Jump to content

wildcat09

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    10994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by wildcat09

  1. The thing is, even they didn’t really apply the law here. They just surrendered to the conservatives’ opportunistic distortion of the law for what is probably a mix of policy and strategic reasons.
  2. Seriously, didn't Swam used to post a lot at night when he was on a boat swabbing decks because he couldn't find a job stateside?
  3. Whether or not it is the correct legal decision depends on whether you think judges should have personal input into whether election law should make sense or not. The three liberals are clearly concerned about the possibility of GOP states ruling that all Dems are insurrectionists based on nothing and keeping them off the ballot (though one would think that SCOTUS could check that by determining whether or not someone actually committed insurrection) and see a real judicially cognizable interest in supporting some degree of uniformity in elections for federal office, but this decision isn't remotely based in the text or history of the 14th Amendment nor in structural Constitutional concerns (typically the Court looks at federalism, especially in elections, as good, not a horrible thing to be avoided at all costs even to the extent someone who committed treason should stay on the ballot). If you're a legal realist that thinks the courts have a role to play in filling in the blanks when the text of the law isn't entirely clear, I guess it's not insane for you to think that this is the correct legal decision (though I think the text of the law is fairly clear here). But if you've ever spent even a single fucking second touting anything any conservative legal commentators have said about what law should be and you want to pretend that this aligns with what you've previously touted, you should ___________________________________________________ [content that would get me suspended and/or might encourage someone to actually commit self harm has been censored by me]. A SCOTUS ruling that Colorado's electors can't be counted. Based on what? Who fucking knows, but that's what would happen.
  4. Biden should announce that since Abbott believes the immigrants he is bussing across the country are an invading military force, Abbott is by his own tacit admission committing treason as defined by the Constitution.
  5. Those two were probably about equally developmentally disabled. It's a real shame what eating paint chips as a kid does to a person.
  6. 1. It is literally absurd to read a Constitutional provision that affirmatively gives Congress the power to expunge a disqualification by a 2/3rds vote, but says nothing about any Congressional power to impose the disqualification in the first place, as requiring Congress to act to impose the disqualification. 2. This "states have no power here, only Congress does" in this case is completely at odds structurally with all of this court's other decisions regarding voting/elections and the 14th Amendment.
  7. It’s not sound reasoning. States already had the power under the constitution to administer the federal aspects of their elections. They’ve always been able to, for example, exclude a federal candidate from the ballot because they didn’t meet the minimum age requirement.
  8. I’m thinking that it might actually be Swam.
  9. This idiot should be banned for refusing to use multi quote.
  10. If he’s not trolling and he’s not a 13 year old, he’s certainly one of the dumbest posters we’ve had here in years.
  11. Oh cool, we’ve got a new conservative poster who likes to get drunk alone and troll the CR on Friday/Saturday nights with nonsense like “racism doesn’t exist.” I’m sure the fact that this seems to be a common affliction among posters with certain political beliefs isn’t at all indicative of their poor mental health or that they are huge fucking losers with no friends.
  12. When SCOTUS wanted to nuke the eviction moratorium and student loan forgiveness (among other things), they were more than happy to bypass the appellate courts. If they only took this appeal because they think SCOTUS needs to clearly rebuff Trump's arguments, they should've done the same fucking thing last December when Smith asked them to do so.
  13. They're going to Mazars this. They'll wait until the very last day to release an opinion that's something along the lines of "the president is not absolutely immune but is immune for X types of acts so before a trial can be held the district court must determine whether the coup qualifies as X," effectively punting the trial until next year.
  14. The fact that there were 4 votes for this is extremely fucking bad.
  15. Need to revise this to add fucking thirty.
  16. C'mon man, this is silly. This shit isn't because Google cares deeply about DEI (no company does), this shit is because a few years ago when the first AI chatbots started getting released, they went nazi within like 12 hours. So Google's engineers tried to think up all the ways internet assholes might try to make their new shit spout nazi slogans, etc. and tried to build in protections against that type of shit. They're just not very good at it and what they tried had unintended consequences because they hadn't really thought this shit through, because "how are nazis and other lunatics going to exploit this to get it to say things they like and how can we properly protect against that" is not really the type of thing an AI engineer is going to be good at thinking through.
  17. Well, the thing is that Republicans like mass shooters and hate women.
  18. Well also, he had Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen-caliber attorneys setting up all his entities for years. The ownership structure probably isn't actually all that difficult to pierce.
  19. Texas and Florida will lose soundly, 6-3 or even 7-2 (Gorsuch is the unknown). The laws are horribly written and clearly unconstitutional. I guess I'm worried about what landmines Roberts leaves in a decision to exploit later, but I'm not sure he even will do that with this one. He'll probably just take some bullshit "Roberts shows the court can still be moderate!" stories and be happy.
  20. *me, in the state of nature, as I'm being murdered for my meager possessions* "But my right to life is a natural right, not derivative of a state!" For purposes of persuading children why rights are important, I suppose there's value in presenting them as natural rather than dependent on recognition by a state. But that is a distinction that does not and should not matter to adults.
  21. Well, if they can get Sinema to show up they do.
  22. That would be even worse than if Garland just let a GOP hack prosecutor do this shit on a lark. How many votes would something like that win over? Fucking zero. Meanwhile a great journalist is effectively prevented from doing his job and has to incur hundreds of thousands in legal fees. No, the truth is that Garland is just letting Fedsoc ghouls in the DOJ do whatever they want, and what they want to do is help Republicans and hurt Democrats.
×
×
  • Create New...