SCOTAL Itch - Page 47

beyelzu · #**1151** 09-11-2023, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

Placing the case in the context of the broader fake-Christian-business cases brought by the ADF.

The Supreme Court's fake praying coach case just got faker.

Til that shottlebop has me on ignore.

I also found the discussion about ADF very illuminating.

Quote:

ADF has a history of relying on shady or fictional clients as an excuse to get into court, as Supreme Court litigator Adam Unikowsky has documented. In 2019, ADF claimed to represent a calligraphy company that refused to make wedding invitations for same-sex couples (though it was never asked). The company emerged shortly before ADF filed a lawsuit on its behalf, and disappeared shortly after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in its favor. Its website was then taken over by an Indonesian casino. ADF also represented a supposed videography company in Minnesota, Telescope Media Group, that did not want to film weddings for same-sex couples. (You guessed it: None ever asked.) In 2019, an appeals court issued a preliminary injunction granting it the right to discriminate.

Rather than throw in the towel, Minnesota decided to pursue its hunch that Telescope Media Group was, essentially, not real. It sought discovery that would, among other things, reveal the company’s origins and ongoing business practices, if they existed. ADF abruptly moved to dismiss the case, stating (for the first time) that Telescope Media had pivoted away from wedding videos (it’s unclear if they ever even filmed one). Minnesota resisted, declaring its intent to test ADF’s “highly fanciful allegations” and prove that the group had taken “advantage of the judicial system” and now wished to “avoid the merits of this case.” ADF was so desperate to dodge discovery that it then moved to dismiss the case with prejudice, formally killing it—despite the fact that ADF had won once and was almost guaranteed to win again. Due to this desperate maneuver, the ADF lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees. This was done, seemingly, to avoid any more facts coming out about the true nature of its client’s business.

This is some seriously damning shit imo.

ShottleBop · #**1152** 10-04-2023, 02:34 PM

The Court is off the rails---and the ADF is their flagman.

The Supreme Court's conservatives can't stop falling for phony plaintiffs.

ShottleBop · #**1153** 10-04-2023, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

Placing the case in the context of the broader fake-Christian-business cases brought by the ADF.

The Supreme Court's fake praying coach case just got faker.

Til that shottlebop has me on ignore.

I also found the discussion about ADF very illuminating.

Quote:

ADF has a history of relying on shady or fictional clients as an excuse to get into court, as Supreme Court litigator Adam Unikowsky has documented. In 2019, ADF claimed to represent a calligraphy company that refused to make wedding invitations for same-sex couples (though it was never asked). The company emerged shortly before ADF filed a lawsuit on its behalf, and disappeared shortly after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in its favor. Its website was then taken over by an Indonesian casino. ADF also represented a supposed videography company in Minnesota, Telescope Media Group, that did not want to film weddings for same-sex couples. (You guessed it: None ever asked.) In 2019, an appeals court issued a preliminary injunction granting it the right to discriminate.

Rather than throw in the towel, Minnesota decided to pursue its hunch that Telescope Media Group was, essentially, not real. It sought discovery that would, among other things, reveal the company’s origins and ongoing business practices, if they existed. ADF abruptly moved to dismiss the case, stating (for the first time) that Telescope Media had pivoted away from wedding videos (it’s unclear if they ever even filmed one). Minnesota resisted, declaring its intent to test ADF’s “highly fanciful allegations” and prove that the group had taken “advantage of the judicial system” and now wished to “avoid the merits of this case.” ADF was so desperate to dodge discovery that it then moved to dismiss the case with prejudice, formally killing it—despite the fact that ADF had won once and was almost guaranteed to win again. Due to this desperate maneuver, the ADF lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees. This was done, seemingly, to avoid any more facts coming out about the true nature of its client’s business.

This is some seriously damning shit imo.

I don't have ANYONE on ignore. I just don't always read an entire thread (or every thread), and sometimes miss something someone has said.

JoeP · #**1154** 10-04-2023, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

I don't have ANYONE on ignore.

I just don't always read an entire thread (or every thread), and sometimes miss something someone has said.

Which of these confessions is the more heinous, I wonder.

beyelzu · #**1155** 10-26-2023, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Justice Longdong Silver loves to talk about how he is an every man riding around in his R.V.

The R.V. is a Marathon that retailed for a million dollars. It’s super luxury.

