|
Dead Reckoning posted:It isn't being a dick to women as a whole, it's being a dick to the subset of people who think Zack Snyder producing a franchise movie about a character that started life as BDSM wank material is An Important Moment For Feminism, as well as a few people who got sucked in by WB's social media campaign to portray their $120 million movie as an underdog that women should buy tickets for to send a message to the patriarchal studio system. And I'm OK with that being legally protected. In case anybody cares, Wonder Woman has a rather more complex origin than simply BDSM wank material. Her creator fully intended her to be an icon for female empowerment, in fact he was a strange breed of hardcore feminist who was also a massive sex pervert and believed that women were intrinsically superior to men, which obviously informed her characterization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73IkjslvoM She was also unprecedented in comics at the time and has remained easily the single most important female super hero in the medium while not being some kind of knock off or sidekick of a more important male character. But none of that stuff matters guys! khwarezm fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 30, 2017 |
#
?
May 30, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
khwarezm posted:he was a strange breed of hardcore feminist who was also a massive sex pervert  Strange.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:Is there a well actually emote? I need it I think  is close enough in spirit.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
I always thought  was good for well, actually
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
I'm sure nobody will care after opening weekend mooting the entire thing. You know, just like the Ghostbusters movie (which I had to turn off after the loving pringles ad)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Please don't talk about comic books in the SCOTUS thread. Unless you are actually Elena Kagan. Then it's okay.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Supreme Court Justices' Favorite Superheroes: John Roberts: Tony Stark Anthony Kennedy: Superman Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Batwoman Stephen Breyer: Beast (X-Men) Samuel Alito: The Punisher Sonia Sotomayor: Spider-Man Elena Kagan: The Hulk Neil Gorsuch: Bruce Wayne Clarence Thomas: Stardust the Super Wizard VVV She's too humble. Clark Kent always says that Aquaman or The Green Arrow are his favorite. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:45 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Supreme Court Justices' Favorite Superheroes: Fixed the most egregious error you've made ITT
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
What about Antonin Scalia?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What about Antonin Scalia? koschei the deathless
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What about Antonin Scalia? Why do you think Alito picked The Punisher? ("I'm glad Scalia's dead" edgelord comedy option: Darkseid) VVV That's a good one too. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:21 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
I was thinking the Spectre.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Please don't talk about comic books in the SCOTUS thread. What about Clarence Thomas, didnt he literally call up a comic book artist from his office so he could talk about comics with them?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Neil Gorsuch: Bruce Wayne I nearly spit my hot coffee out at this. Well done.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:What about Clarence Thomas, didnt he literally call up a comic book artist from his office so he could talk about comics with them? He did. He unironically loved the guy's conservative caricature hero. The artist wrote something about this around Bush v Gore, hoping it would sway Thomas. (It did not)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
 Opinions! IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC. v. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. Holding: 1. Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in the Return Program cartridges that it sold in the United States. A patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose. ... 2. Lexmark also sold toner cartridges abroad, which Impression Products acquired from purchasers and imported into the United States. Lexmark cannot sue Impression Products for infringement with respect to these cartridges. An authorized sale outside the United States, just as one within the United States, exhausts all rights under the Patent Act. Lineup: Majority opinion by Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Ginsburg concurred in part and dissented in part (Ginsburg would have held that foreign sales do not exhaust United States patent rights). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf ESQUIVEL-QUINTANA v. SESSIONS Holding: In the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. Lineup: Majority opinion by Thomas. All Justices joined other than Gorsuch, who took no part in the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-54_5i26.pdf BNSF RAILWAY CO. v. TYRRELL Holding: 1. Section 56 [of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, allowing railroad employees to sue for on the job injuries] does not address personal jurisdiction over railroads [but provides only a permissive venue prescription]. 2. The Montana courts’ exercise of personal jurisdiction under Montana law does not comport with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Only the propriety of general personal jurisdiction is at issue here because neither Nelson nor Tyrrell alleges injury from work in or related to Montana. . . Here, BNSF is not incorporated or headquartered in Montana and its activity there is not “so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.” Lineup: Majority opinion by Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch. Sotomayor concurred in part and dissented in part (Sotomayor would have remanded to Montana to determine if this was an "exceptional case" where general personal jurisdiction would be proper in a forum State that is neither a corporate defendant's place of incorporation nor its principal place of business). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-405_4gdj.pdf COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. MENDEZ ET AL. Holding: The Fourth Amendment provides no basis for the Ninth Circuit’s “provocation rule.” [which makes an officer’s otherwise reasonable use of force unreasonable if (1) the officer “intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation” and (2) “the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation”]. The Ninth Circuit’s proximate-cause holding is similarly tainted. Its analysis appears to focus solely on the risks foreseeably associated with the failure to knock and announce—the claim on which the court concluded that the deputies had qualified immunity— rather than the warrantless entry. On remand, the court should revisit the question whether proximate cause permits respondents to recover damages for their injuries based on the deputies’ failure to secure a warrant at the outset. Lineup: Majority opinion by Alito. All Justices joined other than Gorsuch, who took no part in the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-369_09m1.pdf ulmont fucked around with this message at 15:56 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
ulmont posted:
Another good case with the core holding that "the federal circuit loving sucks at patent law".
