The Warszawa posted:

Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011) (dissent). Dissenting from the judgment that the Eighth Amendment required that the courts intervene to mandate a population limit in California prisons (which were and are insanely overcrowded), Scalia wrote:

GhostBoy posted:

And now the 5th circuit joins the marriage fight, which Texas of all places having their gay marriage ban struck down by a judge. I've not had time to read the whole ruling yet, but it is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/209429696/Texas-Gay-Marriage-Ruling. From the brief, it sounds like he went the same route as Oklahoma and the rest of the recent rulings (No rational relation to a government interest etc.). It is also on stay pending appeal, which the AG has said he would do.

Space Gopher posted:

Stickman posted:

Nope, my understanding is that this ruling specifically makes the https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/, off limits for clean room design, because it embodies the Structure, Sequence, and Organization of the API, which is protected under copyright law. That's why Kalman and Mr. Nice! are arguing that they should instead scrape the specification from existing Java code (though it's not clear to me how this allows you to "independently develop" the SSO of the Java APIs, since they also embody the SSO of the API, and the end result will be exactly the same as the SSO in the public specification). This is how reimplementation has been done up to this point (see, for example, url=https://www.winehq.org/docs/winedev-guide/api-docs]Wine's clean room guidelines[/url]), but because the decision makes the SSO itself subject to copyright (rather the expression of the SSO), it seems to mean that publicly available expressions of the SSO should also be off limits.

Also, my understanding is that clean rooms are not strictly necessary to avoid copyright violation, they're just helpful in arguing the case. If the code is sufficiently different, then no infringement occurred, even if the code is written by the same person! There was some case president for this in software reverse engineering (clean room implementation not strictly followed, but code was non-infringing), but I seem to have lost my tab - maybe someone else knows the case?

Edit: I'm not saying Google should be in the clear here - they did copy the 7-line rangecheck function, as well as (portions?) of the headers. The header "copying" is where the SSO copyright comes in, as the functional portion of that code is necessarily identical, and would be identical if they had gone through a "translate to English and back again" or language scraping song and dance. And both of those are simply reexpression of the SSO, so it's not clear to me how they would avoid infringement.

Evil Fluffy posted:

It will be fair and free for (most) white people on some means.

Everyone else? Please look to NC and WI for a taste of what's to come for more of the country.

Kazak_Hstan posted:

Free expression is a thing in Germany despite their anti-Nazi laws.

So while it may very well not be doable under existing first amendment doctrine, and that may well be the right way to keep things, it's probably not correct to conclude that limiting the speech of nazis necessarily imperils everyone else's speech.

I think the better way to address this through the legal system is criminally. These events always feature armed people looking for a fight. Just apply judicious discretion in prosecution decisions. If you come to town wielding torches, clubs and ARs you're probably going to violate some laws. So instead of sitting back and doing nothing as in Charlottesville, arrest and prosecute nazis for everything possible.

Government discretion in charging decisions is given considerable deference.

It wouldn't even be a bad use of discretion enabled by an overly deferential jurisprudence. These people bring violence with them, it's their express goal, they are an actual menace to public safety. Threats like that are why we give discretion to law enforcement.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Are you asking the subway person to design an aesthetically unique sandwich just for you? Are you asking them to make a #3, but write "GOD LOVES/HATES FAGS" on it with mustard? Again, the bakery was willing to sell baked goods to the gay couple, so the "will not make a sandwich for a gay person" parallel is inappropriate. IMO, if conduct is sufficiently expressive that the government would not be allowed to censor it, then the government also should not be able to compel it. It's the difference between, "I want a #3 on wheat and a bag of chips" and "I want you to design and make a rainbow sub celebrating gay pride" or "write 'Christ is Lord above all others' in the mustard."

Xequecal posted:

Trump already has a Supreme Court list, he released it during his campaign as an actual campaign promise. He's simply going to nominate the youngest person on that list.

FronzelNeekburm posted:

He even has it on the White House site for reference.

Mr. Nice! posted:

Source your quotes.

Piell posted:

gently caress off with your rape apologism and victim blaming

Main Paineframe posted:

Ultimately, this is either going to be a turning point for the Democratic Party or the end of the Democratic Party. The conservative majority we're looking at now would ban abortion, declare the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional, and bring business regulations and labor law back to the Lochner era.

ilkhan posted:

Ignoring someone is equivalent to murdering someone? If I was on the Senate I would have voted for him, but the prior person in the office wasn't *murdered*.

Tab8715 posted:

So,

Add more judges or we need a constitutional convention.

The former being somewhat probable and latter extremely unlikely.