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?

«‹›3 »

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Discendo Vox posted:

What exactly would you like the president to do to "punish the court".

Convert the Supreme Court building into affordable housing.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2022 04:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 13:29

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

yronic heroism posted:

And no, Gore probably wouldn�t have won the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount. Most methods of recounting had him behind. That�s what made the OG 5-4 decision a huge waste of energy as well as jurisprudence they didn�t even want to see cited in the future.

This is actually not the case. Historians agree that had the Florida court-ordered full recount been allowed to continue, rather than being stopped by the Republicans, Gore would have won the state. There were smaller recounts that had been occurring previously that would not have put Gore over the top (because they were missing pockets of uncounted Democrats), but the final one would have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

# ¿ Jan 28, 2022 01:40

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

yronic heroism posted:

The world in which the appointment arms race accelerated from 0 to 100 is one in which Republicans and Dixiecrats (who were functionally Republicans when you look at how they treated nominees by LBJ and Nixon) cause abortion to be illegal during every R administration, chuck out voting/civil rights legislation by the eighties at latest, and basically do everything they�re doing now much earlier, affordable care act is repealed by fiat under Trump. It�s way too pat to say �now they�re gonna do it anyway so doesn�t matter� because for people living under those past R administrations it mattered a lot. It�s easy to say here�s what should have been done but much harder to anticipate the consequences especially when 60 percent of people were voting for loving Reagan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/us/examining-vote-overview-study-disputed-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts

What the Florida courts were ordering was still going to keep Bush in the lead. Yes, there were other ways a count could have gone to Gore, but that�s not what was ordered, and if it eventually had been remember that Katherine Harris was the certifying official and an R Congress was meeting on 1/6/00 under the electoral count act.

I would encourage you to reread the materials that you cited. While the media may have supported the Republicans in the immediate days after they overturned the election, later review by a variety of experts have come to a consensus that Gore actually won. What the Florida courts ordered - a full recount under a common standard - would have yielded that result.

I know that this is an old case, but I think given how damaging it was to both national credibility and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, it's important to recognize that this opinion was not merely wrong on the law (which was essentially predicated on the farcical idea that Bush was personally harmed by losing, but Gore was not, and those concerns trumped the rights of Florida citizens to a free and fair election) but also wrong on the facts of the case - that Gore did indeed win the election, and that the Republicans saw that happening and intervened to overturn that result.

Wikipedia posted:

Florida Ballot Project recounts

The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major United States news organizations, conducted the Florida Ballot Project, a comprehensive review of 175,010 ballots that were collected from the entire state, not just the disputed counties that were recounted.[72] These ballots contained undervotes (votes with no choice made for president) and overvotes (votes made with more than one choice marked). The organization analyzed 61,190 undervotes and 113,820 overvotes. Of those overvotes, 68,476 chose Gore and a minor candidate; 23,591 chose Bush and a minor candidate.[35] Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.[34]

The project's goal was to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used in the voting process, including how different systems correlated with voter mistakes. The total number of undervotes and overvotes in Florida amounted to 3% of all votes cast in the state. The review's findings were reported in the media during the week after November 12, 2001, by the organizations that funded the recount: Associated Press, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and Tribune Publishing, which included the Los Angeles Times, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel and Chicago Tribune.[73][74]

Based on the NORC review, the media group concluded that if the disputes over the validity of all the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 60 to 171 votes (with, for each punch ballot, at least two of the three ballot reviewers' codes being in agreement). The standards that were chosen for the NORC study ranged from a "most restrictive" standard (accepts only so-called perfect ballots that machines somehow missed and did not count, or ballots with unambiguous expressions of voter intent) to a "most inclusive" standard (applies a uniform standard of "dimple or better" on punch marks and "all affirmative marks" on optical scan ballots).[4]

