|
Chadderbox posted:So in that whole scandal my understanding is that they would not actively solicit each others' employees but if someone who worked at one applied to work at another they would be considered through the normal process and possibly hired on. It was an anti-poaching agreement rather than a "never hire anyone who works at one of these other companies, ever" agreement. It wasn't just an anti-poaching thing, it was an industry-wide wage-fixing scheme and it's going to continue regardless of whatever the settlement reached is. The people behind it should be in prison but nothing is going to happen to people like Schmitt, and Jobs' legacy of bullshit will be untouched by it.
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
patentmagus posted:The next Clinton, if she gets in office, will certainly right that wrong. I wonder which terrorist bitch she'll kill first. Monica Lewinsky or Gennifer Flowers. Sarah Palin.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Executions aren't intended to be comfortable or humane for the person being executed. If lack of pain was intended they could just be left in a sealed container so they'd get tired, pass out, and when the oxygen runs out that's that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I dunno, I think even the jurists with whom I disagree are voting based on their honest view of the law rather than loyalty to any particular party. Scalia used an argument in support of one case when he was on the majority then immediately whined about the same loving thing when he was dissenting on another case (Hobby Lobby and Windsor, I think?). It completely removed any shred of cover he'd have to claim to be anything more than a political hack who cares about the politics and not the law.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Considering the FCC has been wording the changes heavily based on the fact it'd going to be the center of a huge legal battle hopefully things end on their side but if 5+ justices decide "nope internet and cable are special snowflakes the FCC can never touch, also mobile" or whatever then that's the end of it without a massive political shift in the US because there is absolutely zero chance of Congress giving the FCC more authority or outright passing a RFRA-style bill to basically state that the SCOTUS is wrong and the FCC has the authority so deal with it SCOTUS. If it ends up in the same court where Verizon won last time I'd expect the FCC to win there because the changes are pretty much written to follow that court's ruling on how they could've regulated telecomms.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Idle thoughts brought about by upthread Scalia chat - what happens if, after these hearings, one of the justices just drops dead before they write their opinion. Do they go ahead and issue a ruling on the remaining 8, or do they slider arguments to be reheard as soon as the next person is appointed? I'd assume it's the former, but in that case what if it is split 4-4? If a conservative justice fell over dead right now it'd probably be the single greatest boon for America this decade. The only downside is we'd have 8 justices until 2017 at the earliest or Obama would cut some idiot deal and appoint a center-right justice, because there's no way the current senate would be ok with him appointing another Kagan or Sotomayor because anyone from the GOP who'd back such a person would be facing a hard right primary challenge when they come up for reelection at the very least.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Fun fact, that stuff is their next target should the SCOTUS go that route http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-04/the-libertarians-who-got-scotus-and-congress-to-consider-the-unthinkable I like your choice of drink. You're alright, Fried Chicken. Impeach Fried Chicken
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded. Congrats to the GOP for their upcoming 5-4 victory that allows them to keep hold of power for an additional decade or more. VitalSigns posted:And with the wonders of modern technology, it's easier than ever to purge ineligible voters from the rolls! Crosscheck is so loving evil that it makes Cheney look decent. "Yeah here's millions of people that are definitely illegal voters, so lets purge them all (and likely never tell them). Oh hey look at all these close races we're winning!"
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That's not what Oracle is saying is copyrighted though. They say that substring being in Java.lang.string is copyrighted. Except for anyone to reimplement Java it has to be there At some point someone at Oracle had to stop and think "hey if we win this case and Google decides 'fine gently caress you we'll make our own language couldn't that come back to haunt us and make less people use our stuff?"
