Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
46 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Twitter dominance talk not going away. 

I think bozo likes to be subbed by Elon.

Posted

“We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court — not a Denny’s,” Ho wrote. “This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion.”

Well….its the first time a POTUS has repeatedly demonstrated he’ll ignore court orders, especially in the middle of the night.
Don’t act like a bitch, you won’t be treated like a bitch.
And Ho is one of the worst Orange knob-gobblers on the planet. He’s a disgrace to the judiciary, humanity, mammals, carbon-based life…all of it.
  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


“We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court — not a Denny’s,” Ho wrote. “This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion.”

Well….its the first time a POTUS has repeatedly demonstrated he’ll ignore court orders, especially in the middle of the night.
Don’t act like a bitch, you won’t be treated like a bitch.
And Ho is one of the worst Orange knob-gobblers on the planet. He’s a disgrace to the judiciary, humanity, mammals, carbon-based life…all of it.

Ho is absolutely auditioning for a spot on SCOTUS, "just in case something bad were to happen to ACB in the coming months, god forbid ..."

kto-kounotoritoken.gif

(BTW - ACB should definitely have her head on a swivel, especially if she continues to rule against the Orange one in the coming months.)

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

So the Denny's thing is funny, to me. He's trying to make a point about the judicial branch not having 24 hour service, but there is such a thing as night court and cell phones. Those of us in the serf class have been forced to become familiar with the concept of being "on call."

But let's assume for a moment that it's true the entire judicial branch is asleep at 12:34 am, it's also true that people show up for work at 8 am, so the idea that the court thought it would be okay to just ignore the urgent filing is really what the Supreme Court was criticizing. We're still nowhere near "42 minutes."

Who does he think he's impressing with this conniption?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

So the Denny's thing is funny, to me. He's trying to make a point about the judicial branch not having 24 hour service, but there is such a thing as night court and cell phones. Those of us in the serf class have been forced to become familiar with the concept of being "on call."

But let's assume for a moment that it's true the entire judicial branch is asleep at 12:34 am, it's also true that people show up for work at 8 am, so the idea that the court thought it would be okay to just ignore the urgent filing is really what the Supreme Court was criticizing. We're still nowhere near "42 minutes."

Who does he think he's impressing with this conniption?

His orange painted god king.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

Thank god, no publicly funded religious charter schools in Oklahoma. No opinion as it was an equally divided court. Barrett recused, she's hardcore catholic but has shown some reasonableness on big issues. No telling which way she might have swayed the decision. I doubt it's the last we hear of this though. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision, to my memory, turned on the Oklahoma constitution that is far more clear than the US Constitition on this issue. It flat out says: "No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such." I'm sure another state without this language will try again soon. 

 

 

May be an image of text that says 'Opinion) Cite as: Per Curiam NOTICE opinion States Supreme subject Readers formal revision before Reporter States, Vashington, typographical other formal errors. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 24-394 and 24-396 OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD, ET PETITIONERS 24-394 GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, REL. OIH ISIDORE OF SEVILLE CATHOLIC VIRTUAL SCHOOL, PETITIONER 24-396 GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, EX REL. OKLAHOMA ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PER CURIAM. [May 22, 2025] The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or cision of these'

Edited by 'stache
Posted
7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Thank god, no publicly funded religious charter schools in Oklahoma. No opinion as it was an equally divided court. Barrett recused, she's hardcore catholic but has shown some reasonableness on big issues. No telling which way she might have swayed the decision. I doubt it's the last we hear of this though. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision, to my memory, turned on the Oklahoma constitution that is far more clear than the US Constitition on this issue. It flat out says: "No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such." I'm sure another state without this language will try again soon. 

 

 

May be an image of text that says 'Opinion) Cite as: Per Curiam NOTICE opinion States Supreme subject Readers formal revision before Reporter States, Vashington, typographical other formal errors. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 24-394 and 24-396 OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD, ET PETITIONERS 24-394 GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, REL. OIH ISIDORE OF SEVILLE CATHOLIC VIRTUAL SCHOOL, PETITIONER 24-396 GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, EX REL. OKLAHOMA ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PER CURIAM. [May 22, 2025] The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or cision of these'

I'm perplexed what those that would have reversed would have done. If the issue is what the Oklahoma Constitution says, on what basis could the Court change the outcome?

Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm perplexed what those that would have reversed would have done. If the issue is what the Oklahoma Constitution says, on what basis could the Court change the outcome?

Pretty sure it would be that "freedom of religion" under the U.S. Constitution means a state cannot preclude public expenditures on religious causes within their own constitutions or otherwise. Of course we know it wouldn't apply if it was a Muslim charter school, they'd find a reason, probably majority rule or some nonsense. No doubt another state will try again, especially to get Barrett in on the decision. Can only hope she has some modicum of sense. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Hidden in the bullshit beautiful bill. It neuters the courts.

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly

So what’s next? Will the Supreme Court and lower courts hold the administration in contempt and enforce contempt citations?

Not if the Big Ugly Bill is enacted with the following provision, now hidden in the bill:

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….”

Translated: No federal court may enforce a contempt citation.

Obviously, courts need appropriated funds to do anything because Congress appropriates money to enable the courts to function. To require a security or bond to be given in civil proceedings seeking to stop alleged abuses by the federal government would effectively immunize such conduct from judicial review because those seeking such court orders generally don’t have the resources to post a bond.

Hence, with a stroke, the provision removes the judiciary’s capacity to hold officials in contempt.

As U.C. Berkeley School of Law Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law Erwin Chemerinsky notes, this provision would eliminate any restraint on Trump.

“Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. …

“This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.”

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 6
Posted
39 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Hidden in the bullshit beautiful bill. It neuters the courts.

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly

So what’s next? Will the Supreme Court and lower courts hold the administration in contempt and enforce contempt citations?

Not if the Big Ugly Bill is enacted with the following provision, now hidden in the bill:

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….”

Translated: No federal court may enforce a contempt citation.

Obviously, courts need appropriated funds to do anything because Congress appropriates money to enable the courts to function. To require a security or bond to be given in civil proceedings seeking to stop alleged abuses by the federal government would effectively immunize such conduct from judicial review because those seeking such court orders generally don’t have the resources to post a bond.

Hence, with a stroke, the provision removes the judiciary’s capacity to hold officials in contempt.

As U.C. Berkeley School of Law Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law Erwin Chemerinsky notes, this provision would eliminate any restraint on Trump.

“Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. …

“This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.”

This is fucking hideous.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is fucking hideous.

It is, but I honestly I don't know what it means. Even if SCOTUS didn't find the provision itself unconstitutional (which I think it would be), what does it mean to use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt order? Does issuing an order use funds? Is issuing an order for the executive branch to enforce a use of "appropriated funds" by the judicial branch? Is the executive branch no longer required to enforce the law or a lawful order?  And practically speaking, it doesn't appear to set any minimum requirement for the security or bond. And it doesn't appear to require the security be the funding mechanism. So a court could require a party to post a $1 bond, and then it could use "appropriated funds" to enforce a contempt order. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Is the executive branch no longer required to enforce the law or a lawful order?

That's certainly the paradigm they've been operating under since Jan 20, 2025.

Posted (edited)

Goddamnit even when he’s right on the issue he still has to be a trumpy asshole. There’s literally no need to shit on Islam to make the point. Nevertheless he’s still the best of the shit possibilities of our next fucking governor. Several registered democrats are considering registering as republicans for the gubernatorial cycle so we can get him the nomination over the other cuntstains in the race particularly if Walter’s officially enters. The republican primary is the whole election unfortunately and the lesser of several evils is still better than the alternative. Still makes my skin crawl even considering this tactic.

image.thumb.png.843d35ba277e454e0816dac9dfcd87af.png

Edited by 'stache
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Thank god, no publicly funded religious charter schools in Oklahoma. No opinion as it was an equally divided court. Barrett recused, she's hardcore catholic but has shown some reasonableness on big issues. No telling which way she might have swayed the decision. I doubt it's the last we hear of this though. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision, to my memory, turned on the Oklahoma constitution that is far more clear than the US Constitition on this issue. It flat out says: "No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such." I'm sure another state without this language will try again soon. 

