Likes: 
Faceplams: I think there's a less aware vein of the left without a concept of the libertarian party that could think this way, but exposing libertarians as ultra conservative is pretty simpleOriginally Posted by Jinsai
BADGERS
I think there's a less aware vein of the left without a concept of the libertarian party that could think this way, but exposing libertarians as ultra conservative is pretty simple
Bored
CNN got their grabby hands on a copy of Mary Trump' book and holy shit. She says, amongst other things, that he paid another student to take his SAT in his place. Because of course he did, he's a fucking moron!
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/polit...ump/index.html
I so need that book!
Administrator
maddow read the entire book yesterday and then shared excerpts on her show. spoiler alert: trump is a liar.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Active Member
how I imagine her reading it:
tempus est umbra in mente
so about this SCOTUS ruling regarding birth control... am I just profoundly missing something? Why do people have a religious objection to birth control? Isn't the big problem abortion?
Please tell me I'm not being incredibly stupid, or that I've been misunderstanding something profoundly. We are talking about the stuff that prevents abortion from being an issue right? The thing that stops pregnancy from happening? Because... Please tell me I'm not crazy, but shouldn't religious people WANT everyone who doesn't want a baby to use birth control?!
Active Member
The religious right wants women to stay virgins until they're married.
It's not about reproduction (even the abortion debate), it never has been. It's always been about controlling women's sexuality.
Administrator
it’s pretty stupid since birth control is really hormone control. the idea that any employer thinks they’re paying for birth control as opposed to health care is selfish. do they want pregnant employees? birth control is way less expensive than prenatal care and hospital birth. also, if health benefits weren’t tied to employment, this wouldn’t be an issue. everything is fucked. thanks for coming to my ted talk.
eta: reproductive care is healthcare.
Active Member
RA-MEN ROPPAI
Sex is supposed to be for intimacy and reproduction only. Birth control is a way to have sex for pleasure.
It's more or less about control, though, as eskimo pointed out.
Active Member
Supreme Court goes against Trump in tax return records. Should be an interesting day.
https://twitter.com/JimmyHooverDC/status/1281230531842256896?s=20
FATUM NOS IUNGET
there will be tweets
Active Member
Active Member
Active Member
Never mind, joy deflated a bit now that there's analysis. I mean I'm still happy he got this decision against him - and the way it happened - but this punt blunts a lot of that. What's funny is that a punt was expected by me so this hurts a little more because of the initial excitement.
So in conclusion no testing = lower numbers. I couldn't pull the joke about highs and lows out of that phrase so suss it yourself.
Bite me
It’s about MONEY. MONEY. A plan that covers hormones in any form (which is ridiculously expensive AND SHOULDN’T BE, BECAUSE IT’S BEEN AROUND FOR OVER 35 YEARS) costs insurance companies and therefore employers more money. And it’s bundled in with a package plan. They want to reduce costs, and women’s costs have ALWAYS been on the chopping block.
Maternity costs will be next for these “pro Life” assholes; they’ll move to make employees pay for most or all of it.
The last two SCOTUS rulings re religion (schools, insurance) just reinforces my belief that the U.S. Constitution must be amended to provide that churches must pay taxes. If they want representation by the government and the SCOTUS, then they must have taxation.
Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. Churches should pay a varying percentage based on a set formula. Also all not-for-profits.
Last edited by allegro; 07-09-2020 at 11:26 AM.
Bite me
I disagree that this is a "punt."
Never mind, joy deflated a bit now that there's analysis. I mean I'm still happy he got this decision against him - and the way it happened - but this punt blunts a lot of that. What's funny is that a punt was expected by me so this hurts a little more because of the initial excitement.
So in conclusion no testing = lower numbers. I couldn't pull the joke about highs and lows out of that phrase so suss it yourself.
This is a Constitutional win. It clearly says that nobody is above the law, including Presidents.
The SDNY will now obtain Trump's financial records from Mazars for the grand jury. No, that won't immediately be "public," but the underlying message is VERY important, and Trump's own SCOTUS pick, Justice Kavanaugh, wrote that nobody is above the law, including the President. This is gonna make Trump NUTS.
Re the second ruling, this is actually good because it limits the scope and it sets a road map as to how Congress can obtain what it wants. This is also important because, in the future, a Republican Congress couldn't relentlessly harass a Democrat President in retribution for Trump. There has to be good "reason," which the Court today spelled out, as is easily identifiable with Trump. Will it be accomplished during the election season? Actually, it might be.
I was nobody. Nothing.
i, too, think it's fucking great that "trump's" judges voted against him. I'd imagine he's fucking BAFFLED.
Personally, I don't think Congress will get the records before November, but this DEFINITELY gives Biden more ammunition to say "seriously, what in the FUCK are you hiding? Note that I'M not hiding SHIT."
But, yeah, especially thrilled that both trump appointed judges chose the fucking LAW over loyalty, and trump is all about, well, trump, and loyalty to trump.
I fucking guarantee you that if trump could fire those judges and replace them, like he does with his cabinet, it'd be done by tomorrow.
I'm imagining someone having had to explain to him that, "no, donny, you can't do that. This isn't like building the wall. No, we're sorry. You can't change these things with executive orders. No, donny, you can't sue SCOTUS, either."
Last edited by elevenism; 07-09-2020 at 07:05 PM.