An analysis of the NORC data by University of Pennsylvania researcher Steven F. Freeman and journalist Joel Bleifuss concluded that, no matter what standard is used, after a recount of all uncounted votes, Gore would have been the victor.[35] Such a statewide review including all uncounted votes was a tangible possibility, as Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, whom the Florida Supreme Court had assigned to oversee the statewide recount, had scheduled a hearing for December 13 (mooted by the U.S. Supreme Court's final ruling on the 12th) to consider the question of including overvotes. Subsequent statements by Lewis and internal court documents support the likelihood that overvotes would have been included in the recount.[75] Florida State University professor of public policy Lance deHaven-Smith observed that, even considering only undervotes, "under any of the five most reasonable interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court ruling, Gore does, in fact, more than make up the deficit".[4] Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's analysis of the NORC study and media coverage of it supported these interpretations and criticized the coverage of the study by media outlets such as The New York Times and the other media consortium members for focusing on how events might have played out rather than on the statewide vote count.[74]

Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jan 28, 2022

# ¿ Jan 28, 2022 15:30

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

I've stopped trying to predict Manchin's future actions since he's a walking dice roll.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2022 12:50

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Knowing Thomas and his wife, I'd sooner believe it's some form of pump and dump stock scheme than a vaccination issue. He's got decades of corrupt bench legislation left in him.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2022 17:09

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

So in a mockery of justice, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch issued dissent opinions today that basically amount to "Sure, random civilian judges should be able to command military forces and overrule officers about the deployment of special forces units, what could go wrong?" Fortunately they were strongly overruled.

quote:

WASHINGTON � The Supreme Court on Friday blocked a lower court order that prevented the Navy from restricting the deployment of Navy SEALs who refuse to get a Covid vaccination.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin had urged the court to remedy what he called �an extraordinary and unprecedented intrusion into core military affairs� that had no precedent in American history.

A federal judge in Texas ruled in early January that the Navy must allow members of the elite special operations community to opt out of the vaccination requirement if they had religious objections. But the judge's order went further, forbidding commanders to make any changes to their military assignments based on a refusal to be vaccinated.

On Friday, the Supreme Court put the judge�s order on hold �insofar as its precludes the Navy from making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.� That frees up the Navy to issue deployment orders based on Covid vaccination status.

Three justices � Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch � said they would have denied the Navy�s request.

In a separate dissenting opinion for himself and Gorsuch, Alito said the court rubber stamped the Navy�s request, doing �a great injustice� to the sailors.

�These individuals appear to have been treated shabbily by the Navy,� Alito said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with the Supreme Court�s Friday order. Under the Constitution, he said, �the President of the United States, not any federal judge, is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.� The judge in this case improperly inserted himself into the military chain of command, Kavanaugh said.

Austin said the restriction usurped the Navy�s authority to decide when servicemembers should be deployed to carry out some of the military�s most sensitive and dangerous missions. It required commanders to make assignments for servicemembers �without regard to their lack of vaccinations, notwithstanding military leaders� judgment that doing so poses intolerable risks to safety and mission success.�

The Navy has already sent one member of a SEAL team to a mission on a submarine against the wishes of commanders, the Pentagon said.

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O�Connor issued the order on Jan. 3 in a lawsuit brought by 35 Navy Special Warfare servicemembers, including 26 SEALs, who said the mandatory vaccination policy violated their religious freedom. �The Navy provides a religious accommodation process, but by all accounts, it is theater. The Navy has not granted a religious exemption to any vaccine in recent memory. It merely rubber stamps each denial,� he wrote.

On Feb. 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to block O�Connor�s order.

By granting the Navy�s request to block the order, the Supreme Court likely doomed the case of a Navy officer who commands a guided missile destroyer. He brought a similar court challenge to the vaccination requirement, and U.S. District Court judge Steven Merryday of Florida, like O�Connor, found the vaccination order to be a violation of religious freedom and barred the Navy from taking any adverse action against the officer.

Because the Navy considers the officer to be a threat to the health of the crew, it blocked the deployment of the ship, with its crew of 320.

