Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Progressives, unlike conservatives, are late to the party when it comes to really caring about the composition of the SC. The only thing that will get the country’s attention about this rogue court is for Democrats to make publicly compelling case for expanding it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

It’s utter bullshit that the underlying case was not even an actual thing happening.

I’m not sure what SCOTUS is supposed to do about that though. You do NOT want your appellate courts becoming fact finders. That’s never been their role and it shouldn’t be.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, scottsins said:

It’s utter bullshit that the underlying case was not even an actual thing happening.

I’m not sure what SCOTUS is supposed to do about that though. You do NOT want your appellate courts becoming fact finders. That’s never been their role and it shouldn’t be.

Well it's a fucking problem when the fact finders aren't finding facts. An appeal should be able to be raised on the basis of "yo, this shit didn't happen". 

Otherwise we are intentionally making ourselves more vulnerable to bad faith actors abusing the system and turning it into a weapon against their "other" groups. You know, like we see today. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Nivek said:

  This shit is more scripted than Judge Wapner.  

GDit, don’t do that shit to me.  Next you’ll tell me Hollywood Squares was also scripted. 

  • Haha 1
Posted

So what's the chances of this ruling and case being unconstitutional on its face? Article 3 of the constitution requires an actual case or controversy in order to seek relief from the supreme court. There IS no controversy nor injury.

It should be fucking stricken from the books. I just don't understand those who say that the supreme court didn't get it wrong to rule on a hypothetical injury when theyre acting outside their constitutional boundaries 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So what's the chances of this ruling and case being unconstitutional on its face? Article 3 of the constitution requires an actual case or controversy in order to seek relief from the supreme court. There IS no controversy nor injury.

It should be fucking stricken from the books. I just don't understand those who say that the supreme court didn't get it wrong to rule on a hypothetical injury when theyre acting outside their constitutional boundaries 

Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

This case has been percolating for about five years.  Assuming it is true that the "aggrieved party" manufactured the controversy in the first place (I have no reason to believe it was not), the state of Colorado was all too willing to go along with the fiction to manufacture a test case.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, scottsins said:

It’s utter bullshit that the underlying case was not even an actual thing happening.

I’m not sure what SCOTUS is supposed to do about that though. You do NOT want your appellate courts becoming fact finders. That’s never been their role and it shouldn’t be.

I get that appellate courts shouldn't be fact finders. That makes total sense. But shouldn't they be able to find the basic fucking fact of "Did this thing actually happen or not?"

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

I guess we'll all see just how calvinball our legal system is after all, then. Because this is the second time so far the roberts court has issued a ruling to address a non-existent injury.

It's worth pointing out the consistency of pattern these cases have been following. It's always a conservative religious group lubing the truth to stoke a false grievance, and then making such a noise that they can rush it through a sympathetic lower court. And then since the legal system is so far up it's own ass, nobody dares to question or call out that they're operating in a vacuum of facts as the case progresses up the court system. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

Where was the original trial, and what do the court records say about how the case was presented? 

I mean, isn't it pretty obvious the plaintiff lied?  Not that it helps the results on appeal, but shouldn't she and her attorneys be subject to penalty?  Big consolation prize.  What the fuck.

Posted
Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."
Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.
This case has been percolating for about five years.  Assuming it is true that the "aggrieved party" manufactured the controversy in the first place (I have no reason to believe it was not), the state of Colorado was all too willing to go along with the fiction to manufacture a test case.

The plaintiff in this case filed the original petition prior to the fake inquire being made. Lower courts decided that there was standing to seek an injunction against the statute. IOW, SCOTUS didn’t make this ruling based on reliance on a contrived made up event. They made it under the guise that such an actual injury need not have happened anyway. It’s weird procedural history, and I’m trying to piece it together from various articles.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
32 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Because this is the second time so far the roberts court has issued a ruling to address a non-existent injury.

Third if you count the student loan case.

Posted
53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

This case has been percolating for about five years.  Assuming it is true that the "aggrieved party" manufactured the controversy in the first place (I have no reason to believe it was not), the state of Colorado was all too willing to go along with the fiction to manufacture a test case.

Hiding behind procedures and not asking questions you don't want answers to sounds more like it was designed than the lawyers' got new clothes scenario.   

