|
|
07-01-2019, 09:57 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
The Notorious RBG and GoSucks wrote separate dissents in that case, bey. Both opinions are very good, and there's some overlap, but apparently neither could stomach the idea of signing onto the other's opinion, even in part.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
08-20-2019, 03:54 AM
|
|
Shitpost Sommelier
|
|
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Found what happens when a creep like Kavanaugh's a judge:
Thrad.
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
|
04-01-2020, 05:20 AM
|
|
Shitpost Sommelier
|
|
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
|
04-01-2020, 06:04 AM
|
|
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Quote:
Alternatively, in a formulation I prefer, one can imagine an illiberal legalism that is not “conservative” at all, insofar as standard conservatism is content to play defensively within the procedural rules of the liberal order.
|
Yeah, that's just nakedly partisan. It is especially disingenuous because the originalists have long argued that they want the aims that the liberal justices want but are hemmed in by the original meaning. Originalists appealed to the objective truth of the original meaning(not that it was objective or even true necessarily, but they did pretend.)
also if you use the term civilized legal systems
Quote:
the law of nations or the “general law” common to all civilized legal systems
|
Youre almost certainly a racist fucktard.
|
04-02-2020, 09:59 PM
|
|
Stoic Derelict... The cup is empty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
This judge sent a nastygram to Roberts, saying he's hanging up his robe cause he don't like the way the Supremes roll anymore. He's not mincing any words. There are elements of the letter that are beyond my narrow scope of familiarity (ripping off Disturbed), but the general thrust of the missive is perfectly deducible from context.
Judge James Dannenberg writes John Roberts a letter resigning from the Supreme Court Bar.
The whole thing is quotable but this may be the salient point.
Quote:
Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.
It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.
|
It's pleasing that the blatant right wing activism of the court draws the publicly declared objection of one with the stature and position within the legal structure such as Judge Dannenberg.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
|
04-02-2020, 10:10 PM
|
|
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Quote:
Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.
|
I like this part.
edited to add: I even learned the word casuistry which is like sophistry especially for moral reasoning.
|
Thanks, from:
|
Crumb (04-02-2020), JoeP (04-03-2020), Kamilah Hauptmann (04-02-2020), lisarea (04-03-2020), slimshady2357 (04-03-2020), Sock Puppet (04-08-2020), SR71 (04-02-2020), Stephen Maturin (04-03-2020), The Lone Ranger (04-05-2020), The Man (04-15-2020), viscousmemories (05-14-2020)
|
04-15-2020, 08:31 AM
|
|
Shitpost Sommelier
|
|
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
|
04-20-2020, 06:45 PM
|
|
Shitpost Sommelier
|
|
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
|
05-12-2020, 05:58 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann
|
SCOTUS held oral argument today in Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, and Great Fucking Googly Moogly, what a shitacular shitshow it was! The rapey alcoholic manbaby earned his keep, whining about "limiting principles" and the horrible injustice inherent in requiring a president to disclose "personal" information using "too low a standard." This is the shithead who cornered a 22-year-old intern and threatened to imprison her mother unless she cooperated fully. And he didn't seem all that concerned with "limiting principles" when his crew drew blood from a sitting POTUS to get DNA to compare with jizz on that blue dress.
And yes, Kavanaugh whines and snivels from the bench p. much exactly as he did while testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On a lulzier note, Thomas actually participated in the argument. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lone wolf opinion from him explaining how Congress has no investigative authority of any kind.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
05-12-2020, 06:19 PM
|
|
A Very Gentle Bort
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bortlandia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Quote:
Thomas actually participated in the argument
|
__________________
\V/_ I COVLD TEACh YOV BVT I MVST LEVY A FEE
|
05-14-2020, 03:59 AM
|
|
Stoic Derelict... The cup is empty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
What might be the timeframe for decisions on those cases?
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
|
05-14-2020, 08:41 AM
|
|
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
This aint Scotal yet, but it might end up being
Well, it's Wscotal at this point.
Quote:
While lockdown orders meant to quell the pandemic have been challenged in court in several states, the decision in Wisconsin marked the first such lawsuit to succeed in a larger political debate over social distancing that has grown increasingly partisan.
At stake in Wisconsin was a "Safer at Home" order that had been extended through May 26 by the state's secretary for the Department of Health Services, Andrea Palm, acting at the direction of Governor Tony Evers.
The court ruled that while Evers, a first-term Democrat, possesses emergency powers as governor, the stay-at-home directive was effectively imposed by Palm, whose discretion as a political appointee is more limited.
"We further conclude that Palm's order confining all people to their homes, forbidding travel and closing businesses exceeded the statutory authority ... upon which Palm claims to rely," the court said.
|
How the fuck does this make sense?
Quote:
And while the stay-at-home order was declared unlawful by the court's majority, Roggensack wrote, without explanation, that schools would remain closed.
|
https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-suprem...r-home-order-0
especially with this bit, if the order is void, motherfuckers, the order is fucking void.