The Supreme Court has traditionally been highly deferential to military judgments about deployments. It said in a 1973 case that it is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence than �the complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a force.�

In a 1986 case, the court said the essence of military service �is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.�

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-order-deployment-seals-refuse-covid-vaccine-rcna19885

# ¿ Mar 25, 2022 23:06

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Kalman posted:

This is, to my knowledge, the first leaked draft opinion there has ever been. SCOTUS does not leak.

That�s what the surprise is about.

I'd assume there's a lot of folks who are questioning whether an organization that does stuff like this deserves their respect.

# ¿ May 3, 2022 02:29

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Bel Shazar posted:

I'll claim some measure of victory if it does lead to a less legitimate court in the eyes of the populace.

Yeah at the end of the day it's a just fancy building with a lovely book club.

# ¿ May 3, 2022 03:29

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

azflyboy posted:

Would this be the first time that SCOTUS has specifically removed a right that they'd previously granted?

Dred Scott comes to mind.

# ¿ May 3, 2022 03:54

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

"Didn't read lol" has fewer words than both of those posts

I don't know what you're expecting - Alito is well known for his meager understanding or respect for American law. It's almost a hundred pages of "the word abortion isn't in the Constitution" followed by incoherent citations, but that doesn't mean anything because realistically the Republicans have made it very clear that they are neither motivated nor bound by legal reasoning or precedent.

# ¿ May 4, 2022 00:03

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

I AM GRANDO posted:

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and can only be removed by a 2/3 vote by the senate.

A simple congressional majority can do whatever they like, and there's nothing preventing them from reinterpreting something as vaguely worded as Article III. "Shall hold their offices during good behavior" is carrying a whole lot of weight but it means whatever Congress wants it to mean. And there's a whole lot of inventive possibilities available beyond simply impeaching each justice one by one. Replacing the group wholesale with a different Supreme Court, for example. Moving the justices to a different court. Charging them with ethical breaches and summarily firing them for bad behavior. Promoting every justice to janitor is a particular rules-lawyery favorite of mine. Reduce the purview of the court to pre-Marbury v. Madison. Implement term limits that boot out the oldest members and triage the damage being done to the institution. Defund the court, eliminate all the staff positions, and repurpose the building as the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum. Shrink / expand the court to dilute the stolen seats, or declare that Ketanji Brown Jackson is a) already a member of the court and b) wields five votes. None of those need 2/3 Senate votes - heck, some of them don't even need the Senate. Realistically, the only real limitation is the willingness to challenge the authority of an illegitimate body that is incompatible with a free democracy.

I'm all in favor of resolving this critical issue through the ballot box and regular order, and I recognize that democrats need more than the slimmest of majorities to get it done. We absolutely should support them in order to avoid the chaos of directly challenging SCOTUS rule. But I also think the idea that an increasingly progressive society will have no alternative but accepting 50+ years of neo-Confederate rule by five oligarchs is unimaginative and frankly unrealistic.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:02 on May 4, 2022

# ¿ May 4, 2022 03:54

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Covok posted:

Wow, they're first step is bringing back segrated schools?

Certainly not their first.

# ¿ May 5, 2022 03:50

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Potato Salad posted:

Fake edit: it's also hilarious when you consider that rights to privacy and autonomy that the modern conservative movement generally has been pushing for absolutely confirms that they too deeply believe that privacy is a right in the way that Roe describes.

I would dispute this to some extent, in that the philosophical fault line between Democrats and Republicans is whether such personal liberties should be inalienable rights or revokable privileges. This is part of the reason such blatant hypocrisies never bother them, because they always envision themselves as holding the sword. But only to some extent, because the Republicans have very little coherent ideology or commitment to any particular political principles. Even tropes like the GOP's love of "law and order" can be quickly put aside in favor of immediate power objectives - as made patently clear by the chorus of Republican support for blowing up judicial precedent and authority in pursuit of stripping power from women.

