SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›4 »

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

It seems to be an early memo of something they might do in the future but are not immediately planning.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2017 17:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 00:51

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

hobbesmaster posted:

All USAs are generally replaced on day 1. A competent administration would have replacements all ready to go.

This administration is not competent, so they waited 2 months to replace half of them after asking them to stick around.

Except they aren't being replaced, the position is just being left empty because the White House doesn't have people lined up for all the positions.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2017 17:02

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Jealous Cow posted:

Ok, thanks. That helps!

I'm trying to wrap my head about the implication that "Trump can't do x because of his obvious religious animus" seems to have come before "Trump can't do x because he lacks the authority".

It seems like an interesting precedent to set, right? That he may be prevented from doing things the president has the authority to do on the grounds that he's made his motivations painfully clear. Am I reading that right?

Think of it as a similar concept as "you can fire a black person" but you can't "fire a person for being black."

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 19:07

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

It doesn't.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 13:14

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Also now it's gone and when a future Democratic president is putting someone in they can ignore the Republicans and don't have to take the heat for getting rid of the filibuster

# ¿ Apr 8, 2017 14:51

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

And now you know ... the rest of the story

# ¿ Jun 15, 2017 13:24

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

It sounds like there is so little in the way of regulation on debt that I could just make up some bullshit debt on a random person and force them to pay me, is that actually true?

Yes, in that it happens all the time. No, in that you can't legally do that.

Piell fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jul 4, 2017

# ¿ Jul 4, 2017 22:00

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Azathoth posted:

Okay, if we're dealing with hypotheticals here, I have two related, but distinct questions that a layman like me is having a hard time working out:

1) Say that Trump talks to Pence and says "If I resign, will you pardon me of anything and everything I may have done?" and Pence says "No." so Trump then Trump pardons himself. Could that be challenged, and if so, wouldn't it immediately go to the Supreme Court?

2) If the House votes to impeach Trump, could Trump then pardon himself and tell the Senate to go away and not have a trial, since he's pardoned himself for anything he may have done? Or is the Senate legally allowed to remove him from office even if he can't be found guilty of the crimes he was impeached over?

For 2, the Senate can impeach him for literally any reason, so it doesn't matter if he is pardoned.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2017 18:57

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Also Alito's argument is "it's not super common so who cares"

Alito posted:

"In short, the right that the Court now discovers is likely to appear only rarely, and because the present case is so unique, it is hard to see how it meets our stated criteria for granting review.

# ¿ May 14, 2018 16:03

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Dead Reckoning posted:

Nah, it should be someone hardcore into predestination who objects to interfering with God's will that the child should die.

So if the baker agreed to make a three tiered white cake to spec but refused to apply any religious or wedding-related decorations for a gay couple, you would find that acceptable?

The argument that making a cake is speech would certainly be legally stronger if a message-less cake could be made but one with a specific message was refused.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2018 19:47

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

The relevant portion of the Colorado law that the complaint was made under

quote:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of publica ccommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any publicbuilding, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of publicaccommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of publicaccommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

Cut down to the portion that applies it is "place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services ... including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public ... It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual ... because of ... sexual orientation... the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation."

The gay couple was denied the full enjoyment of goods and services (depends on what making a cake qualifies as) because of their sexual orientation.

It's illegal.

# ¿ Jun 8, 2018 23:07

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

FronzelNeekburm posted:

It's distinguishable from Masterpiece because he would sell them monkey chow, unlike the baker, who would not sell the gay couple anything.

Nah, the baker said he would sell them premade off the shelf cakes.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2018 21:37

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

GreyjoyBastard posted:

just so we can get this sorted out in a timely fashion: how should we limit the franchise?

Well, it was white men only for a while, we could try minority women only for a while and see how that goes.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2018 03:11

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

SickZip posted:

No it doesnt. Are you familiar with how many presidential elections are in a 6 year period?

Let's say I vote in 2008. I don't vote in 2012. Now I can't vote next time I want to in 2016.

Idiot

# ¿ Jun 13, 2018 02:37

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

SickZip posted:

If you dont vote in 2012, they send you a notice. If you dont answer, youre still eligible to vote in 2016 since they allow 4 years to pass before they decertify.

Midterm elections exist

# ¿ Jun 13, 2018 03:09

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

qkkl posted:

Going back to the nomination process, is there a single individual who has the power to call for a Senate vote on a SCOTUS nominee? I don't fully understand how the actual vote gets called.

Grassley can do whatever the gently caress he wants to since he's the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the majority Republican members will support him. (This is the current vote scheduled for Friday, I dont believe the full Senate vote has been scheduled yet)

# ¿ Sep 26, 2018 19:07

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

celewign posted:

I've got a question: does anyone think it's a little fishy that this lady that was sexually assaulted in the 80s only comes out of the woodwork now that it's convenient for the Dems? I mean, if this guy assaulted her in the 80's why didn't she go to the police in the 80's?