Quote:

His Prevost Marathon cost $267,230, according to title history records obtained by The New York Times. And Justice Thomas, who in the ensuing years would tell friends how he had scrimped and saved to afford the motor coach, did not buy it on his own. In fact, the purchase was underwritten, at least in part, by Anthony Welters, a close friend who made his fortune in the health care industry.

He provided Justice Thomas with financing that experts said a bank would have been unlikely to extend — not only because Justice Thomas was already carrying a lot of debt, but because the Marathon brand’s high level of customization makes its used motor coaches difficult to value.

In an email to The Times, Mr. Welters wrote: “Here is what I can share. Twenty-five years ago, I loaned a friend money, as I have other friends and family. We’ve all been on one side or the other of that equation. He used it to buy a recreational vehicle, which is a passion of his.” Roughly nine years later, “the loan was satisfied,” Mr. Welters added. He subsequently sent The Times a photograph of the original title bearing his signature and a handwritten “lien release” date of Nov. 22, 2008.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/u...y-welters.html

When someone uses language like the the loan was satisfied, it’s because it wasn’t paid back.

Surprising no one.

Quote:

At the time of the loan, Thomas said in a handwritten note on his Supreme Court letterhead that agreements to pay interest of 7.5% a year and repay the money in five years, the report says. In 2004, the time to repay the loan was extended until 2014.

Documents voluntarily provided by Welters to the committee show that he forgave the loan in 2008, the report says. Welters gave the committee a copy of just one payment of $20,042 that Thomas made, in 2000.

“Welters forgave the balance of the loan to Thomas in recognition of the payments made by Thomas which Welters characterized as interest only payments that exceeded the amount of the original loan,” the report says. Nine years of interest-only payments would total roughly $180,000, considerably less than the loan amount. Welters did not explain the discrepancy.

Most of Justice Clarence Thomasâ€™ RV loan forgiven, report says | AP News

beyelzu · #**1156** 10-26-2023, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

Placing the case in the context of the broader fake-Christian-business cases brought by the ADF.

The Supreme Court's fake praying coach case just got faker.

Til that shottlebop has me on ignore.

I also found the discussion about ADF very illuminating.

Quote:

ADF has a history of relying on shady or fictional clients as an excuse to get into court, as Supreme Court litigator Adam Unikowsky has documented. In 2019, ADF claimed to represent a calligraphy company that refused to make wedding invitations for same-sex couples (though it was never asked). The company emerged shortly before ADF filed a lawsuit on its behalf, and disappeared shortly after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in its favor. Its website was then taken over by an Indonesian casino. ADF also represented a supposed videography company in Minnesota, Telescope Media Group, that did not want to film weddings for same-sex couples. (You guessed it: None ever asked.) In 2019, an appeals court issued a preliminary injunction granting it the right to discriminate.

Rather than throw in the towel, Minnesota decided to pursue its hunch that Telescope Media Group was, essentially, not real. It sought discovery that would, among other things, reveal the company’s origins and ongoing business practices, if they existed. ADF abruptly moved to dismiss the case, stating (for the first time) that Telescope Media had pivoted away from wedding videos (it’s unclear if they ever even filmed one). Minnesota resisted, declaring its intent to test ADF’s “highly fanciful allegations” and prove that the group had taken “advantage of the judicial system” and now wished to “avoid the merits of this case.” ADF was so desperate to dodge discovery that it then moved to dismiss the case with prejudice, formally killing it—despite the fact that ADF had won once and was almost guaranteed to win again. Due to this desperate maneuver, the ADF lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees. This was done, seemingly, to avoid any more facts coming out about the true nature of its client’s business.

This is some seriously damning shit imo.

I don't have ANYONE on ignore. I just don't always read an entire thread (or every thread), and sometimes miss something someone has said.

Yeah, I was joking. I thought so and so had me on ignore is a common joke.

I assumed that you didn’t read my post.

Sorry for the confusion

Stephen Maturin · #**1157** 11-08-2023, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Here's one that might not make it to SCOTUS. This here shitburger was a true prince among men:

Quote:

Between December 2020 and January 2021, [Shitburger] was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas. On December 1, after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, [Shitburger] was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car. On December 22, [Shitburger] shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, [Shitburger] fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant. (Footnote omitted.)

Shitburger got tagged with a bunch of state law crimes, but was also tried and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which criminalizes possession of a firearm by anyone subject to a court order prohibiting actual, attempted or threatened use of physical force against an intimate partner, where the order includes a finding that the dirtbag poses a credible threat to the intimate partner's physical safety. At the time of Shitburger's above-referenced hijinx, he was subject to a protective order entered in favor of his ex-girlfriend and their child, and order that everyone agreed fell within the parameters of the federal statute.