# ¿ May 6, 2022 19:11

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Comparing court systems is difficult because the United States doesn't have a professional judiciary the way that other countries often do. Basically anyone can be a judge, and Supreme Court judges are selected by their political parties for their political reliability rather than their experience or competency. French judges go to a competitive school and study for years, and their supreme court equivalent has dozens of members. German judges are selected via an elaborate and multifaceted system, must have an extensive and specific work history (and education), and their twelve supreme court justice equivalents have limited terms in terms of age and duration.

# ¿ May 6, 2022 21:45

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

'Originalism' is nonsense justification that literally anything is "as the founders wished it" and therefore cannot be contested by mere ethics or legal precedent. Unless of course someone "discovers" that the founders actually wanted something else. Which isn't hard, because not only were there tons of different perspectives in the Constitutional Convention, but the amendments were also formed by people with diverse beliefs. The idea that there was a single intention behind any particular clause, or that we have any real insight into how the authors would apply that intention to a modern issue, is totally absurd. It's weird and culty reasoning that is more akin to religion than law. Actually basing law on such nonsense would immediately disrupt the entire government, because fundamental principles like judicial review, federal commerce oversight, a standing military, voter enfranchisement, etc., were actively opposed by many of the founders. But the Republicans aren't concerned about that because what they mean by 'Originalism' is that they have a direct line to "The Founding Fathers" and everybody else needs to kneel at the pulpit.

# ¿ May 9, 2022 20:42

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

tagesschau posted:

Based on what? I'm not looking for the circular logic of "my side lost because the court acted unfairly, and the proof that the court acted unfairly is that my side lost." Replace "unfairly" with "illegitimately" as applicable.

Legitimacy in a democracy comes from legal precedent and popular support. The court has neither. The members are appointed by a representative minority, they hold lifelong titles that are incompatible with a republic, and they issue bizarre decrees in spite of decades of law and order. The court should be disbanded and replaced because the entire concept of secretive unelected lifelong oligarchs who countermand representatives and are accountable to no one is antithetical to good democratic government.

# ¿ May 9, 2022 20:53

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

tagesschau posted:

If we're looking to disband and replace the Supreme Court, what do we do about the Constitution's insistence that "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour?"

There's a lot of possibilities, including simply assigning a congressional ethics sub-committee or indeed any other group the responsibility to recognize what is not good behavior. It's not defined who judges that, and that does not mean that only the justices themselves are able to. Other possibilities include moving, changing, expanding, reducing, or altering the offices while still allowing them to be "held". Many of the less confrontational suggestions have been along these lines, such as reassigning a justice to work in a superior court after a term limit. Another option would be to replace the court itself, or simply the responsibilities of the court, which would leave the judges sitting on a vestigial court. While the simplest solution would simply be to ignore the legitimacy issues and stack the court, then push through court reforms.

# ¿ May 9, 2022 23:15

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Kalman posted:

Also, I don't think you'd have had 5 votes to keep Garland on the court if they'd ignored the Senate - you really think Breyer or RBG would have gone along with it?

Blowing a revolutionary opportunity to remake the judiciary and affirm the principles of justice and liberty for a generation in order to seat a single milquetoast moderate seems entirely up their alley, to be honest.

# ¿ May 10, 2022 04:10

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

tagesschau posted:

It would certainly be exciting to have the Supreme Court be recognized as one set of jurists or another, depending on who's in which office. Productive, maybe not.

Certainly more productive than allowing the status quo to continue destabilizing the country. There is no system that is immune to being reformed by a motivated Congressional majority. Our current one is, and any alternative also would be.

# ¿ May 10, 2022 10:09

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

GaussianCopula posted:

Why do you think that the popular vote is more important or more legitimate, than the constitutional system, which balances out the power of densely populated states against those that are more rural and which is the one the people (and states) have signed up for?

This is a fundamentally immoral and antidemocratic concept that is thankfully being consigned to the dustbin of history. If your only interest is power politics, then it doesn't have the veneer of popular legitimacy and is simply another system of oligarchy to be defeated like the rest.