I don't want to victim blame, and I get that a lot of sexual assault victims don't come forward because they are afraid, etc, but this thing seems way to convenient. Kavanaugh has been a major political player for a while now, but you didn't see this fuss start until Trump is president. It feels like a smear on a guy just because he's backed by Donald Trump.

gently caress off with your rape apologism and victim blaming

# ¿ Sep 28, 2018 15:59

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

torgeaux posted:

Flake said he'd vote no if there is no delay.

No he didnt, he said he wouldn't be comfortable voting without a delay but didnt say what would happen if his request was denied.

Piell fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Sep 28, 2018

# ¿ Sep 28, 2018 19:16

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Dameius posted:

Wouldn't that basically make him just the new Kennedy? And it would mean that the court shifted so far to the right that Roberts now would be the relative middle. Truly a horrifying prospect.

He'd be the new Kennedy in terms of being a swing vote, but he'll still be voting to the right of Kennedy.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2018 12:53

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

So Hardiman is a good possibility for the next Supreme Court Justice if a spot opens up. He's also crazy.

https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1063534082829819906

# ¿ Nov 17, 2018 14:42

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Ogmius815 posted:

It's not decorum bullshit. The district courts historically haven't been and shouldn't be political. If we get to a point where district judges can't get approved the federal courts will stop functioning (and frankly they barely work as is).

It's too late for your decorum bullshit

# ¿ Dec 20, 2018 18:29

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Mr. Nice! posted:

I just read that, and yeah it�s bad. Also justice beer wrote a dissent saying that Lousiana�s abortion law should go into effect and force 3 of the 4 clinics in the state to close before they sue for relief. Thankfully Roberts signed on with the liberal justices and abortion isn�t unavailable in LA just yet.

I'd just like to make it clear that Robert's decision to grant that stay has absolutely nothing to do with the his opinion on actual merits of the underlying case regarding abortion, and there is no reason to believe that he will side with the liberal justices on the actual case.

To be against the stay is literally saying that lower courts can override the Supreme Court at will. The Fifth Circuit literally acknowledged that Whole Women's Health (adjucated by the Supreme Court two years ago) forbids this ruling. It's ridiculously absurd that this wasn't a 9-0 and can only and obviously be a case of the 4 conservative justices who voted against being absolutely legally bankrupt in service of their political agenda.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2019 15:01

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Sanguinia posted:

The Census has to be finalized for print by June and there's still an injunction in place preventing them from adding the question to the version currently scheduled to be printed, so isn't it possible for this case to drag long enough to make the legal question moot? 6 weeks seems like short turnaround for a SCOTUS decision.

The fact that SCOTUS picked it up this way (it was highly unusual before the shitheads took over) is precisely because they want to force it onto the census. If they were going to let it stay off, they would have let it go through the normal court process.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2019 00:34

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

atelier morgan posted:

It doesn't. Dred Scott, Korematsu, Bush v. Gore and Hobby Lobby just off the top of my head.

SCOTUS rules however it wants to and comes up with a nice legal excuse whenever they feel like their idea of justice would be better served that way.

The idea that the judiciary is any less political than the other branches of our political system is a pernicious lie.

Thomas getting his way would absolutely devastate the current legal system and how laws have worked for more than a century.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2019 03:51

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

atelier morgan posted:

I really don't see how you got the crazy idea that I think Thomas should ever get his way.

As long as our current system exists the court should and must ignore precedent and the constitution when it stands in the way of justice. I just get there without feeling the need for thousands of pages of conlaw texts to justify pretending like actually that's what the holy and infallible constitution wanted all along.

Our present system relies on the court being an important element of our political system, now more than ever before as the idea of actually passing legislation is vanishing into the mists of laughability where amending the constitution already lives.

Thomas and Gorsuch aren't "ignoring precedent when it stands in the way of justice", they're ignoring precedent because it stands in the way of their personal political goals.

Thomas just literally argued that poor people shouldn't be provided lawyers, and even if they are then their lawyer can completely and factually be absolutely incompetently and they would have no recourse.

Piell fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Mar 1, 2019

# ¿ Mar 1, 2019 04:01

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1108008386002604033?s=20
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1108009660060262400?s=20
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1108011244471152640?s=20

# ¿ Mar 19, 2019 16:12

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Evil Fluffy posted:

Which is still sufficient to remove Thomas and Kavanaugh for their past behaviors.

Or current, in Thomas's case since he never recuses himself from cases involving parties that just happen to pay his wife large sums of money.

Republicans won't do it though. They're more likely to get rid off Trump than they are to do it to a Supreme Court Justice.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2019 22:18

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Jealous Cow posted:

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1120316699490889729

So how likely is this to go Trump’s way at SCOTUS?

It entirely depends if Roberts wants to ignore legality and just rule for Trump because he wants to. Trump has no legal leg to stand on but that hasn't stopped them in the past.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2019 16:31

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

So whats the difference between a "concurrence" and a "concurrence in the judgment"

Concurrence: I agree with the majority opinion but want to say more about it
Concurrence in the judgement: I agree with the result but not how it was reached.

# ¿ May 20, 2019 23:37

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Masterpiece Cakeshop didnt even hear the description of the cake before they refused. As soon as they heard it was for a gay wedding they said they wouldn't make a cake for it.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2019 20:10

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's not relevant though. The issue is whether people who engage in expressive conduct as their business can be forced to express a message they object to if the potential customer can somehow tie it to membership in a protected class. I think the answer should be a firm "no", for all the reasons I outlined, and I think most people would agree if this case was about the Westboro Baptist Church, rather than a gay couple.