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
The Federal Circuit's raison d'etre appears to be "better to have appellate patent law decisions always be wrong than only sometimes be wrong"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:He did. He unironically loved the guy's conservative caricature hero. The artist wrote something about this around Bush v Gore, hoping it would sway Thomas. (It did not) It was Dwayne McDuffie's Icon, an alien superhero who became a corporate lawyer as a cover.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Another good case with the core holding that "the federal circuit loving sucks at patent law". It's amazing. quote:This venerable principle is not, as the Federal Circuit dismissively viewed it, merely “one common-law jurisdiction’s general judicial policy at one time toward antialienation restrictions.” 816 F. 3d, at 750. Congress enacted and has repeatedly revised the Patent Act against the backdrop of the hostility toward restraints on alienation. That enmity is reflected in the exhaustion doctrine. The patent laws do not include the right to “restrain[ ] . . . further alienation” after an initial sale; such conditions have been “hateful to the law from Lord Coke’s day to ours” and are “obnoxious to the public interest.” Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U. S. 490, 501 evilweasel posted:The Federal Circuit's raison d'etre appears to be "better to have appellate patent law decisions always be wrong than only sometimes be wrong" They have been so bad for so long.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Brute Squad posted:It was Dwayne McDuffie's Icon, an alien superhero who became a corporate lawyer as a cover. Well, someday all 17 justices will have grown up watching Ben 10, so I guess McDuffie will have the last laugh.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It's amazing. Yeah, unlike the last few which have at least given a fig leaf, this decision outright slaps them for being wrong from first principles. Also PhRMA and Qualcomm are SO UNHAPPY right now, it's sort of amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yeah, unlike the last few which have at least given a fig leaf, this decision outright slaps them for being wrong from first principles. I think Heartland was pretty much a "gently caress you, we ruled on this decades ago and you just ignored us" one. This one was a little kinder, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
As a practical matter what is the Supreme court's recourse if the federal circuit keeps getting stuff wrong? They can't just take every patent case.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:As a practical matter what is the Supreme court's recourse if the federal circuit keeps getting stuff wrong? They can't just take every patent case. They can do a summary reversal, where they grant cert and reverse without argument or briefing. It's rarely done except for cases that were appealed along with a case they just decided, but when it's done independently it's basically considered to be as insulting to the lower decision as they can get.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
And if an appeals court really pisses the SCOTUS off, they can type out a quick 4 or 5 page per curium to scold the lower court, like in this hilarious unanimous bench-slapping: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-797.pdf "That decision is as inexplicable as it is unexplained. It is reversed."  But yeah, the supreme court can grant cert, reverse, and say "go look at that prior decision we made again, you dumbshits" in just one line in their weekly orders without any briefings or argument.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
From above, because it is gorgeous:Daddy's belt posted:The state appellate court’s decision was plainly not Sentence 3) Cert issued. Sentence 4) Issue resolved, ticket closed.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:As a practical matter what is the Supreme court's recourse if the federal circuit keeps getting stuff wrong? They can't just take every patent case. They don't really need to. The Federal Circuit gets doctrinal issues wrong and they get corrected, but their day-to-day decisions are actually fine for the most part. The "FedCir gets it wrong all the time" thing is a function of there only being one court and thus no splits, so cert is a strong signal for reversal. Every once in a while the FedCir theoretically adopts the Supreme Court rule but in actuality maintains their earlier practices and in those cases there's a follow-on case. (I may be biased in their favor by a recent FedCir decision regurgitating all of the arguments I made below, though.)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/shermancourt/status/870276298966528000
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
RBG being very wary of assassins, as she should be, while Thomas is having the time of his life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Hail Ginsburg, full of grace. Our Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy gavel, Progress. Holy Ginsburg, Champion of Rights, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elliosch/status/870283988065284096
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
They're going to lift the stay on the travel ban, aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
incoherent posted:They're going to lift the stay on the travel ban, aren't they? The one that was so urgent that we needed 100 days to implement sweeping changes to our entry procedures and security, then spent 130 days doing jack poo poo about? The travel ban intended to buy ICE and the TSA time to fix arbitrary and unstated problems that Trump isn't actually working on? Yeah probably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
incoherent posted:They're going to lift the stay on the travel ban, aren't they? ACLU v Kelly, the honorable Justice GORSUCH writes for the court The Musselman has no rights the white man is bound to respect. It is so ordered. I don't think they will, but I am basing that on nothing more than my gut feeling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
the best thing to do would be to call the administration's bluff and lift the part of the 9th circuit injunction that supposedly prevents them from doing the planning (im pretty sure this is a complete fiction the government made up) and then schedule arguments for next term, over 100 days from now
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:ACLU v Kelly, the honorable Justice GORSUCH writes for the court Not enough incredibly badly stated plain meaning rhetoric. Add some "it's obvious that", and "the law shows". vvvvv reading level's still too high to be Gorsuch, but it's a great improvement for mimicking his style. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Not enough incredibly badly stated plain meaning rhetoric. Add some "it's obvious that", and "the law shows". The law shows that the President may restrict the issuance of visas for reasons of national security. By the plain wording of the executive order, these travel restrictions aren't discriminatory. The 9th Circuit's injunction is inappropriate in light of these obvious truths. Reversed and remanded, it is so ordered, etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
I think they're going to tell Trump to eat poo poo because they've taken zero action other than trying to ban people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Minus 5 points for not photoshopping Gorsuch out
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 22:58
|
|