# ¿ May 10, 2022 10:22

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

tagesschau posted:

I was talking about a situation where a Republican president would just recognize the replaced Supreme Court as the "real" Supreme Court, and ignore the reconstituted one.

The power to ordain courts is given to Congress, not the president. So what you're suggesting explicitly violates Article III. But beyond that, I am not afraid of a popularly-elected government (to the meager extent that the presidency reflects this) wielding authority over the courts. That is, indeed, a fundamental part of a free and just society. America cannot long abide a half-democracy.

# ¿ May 10, 2022 13:48

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

tagesschau posted:

Bush won the popular vote in 2004, as described above. You're just moving the goalposts.

Seizing power by fiat, purging the voter rolls, and then being "re-elected" does not confer popular legitimacy.

# ¿ May 10, 2022 13:56

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

tagesschau posted:

And if the Roberts court rules that they can't be dismissed that way, and the legislative and executive respond with "yeah, whatever, bro," then how do you end up with anything other than the Republicans saying they'll restore the "real" Supreme Court, and the effective SCOTUS depending completely on who's in charge in the other two branches after that point? I just don't see how you go down that road without the endgame being "the Supreme Court and the shadow Supreme Court could swap places every time there's an election."

If Roberts and the other Republicans are trying to seize unconstitutional powers from Congress in plain violation of Article III, then you're already off to the races with a constitutional crisis. And all the actual power is with Congress, who is much more capable of escalating beyond, "Your court is now in charge of traditional Supreme Court duties like interpreting international treaties, as the founders intended".

At the end of the day, creating an inflexible system where all conflicts have the highest stakes is inherently unstable. It forces people to escalate because losing becomes untenable. A society ruled by unanswerable priests who hold office for 35-40 years is not a stable society. The only alternative is court reform, one way or another.

tagesschau posted:

Pretending that the winner really lost because it's inconvenient for you to have to think about, and that you can replace him with an imaginary candidate who would have appointed your ideal justices, isn't an argument about the legitimacy of those two justices' appointments. It's just speculative fiction.

Again, legitimacy comes from actual popular support. There are plenty of autocrats out there who seize power and then "win elections." They don't have meaningful legitimacy. Basing the legitimacy of court justices on such unstable foundation is not rational or persuasive.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:31 on May 10, 2022

# ¿ May 10, 2022 16:28

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Yeah and my homework isn't finished until the due date either.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2022 02:33

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

coelomate posted:

Welp, I was wrong on the internet. TIL D.C. is not and never has been a real swamp.

I have subjectively suffered more during summers in DC than NYC, and lived with people telling me (a) it's a swamp, and (b) it's not the heat, it's the humidity. They have lied to me and so made a liar of me.

Not to get bogged down in the details, but yeah it's actually a wetland-area in a humid sub-tropical climate, so get it right! The National Mall isn't "built in a swamp", it's an artificial landscape constructed over a heavily-silted riparian zone. Sure DC is considered one of the most mosquito-infested cities in the country, but that's just because the shallow sewers, abandoned canals, and ample water features and non-native landscaping have catalyzed the natural marsh ecology. Thankfully we have an array of bog experts available to free us from this quagmire of technicalities.

# ¿ Jun 8, 2022 13:46

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

One of the fences went up a few days prior to the leak, after a man self-immolated on the steps of the Supreme Court to protest inaction on the climate crisis.

https://www.wusa9.com/amp/article/n...5d-2623bff6e926

# ¿ Jun 17, 2022 19:22

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

If I create a church of pedestrian safety, does that mean my state has to fund my religious bicycle paths at the same level as secular highways? Signs point to yes these days.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 16:15

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

haveblue posted:

Not thinking big enough. Found a satanic school or a madrassa and apply for the program

Sorry, based on Constitutional precedent and the founding fathers, the Supreme Court has decided that only evangelical Christians count as religious groups. Balls and strikes you know.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 16:21

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Fuschia tude posted:

CoS hasn't done too well in recent cases, no. SCOTUS has contradicted their own rulings about services the state needed to provide for Christians vs. Muslims within the same term. They don't care about being ideologically consistent when it would go against GOP culture war planks; they're just openly enshrining straight theocratic Christian exceptionalism at this point.