But no, sez a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Per the majority opinion penned by St. Clarence of Pubis last term, the above-cited federal statute violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional on its face because that statute's firearm possession ban "is an 'outlier[] that our ancestors would never have accepted.'" Cuz the Framers were all about having easy access to the means for shooting uppity bitches, I guess.

Along the way, the court told us that we can safely disregard all those references in Heller and Bruen to "law-abiding, responsible" gun owners. SCOTUS didn't actually mean that shit.

The journey toward "While theoretically possible, reality provides exactly zero examples of a constitutional firearm regulation" continues apace.

The only reason SCOTUS might not take this case is that the Court of Appeals reached the "right" result. However, the wingers on the high court might conclude that the opinion below in insufficiently broad and take the case just to drive a larger stake into the hearts of firearm regulation. Traditional rules regarding restraint mean little to the current clown show.

Before we get to end-of-term shenanigans, let us note that Court has indeed agreed to review the above-referenced Fifth Circuit decision. In saner times, that might be cause for celebration.

Trying to predict the outcome of cases based on questions asked during oral argument is something of a fool's errand, but hey, "[d]uring just over 90 minutes of oral argument on Tuesday, a majority of the justices seemed wary of the consequences of allowing a ruling by a federal appeals court that struck down the law to stand." The fact that the clown claiming a narrowly-tailored federal statute violates his Second Amendment rights is a dangerous, sociopathic piece of shit doesn't exactly hurt the cause of sanity here.

Stephen Maturin · #**1158** 11-13-2023, 10:33 PM

Lolyers are having way too good a time skewering SCOTUS's new ethics code.

seebs · #**1159** 11-13-2023, 11:56 PM

Ken White is having a blast, making posts like this:

Quote:

A Justice may attend, and speak at, conferences of prominent legal organizations, but should avoid joining chants that might indicate partiality, including but not limited to “Lock Her Up” and “Jews Will Not Replace Us.”

It's Me! · #**1160** 11-14-2023, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Lolyers are having way too good a time skewering SCOTUS's new ethics code.

Should we, or shall we, have a good time?

Ari · #**1161** 01-17-2024, 04:19 AM

Supreme Court Goes Woke! **drudge Bells here**
Rejecting the appeal without comment and allowing the lower court's ruling to stand trans kids can use the bathroom of their chosen gender.

US supreme court won't hear case over bathrooms for transgender students | US supreme court | The Guardian

viscousmemories · #**1162** 01-26-2024, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Chevron deference came under attack early on from a variety of sources, and has p. much no chance of surviving the current SCOTUS majority. They could have shitcanned the doctrine in AHA v. Becerra, but didn't. By leaving Chevron alone in that case, the Court reached a unanimous decision. For next term, keep an eye on Loper Bright Enters., Inc. v. Raimondo, where the fate of Chevron is directly at issue.

Just a little bump since the case has now been argued.

Stephen Maturin · #**1163** 02-26-2024, 10:55 PM

Quote:

I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story.

~ Crystal Clanton, former National Field Director for Turning Point USA, Antonin Scalia School of Law (ASSLaw) grad, and recently-hired Clarence Thomas law clerk for the 2024-25 Supreme Court term.

It is, of course, a match made in heaven seeing as how ol' Clarence hates black people as well.

ChuckF · #**1164** 02-26-2024, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Chevron deference came under attack early on from a variety of sources, and has p. much no chance of surviving the current SCOTUS majority. They could have shitcanned the doctrine in AHA v. Becerra, but didn't. By leaving Chevron alone in that case, the Court reached a unanimous decision. For next term, keep an eye on Loper Bright Enters., Inc. v. Raimondo, where the fate of Chevron is directly at issue.

Just a little bump since the case has now been argued.

If oral argument is any indication, the probably very bad outcome of Loper will likely affect my practice in wildly unpredictable aways, depending on whatever weakass post hoc shit they stand up in place of Chevron. (I mean, in fairness, it will affect BASICALLY EVERYTHING in wildly unpredictable ways). I'm hoping that they will chicken out and adopt a narrower position based on statutory construction.