 

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Hiding behind procedures and not asking questions you don't want answers to sounds more like it was designed than the lawyers' got new clothes scenario.   

 

Well, both the lower courts found in favor of the Colorado Division of Civil Rights, that is, upholding the statute.  So, that narrative doesn't exactly hold water.  

It appears that #bothsides were happy to have their test case.  As scottsins points out, this was filed as a declaratory judgment before any action had been taken by Co. DCR.  Looks like maybe the plaintiff dummied up an actual controversy in case standing was not found, but it was and it went against her both times.

And it looks like the defendants were perfectly happy with that state of affairs until they lost.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, both the lower courts found in favor of the Colorado Division of Civil Rights, that is, upholding the statute.  So, that narrative doesn't exactly hold water.  

Seems to me that it just backfired.  

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, like scottsins said, it's the role of the trial courts to develop facts.  It's kind of startling that no one ever cropped up and said "hey this didn't happen."

Nevertheless, if a jurisdictional fact like this comes to light, the Court really should vacate the ruling.

This case has been percolating for about five years.  Assuming it is true that the "aggrieved party" manufactured the controversy in the first place (I have no reason to believe it was not), the state of Colorado was all too willing to go along with the fiction to manufacture a test case.

one of the things I've learned from your posts over the years is that the legal profession does not condemn procedural abuse or fraud among legal professionals acting strictly within their capacity as officers of the court as long as they don't do something trashy like get behind on their house payments or forge scrips to manage a pill addiction. That might make people think all those barriers to entry were for nothing and that you're all just as common as the rest of us. 

No offense, naturally. You do good work here. I just don't believe law is a norms-based institution anymore. Consider my faith undermined. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 5
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

one of the things I've learned from your posts over the years is that the legal profession does not condemn procedural abuse or fraud among legal professionals acting strictly within their capacity as officers of the court as long as they don't do something trashy like get behind on their house payments or forge scrips to manage a pill addiction. That might make people think all those barriers to entry were for nothing and that you're all just as common as the rest of us. 

No offense, naturally. You do good work here. I just don't believe law is a norms-based institution anymore. Consider my faith undermined. 

Well, in this particular case, it took two to tango.  CDCR was just as interested, apparently, in this test case as 303 Creative and their backers.

So, if it was a fraud on the court, it was in many senses if not all of them, endorsed by both sides.

But, really more importantly. if you read the opinion, it is ENTIRELY based on declaratory judgment jurisdiction.  That is, 303 Creative's INTENTION to violate the statute, to wit:

While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans. She worries that, if she does so, Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees. Slip. Op. at 2.

So, any such fraud on the court does not affect the jurisdiction of the court or standing of the parties. None of the opinions of any of the courts were premised on the actual violation of the statue by anyone.  They all got by on the stated intention to violate it.

This is much ado about nothing created by reporting that knows not of what it speaks.

ETA: Assuming that any attorney can be tagged with responsibility or knowledge of the dummied-up controversy, that should be fair game for discipline if it was presented to any of the courts, even though the courts did not rely on it.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm not concerning myself with the rectitude of dummying up a case or controversy.  I'm concerning myself with whether there is any basis for vacating the judgment of the Supreme Court or any of the others and it appears that there is none.  Zero, zilch, nada.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 7/1/2023 at 5:25 PM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

So let's see if I understand this.  An undisclosed benefactor paid off Kavanaugh's 200k in credit card debt, his 1.2 million dollar mortgage, and his 92k country club balance right before he became a supreme court justice, and yet he voted AGAINST student loan forgiveness? Is my understanding correct?

I wouldn’t bother pointing out the hypocrisy of the SCOTUS. For every time you can find the six stooging themselves are for the two-faced bastards they’ve always been known to be, they’ll say “fuck you, don’t care,” assuming they say anything to you at all.

Uncle Ruckus screamed bloody murder about how the Harper case was moot, yet he wants to vote in the majority on an actual fake case.

The thing you said about Kavanaugh and loan forgiveness.

Just about anything that comes out of Alito’s filthy fucking mouth.