Quote:
"Now that the decision has been rendered, we are confident Wisconsin citizens are up to the task of fighting the virus as we enter a new phase," said Vos and Fitzgerald. "Wisconsin now joins multiple states that don't have extensive ‘stay at home orders’ but can continue to follow good practices of social distancing, hand washing, hand sanitizer usage and telecommuting."
|
OH sure, yall only want to the freedom to be fucking stupid, but you can be trusted with it.
smh
Last edited by beyelzu; 05-14-2020 at 09:16 AM.
|
05-14-2020, 08:28 PM
|
|
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
One of the Republican justices also compared the stay at home order to... Japanese internment during WW2. Staying at home and socially distancing is indeed very similar to being shipped hundreds of miles away from your home and forced to live in a cramped camp with hundreds of other people.
And also said that an outbreak in a meatpacking plant didn't matter so much because it wasn't spreading among "regular folks".
|
Thanks, from:
|
Ari (05-14-2020), beyelzu (05-14-2020), BrotherMan (05-15-2020), JoeP (05-14-2020), Kamilah Hauptmann (05-15-2020), Kyuss Apollo (05-18-2020), lisarea (05-14-2020), maddog (05-14-2020), slimshady2357 (05-14-2020), SR71 (05-14-2020), Stephen Maturin (05-15-2020), The Man (05-14-2020), viscousmemories (05-20-2020)
|
05-16-2020, 04:03 PM
|
|
Stoic Derelict... The cup is empty
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Quote:
Originally Posted by SR71
What might be the timeframe for decisions on those cases?
|
Decisions to be posted on Mondays at 10:00 AM until they're all finished, which may be July?
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
|
05-30-2020, 05:08 AM
|
|
happy now, Mussolini?
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: location, location
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
|
05-30-2020, 06:32 AM
|
|
Shitpost Sommelier
|
|
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
|
05-31-2020, 02:08 AM
|
|
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
It really is absurd that the ruling was 5-4, it's like GoSucks, Uncle Thomas, Scalito, and the Serial Sexual Assaulter were just that pissed off that religion was declared inessential.
It's especially bizarre give the super spreading events we are seeing coming out of churches.
|
05-31-2020, 05:30 AM
|
|
A Very Gentle Bort
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bortlandia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
And it's moronic, really. The judgement isn't that RELIGION(s) are not important. GATHERING PEOPLE INTO BUILDINGS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME IN CLOSE PROXIMITY IS GETTING PEOPLE SICK AND DEAD. "Church" is just the incidental building in which people are, no pun honest, congregating.
AND I'M JUST A COUNTRY MORON. How can I figure this out?
__________________
\V/_ I COVLD TEACh YOV BVT I MVST LEVY A FEE
|
06-16-2020, 05:24 AM
|
|
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Quote:
“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling.
|
awesome
Quote:
The decision was both symbolic and consequential, and it followed in the tradition of landmark rulings on discrimination. Unlike Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that said racially segregated public schools violated the Constitution; Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision that struck down bans on interracial marriage; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, the new decision did not involve constitutional rights.
Instead, the question for the justices was the meaning of a statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex. They had to decide whether that last prohibition — discrimination “because of sex” — applies to many millions of gay and transgender workers.
Justice Gorsuch wrote that it did.
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” he wrote.
“It is impossible,” Justice Gorsuch wrote, “to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/u...eme-court.html
|
06-16-2020, 05:44 AM
|
|
Shitpost Sommelier
|
|
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Looks like they got those justices who won’t legislate from the bench after all. Poor Kushner trying to explain to his fil that he can’t fire a judge.
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
|
06-16-2020, 06:07 AM
|
|
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
So many social conservative tears, made all the more sweet by the fact that GorSUCK (as many of them now call him) was appointed by Trump.
I, for one, would be incredibly owned if evangelical conservatives decided to stay home.
|
06-16-2020, 06:16 AM
|
|
Shitpost Sommelier
|
|
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
I’m not gloating YOU’RE gloating.
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
|
06-16-2020, 01:48 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020).
Gorsuch is indeed a dyed-in-the-wool textualist in matters of statutory interpretation. The words in the statute are all Congress votes on and all the President signs into law, so they're all the courts can use. Doesn't matter what anyone did or did not "intend." Doesn't matter what's in any congressional committee report on the legislation. Doesn't matter what some grandstanding dipshit said about the statute during debate in the Senate. All that matters is what the statute actually does, and that's found within the four corners of the text.
Bostock suggests that Gorsuch will apply textualism is a principled way, going where the analysis leads rather than manipulating the analysis to generate a wingnut outcome. The approach will generate "conservative" outcomes much of the time, but not this time.
Down the road, the most significant aspect of Bostock may be that Gorsuch got Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan to sign on to his brand of statutory analysis.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
06-16-2020, 03:46 PM
|
|
Solipsist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kolmannessa kerroksessa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
I, for one, would be incredibly owned if evangelical conservatives decided to stay home.
|
Me too. I would cry so many liberal tears.
|
06-25-2020, 12:12 AM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ypsilanti, Mi
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: SCOTAL Itch
This isn't SCOTAL but ever since I saw the PBS Frontline special "Supreme Justice" I've been paying more attention to that shitstain McConnell spraying his mark all over the judicial system and it makes me so fucking angry! I used to be an "average American" so I can assure you most citizens don't even pay attention to Congress at all, much less to some random Senator from Kentucky. And I suspect most don't pay close enough attention to the judicial to know that federal judges are appointed for life.
News | Senate confirms 200th judicial nominee from Trump, a legacy that will last well beyond November - The Washington Post
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 PM.
|
|
|
|