quote:

Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death. “For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,” Scalia wrote in a 1994 ruling. “How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!”

For Scalia, McCollum was the perfect example – a murderer whose actions were so heinous that his crimes stood as a testament to the merit of capital punishment itself.

Yesterday, McCollum was pardoned. Scalia’s perfect example of a man who deserved to be killed by the state was innocent.

emfive posted:

Why hasn't one of the goonier interns figured out how to send out the brief via quadcopter yet

Evil Fluffy posted:

Though the GOP ignoring Kennedy's own appointment is worth it for moments like last night's debate where the moderator basically shamed Cruz in to silence.

fourwood posted:

If you think the GOP is actually more scared of a Trump nom than an Obama/HRC nom then

Discendo Vox posted:

I feel that this product would benefit from cloud integration.

FlamingLiberal posted:

It's still amazing that in the Bush v Gore decision opinion they had to put a very clear note saying 'this is not precedent'. I know at least some of them regret getting involved.

Stultus Maximus posted:

Admiral Ray posted:

should get an Anarcho Primitivist on the court just for laughs

ilkhan posted:

I think, I have to think, that if a loony judge was murdered even the Republicans would nominate a Democrat to replace them and vice versa. I may be wrong, but I hope we never have to find out.

Brute Squad posted:

https://twitter.com/blippoblappo/status/1064996356153057282

Full opinon here: https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Jackson-v-Currier-Order.pdf

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Not just an rear end in a top hat but a dumb rear end in a top hat.

Sydin posted:

Thomas and Gorsuch are honest to god ideologues, it's just that said ideals line up with mainstream conservative ideology nine times out of ten. Meanwhile Alito and are indefensibly just GOP toadies who will gleefully twist the law any which way to satisfy their fascist masters. Roberts feels closer to the latter than the former, and I think if he wasn't chief justice he'd be almost indistinguishable from Alito but his weird obsession with the legacy of his court as non-partisan means he has a lot of rulings where he sides with the liberals on weird technicalities that let him write incredibly narrow decisions that end up with 4+ concurrence-in-part-and-dissent-in-part's.

Sydin posted:

Is the a requirement on ruling assignment being dolled out relatively evenly or is that just etiquette? Like in a hypothetical situation where you have eight justices who all just cannot loving stand the ninth, could they refuse forever to allow that justice to write a ruling?

Nystral posted:

Thomas and Alito are rumored to be quitting.

https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1278335639214272513?s=20

https://twitter.com/jennfranconews/status/1278365860311130112?s=20


https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1278337070310854656?s=20

Don't hold your breath or anything, but I wouldn't be shocked if Trump gets a third chance at replacing a candidate. And with our hellfucked Senate they'll still pass the nominee no matter what.

zzzzz posted:

Is it true the administration has told the Supreme Court they can pound sand in regards to their DACA decision?

There's not actually a way for the court to compel them to follow the court orders in the results of that case, is there?

Nonexistence posted:

Republicans haven't won a popular vote since '88, and 2016 was supposed to be a bigger slam dunk than 2020

Rust Martialis posted:

Maybe take longer than 10 seconds next time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Democrat

"In addition to the New Democrat Coalition, which represents the moderate wing, the Blue Dog Coalition represents conservative Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives."

Or, using the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition to answer questions like '
How were the Blue Dogs seen when they had power in the Clinton era?'

"In the early years of the caucus, the Blue Dogs were viewed by some as the political successors to a Southern Democratic group known as the Boll Weevils.[37][38] The Boll Weevils may, in turn, be considered the descendants of the Dixiecrats and the "states' rights" Democrats of the 1940s through the 1960s, and even the Bourbon Democrats of the late 19th century."

Or the list of former Blue Dogs who jumped ship to the GOP.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Blue_Dog_Coalition

In short, for most of it's existence, the term "Blue Dog" meant a *conservative* Democrat.

Now the current group is different, but again, considering the current group apparently " professes an independence from the leadership of both parties" (wikipedia again). I'm not quite sure this would really describe Feinstein, who in any event is ineligible as a Senator.

Seriously, from 1995 to today, calling someone a bluedog didn't mean "centrist". Again, Wikipedia:

"The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995[9][10][11] during the 104th Congress to give members from the Democratic Party representing conservative-leaning districts a unified voice after the Democrats’ loss of Congress in the 1994 Republican Revolution.[12]"

But yeah, sure, ignore the origin and history of the term so it only means centrist now, okay.

NaanViolence posted:

Actually that poster is correct and you're being extremely petty.

haveblue posted:

McConnell doesn't need to leave the Senate to lose power, if he becomes the minority leader through other republicans getting knocked out he loses most of his ability to obstruct

GreyjoyBastard posted:

in a 5-4 decision I barely decided not to give you a (comedy? ??) probation for this

Groovelord Neato posted:

They are taxed though. Undocumented immigrants can get Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers.

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/LambdaLegal/status/1329838435159470098

At first I was real confused because how could a medical procedure be defined as free speech? Then I remembered what conversion therapy was.

Nonexistence posted:

What was the legitimate purpose of presidential pardons ever even supposed to be?

Some Guy TT posted:

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1375409580642033673

Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 7 (2020) posted:

"Mentally incapacitated” means that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person’s agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

"Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions". Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Piell posted:

Those Alito D numbers are insane, he is by far the worst justice

FAUXTON posted:

why are they trying to raise cattle in california, the entire upper middle of the country is a giant grazing pasture

e: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Irrigation_and_WaterManagement.pdf the difference in irrigation use is pretty shocking

FAUXTON posted:

this is a really neat listen so far and a bunch of the other episodes look super interesting, but as an answer to my question this episode doesn't seem to directly address why california uses five times the water per acre as loving nebraska but houses a third as many beef cattle unless it's just jawdropping mismanagement driven by pastoral romanticism

like I'm not sure it all can be chalked up to bay area coders taking a break from their weekday engineer cosplay to engage in a weekend session of horny cowboy cosplay