Ah, but I bought the corporate identity of a church and reconstituted it, and therefore my faith has 200 years of precedent and will sue your state for $100 million under Freedom of Expression. I will be successful because I'll seat the judge myself. This is justice, and the country would fall apart without the stabilizing influence of the courts.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 16:29

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Rigel posted:

I'd have more respect (or less disgust) for his opinion if he just said "the state's interest in preventing gun violence is not really relevant here because carrying guns outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right, period". This pissy sniping about how CCW bans wouldn't have stopped Buffalo is just attacking for the sake of attacking.

I mean this is what happens when we're governed by people whose professional qualifications amount to "watches Fox a lot".

LeeMajors posted:

Pretty hard not to despair

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1539982278037831680?s=21&t=gfmjWqO-dg2V-flr1lg59Q

I try to put myself in the mindset that while this experiment in democracy has failed, most humans throughout history have lived under some form of oligarchy so we're in good company.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jun 23, 2022

# ¿ Jun 23, 2022 16:22

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Devor posted:

Well this case, even though it's about CCW, is about to create binding precedent that says it doesn't matter if we are having daily mass murders - we cannot outlaw Murder Tools if there was not a historical tradition of banning them. Seems like a fine time to raise an argument about mass murders in the dissent.

I'd worry more about setting precedent if I thought that the Republicans cared about it. This sort of thing will not change the outcome of any policy decision.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2022 16:30

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

The second amendment protects carrying literal arms, it doesn't say anything about weapons. If the founding fathers had meant to protect something else, they would have said so. If people want to change the constitution from the original document, they can pass a constitutional amendment. If you're a member of a militia, you can carry one extra arm, but no extra hands.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2022 05:11

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

The entire crux of the gun lobby argument for universal weaponization is literally based on comma placement, so the idea that the "textualist" court should be freely reinterpreting language based on various unofficial dictionaries is pretty absurd. The reality is that the Constitution is a vaguely-worded and poorly edited document, and judges have been seeing whatever they want in the text for centuries.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2022 13:48

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

These aren�t real judges though. Their victims aren�t personally connected to them. They�re politicians like any other - and no such laws exist or should exist to censor public knowledge of basic facts like where Representatives live.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 04:33

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Main Paineframe posted:

No, not at all. The predicted basis for striking down Chevron would have nothing to do with whether or not the regulators were elected.

Rather, the basis would be that the Constitution says that only Congress can exercise these powers. The judges would rule that since the Constitution says these powers belong to Congress, only Congress would be able to use them, and therefore they can't delegate their constitutional powers to other branches.

It's nothing to do with electedness, it's just an appeal to the text of the Constitution.

Posting people's home addresses, whether they're political actors or not, very rarely contributes anything of value to discussion. If you have a good reason to incorporate it into your argument, that's one thing, but it's hard to think of a serious line of discussion that would be enhanced by posting somebody's home address.

SCOTUS judges are obviously real judges, and redefining words like this doesn't contribute much either.

The line of discussion is that a democracy doesn�t need to pedestal these oligarchs any more than they already are. Mike Pence is actively targeted by his own party leader, but his address is publicly-available. AOC is routinely targeted with death threats, but there�s nothing illegal about publishing her address. It is absurd to think that Supreme Court members are somehow more deserving of protections that are otherwise considered to violate the First Amendment.

Also there is no redefinition required here - the justices are not judges in any meaningful way. They don�t work in a court, they don�t deal with statutory law, and they don�t interact with plaintiffs, defendants, claimants, evidence, or victims. They are politicians that work in a law office, who reinterpret constitutional clauses, and mostly interact with lawyers. The idea that they are uniquely threatened is totally false, and it is alien to our democracy to bestow unelected rulers with layers of unconstitutional protections not afforded to our highest elected officials.