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:That the Republicans want to keep the Senate, are scared of a massive backlash against them if the subsidies go away, and would rather been seen trying to fight Obamacare without actually doing any damage to it or themselves. If the ACA is gutted we're going to have a year and a half of most media outlets parroting the GOP's line of "LOOKING HOW loving TERRIBLE OBAMACARE IS" and that'll be used to bludgeon the Democrats. The amount of damage the GOP did to Democrats over the ACA site's rollout will be a loving joke compared to the attack stuff they have lined up if/when the ACA is gutted. The GOP is better at this underhanded poo poo than the Dems are at countering it and both sides know this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If this was true there wouldn't be quiet panic from Republicans getting reported repeatedly about what they're going to do if they actually win. It's people who have health insurance, that they presumably like having, in red states who will lose their insurance because of their republican elected officials. It's one thing to block people from getting insurance - most people denied medicare didn't realize they got screwed. It's another to actively take it away. These people will know they got screwed, and know they were better off with Obamacare than without. That is not good news for Republicans. You have far more faith in the masses than I do. FoxNews, Talk Radio and the rest of the right wing machine will hammer away at "OBAMACARE DID THIS TO YOU  " until the election while others give some truth is in the middle bullshit.Though maybe we're all reading the tea leaves wrong and Roberts is going to side with the ACA again and wanted the case taken up so that it could be put to rest and the court not stuck hearing (more) ACA cases, but that's probably even less likely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yes. That seems to be one of the key points for those who think it will survive. If it survives what's the next avenue of attack the GOP will use to try and get the ACA destroyed? I'd say that sooner or later they'd give up but groups like ALEC exist solely to ensure that the fight never ends no matter how slowly they have to chip away.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:So, I wonder if Scalia will say something about this? Something something the courts found him guilty something something execute him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:Allow me to rephrase, if we think Scalia's dissent is wrong, shouldn't we be quoting the wrong parts and not the parts that are objectively true, even if irrelevant? "There is a true but irrelevant sentence in Scalia's dissent" isn't very damning. They're quoting the part that's wrong. Scalia says there's nothing prohibitng the execution of an innocent person and he is dead (not literally, sadly) wrong on that. Scalia's just a goddamn psychopath.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:I can't even, jesus, what a contemptible piece of poo poo. So can we send him to prison for lying regardless of how this case turns out? hobbesmaster posted:If they somehow punt on standing... All 9 justices are almost certainly aware the groups behind this poo poo will just file suit again with someone else who does have proper standing and the end result will be a colossal waste of everyone's time. That said, I hope they punt because if it takes another year or two for the next case to reach them it just makes any Obamacare subsidy nullification that much more dangerous for the GOP. FAUXTON posted:I don't want him to be killed by anyone. I would rather see him develop an inoperable and incapacitating form of cancer and linger in excruciating, poorly-managed pain for years while the VA is gutted around him, foisting more and more cost of his care onto his shoulders. I want to see him have to be wheeled, wheezing and wincing, into a loving bankruptcy hearing so he can watch as the loving creditors take his goddamn house and estate while the pain eats away at the last of his sanity and he is pawned off onto a managed care facility and eventually hospice, dying alone because everyone in his family is too busy working to be with him as he breathes his last ragged breath. I'd be ok with him being sent to prison for the rest of his life. He'd probably be safer in there than on the streets if he causes millions of people to lose their insurance. The people behind this farce? Death by Guillotine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Apparently a court held that senior Bush officials can be sued for their post 911 profiling: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/immigrants-suit-over-detention-after-9-11-is-revived.html This is almost certainly going to be taken up and overturned by the SCOTUS, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Didn't the American revolution involve individuals betraying their country and forming a traitorous institution?  if you think the British wouldn't have been arresting and executing people waving the American flag if they'd won the war and kept control over the colonies. Instead of a few decades of trying some reconstruction it would've been a few decades of hunting down and hanging anyone who might've helped the revolutionaries.VitalSigns posted:When the South wins Civil War 2 then they will get the power to define themselves not-traitors-but-patriots just like we did, sorry losers. The most useful of idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