We have to stop referring to these characters as “justices” and refer to them as what they are: carefully handpicked political operatives that are selected specifically to service an ideological agenda…and to wear a robe while doing it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 4
Posted
3 hours ago, scottsins said:


The plaintiff in this case filed the original petition prior to the fake inquire being made. Lower courts decided that there was standing to seek an injunction against the statute. IOW, SCOTUS didn’t make this ruling based on reliance on a contrived made up event. They made it under the guise that such an actual injury need not have happened anyway. It’s weird procedural history, and I’m trying to piece it together from various articles.

It's not 100% complete, but the opinions of the District Court and 10th Circuit are attached to the cert petition, as they usually are, even when unpublished or "westlaw only."  That's about the fastest way I know of to get at the history.

Posted
55 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Article III getting lots of mentions today

 

Neal is obviously an excellent lawyer.  He does seem to have a habit of voicing opinions based on half-baked or no knowledge of the actual facts. If he re-read pages 2-3 of the opinion, and glanced over the lower court decisions, I think he'd back way off that.

 

Posted
57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, any such fraud on the court does not affect the jurisdiction of the court or standing of the parties. None of the opinions of any of the courts were premised on the actual violation of the statue by anyone.  They all got by on the stated intention to violate it.

This is much ado about nothing created by reporting that knows not of what it speaks.

ETA: Assuming that any attorney can be tagged with responsibility or knowledge of the dummied-up controversy, that should be fair game for discipline if it was presented to any of the courts, even though the courts did not rely on it.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm not concerning myself with the rectitude of dummying up a case or controversy.  I'm concerning myself with whether there is any basis for vacating the judgment of the Supreme Court or any of the others and it appears that there is none.  Zero, zilch, nada.

oprah.gif

  • Haha 1
Posted
Maybe just in general we need fewer Yalies in government.

Fucking Yalies, man.
My first exposure was one who showed up in my law school class. She did that stupid-ass “hiss” thing they do when they don’t like something the professor says. So fucking stupid.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
9 hours ago, Nivek said:

Maybe we should take a lesson from Office Space and Mitch McConnell.  Just stop paying them.  I mean, they ruled that cops have no duty to actually do their job, so we can just stop paying them and stop allowing them the office space they currently occupy.  Move them to the janitor's closet at the local DC porn theater.  

Lol they make way more from their billionaire "friends" than they do from the US taxpayer. I don't think they would even notice if their government paychecks stopped flowing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Fucking Yalies, man.
My first exposure was one who showed up in my law school class. She did that stupid-ass “hiss” thing they do when they don’t like something the professor says. So fucking stupid.

Wait what? Is this real? 

Did aggy steal the hiss too?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


Fucking Yalies, man.
My first exposure was one who showed up in my law school class. She did that stupid-ass “hiss” thing they do when they don’t like something the professor says. So fucking stupid.

Doesn't aggy do something akin to that.  Oh, don't tell me, aggy thought of it first and Yale stole it.  Either way, lame.

 

edit: Well, clearly I didn't read the post two beneath yours.  Yet, I regret nothing.

Edited by dcbc
  • Haha 1
Posted

I don’t give a shit if “both sides” are agreed to fake a case.

The fucking least I expect out of a judge in a case like this is to get to the bottom of it it’s actually real.

Bang all their heads together.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
I don’t give a shit if “both sides” are agreed to fake a case.

The fucking least I expect out of a judge in a case like this is to get to the bottom of it it’s actually real.

Bang all their heads together.

Just remember, even though they keep making political moves based on made up cases, you are the one who doesn’t know the facts and you are being mislead. Not the assholes who knowingly took violated the constitution or were just to incompetent. Either way the “that’s not my department” answer is what undermines our faith in our so called finest system in the world. At this point a team of toddlers would be make for better members, because ultimately they still try to do the right thing.
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in this particular case, it took two to tango.  CDCR was just as interested, apparently, in this test case as 303 Creative and their backers.

So, if it was a fraud on the court, it was in many senses if not all of them, endorsed by both sides.

But, really more importantly. if you read the opinion, it is ENTIRELY based on declaratory judgment jurisdiction.  That is, 303 Creative's INTENTION to violate the statute, to wit:

While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans. She worries that, if she does so, Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees. Slip. Op. at 2.

