Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I have to think the dangling, kicking outcome happened a few times though.

Yep.  Decapitations happened fairly frequently as well if the measurements were done wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I just put my 16 year old dog to sleep. One shot knocks him out instantly. Second shot stops his heart instantly. No pain (for him). I suppose it’s too expensive on humans? Serious question, I don’t know.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

This might be a good time to note the the decedent was originally sentenced to life without parole by a jury of his peers but the judge overruled the jury and decided he needed killing.

Oh shit, I did not look into the details.  That's horrible, I didn't even know that was an option for a judge. Would love to know how often that happens in court, what the demographics are of the judge and defendant, and see it split out by states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nobody can say with certainty what would be the most "humane"way to execute someone.  No living human has died.  (Let's leave reincarnation out of this.)  Medical experts probably have more insight than most, and most of them seem to think the quickest way is the most humane way (bullet to the head, decapitation, etc.).

Here's the problem:  death penalty advocates have no concern for a humane execution.  In fact, most are interested in the LEAST humane methods.  It's bloodlust, pure and simple, and it is a huge stain on our collective "humanity".  

I have died.  

I had severe internal bleeding which was really pretty peaceful.  I felt little pain,  probably due to shock, and I felt like I was just very tired and was comfortably falling asleep... so much so that when my friend kept waking me up it was making me very angry... so there's that

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SKJ said:

I have died.  

I had severe internal bleeding which was really pretty peaceful.  I felt little pain,  probably due to shock, and I felt like I was just very tired and was comfortably falling asleep... so much so that when my friend kept waking me up it was making me very angry... so there's that

Outside of quibbling over the true definition of "died", that's at least a little encouraging.  (Takes notes.)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Outside of quibbling over the true definition of "died", that's at least a little encouraging.  (Takes notes.)

Well, I had no pulse and they couldn't get a vein so they had to central line me in the ambulance...

I coded three times.  Maybe I wasn't dead,  dead,  but the surgeon said I was DOA

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SKJ said:

Well, I had no pulse and they couldn't get a vein so they had to central line me in the ambulance...

I coded three times.  Maybe I wasn't dead,  dead,  but the surgeon said I was DOA

Sounds like you dodged a bullet.

Or maybe, you didn't dodge the bullet?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

This might be a good time to note the the decedent was originally sentenced to life without parole by a jury of his peers but the judge overruled the jury and decided he needed killing.

Damn. Talk about taking this shit to an 11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

Yeah I just put my 16 year old dog to sleep. One shot knocks him out instantly. Second shot stops his heart instantly. No pain (for him). I suppose it’s too expensive on humans? Serious question, I don’t know.

Man, I'm so sorry your buddy passed. It sucks to lose them.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, chainsaw said:

That's pretty messed up. Can a medical expert chime in on how this is a different death experience from being hanged?

Not a medical expert, but a proper hanging does not cause death by strangulation.  It severs the spinal cord.

I have got to believe that removing oxygen from the lungs creates the same sensations as drowning.  Most unpleasant, probably cruel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Oh shit, I did not look into the details.  That's horrible, I didn't even know that was an option for a judge. Would love to know how often that happens in court, what the demographics are of the judge and defendant, and see it split out by states.

Earlier, I corrected @InkaUtexas on this, but I was wrong.  I didn't think that was possible to reconcile with Furman v. Georgia and Gregory v. Georgia and related cases.  

It seems that Florida's override was ruled unconstitutional in 2016, as might be expected, but SCOTUS denied cert on all of those challenging Alabama's override.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sounds like you dodged a bullet.

Or maybe, you didn't dodge the bullet?

Yeah,  I took a bullet to the upper abdomen at close range... just a little guy. Bullet went in,  split my vena cava, split my sciatic nerve, hit L4, lodged in between L4 and L5

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Earlier, I corrected @InkaUtexas on this, but I was wrong.  I didn't think that was possible to reconcile with Furman v. Georgia and Gregory v. Georgia and related cases.  

It seems that Florida's override was ruled unconstitutional in 2016, as might be expected, but SCOTUS denied cert on all of those challenging Alabama's override.

 

Thank you. I thought I had it right, state law and all that shit.

Good on you. Owe you a beer. A tree-fiddy shiner at the Posse on me.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2024 at 4:10 PM, nbmishoid said:

Steal?  When Texas installs it on fed controlled land, is that stealing?   I.e in lawful taking?

First of all, I don't think that's "federal land."  

The case, from the get-go, is kind of laughable.  Generally any person or entity has a civil tort claim against another person or entity who converts their property, meaning deprives the person of use of it, whether by stealing or destruction.

Texas decided to employ this theory to attack a small aspect of federal intervention.