But narrow rulings based on statutory construction canons are not what the free luxury RVs are for.

seebs · #**1165** 02-27-2024, 01:47 AM

Clarence Thomas Announces 50% Discount On All Favorable Rulings (The Onion)

Stephen Maturin · #**1166** 02-27-2024, 07:54 PM

Just in case anyone missed it, John Oliver offered ol' Clarence $1 million per year (good until Thomas or Oliver dies, whichever happens first) plus a $2.4 million motor coach to quit SCOTUS.

specious_reasons · #**1167** 03-04-2024, 05:29 PM

Reposting this from the "Good King Trump" thread:

Unsurprisingly, the SCOTUS punted on the issue, possibly making an even worse decision. Since when do the 6 conservative SC members think the states don't have the right to manage their own elections? They, of course, didn't rule on insurrection.

Supreme Court rejects attempts to ban Trump from 2024 ballot | AP News

Quote:

The justices sidestepped the politically fraught issue of insurrection in their opinions Monday.

The court held that states may bar candidates from state office. “But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the court wrote.

While all nine justices agreed that Trump should be on the ballot, there was sharp disagreement from the three liberal members of the court and a milder disagreement from conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett that their colleagues went too far in determining what Congress must do to disqualify someone from federal office.

LarsMac · #**1168** 03-04-2024, 10:04 PM

Pretty much what I expected to happen.
I thought it too early to open THAT can of worms.
The left and center folks are going to have to just get off their ass and vote in the election to keep him out of the office, and then nail his ass on the insurrection next year, after the inauguration. Hopefully, they can clean out some of the Rethuglican sludge in congress in the process.

Failing that, next year is going to be really friggin' ugly.

JoeP · #**1169** 03-05-2024, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Hopefully, they can clean out some of the Rethuglican sludge in congress in the process.

you might even call this "draining the swamp"

specious_reasons · #**1170** 04-25-2024, 08:59 PM

Supreme Court will decide if Trump has immunity in election case | AP News

Anyone following this?

From the snippets I heard and the discussion I followed so far, a majority of justices are skeptical about absolute immunity. However, I think the only justice that indicates she doesn’t believe in any form of immunity is Justice Jackson. I think anything less than a 9-0 vote that the President has no immunity from prosecution is a fucking tragedy.

I am prepared to be disappointed.

Ari · #**1171** 04-25-2024, 09:36 PM

I presume they will give Trump every chance possible to weasel his way out while also not coming down on the side that allows Biden to be a dictator, and that they will rule the president isn't immune but oh shucks the cases against Trump just can't happen before the election. If he wins there will be some excuse as to why it cancels or delays them another four years.

Although there's no reason behind this besides that the only thing I trust about the current court is that they will protect their own asses/RVs.

specious_reasons · #**1172** 04-26-2024, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ari

I presume they will give Trump every chance possible to weasel his way out while also not coming down on the side that allows Biden to be a dictator, and that they will rule the president isn't immune but oh shucks the cases against Trump just can't happen before the election. If he wins there will be some excuse as to why it cancels or delays them another four years.

Although there's no reason behind this besides that the only thing I trust about the current court is that they will protect their own asses/RVs.

I personally think they'll damage their already tarnished reputation if it's anything less than 9-0 no immunity, and I'll bet that they can't get there.

LarsMac · #**1173** 04-26-2024, 05:04 AM

I've got to believe that they will understand the consequences of this decision and realize that this is going to define their legacy for as long as the nation, or whatever grows from it, exists.

Stephen Maturin · #**1174** 04-26-2024, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think anything less than a 9-0 vote that the President has no immunity from prosecution is a fucking tragedy.

My favorite Supreme Court journalists, Amy Howe and Lyle Denniston, are convinced that the Court will not bitch-slap this case down the judicial shithole where it belongs.

This one appears destined for shitshow status, you guys. I'll set the over/under on the number of opinions we'll see at 5.5. Place your bets!

specious_reasons · #**1175** 04-26-2024, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think anything less than a 9-0 vote that the President has no immunity from prosecution is a fucking tragedy.

My favorite Supreme Court journalists, Amy Howe and Lyle Denniston, are convinced that the Court will not bitch-slap this case down the judicial shithole where it belongs.

This one appears destined for shitshow status, you guys. I'll set the over/under on the number of opinions we'll see at 5.5. Place your bets!

I was going to bet 4, but then I realized the more liberal wing will vote no immunity as a block and Justice Roberts will write the "deciding" opinion. That leave 5 justices, and will all have their shitty opinions. 5.5 is a good number.