|
The Entire Universe posted:Software patents have a place I disagree that patents of any kind have any place. Yeah, I know. It's probably untenable, and I'm most likely going to be shown via unintended consequences why this is a dumb opinion. But Edison himself was a notorious patent troll and abuser of the system, and I don't really think they've gotten much better since.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The supreme court says thats a legislative decision not a judicial one. So the branch would be handled by a separate branch? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Is "judicial activism" an actual thing in the legal domain, or is it just framing a court decision that you deny in a derogatory fashion? The latter. I would think the closest to reality "judicial activism" can come is just making things up whole cloth on the fly, which I think only includes Scalia.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm with the people who are hesitant about stripping otherwise permitted religious freedoms/exemptions on the basis of "nope, you're ignorant of actual science". You are aware of the fact that Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, yes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's only a fallacy when the argument is unsupported. It is a perfectly reasonable logical device when you can draw causal links between the various parts of the slope. And when it's being used in the fallacious manner you attack it by attacking on the merits instead of labeling it and moving on because you need to demonstrate that B doesn't flow from A. Point. My apologies.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I don't know how much will actually change considering it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate these days. Lest you forget, the nuclear option has already been breached for judicial nominees. The microsecond it becomes inconvenient to them, Republicans will strip it entirely. I know, limits individual power, good ol' boys club, backroom deals, yadda yadda, but I really do think Republican lust for passing their poo poo will carry the day against systemic inertia, veto or not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:A couple of interesting cases up for argument this week. Pom v. Coca Cola Aww. I read this as Porn vs. Coca Cola and was already getting my popcorn.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Chait had a good column where he argued that if the Democrats lose the Senate in 2014 and a Republican justice dies (low chance of this: 16% or so by actuarial tables but you've gotta assume as they're wealthy they live longer than average since they get much better medical care), he expects Republicans will simply refuse to confirm anyone at all. They might even if a liberal justice dies, but that's less likely because there won't be the terror that they'll have lost the Supreme Court. Pardon my ignorance, but is this something written into the constitution that X amount of the Senate must confirm the appointment or is it one more part of the filibuster that'll eventually be strung up?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If the Republicans hold the Senate, they can just vote down anyone (or refuse to hold a vote on them). The Constitution does require the consent of the Senate and so it's not like the filibuster issue where you can argue you're violating the spirit of the Constitution: the Senate absolutely has the right to vote down a nominee. My reading comprehension has been off the charts lately. Just in the wrong direction.  I was thinking more if the Dems retain control, though, and all that answered my questions. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Barlow posted:As the court points out it likely will actually affect no one, provided the current administration doesn't try and make it deliberately harm women to make a point. They were passing the cost of the contraceptive care of employees of nonprofits with exemptions onto the insurers, no reason the federal government couldn't do that here. One of the amicus briefs even points out that it actually saves money for most employers not to offer any care rather than apply for an exemption, in which case the federal government would be providing the ACA coverage anyway. I kind of doubt any women will be affected directly by this ruling. You're assuming rational actors and that Hobby Lobby won't simply deny insurance coverage out of pseudo-religious spite. On that note, ACA coverage may be better than nothing, but it's pretty costly compared to employee-subsidized programs. And beyond that, there's theh issue that it essentially opens an(other?) avenue for corporations to tell women what they can and can't do with their body. The best counterargument I've seen so far is that they can simply get a job elsewhere, but as pointed out earlier, "unemployment > 0." (And then there's the psychological pressure of feeling trapped between a sure but lovely thing and speculation about your future. It's not a very good one to be in.) I don't know about arguments that the ruling leaves the door open for even dumber stuff. It wouldn't surprise me, but the fact it was literally "lol no abortatives, even coincidentally, everything else is peachy" both leaves me with hope about scope and infuriates me even further. It's just such a blatant middle finger to women everywhere from the highest court in the land, and that's ... concerning, even if the repercussions are minimal. With that being said, if the end result of this really is Obama going "ok fine now everyone gets it HOW YOU LIKE ME NOW," I would laugh and laugh and laugh. That's my two cents. Someone will be along shortly to rip my argument to shreds because I'm not very good at the "Debate" part of D&D. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:While hormonal birth control isn't a "need" per se, there are quite a few women I know that started taking it long before having sex because it helps with PMS and periods in general. Actually, there are a few cases where it is a need! My wife, for instance, has to take birth control regularly or risk ovarian cysts, which, from what I understand, involves curling up into a ball and praying for whatever God you believe in to send the sweet, comforting embrace of death to release you from your pain.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Here comes gay marriage to the Supreme Court (bonus: SCOTUSBLOG calling out the inevitable decision numbers) I think it'll be 6-3, personally. Roberts will jump on board when it's obvious this train isn't stopping, just so he can get his name in the books. I may be wrong but I think the odds would make it worth betting. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Wow, it's really magnanimous of the lower courts to give the SCOTUS conservative bloc another chance to make the right decision. Gods, just shoot me now. This loving country.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is bad, yes. There was no reason to vote to take the case unless the people voting to take it wanted to overturn the subsidies. Am I parsing your opinion correctly that Alito/Scalia/Kennedy/Thomas want another bite at the apple and Roberts will probably side with the liberal wing? If so, I agree it's a bet I'd take solely as a poker player, but man I don't have a lot of personal optimism after this midterm.  