The whole thing is pretty ludicrous, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Trump-appointed Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, of abortion pill case fame, rejected the Biden administration's bid to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to block U.S. aid to the West Bank and Gaza that the plaintiffs say is unlawfully funding the Palestinian Authority.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-allows-lawsuit-challenging-aid-west-bank-gaza-proceed-2024-02-05/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the Supreme Court trying to do effectively nothing with this case. But reinstate Trump to the CO ballot.

I expect

  • they rule that the President is an officer of the US so therefore the 14th amendment applies to them.
  • But that there is some flaw in what CO did, or that they need to follow a new test to ban a candidate based on the 14th amendment, such as a criminal prosecution by a federal court. 

Trump reminds me of a crappy employee that I had about 20 years ago. He kept doing stupid shit at work, which required me to make rules for the entire team. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The “not an officer” argument is in some ways the easiest way for them to keep Trump on the ballot, but I think it’s just way too stupid of an argument to get 5 votes. They’ll settle on that a person can’t be disqualified unless they’ve been tried and convicted of insurrection in a criminal proceeding. It’s almost as stupid of an argument, legally speaking, but it makes a certain kind of sense to non-lawyers who don’t know the precise language and the exact history behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current argument is that the amendment doesn't apply to candidates but only disqualifies someone after they've obtained the office from "holding" the office.  

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Current argument is that the amendment doesn't apply to candidates but only disqualifies someone after they've obtained the office from "holding" the office.  

Keanu Reeves cocking his head gif.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Keanu Reeves cocking his head gif.

It's actually an interesting argument, contending that Section 3 is distinct from the age and term limit qualifications.

Just now, TexasEd said:

Alito carrying water 

And this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Current argument is that the amendment doesn't apply to candidates but only disqualifies someone after they've obtained the office from "holding" the office.  

It's such a weird argument to my mind. I'm listening on NPR, and earlier, someone mentioned how that generation understood the term, but then there's the Postal Act, which understood the president to be an "officer of the United States," as has been pointed out earlier. Is that a red herring? If not, why hasn't it been mentioned?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

It's such a weird argument to my mind. I'm listening on NPR, and earlier, someone mentioned how that generation understood the term, but then there's the Postal Act, which understood the president to be an "officer of the United States," as has been pointed out earlier. Is that a red herring? If not, why hasn't it been mentioned?

 

Different argument.  Whether the President is an "officer of the united states" is a different issue from whether section 3 creates a qualification that can only be enforced once the president attains the office (office and officer being two different terms).  The argument he was making is that it is premature to prevent him from being on the ballot if he has the chance to become qualified (for example by virtue of 2/3 of Congress vote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm listening, but I'm no attorney. For the most part, it sounds like all the consertive judges are pretty respectful and understanding of the arguments coming from Trump's attorneys. I think I recognize Jackson, and she seems almost dismissive of this, but everyone else except maybe ACB seems to favor the arguments of Trump's attornies. 

Can someone of the other attorneys on here chime in on your take of the proceedings? 

Clarence Thomas seems to be ready to suck Trump's dick right in the courtroom. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The “not an officer” argument is in some ways the easiest way for them to keep Trump on the ballot, but I think it’s just way too stupid of an argument to get 5 votes. They’ll settle on that a person can’t be disqualified unless they’ve been tried and convicted of insurrection in a criminal proceeding. It’s almost as stupid of an argument, legally speaking, but it makes a certain kind of sense to non-lawyers who don’t know the precise language and the exact history behind it.

Clearly, the Founding Fathers, who did not want a king or any authoritarian, definitely wanted the President to be able to commit sedition and continue to hold office in a second term. History. Duh.

  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Different argument.  Whether the President is an "officer of the united states" is a different issue from whether section 3 creates a qualification that can only be enforced once the president attains the office (office and officer being two different terms).  The argument he was making is that it is premature to prevent him from being on the ballot if he has the chance to become qualified (for example by virtue of 2/3 of Congress vote).

But wasn't Trump an officer of the United States, after having sworn the oath, at the time of the *insurrection?

*Different argument, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACB has been challenging the Trump arguments.

On the disqualification argument about Congress “could” remove the disability with a 2/3 vote. If Congress wanted to remove the disability they could do it today.  The fact that they have not removed the disability for Trump means that they don’t want to and that saying they “might” do it in the future is like a prison inmate saying let me out now because the governor “might” commute my sentence in the future.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to disqualify those who served in the Confederate Army.  Did Donald Trump serve in the Confederate Army?  No?  Case closed.

I mean, that is basically the exact vibe I'm getting from Thomas and Alito here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bolverk said:

But wasn't Trump an officer of the United States, after having sworn the oath, at the time of the *insurrection?

