Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Supreme Court: We didn't mean that shit.

Thomas in dissent: I meant that shit.

Yep.  Imagine the dumbest, stupidest, least legally and intellectually position in the world.  The rest of the Supremes look at that and say "yeah, no reasonable person would think that."  Thomas: "Fuck yeah, that's exactly what I meant."

He's beyond terrible.  He's beyond corrupt.  He's a fucking idiot.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The....RELATIVELY....sane wing of the court trying to walk back the utter fucking idiocy and lunacy that is Bruen, a decision authored by the worst justice in SCOTUS history, Clarence Thomas, brought to you by Harlan Crow.  You fucking dumbfucks.  You can try, but you can't shove Bruen back in a box or pretend it doesn't exist.  And Clarence's dissent today fucking says as much: "No, I meant every lunatic word of Bruen, and y'all should apply it like I meant it."

Alito and Thomas are hanging so many fucking albatrosses around this court's neck, it's hard to keep count.

Yup. Thomas' dissent is exactly right based upon Bruen. You also now have to look at the multiple concurring opinions and the dissent and try and figure out where this actually leaves the law. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yup. Thomas' dissent is exactly right based upon Bruen. You also now have to look at the multiple concurring opinions and the dissent and try and figure out where this actually leaves the law. 

 

image.gif

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

and figure out where this actually leaves the law. 

It remains where it was all along: Calvinball.  The "look back to see what, umm, the, uhh, 'regulatory feel' was at the time" test is bullshit SCOTUS-speak for "I'll decide each case how I want, then look back at a bit of history to proof-text my way into the result I already chose."  It's not a legal standard at all.  It's an excuse and pretext for every SCOTUS justice going forward to just say "this is how I want it to be."

Calvinball.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . in the text above, does the reference to "bearable" imply the ability to physically carry a particular weapon?  

Sure, why not. If you can strap a nuclear warhead to your back, it's your fucking right, go for it.

image.png.fee4ee1a50789a55a848d5997e9177f4.png

Posted
27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Imagine the dumbest, stupidest, least legally and intellectually position in the world.  The rest of the Supremes look at that and say "yeah, no reasonable person would think that."  Thomas: "Fuck yeah, that's exactly what I meant."

He's beyond terrible.  He's beyond corrupt.  He's a fucking idiot.

On the bright side, he's 75 and can't live forever.

On the down side, he'll probably retire in 2028 and Trump will replace him with, like, Kyle Rittenhouse.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

We should increase the on the chief of biscuits and his crazy wife. He needs to be forced off the J6 court case.

the pressure.

Posted
23 minutes ago, immamac said:

Hopefully it's something much much worse for him. 

Dead?

I'm OK with that.  RIP, Sam.  Your tireless efforts on the court will be honored cursed forever.

Posted

What if the upside down flag thing is like the Steiner Ranch lawn gnome deal, where it just means the Alitos are down to swing?  

Posted
5 hours ago, immamac said:

he "disavowed MS-13"

To be fair I've heard their power has dropped dramatically since the crackdowns of president Bukele. Before the crackdowns if you didn't play nice with the gangs the gangs wouldn't play nice with you, and "playing nice" usually meant doing something that could be seen as having an affiliation.

Now they're sort of indiscriminately arresting "military age men" even on mere suspicion of being affiliated. Good reason to publicly "disavow" the gangs, even if it has nothing to do with immigrating to the US.

 

Alito switched from capture the flag to hide and seek.

Posted
4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Texas abortion law vibes.

 

1d55e347-7aa4-46a8-a67c-88a5dccc4544.png

What's "relevantly similar" is in the eye of the beholder. And by "the beholder," I mean the Christofascist puppet installed by a dark money group.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

These were the fucking facts of the case.

32e8fcf3-1eaa-42a7-bb83-4e55dfc3d0b8.png

There is a compelling federalist case that state and local officials should be allowed to be corrupt. I don’t see how the republic functions without those protections.

  • Haha 1
Posted
7 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There is a compelling federalist case that state and local officials should be allowed to be corrupt. I don’t see how the republic functions without those protections.

Well, there is a pretty good case that the feds should severely ratchet back criminal laws that duplicate state laws and have no particular federal interest, but by Gawd they affect interstate commerce.  This might be ok if restricted to federal officials.  Pretty sure states can handle bribery cases just fine.

Posted
51 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Twice, I think you're great, but literally what?

For every single state crime, there is a nearly perfect analogous federal crime, except possibly murder, unless it happens on federal property or an Indian reservation.

Constitutionally, the federal government lacks a general or plenary police power.  Therefore, unless there is a peculiar federal interest at stake, the feds should not have criminal laws on the books or prosecute them.  But, the expansion of the interstate commerce clause has allowed the feds to create an analogous federal crime for every state crime because just about everything "affects interstate commerce" in one way or another.

Great example is drug crimes and why we have this conflict between state legalization and continued federal criminalization.

This really didn't get going until after the Lindbergh kidnapping and the creation/expansion of the FBI.  It has also been a great way for federal politicians to pander by being tough on crime.

The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle.  Really wish we could put it back in.

 

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring specifically to your statement about states doing just fine re: prosecuting corruption

They're quite capable of it.  There's no special technology or anything multi-jurisdictional involved.  They just don't because the feds often deal with it.

Now, like civil rights crimes, there may be cases where local authorities are afraid to take on local political figures, so the system is corrupted by the corruption.  That might justify federal prosecution, but in a general case I am not a fan.

Edited by TwiceHorn


×
×
  • Create New...