So, any such fraud on the court does not affect the jurisdiction of the court or standing of the parties. None of the opinions of any of the courts were premised on the actual violation of the statue by anyone.  They all got by on the stated intention to violate it.

This is much ado about nothing created by reporting that knows not of what it speaks.

ETA: Assuming that any attorney can be tagged with responsibility or knowledge of the dummied-up controversy, that should be fair game for discipline if it was presented to any of the courts, even though the courts did not rely on it.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm not concerning myself with the rectitude of dummying up a case or controversy.  I'm concerning myself with whether there is any basis for vacating the judgment of the Supreme Court or any of the others and it appears that there is none.  Zero, zilch, nada.

Its weird how you refuse to consider that the court doesn't give a fuck about facts and will issue rulings to order for fedsoc and the christofascist right. Like youre so focused on "well the victim had it comin! they shouldn't have resisted and taken it to court" line of reasoning that you're (intentionally?) ignoring the cold hard reality of what this case is and represents. 

An insurrectionist senator's wife fabricated a grievance of alleged oppression, used a christofascist legal advocacy group to back the case and help shop it to the most sympathetic courts and judges, and then argued it in front of an illegitimate supreme court whose composition is one THIRD fascist appointed judges, and another third is LITERALLY GETTING BRIBED BY THE FASCIST RIGHT IN PLAIN VIEW 

Wake up and smell the fucking ashes dude. This court system is just another appendage of fascism and they will not stop until they are made to stop. 

Edited by Captainant
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I don’t give a shit if “both sides” are agreed to fake a case.

The fucking least I expect out of a judge in a case like this is to get to the bottom of it it’s actually real.

Bang all their heads together.

That's not the way any of this works.

The judge wasn't going to get to the bottom of it because there didn't have to be a fake case.

It was adequate to establish a case or controversy, jurisdiction, and standing, that the bitch expressed her intention to violate the statute and the state expressed its intention to enforce the statute.

As a general proposition, American judges are at the mercy of the facts as presented by the parties.  Unlike European judges, they tend to lack the power to make independent factual inquiries.

Also, it's kind of amusing that these fits of mindless anger are directed at the trial judge, who found against the bitch in the first place.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted

what really needs to happen is a complete housecleaning of any kind of gifts, trips, or any other sort of compensation the FUCKING JUDGES are receiving from third fucking parties. this shit is infuriating. tell me that congres does insider trading? fuck that shit, it's unfair, but i guess congress people are going to find a way to grift somehow. 

but the JUDICIARY? fucking hell.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Who brought the original case?

The bitch did.  Alleging that she intended to violate the statute and that if she did, CDCR would enforce the statute against her.

Evidently, this fake case stuff happened later and was offered as sort of a backup position in case the court found her allegations inadequate.

All of the courts, from the trial court on up, found her allegations sufficient without relying on whether anyone actually asked her to create an LGBQT website or whether she actually refused to do so.

Declaratory judgments are standard shit, and here's a standard application that you will appreciate.

Patent Owner:  Hey, infringer, you infringe my patent, I can sue you.

Infringer:  No, I don't and your patent is invalid.  Sue me.

Patent Owner:  Ummmm.

Infringer:  Files Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Patent Owner's patent.

Result:  There's a valid lawsuit unless the Patent Owner can somehow convince the court that it won't sue the infringer.  And one sure-fire way to do that is to give the infringer a covenant not to sue, which is a binding agreement that they will not, in fact, sue.  If the Patent Owner is unwilling to do that, regardless of its subjective intentions, it is stuck with a lawsuit.

 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted

What needs to happen won’t. The norms of procedure and “the way things are done” always ultimately protect the corrupt and ruthless.

This is just another area where only constitutional amendments or revolution can stop the slow descent to oligarchy. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Its weird how you refuse to consider that the court doesn't give a fuck about facts and will issue rulings to order for fedsoc and the christofascist right. Like youre so focused on "well the victim had it comin! they shouldn't have resisted and taken it to court" line of reasoning that you're (intentionally?) ignoring the cold hard reality of what this case is and represents. 