*Different argument, I know.

According to the petitioner, no.  "Officer of the United States is a term of art limited to officials who are appointed, not the elected offices of President and Vice President."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

According to the petitioner, no.  "Officer of the United States is a term of art limited to officials who are appointed, not the elected offices of President and Vice President."  

I'm biased, clearly, but everything that guy just said is bullshit. Thank you.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm listening, but I'm no attorney. For the most part, it sounds like all the consertive judges are pretty respectful and understanding of the arguments coming from Trump's attorneys. I think I recognize Jackson, and she seems almost dismissive of this, but everyone else except maybe ACB seems to favor the arguments of Trump's attornies. 

Can someone of the other attorneys on here chime in on your take of the proceedings? 
Unlike Judge Judy and the TV judges, a good judge with the proper judicial demeanor will not be rude or snarky to someone delivering an appellate argument.  You might get skewered a bit in the actual decision and the logic of your argument or your ability to correctly understand case precedent might be indirectly questioned -  but I do not expect disrespect or Snark from SCOTUS in an oral argument. 
Also, don’t read too much into the justices’ demeanor in asking questions. They often ask questions to drill down on a certain point.  What seems to be a friendly judge talking with counsel is often that Justice narrowing a point and getting admissions, so that Justice can later do a kill-shot on that point.  
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, that is basically the exact vibe I'm getting from Thomas and Alito here. 

I'm not even listening, and I'm not surprised one bit that they are again trotting out the folly of originalism.  By all means, yes, let's engraft an expiration date on the Insurrectionist Clause.  They already advocate one for the Equal Protection Clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I see the Supreme Court trying to do effectively nothing with this case. But reinstate Trump to the CO ballot.

I expect

  • they rule that the President is an officer of the US so therefore the 14th amendment applies to them.
  • But that there is some flaw in what CO did, or that they need to follow a new test to ban a candidate based on the 14th amendment, such as a criminal prosecution by a federal court. 

Trump reminds me of a crappy employee that I had about 20 years ago. He kept doing stupid shit at work, which required me to make rules for the entire team. 

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The “not an officer” argument is in some ways the easiest way for them to keep Trump on the ballot, but I think it’s just way too stupid of an argument to get 5 votes. They’ll settle on that a person can’t be disqualified unless they’ve been tried and convicted of insurrection in a criminal proceeding. It’s almost as stupid of an argument, legally speaking, but it makes a certain kind of sense to non-lawyers who don’t know the precise language and the exact history behind it.

I think that these two posts above are most likely how it is going to go.

17 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Different argument.  Whether the President is an "officer of the united states" is a different issue from whether section 3 creates a qualification that can only be enforced once the president attains the office (office and officer being two different terms).  The argument he was making is that it is premature to prevent him from being on the ballot if he has the chance to become qualified (for example by virtue of 2/3 of Congress vote).

That's actually an interesting argument.  Can a state exclude someone who is not presently qualified, but conceivably could BECOME qualified before taking the office?  That's actually a decent legal question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

this is DOA

This.

Supreme Court:

"Why should we have to make a call or interpret the constitution?! This seems like a big deal with a lot of implications."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's actually an interesting argument.  Can a state exclude someone who is not presently qualified, but conceivably could BECOME qualified before taking the office?  That's actually a decent legal question.

Interesting, but on the surface I think it runs into a jurisdictional ripeness argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I think that these two posts above are most likely how it is going to go.

That's actually an interesting argument.  Can a state exclude someone who is not presently qualified, but conceivably could BECOME qualified before taking the office?  That's actually a decent legal question.

I would be happy if they split the baby, and came out with a decision that affirmed that his actions met the definition of committing sedition -  but that sedition is not enough to disqualify him under the 14th amendment at this time.

I would also be happy with a fivesome with Victoria’s Secret models. I think I have a better shot at the second one than the first one. 

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, South Austin said:

Interesting, but on the surface I think it runs into a jurisdictional ripeness argument.

Which seems like a circular one, which would favor Trump's position.  Because excluding him from the ballot, when he might become eligible, cannot later be cured.  Whereas allowing him to be on the ballot, he wins, but does not get Congressional clearance to hold the office, can be cured (he's not eligible....but then, shit, I have no idea what you do at that point).  It's a fucking mess.

Our system did not contemplate a POTUS committing treason and insurrection, then running again, and winning popular support.  Our failsafes have all failed, and there's no clean way out.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gatorubet said:

I would be happy if they split the baby, and came out with a decision that affirmed that his actions met the definition of committing edition -  but this addition is not enough to disqualify him under the 14th amendment at this time.

Wait, has he been indicated for edition?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...