 

 

May be an image of text that says 'Opinion) Cite as: Per Curiam NOTICE opinion States Supreme subject Readers formal revision before Reporter States, Vashington, typographical other formal errors. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 24-394 and 24-396 OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD, ET PETITIONERS 24-394 GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, REL. OIH ISIDORE OF SEVILLE CATHOLIC VIRTUAL SCHOOL, PETITIONER 24-396 GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, EX REL. OKLAHOMA ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PER CURIAM. [May 22, 2025] The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or cision of these'


I’ll take the ‘win’ but ACB really just recused herself because she can’t be on the record going against her owners while having enough of a shred of conscience to not want to be the deciding death blow to the establishment clause.

This will be the last time MAGA flirts with lady judges on the big bench IMO. Their womenly hysterical nature lends itself to brief moments of self reflection that gets in the way of the rights goal of wonton cruelty in every ruling. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)

And look at this asshole. It’s just stunning how republicans always misstate how the fucking law works. They’re not this stupid, they’re intentionally lying to give their cult the next talking point. It’s over dude, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision stands. You can’t refile, it’ll be dismissed on claim preclusion. Barrett would have the same reason to recuse anyway. The issue will come back up but it ain’t coming from Oklahoma. Just make it fucking stop already!
 

image.thumb.png.64be327f4467df7218963f57c0531f07.png

Edited by 'stache
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Thank god, no publicly funded religious charter schools in Oklahoma. No opinion as it was an equally divided court. Barrett recused, she's hardcore catholic but has shown some reasonableness on big issues. No telling which way she might have swayed the decision. I doubt it's the last we hear of this though. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision, to my memory, turned on the Oklahoma constitution that is far more clear than the US Constitition on this issue. It flat out says: "No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such." I'm sure another state without this language will try again soon. 

 

 

May be an image of text that says 'Opinion) Cite as: Per Curiam NOTICE opinion States Supreme subject Readers formal revision before Reporter States, Vashington, typographical other formal errors. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 24-394 and 24-396 OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD, ET PETITIONERS 24-394 GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, REL. OIH ISIDORE OF SEVILLE CATHOLIC VIRTUAL SCHOOL, PETITIONER 24-396 GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, EX REL. OKLAHOMA ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PER CURIAM. [May 22, 2025] The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or cision of these'

While I don't agree with many of Barrett's opinions, from my non-trained legal perspective, but I give her credit that she actually does appear to consider the case in front of her. Unlike Alito or Thomas who only look to see the conservative view and then shape their opinion to further their viewpoint. I would guess that many MAGAts and Trump are disappointed in Barrett.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that Alito or Thomas would recuse themselves in any case these days, unless they were 100% sure their side had a sizable court victory. Even then they would issue an opinion. Not that this would seem possible, but if Thomas personally argued a case in front of the SCOTUS, he would still participate in the vote.

Posted
Goddamnit even when he’s right on the issue he still has to be a trumpy asshole. There’s literally no need to shit on Islam to make the point. Nevertheless he’s still the best of the shit possibilities of our next fucking governor. Several registered democrats are considering registering as republicans for the gubernatorial cycle so we can get him the nomination over the other cuntstains in the race particularly if Walter’s officially enters. The republican primary is the whole election unfortunately and the lesser of several evils is still better than the alternative. Still makes my skin crawl even considering this tactic.
image.thumb.png.843d35ba277e454e0816dac9dfcd87af.png

Reality tv viewers want reality tv governance.

I wish I drank more.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Private schools can still obtain public funding in the form of vouchers. I am not seeing the distinction in the two. Is it that a charter school would be fully funded by public dollars while vouchers just fund individual citizens/students?

 

Is Barrett's absense a rare case of right-wing ethics? I recall she was heavily involved in religious private school(s), in advisor roles.

Posted
2 hours ago, 'stache said:

And look at this asshole. It’s just stunning how republicans always misstate how the fucking law works. They’re not this stupid, they’re intentionally lying to give their cult the next talking point. It’s over dude, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision stands. You can’t refile, it’ll be dismissed on claim preclusion. Barrett would have the same reason to recuse anyway. The issue will come back up but it ain’t coming from Oklahoma. Just make it fucking stop already!
 

image.thumb.png.64be327f4467df7218963f57c0531f07.png


From Wikipedia:
 

Quote

Stitt grew up in Norman, Oklahoma, and graduated from Oklahoma State University with a degree in accounting


Grew up in Norman.