SLOSifl posted:Second opinion:  A good day.  Good lord, if Roberts is also in the majority upholding SSM he is going to be RINO #1 in the right wing's eyes. Drone posted:From Scalia's dissent: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare." New thread title? SCOTUS 2015: Scalia - we should call this law SCOTUScare The Warszawa posted:Quick rundown of what's left: I'm still pretty worried about the Arizona case and if they win red states are going to remain GOP held indefinitely when they continue to gerrymander in absurdly effective ways on top of their usual voter suppression. Given the VRA I see this going as a win for conservatives but I really hope they lose because anything that could move us towards Gerrymandering becoming illegal or at least less frequent is a good thing. Shifty Pony posted:It was also part of what Roberts and Kennedy expected to happen post Citizens United: Surely congress would pass laws mandating disclosure so that everything is above the table, right? I'm skeptical of Roberts caring about Congress fixing anything regarding Citizens United. Given their utterly bullshit view on corruption I doubt he has much remorse beyond "well I did this but after these last few rulings the GOP at large hates me anyways." alnilam posted:Thought you might all enjoy this round-up of cases with nice graphics depicting who ruled which way Considering how little I hear Breyer's name mentioned I could see him being one of the most liberal with RBG since they're both pretty locked in on left-leaning rulings (exception being when a right leaning one would be a pretty clear correct decision, like if someone wanted to ban guns entirely it'd get shot down 9-0). Kennedy being dead center sounds about right and Roberts being to his right seems dead on as well at this point. Kagan and Sotomayor seem like a tossup so far and the remaining three prime evils of conservatism can fight over the far right. Though if Roberts ultimately ends up getting pushed to the left because of the insanity of the far right I'm ok with that. He's going to be around for decades so having him ultimately turn in to Kennedy 2.0 would be about the best people here could hope from him but considering some past rulings he's made 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Can someone give me a very brief summary of why Scalia's interpretation is BS? Is it just that's he being overly pedantic and he would absolutely flip his decision if this concerned a law he supported? Isn't he the person who immediately flip-flopped from the VRA to Shelby? Where he basically made the argument of "well I'm in the majority so X is right" then in a dissent that came out a day or so apart he said "I'm dissenting and X is wrong." He's a shameless fucker and I think it was a State's Rights thing. Northjayhawk posted:That criteria was absurdly outdated. It was extended for political reasons, not based on anything rational. Agreed. It's not like a bunch of those states passed politically-motivated voter restrictions afterwards, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Voter ID laws, while probably paranoid and not necessary, are not an absurdly evil racist plot. You start out in 1954 by saying, “friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family.” By 1968 you can’t say “friend of the family”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “friend of the family, friend of the family.” You were saying something about how Voter ID and these other laws that heavily skew against the poor and minorities aren't racist and hostile action, or that we don't have Jim Crow anymore because it's not as blatant?  In hindsight, things like preclearance should've simply been a nationwide standard because racism wasn't always going to just stay in a few states. The fact that states under preclearance immediately started enacting restrictive laws as soon as the VRA was gutted also had shown that their being under it was still justified to this day. The Shortest Path posted:...why does that quiz includes questions that are explicitly in reference to things that would only matter in a court case? I get it's a joke, but they could at least put in the barest amount of It's gawker, so no they really couldn't. Thomas is truly one of the biggest pieces of poo poo I've ever seen. I wish we could send him back in time to meet any enslaved ancestors so he could spout this poo poo to them and then get promptly beaten bloody by said slaves. I hope some Japanese-Americans who were placed in camps during WW2 rip Thomas several new assholes. Both figuratively and literally. Dead Reckoning posted:Who exactly do they plan to appeal the decision to? God Almighty's True Christian Court, obviously. Unfortunately for them. Pope Francis is going to decline to hear the appeal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
tsa posted:That comment is over 30 years old now, after a while you kinda have to find something new if you actually want to make+prove a point, and not just preach to the choir. Voter ID laws are incredibly common around the 1st world. Good rebuttal. I'm glad to see that things stop being true because a couple decades passed. When we have national IDs and states aren't actively restricting voting hours/machines to cause multiple-hour waits in areas heavily populated by the opposing party your comment might not be quite as absurd then. But hey don't take my word for it: Lemming posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8 But don't worry. they're just moving on to poo poo like Crosscheck to disenfranchise people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I was only responding to someone who was basically asking why we could accept even one person being inconvenienced. Thats an unrealistic standard, we have to draw lines and make small compromises in many facets of life and government. You're being disingenuous as hell considering this isn't a matter of "drawing the line somewhere" because the people you're shamelessly defending are on record stating their policies will help drive down Democrat voter turnout. Like, if you can't spend 5 minutes doing a search online that will give you some very basic info on this subject just drop it because you honestly don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:Crossposting from the picture thread since you guys might be able to answer it better: No, Roberts isn't going to become a progressive torchbearer just because the Tea Party is a bunch of insane neo-Confederate racists.