I gotta admit that Robert Reich was actually a p good speaker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I gotta admit that Robert Reich was actually a p good speaker. Harriet Miers was not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
I feel like the tone of this thread has changed quite dramatically ever since our collective heads of government decided that actually, it is the founders intent that nothing ought to be done about open corruption at the top of the judicial system. "Yes the tools of impeachment are there, but can we truly say whether any of us is an arbiter of law and justice?" -Men and women specifically elected to legislate and oversee on matters of law and justice, 2022-2023 Yep, the very founders who pilloried this type of corruption definitely intended this to happen, checks out. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Dec 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
Personally at least, I love the idea of a fair and just system of laws - I highly admire the history of thoughtful jurisprudence, of passionate and considered legal debate, and the principle of equality before the court. I really enjoyed my legal studies in undergrad, and researching the history of major cases, their historical precedents, and the way they impacted future judicial opinions. To have the Roberts Court consistently spit on all that, burn that legacy to the ground and replace it with a kangaroo court that issues naked edicts is deeply disgusting to me. The fact that so many of the Republican members are also patently corrupt is really only the cherry atop a broken and non-credible institution that should be dismantled and replaced. The group actively undermines the interests of American law and order, much as discriminatory police departments undermine public safety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I feel like the tone of this thread has changed quite dramatically ever since our collective heads of government decided that actually, it is the founders intent that nothing ought to be done about open corruption at the top of the judicial system. Not really. Every May-June it was always ranting about the latest terrible ruling and urging some combination of the President / Congress / the States / the populace to rise up and reject it. Exactly how this was to be accomplished was usually underspecified.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2023 04:18
|
|
|
haveblue posted:None of the financial instruments or transactions involved existed in the 18th century, so clearly none of them can be banned under the Constitution thread title
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2023 12:45
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Not really. Every May-June it was always ranting about the latest terrible ruling and urging some combination of the President / Congress / the States / the populace to rise up and reject it. Exactly how this was to be accomplished was usually underspecified. Well, all ways to do that are considered unpalatable. Court packing? Term limits? Changing the role of the SC? Gonna need congress to sign off on that which means getting rid of the filibuster. Gotta keep the filibuster to stop good idea because the bad people might do bad things with it gone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's not really the case for new nominees. It was true for Thomas when he was appointed but these days new SC nominees almost always have ivy league backgrounds and extensive resumes. See: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Maybe the stack of resumes is shorter for non white male conservative candidates? They had to reach pretty far for O’Connor too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2023 19:42
|
|