Went to school in Stillwater.

Talks like TxAgs.

No thanks. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:


From Wikipedia:
 


Grew up in Norman.

Went to school in Stillwater.

Talks like TxAgs.

No thanks. 

He was audibly boo’d at Boone Pickens Stadium several years ago. I was pleasantly surprised.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, pacman said:

Private schools can still obtain public funding in the form of vouchers. I am not seeing the distinction in the two. Is it that a charter school would be fully funded by public dollars while vouchers just fund individual citizens/students?

 

Is Barrett's absense a rare case of right-wing ethics? I recall she was heavily involved in religious private school(s), in advisor roles.

What's amazing is that 4 SC justices voted for this bullshit. To these fucksticks, the Constitution is like the Bible. Just ignore shit that you don't agree with and double down on the shit that support your hatred. But then make sure you quote the Bible/Constitution as the end all be all of all justifications when you want to justify your bullshit. 

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/supreme-court-4-4-vote-ends-oklahomas-taxpayer-funded-catholic-charter-school

Only eight of the nine justices took part in the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t explain her absence, but she is good friends and used to teach with Notre Dame law professor Nicole Garnett, who has been an adviser to the school.

Posted

From various clips, Barrett is truly disgusted with Trump. She seems to have self respect and respect for the rule of law. I may not alwasy agree with her but I at least respect her. Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh can't suck enough Trump dick to satiate their stupidity.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 hours ago, crash_davis said:

From various clips, Barrett is truly disgusted with Trump. She seems to have self respect and respect for the rule of law. I may not alwasy agree with her but I at least respect her. Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh can't suck enough Trump dick to satiate their stupidity.

Fuck that cunt.

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

It is, but I honestly I don't know what it means. Even if SCOTUS didn't find the provision itself unconstitutional (which I think it would be), what does it mean to use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt order? Does issuing an order use funds? Is issuing an order for the executive branch to enforce a use of "appropriated funds" by the judicial branch? Is the executive branch no longer required to enforce the law or a lawful order?  And practically speaking, it doesn't appear to set any minimum requirement for the security or bond. And it doesn't appear to require the security be the funding mechanism. So a court could require a party to post a $1 bond, and then it could use "appropriated funds" to enforce a contempt order. 

That's a great point about the bond.  For the peanut gallery, in a civil case, when a party is temporarily (as opposed to permanently at the conclusion of a case) enjoined, so by TRO or preliminary injunction, the party seeking the injunction has to post a bond against damages the enjoined party may suffer if the injunction proves wrongful.  So, sometimes it's a pretty substantial bond.

In public-interest cases with the government as a defendant, the bond is often waived.  But by the wording of the statute, the bond could be set at $1, or $20, and the whole issue is avoided.

I assume "appropriated funds" gives Congress the hook to legislate, probably invalidly.  Although I'm sure they'd argue they have the power to determine jurisdiction and this is a jurisdiction issue.   And I think just about anything a US District court, funded by appropriated funds, does then would be in violation of the statute.

Posted
5 hours ago, pacman said:

Private schools can still obtain public funding in the form of vouchers. I am not seeing the distinction in the two. Is it that a charter school would be fully funded by public dollars while vouchers just fund individual citizens/students?

 

Is Barrett's absense a rare case of right-wing ethics? I recall she was heavily involved in religious private school(s), in advisor roles.

As has been pointed out, most of the vouchers available to families don't even cover the full tuition for a single student, much less the operating budget of an entire school.

But I think the main difference is vouchers are payments to parents/citizens/taxpayers, that may be used at a religious school, or not.  While the payments at issue here are directly to a religious organization and they get whatever secular charter schools get.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

SCOTUS overturned Humphrey's Executor tonight on the shadow docket to let Trump fire members of independent agencies without cause, with a special "oh well it's different, don't ask us how" carveout for the federal reserve.

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...