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Devor posted:From Scotusblog: Honestly hope the conservatives justices all die slowly in fires at some point so they can get a feel for the poo poo they inflict on people. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:And I would add Obamacare Obamacare really wasn't in doubt (though the 6-3 was a welcome surprise over 5-4). Even if Kennedy and Roberts both wanted to kill it neither of them want to take part in cratering the US insurance industry because it could be catastrophic for the country's economy. If there would have ever been a "gently caress it we side with X for the sake of stability" this would've been it. ZenVulgarity posted:This line of reasoning makes sense from a business perspective (which is why I'm surprised Roberts isn't writing the opinion) as some industries could simply go under with excessive regulations ...and? Excessive regulation of nuclear power hasn't stopped despite it strangling the hell out of what would otherwise be an extremely useful energy source until the US can do some massive renewable development. If the EPA regulates something like Coal to the point that the industry collapses then good. gently caress coal and its myriad of problems.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Heck, why stop there? Imagine the legal fees that could be saved by the American taxpayers if we just skipped the whole 'trial by jury' nonsense and skipped straight to the execution! Police already do that for black people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:I was flipping through the court decision on executions and was surprised to find that the court required the plaintiffs to present an alternate method of execution? Like, it's not enough just to say "this is a hosed up way to die," you have to finish with "so kill me using this." What possible reasoning does that precedent have? Is it really up to inmates to propose humane methods of execution when they are presented with one that interferes with their constitutional rights? This method of dying is terrible so please grant me death by Snu Snu.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
^^^^ Gore would make for a lovely justice. If you're going to have a weird SCOTUS appointment fetish at least go with Obama or (Bill) Clinton, both of whom would actually have some idea of what they're doing.Arsenic Lupin posted:Antonin Scalia thinks hotels are hotbeds of vice: Of course this piece of poo poo is ok with an old law that allows police to get information without a warrant. I'm just surprised 5 justices weren't. There's no loving way 5 or more justices would be in favor of abolishing the death penalty via a SCOTUS ruling.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:Comrade Cosmobot posted this in the USPol thread and I figure I'd put it past the specific thread to discuss it, because in light of the (apparent) traction that ridiculous Planned Parenthood video got I'm wondering how this particular potential 5-4 decision will lean. If they even bother to take it up. Kennedy is pretty anti-abortion so I could see him striking it down. At that point the best we can hope for is that the dissent begins with: "[conservative justices], do you like Huey Lewis and the News?"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:I'm guessing it's like a clock, and Tick is a good ruling, so we've built up a few Ticks that unfortunately need to be balanced out by a few Tocks. Between the CRA being gutted (and future cases are going to finish destroying it) and Citizens United we're still owed a few ticks because those two cases alone have likely causes some severe long term damage. Alternately: We can hope that the constant poo poo-heaping the right wing is doing to Roberts over the ACA and SSM rulings will make him snap and drive him towards the center-right. Probably won't happen (especially with anything CRA related) but one can hope. Seeing Roberts end up as even a Kennedy-grade judge would be huge since we've got awhile before and conservative justices are replaced due to vacancies by natural causes or phylactery destruction.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:When was the CRA gutted? The VRA got gut shot, but I don't recall Alito saying that Whites Only restaurants were permissible again. I meant the VRA (thought IIRC Roberts isn't a fan of the CRA either).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I agree that this doesn't seem exactly new from Scalia. I remember the first time I read one of his decisions where he talks about "the blacks" and being a little bit shocked. Thomas will go full FYGM like he has in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