An insurrectionist senator's wife fabricated a grievance of alleged oppression, used a christofascist legal advocacy group to back the case and help shop it to the most sympathetic courts and judges, and then argued it in front of an illegitimate supreme court whose composition is one THIRD fascist appointed judges, and another third is LITERALLY GETTING BRIBED BY THE FASCIST RIGHT IN PLAIN VIEW 

Wake up and smell the fucking ashes dude. This court system is just another appendage of fascism and they will not stop until they are made to stop. 

Which court?  The two lower courts that "didn't give a fuck about the facts" and ruled in favor of the CDCR?

This whole narrative is just counterfactual.

If you're going to bitch about things, it's kind of important to be correct in what you're bitching about.  Otherwise you're no better than Magats.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The bitch did.  Alleging that she intended to violate the statute and that if she did, CDCR would enforce the statute against her.

Evidently, this fake case stuff happened later and was offered as sort of a backup position in case the court found her allegations inadequate.

All of the courts, from the trial court on up, found her allegations sufficient without relying on whether anyone actually asked her to create an LGBQT website or whether she actually refused to do so.

Declaratory judgments are standard shit, and here's a standard application that you will appreciate.

Patent Owner:  Hey, infringer, you infringe my patent, I can sue you.

Infringer:  No, I don't and your patent is invalid.  Sue me.

Patent Owner:  Ummmm.

Infringer:  Files Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Patent Owner's patent.

Result:  There's a valid lawsuit unless the Patent Owner can somehow convince the court that it won't sue the infringer.  And one sure-fire way to do that is to give the infringer a covenant not to sue, which is a binding agreement that they will not, in fact, sue.  If the Patent Owner is unwilling to do that, regardless of its subjective intentions, it is stuck with a lawsuit.

 

 

Hey buddy, civil rights aren't a fucking patent or IP issue. This isn't some for profit fuck fuck game. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The bitch did.  Alleging that she intended to violate the statute and that if she did, CDCR would enforce the statute against her.

Like I assume many, I'm struggling to wrap my head around the basics of this case.  She sued the state?  It was a known hypothetical from the jump?

Posted
Like I assume many, I'm struggling to wrap my head around the basics of this case.  She sued the state?  It was a known hypothetical from the jump?

Correct.
Hey buddy, civil rights aren't a fucking patent or IP issue. This isn't some for profit fuck fuck game. 

Declaratory judgments work the same for both.
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Like I assume many, I'm struggling to wrap my head around the basics of this case.  She sued the state?  It was a known hypothetical from the jump?

Guys, Twice isn't wrong here.  And the standard applies to all kinds of what are called "Declaratory Judgment" actions: The government passes a law restricting/requiring X.  A party presents a position that "I intend to do X/not do X, which the new law would make illegal.  I would like a Declaratory Judgment declaring the law void, so that I don't risk imprisonment etc. for doing/not doing X."  

99% of such cases are pretty mundane (maybe they include a constitutional question, maybe they just include a question of whether the gov't entity has the authority to pass that law/regulation, etc.).  For example, the City of Dingleberry could pass an ordinance banning all yard signs.  That ordinance could be challenged by 1) a citizen who wants to post a political sign in their yard, or 2) a house painter who wants to be able to advertise his work while he's painting a house, 3) a realtor who needs to indicate what houses are for sale, etc. etc.  They don't have to wait to post a sign, get a citation from the city, and THEN sue.  If they present a credible case that they intend to post such a sign, they can ask a court to declare the ordinance illegal.  Maybe because it violates the first amendment.  Maybe because the City of Dingleberry does not have the legal power to regulate signs (that power is expressly reserved to the state of Bumfuck, where the City of Dingleberry is found).  Maybe for some other reason.

Do I find this particular Colorado case problematic because there seems to have been some fraudulent representation to the court as a "backstop" (i.e., "hey, we also do have an actual controversy because someone actually asked us for a gay marriage website!")?  Yeah, I do.  If that was at all a "fact" being entered into the record, and a party intentionally falsely represented it, that party should have been tossed out on their ass.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Declaratory judgments work the same for both.

Oh good point, so since some crazy bitch made up an issue and lied in her filing that was submitted under oath, and a court made a certain type of ruling, then gay people should be second class citizens if there's enough christians around. 

It makes TOTAL sense now! Those gays should know their place and that the court views their identity as a choice - one that they disapprove of. Thanks, totally not fascist court system!



×
×
  • Create New...