GaussianCopula posted:

But that's what the Court is doing right now. It's reversing the reach of the SCOTUS and returning the power to regulate abortion to the legislativ branch and presumably would continue to do if they go after other SDP uses.
Even the legislative map issue is reducing the power of the judiciary.

It would probably be more useful to understand that the institution these justices represent and are protecting is the Republican Party. They certainly are not interested in an independent judiciary.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Jun 30, 2022

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 09:15

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

If that happens, the country balkanizes or calls a constitutional convention. The areas with all the people and all the GDP aren't going to long-tolerate being openly ruled. We already saw flashes of this during the first months of Covid under Trump when it was becoming clear that the GOP was fanning the pandemic in hopes that it would devastate urban areas. Multi-state coalitions started forming and developing informal government agreements. If those conditions continued, those coalitions would reform.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2022 20:37

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Ezra Klein put out a podcast this week delving into the partisan nature of the Supreme Court. It's worth listening to, though I think that it's difficult to come away from it without recognizing that the current moderate position is that the Supreme Court is fundamentally destabilizing the concept of American law and justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-kate-shaw.html

# ¿ Jul 3, 2022 22:04

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

yronic heroism posted:

Why should Clinton have acted like an authoritarian? And why do edgy leftist goons have it in their headcanons that the (historically conservative) law enforcement/military institutions of the U.S. would back these Democratic presidents in this type of crisis?

Gore v. Bush is a clear example of official corruption - government workers get arrested for this sort of thing routinely, and it isn't seen as authoritarian. Citizens United is another example of an act of bribery and corruption that goes way past impeachable into blatantly criminal behavior. Recognizing that officials cannot violate the law, thumb the scales for their friends, or personally profit from their authority isn't edgy leftist headcanon, it's a normal moderate belief in the rule of law.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2022 12:54

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

GaussianCopula posted:

Given that 3 out of 7 judges appointed by Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court sided with Bush, I don't think you can just claim that the SCOTUS decision was an example of official corruption, let alone one so obvious that Clinton should have gone for an executive branch coup, which is what ignoring the judgement of the SCOTUS would have been.

This is totally absurd - you're positing that the legality of a superior's actions should be based on whether enough of their subordinates go along with it. Of course it's going to be difficult for members of the judiciary to oppose a coup attempt led by the highest court. That doesn't change the underlying reality that the court members involved in this violated multiple laws with 100+ year standing in order to overturn an election and seize power for themselves and their confederates. Those are crimes, whether they got away with them or not. There is absolutely no dispute that the judges involved were corrupted and acted without legal or constitutional authority. Even if you aren't sure whether that constitutes official corruption, that isn't up to you or me - they should be tried in court.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jul 4, 2022

# ¿ Jul 4, 2022 14:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 13:29

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Main Paineframe posted:

It is incredibly unlikely that the US Marshals would easily obey such an order. I suspect that they would most likely refuse or stall in the face of such an obviously dictatorial move.

I think that's because you're viewing history through the lens of 20 years of upholding an illegal act as if it were constitutional and permissible. If Gore, Clinton, the Democratic Party, and society at large had reacted to the court as if they had broken the law, appointed a special prosecutor and referred the matter to the DOJ to investigate the responsible individuals for corruption and trace their connections to financial and political deal-making, it's very likely that we'd be seeing that history as a second Watergate. A big part of why that didn't happen is that Gore decided that allowing the election to be overturned was better than challenging a constitutional crisis.

SMEGMA_MAIL posted:

Makes more sense, a couple times (especially in hypotheticals about Trump refusing to do x) I�ve seen people talking about how in a constitutional crisis the Marshalls would have some legal mandate to be the armed force of SCOTUS to enforce court orders that Congress or the executive tried to defy, and I found that questionable.

Yeah the only armed force that the Supreme Court has authority over is the Supreme Court Police.

Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 4, 2022

# ¿ Jul 4, 2022 19:07

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

«‹›3 »