fart blood posted:This whole thing is so absurd. She gets to not only be the living embodiment of mediocrity but she also gets to be known as the spiteful poo poo who ruined countless opportunities for minorities who by large grow up with an uneven playing field. Having a bland-as-gently caress ginger as the face of the end of Affirmative Action would be oddly fitting, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Again, there's a lot of false assumptions being made e.g., younger people being in favor of diversity/AA.  That's not paradoxical though. Plenty of people see AA as being a leg-up and not an equalizer and for those people believing in equality while being against AA is a consistent viewpoint.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
I'll be stunned if the unions win this case. I'd sooner expect a 6-3 (or worse) ruling against them than for any of the conservative justices to rule in favor of a union on basically anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:As noted in USPOL, it sounds like Roberts really wants to reinforce his "the only corruption is explicit quid pro quo caught on tape" jurisprudence, so McDonnell may well go free. It's ok so long as RBG frees Robert's face with a crowbar afterwards. In reality we'll probably see Roberts rule along the lines of "lol gently caress you plebs and your desire to punish your betters."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:I think Montgomery might be the first pissed off Scalia dissent of the current term. Even better, it was a 6-3 opinion with Roberts being the one who joined the 5 liberal justices.  I know it's too much to hope that Roberts has broken in some way after the ACA ruling and the poo poo the right piled on him for it but if he'd get pushed left by the fringe right wing assholes it'd be a small start for him to make up for his other terrible rulings.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Wow, 40 posts suddenly? I didn't think there was any big case being handled right now so wh...Trevor Hale posted:You guys!!!!!  No loving way. It's the headline on Drudge and everywhere else and I still can't believe it's true. Of all the justices the one constantly joked about as a nigh-immortal lich is dead and the SCOTUS has just swung from a conservative majority to a tie at worst, with the potential for Obama to nominate someone else like Kagan or Sotomayor? Congress is going to be a mad house. How likely is it we see the GOP outright refuse to let an Obama replacement be voted on? They could stall for a year, couldn't they? I can't imagine the GOP wants to even consider letting Obama appoint yet another justice to the SCOTUS unless it's a right wing If/when the GOP stonewalls OBama on a replacement it's going to make the stakes of this election even more significant as two branches of government will be decided. Maybe 2.5 if the Dems can manage a GOTV big enough to grab/split the senate. If a Democrat gets elected as POTUS and the Dems manage 50+ senators I wonder if Paul Ryan will refuse to run for the Speaker position next year. It sucks he died but I'd be lying if I claimed I wasn't happy that the SCOTUS is down a conservative. Kalman posted:Probably, yes. They just have to play a delaying game by saying "SCOTUS nominations are important, we can't rush into these things!" if you think the GOP is going to let Congress go in to recess while Obama's still in office after he tried that stuff already. Any planned recess between now and the end of the year is about to be cancelled.SeANMcBAY posted:He died peacefully in his sleep after a nice day of quail hunting. I have to imagine that dying in your sleep is one of the more pleasant/less painful ways to go. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
TinTower posted:https://twitter.com/MrAWFULsuits/status/698628959517413376 I was about to ask if the "Scalia was clearly murder by Obama/Clinton" insanity had started yet but I figured it was immediate. Glad(?) to see I was right. e: Tonight's presidential debate is going to be crazy as hell because Scalia's death has to come up during it. There's just no way it won't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you're reading that the wrong way. Adjourning a session of Congress (that he has called) does not mean he forces Congress in to recess so he can circumvent them for nominees. If that were the case then Congress vote on such matters would be pointless since a POTUS could just say "Congress you are now in recess and I appoint these people" whenever they felt like it. The SCOTUS would go against him on it too. Wonder who he'll want to nominate. There was a name tossed around during Kagan and Sotomayor's nominations. Edward Chen maybe? FAUXTON posted:What rhymes with mitch Lich?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:They didn't go around telling the president they were going to retire ahead of time so he could do prep work on the nomination. A month is plenty of time to appoint someone. Not to mention, Obama has already appointed two people to the SCOTUS. He has his list of names and while there might be a few to add (or remove) from the last time he got to nominate someone it's not going to take him long to know who he wants to nominate and he sure as poo poo isn't going to listen to the GOP and let the SCOTUS sit at 8 people for a year. If he doesn't pick someone from his short list of names left over after Kagan and Sotomayor then maybe he'll need a month, otherwise he'll probably send them a name, or names, by March. Then we get to see if the GOP's really willing to stonewall all the way to November, and if the Dems are capable of capitalizing on it to bash the GOP repeatedly for the next 9 months. e: If we're generous we can add a month to this since I doubt Obama actually expected another vacancy, but my earlier point still stands. He has already gone through this process twice and whomever he nominates is likely to be someone he had vetted when he picked Sotomayor and Kagan. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 00:54
|
|