At this point, I'm not even counting on the Supremes to be rational actors anymore. I swear it feels like we're fighting against Cthulhu most of the time. Our choices are "apocalypse" and "status quo" and we keep doing what we can to limit the damage and fight back, but eventually Dread Lord Reagan will rise from the depths and usher in a new era of madness no matter what we do. Chokes McGee fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That's my guess, yeah. Could easily turn out that Roberts is willing to go after the ACA now, and there's always the chance one of the conservatives feels this argument is too dumb even for them. But I think 5/4 is the only reasonably likely outcome and it's really wherever Roberts decides to go. My only problem with this line of thinking is that Roberts seems pretty tight with the conservative bloc. I don't think they would've been this quick to jump at cert if they didn't know they had five votes. There's literally no other reason I can see to take this thing on this quick other than wanting to put a stake in it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Alternatively, it would also mean that people in states who have set up exchanges would not only lose the subsidies, but also their coverage. Which would mean lots of angry middle class voters in those states. The problem with this is that the average voter won't blame the Republicans for this, they'll blame the supreme court. A better pivot is to say "Okay, the courts ruled this. We now call on Republicans to put forth a serious bill to restore health care for all these affected people. You do it, I'll sign it. You'll do it, right? Because they're your consistutents?" And then hammer that message home into everyone's skulls until there's no doubt the republicans own this mess. One thing this election taught me is you can't trust people to connect the dots themselves. At ANY level. Possibly including two dots literally next to each other. Chokes McGee fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Nov 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Number of times people actually care about the Supreme Court as a separate entity: Protip, you forgot to type a list there. Oh? Oh, right
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Trigger Warning: This post contains death threats. Please don't kill me. I totally want to express my facetious wish of death on you in a nonthreatening and completely legal manner now! 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Rbg is straight up gangster Punk motherfuckas wanna violate, now they 5-4 and the courts have set a mandate
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you see when those founders said no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law they forgot to include torture How did they get the hummus up their butt if they couldn't take their pants? No, no, this doesn't add up at all. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Sotomayowns. I'm convinced Warszawa actually is Ginsberg at this point. That makes Ginsberg, Huntsman, and Rahm all posting in this forum. Anybody else want to come out of the closet? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The '58 Plymouths were pretty appealing if you're into tail fins. The front end was a bit busy, though. I look at this, and the only thing I see is  .
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Join us as we go now to a video in which RBG answers there will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine of them. We make Cheney and Scalia into liches, yet RBG chooses the Gift of Man 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:From Kagan's dissent in Yates v. United States: You get the feeling sometimes the justices are just checking if people are paying attention?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Not quickly. Verizon will sue based on something, it will go to a district court, then appeals court. It could then go to the Supreme Court but I doubt it, appeals court will probably get the last word. Unless they pounce on it before the ruling even comes out and force it the way they want it to go. (pre-emptively bitter about the ACA ruling)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:I don't normally grave dance, but I will for that hateful sack of poo poo. I will bring someone else's urine to pour on his grave. That is how immensely I dislike him. I mean I don't wish death on the man—just that he'd retire—but that doesn't mean I don't think the world will be a better place without him. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Apologies for the double post, but fresh off of the TWITTAH MACHINE from TPM's coverage:quote:SCALIA: Wouldn’t Congress act to ease the consequences if we find the subsidies illegal?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Hasters posted:Yeah but Microsoft doesn't have ADD and can stay focused on one thing for more than week. Yup, with increased attention span they can screw up new technology faster than ever before!
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:it will be a huge disaster that the Democrat Party would, if competent Let me stop you right there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
KilroyWasHere posted:Kagan's Kimble v. Marvel opinion has references to the Spider-Man theme song. Between her and Notorious RBG, it's truly a shame the best justices are being wasted on the worst court.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:One might say that the raisinable purposes were various and sundried. Well this adds a new wrinkle to the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
In a 6-3 decision?! Am I dreaming? Is this a dream? I'm still asleep and now I'm late for work, aren't I.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I think senators should be shot once their term runs out. HELLO SECRET SERVICE THIS IS A JOKE HA HA 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Take that, logic!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
"In a 4-4 decision,  "
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Apparently 125 days is the longest ever. Obama has 342 days left. C'mon, Cruz. gently caress something up and let the vote through. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:on what grounds I'm just a humble country lawyer but it seems to me that
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:That analogy is dumb, in such a position (unless we're on the bubble) there's about a 99% chance the bb calls, which in the analogy would be saying "yeah this guy we'd consider" I guess? But they haven't done that. The analogy you're looking for: Obama has realized they're conservative rocks and will refuse to play any hand, so he just starts raising and stealing all their blinds a hand at a time. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:In American football, there is this elaborate kabuki dance with chains, giant fuckoff orange foam wedges, trigonometry, and Idon'tknowwhat going on on beside the playing field. It is supposed to be able to measure how far ten yards is down to the nanometer. Because that is vitally important. But it doesn't mean much, because the referee says the ball landed wherever he feels like it should have. It might be considered an allegory for our legal system. Also these days you can throw a challenge flag, make them watch a video monitor of the same three seconds for like five minutes straight, and then they may or may not change their mind. If they don't your team is punished. I unironically love football
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:Change the field from grass to skulls. Problem solved. Yeah I want Mutant League Football back too
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 00:38
|
|