Active Member
Bite me
No. Supreme Court Justices don’t do this shit. Their decisions aren’t based on politics. They’re based on legal interpretations.
Even opinions I disagree with or dislike, I still understand the majority of them because they are based on solid case law; it’s just a conservative (or strict textual) view vs. a broad and stretched view.
Ruling in favor of Trump’s travel ban; it makes sense if you read the opinion, as much as we hate Trump, and the idea of the ban. It’s not the Court’s job to judge morality. The ban had already been in place for most of the countries on the list with the prior administration; the Judicial cannot overrule the Executive unless there is really good reason. They can’t set precedent. It has either a very liberal or conservative view as to what that precedent should or shouldn’t be. Really, go spend a few days in a law library reading SCOTUS opinions, including dissents. The BEST way is via the hardcover issues of United States Reports.
Sure, there are decisions that are based on solid case law that still piss me off, because I disagree with the interpretation of the facts and the presentation of the particular case law. But, it still doesn’t make any of it “political.”
The best decision today was McGirt v Oklahoma.
Last edited by allegro; 07-09-2020 at 11:43 PM.
Bite me
The cognitive test he’s talking about is one where you have to be pretty fucked up to flunk it.
Last edited by allegro; 07-09-2020 at 11:45 PM.
BADGERS
Probably helps that, after becoming a supreme court judge there's basically no where else to go for the rest of your life. Not a job they have to fight to hold on to, no one to really impress.
Bite me
The vast majority of law is interpretation. (Scalia and RBG were best pals.)
I’ve been in law for 30 years, as a certificated paralegal. Interpretation is my favorite aspect of law. Very little of law is not subject to some level of interpretation. It’s why every contract contains a preamble of definitions, which is particularly helpful for interpretation if it goes to litigation.
This is no different than any other form of literature; the argument is valid, so long as it is supported by the text.
It’s no secret that most J.D.s have their undergraduate degrees in English or English Literature. I have a B.A. in the latter.
Yes, the dissents are often the most important portions of the opinions. Entire books have been written about SCOTUS dissents.
For example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/b...i-urofsky.html
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3209791-i-dissent
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...calia_Dissents
Last edited by allegro; 07-10-2020 at 02:25 AM.
Bite me
Yup. I got mine from Loyola University Chicago. A certificate is post-baccalaureate, in an ABA-approved law program.
That is opposed to “certified” - which does not require any education; you just take a test. The former is more valuable than the latter. Certificated is a dumb-looking verb but it’s used in law to differentiate between the two levels, since they are totally different (one signifies graduate-level education, one requires no education at all).
Qualified immunity has been supported by the liberal SCOTUS justices, as well. It must be removed via legislation. It’s stupid.
Of course, my favorite author is Dickens. :-)
No more SCOTUS decisions until next year.
Last edited by allegro; 07-10-2020 at 02:47 AM.
Bite me
Yes, it requires strict scrutiny in stare decisis. This is intended to protect public employees from personal liability, otherwise there might not ever be any public employees. (That’s the basis if it, anyway.)
FWIW, Justice Thomas hates the qualified immunity doctrine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib...omas-dissents/
See this essay:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/v...7&context=ndlr
Last edited by allegro; 07-10-2020 at 03:01 AM.
Bite me
Active Member
what if Trump paid someone to take the cognitive test like he did his SAT
Active Member
I saw a lot of chatter about how this case came to the SC and how they didn't even touch that part of it. I understand it, but I can also see how that's a bad look to someone who doesn't know the reasons for the appeal vs. the original case. Do you have thoughts on the differentiation for cases that make it this high?
Bite me
Sorry, I don’t understand the question. The decision is here.
The conservative courts were and are notoriously against Native tribes (again and again due to stare decisis); SCOTUS sometimes agrees to writs involving Native tribes but then tends to kick the decisions back down to the lower courts.
This case shows that this has come to an end, with Gorsuch on the bench.
This is a brilliantly-written decision.
Last edited by allegro; 07-10-2020 at 08:55 AM.
tempus est umbra in mente
Look I drew a clock! Impressed?!
Active Member
Firstly, because I just read this in trying to find out more:who other than the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on the land of the United States? Is this what he's referring to?Justice Clarence Thomas appending a brief solo dissent to assert that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case at all.both quotes are from this blog.Gorsuch emphasizes that the power to terminate the reservation “belongs to Congress alone,” and that “this Court [will not] lightly infer such a breach.”
Secondly, this is what I was alluding to:So reading that actually explains my original question in that this wasn't about the rape, it was about who can prosecute the rape.The case concerns Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma who was convicted of rape in state court. McGirt’s crime took place within land that, according to Gorsuch’s majority opinion, is part of the Creek Reservation.
The fact that McGirt is a member of a tribe, and that his crime took place on a reservation, matter because of the federal Major Crimes Act (MCA). That law provides that “any Indian who commits” certain offenses “against the person or property of another Indian or any other person” is subject to “the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States” if that crime was committed “within the Indian country.”
Thus, Oklahoma lacks authority to try McGirt for raping someone on a Native American reservation. Only the federal courts may try such a crime.
On the surface, in other words, McGirt seems to involve a fairly minor issue. No one questions that McGirt may be convicted of rape. And no one questions that he can face a stiff penalty for such a conviction. The question is which court may try the case against him.
Hey I learned myself something.
Posting Permissions