There is also the side question of whether making a custom wedding cake is expressive conduct, which seems like a really obvious yes.

That's not true. Masterpiece Cakeshop did not refuse to make a cake with a specific message supporting gay marriage, or a cake with two grooms on it, or a cake with rainbow filling. There wasn't a message they refused to put on the cake, because no message was discussed.

They refused to make a cake because the people the cake was for were gay. Masterpiece Cakeshop refused them before any discussion of the cake design was made.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2019 21:18

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Dead Reckoning posted:

Like, in general? Sure.
In specific circumstances:
"Hello, I would like to custom order a marble cake. Also, I am gay." No, cannot refuse.
"Hello, I would like to custom order a marble cake to celebrate my gay wedding." Yes, can refuse.
"Hello, I would like to buy that marble cake in the display case. Also, I plan to serve it at my gay wedding." No, cannot refuse.

I disagree that a religious exception based around expression would necessarily be so broad. If someone make 100 identical pieces of erotic furry art, and offers them for sale, they can't refuse to sell to a person based on their membership in a protected class, even though visual art is clearly expression. If, on the other hand, they take commissions to draw erotic furry art, they can refuse any commission that they feels sends a message they disagree with, even if that message is somehow related to membership in a protected class.

There was no loving message discussed for the cake. They refused to make a cake for a wedding as soon as they learned the people getting married were gay. It's discrimination against a protected class, full stop.

Stop with your bullshit.

Edit: Two people of the same sex getting married is exactly the same event as two people of differing sex getting married, we had a court case about it. Refusing to make the exact same wedding cake for a gay wedding that you would for a straight wedding is discriminatory.

"Hello, I would like to custom order a marble cake to celebrate my wedding. Also, I am straight."
"Hello, I would like to custom order a marble cake to celebrate my wedding. Also, I am gay."

Those are the correct parallels and if you would do the first and not the second you are illegally discriminating.

Piell fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Jun 19, 2019

# ¿ Jun 19, 2019 02:06

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Dead Reckoning posted:

Baking might not be speech, but custom cake decorating really obviously is.

If a choir is willing to perform Amazing Grace at a Unitarian Universalist picnic, but not the Southern Baptist Convention, because they disagree with their beliefs, do you think they are engaging in impermissible religious discrimination, and if not, how is it different?

If a choir is willing to perform Amazing Grace at an all-white picnic, but not at an all-black picnic, because of the picnic attendees' race, do you think they are engaging in impermissible racial discrimination, and if not, how is it different?

# ¿ Jun 19, 2019 02:57

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

SCOTUS just ruled that a 40 foot cross is not a religous symbol, on the basis that it's been there for a while

Piell fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 20, 2019

# ¿ Jun 20, 2019 15:17

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

sexpig by night posted:

it's actually way better, they 100% agree it's a religious symbol but it 'means something more now' for the monument so even if it is a religious symbol you can't complain.

From SCOTUSBlog

quote:

The outcome turns heavily on the fact that the cross has been around for a long time and seems to establish a general presumption of constitutionality for old monuments of this sort: "The passage of time gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality."

Old things cant be unconstitutional, I'm a Supreme Court Justice hurf durf

# ¿ Jun 20, 2019 15:22

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Rigel posted:

This 7-2 decision doesn't sound totally crazy to me. Their reasoning is basically "its been there for a very long time, at this point removing it would no longer be neutral, it would now be openly hostile to religion, which also isn't allowed".

That's very stupid. A big sign saying "Jesus is the only god" put up by the government doesnt become constitutional just because it's been up for a while

# ¿ Jun 20, 2019 15:29

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I wonder if they'll punt on the citizenship question case. I suspect that the revelation of the proof of racist intent upset some planned opinions there.

Yeah I read a tweet thread suggesting they'll just send it back down to look at the new info, especially since the plaintiff is saying the real deadline to decide this by is October 31st.
https://twitter.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1143698702831443968

Piell fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jun 26, 2019

# ¿ Jun 26, 2019 16:02

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Wrt the citizenship case, its pretty clear the Trump admin is doing it because racism. But I feel in a vacuum, any government wanting to know how many people in its boarders are citizens, how many are perm. residents, how many are on temp visas, etc isn't a completely terrible thing.

Good thing we have proof that this cow isn't spherical, the guy behind this literally said it was to advantage "Republicans and non-Hispanic whites."

# ¿ Jun 26, 2019 16:10

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

First ruling: cops can take blood to test from an unconscious person
Thomas goes further and says you can always take blood lol

# ¿ Jun 27, 2019 15:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 00:51

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Partisan gerrymandering is non-justiciable ie legal

"The holding here is that such claims are non-justiciable -- that they are not of the kind that courts can decide. That admits of very few factual exceptions, if any. Essentially, if your claim sounds in partisan gerrymandering, the courts cannot accept it."

# ¿ Jun 27, 2019 15:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›4 »