SCOTUS

[Farfromgeneva]

Get your popcorn ready

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/tech ... media.html

"Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online Speech
The cases could significantly affect the power and responsibilities of social media platforms."

Aren’t most social media platforms facing a reckoning now anyways. Day late and a dollar short to me.

[Seacoaster(1)]

23 pages of "we can't pin this on Sam because our institutional credibility is already in the sh*tter.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo ... 9_2023.pdf

"The draft majority opinion was circulated on February 10, 2022. Politico published the draft opinion on the evening of May 2. The investigation focused on Court personnel – temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees – who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication by Politico."

Are the Justices themselves "permanent employees"?

"The investigators determined that in addition to the Justices, 82 employees had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion. On February 10, the draft opinion was sent via email to a distribution list consisting of law clerks and permanent personnel who work on opinions. The vote memos were also subsequently sent to this list. There were 70 unique, active users on the distribution list. On March 22, eight more permanent personnel received the draft opinion via email. The investigators also found that two additional permanent personnel accessed the draft opinion electronically by separate means. In sum, the investigators determined that 80 personnel received or had access to electronic copies of the draft opinion."

Seems like a lot if confidentiality is what you are after....

"The draft majority opinion was also distributed in hard copy to some Chambers. The two Chambers personnel who were not on the email distribution list would have had access to the circulated hard copies and to any other copies that were printed in Chambers. Thirty-four personnel confirmed they printed out copies of the draft opinion and four were unsure; many printed out more than one copy. And, as noted in Section D below, in the course of their interviews, several personnel acknowledged that they did not treat information relating to the draft opinion consistent with the Court’s confidentiality policies. The investigators searched all available logs for evidence of who handled the draft majority opinion after circulation. A few circumstances justified closer inspection, which was conducted but did not result in any solid leads as to the identity of who may have disclosed the document. Consistent with standard policy for most law enforcement agencies, this report does not identify any individuals who received additional scrutiny because (a) certain aspects of the investigation may yield additional pertinent information and (b) in any event, there is not adequate evidence, even applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, to conclude that any particular individual was responsible for the disclosure."

A lot of copies sitting around on folks desks too....

"The investigators did not find any logs or IT artifacts indicating that the draft opinion was downloaded to removable media, but it is impossible to rule out."

Huh. Kind of a big caveat, no?

The report strikes me as an investigation in form, not in fact.

[njbill]

Too bad the investigators weren’t in that Rosslyn parking garage the night Sam met the reporter and handed him a copy of the draft opinion that he, himself, had printed out.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Too bad the investigators weren’t in that Rosslyn parking garage the night Sam met the reporter and handed him a copy of the draft opinion that he, himself, had printed out.

From the home computer and printer set up that the Court rolled out during Covid. Either that or some toady of Sam's, or dinner companion from the Religious RIght.

[Kismet]

They didn't interview any of the Justices or their family members. They also did not interview any clerks or staff that no longer work at the court but who were employed at the time of the leak. No subpoenas and all testimony was voluntary.

They don't want to know the truth of what occurred. May explain why their approval ratings are at 25% with the public and why they don't have any ethics policy or rules.

[PizzaSnake]

This sounds like a great plan.

'“But ... the Supreme Court upended that approach” with its ruling in favor of a high school football coach who led postgame prayers on the field, a three-judge panel said this week. “In its place,” the judges said, “courts should use an analysis that focuses on history, tradition, and original meaning.”'

What fcuk do SC justices know about history? Or literature, for that matter? Who the fcuk knows what is going through an author's mind? The stupidity and ignorance of this SC is breathtaking. Long live the homeschooled, I guess. I see the lessons offered by Horace Mann are lost on today's society.

'The author of a book about religion in American public life said it is impossible to say what the Constitution’s framers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, because it was a compromise between those who wanted strict separation of church and state and those who wanted to protect state endorsement of Protestant Christianity.

“What they agreed on was language that was itself ambiguous,” David Sehat said. “From a historical perspective, there’s no real way of saying who was right. They disagreed before and after the amendment.”'

In keeping with MAGA-tism, I guess the SCs will just "do their own research"...

Dogdamn this SC is a fcuking joke. Just make shite up and profess it loudly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... n-lawsuit/

Oh, and he didn't lose any tangible benefit? Really?

'The jail argued that there was no such coercion, because there was “no evidence to demonstrate [Firewalker-Fields] lost any tangible benefit by choosing to remain in his cell during the service.”' Well sure, just stay in your cell. Fcuking insanity the drivel that spills from these idiots' mouths.

For the life of me I can't determine why any lawyers, as practitioners of the legal profession, are held in any regard re the intellectual abilities. The nonsensical reasoning and rationales for their positions are truly risible.

[Seacoaster(1)]

This sounds like a great plan.

'“But ... the Supreme Court upended that approach” with its ruling in favor of a high school football coach who led postgame prayers on the field, a three-judge panel said this week. “In its place,” the judges said, “courts should use an analysis that focuses on history, tradition, and original meaning.”'

What fcuk do SC justices know about history? Or literature, for that matter? Who the fcuk knows what is going through an author's mind? The stupidity and ignorance of this SC is breathtaking. Long live the homeschooled, I guess. I see the lessons offered by Horace Mann are lost on today's society.

'The author of a book about religion in American public life said it is impossible to say what the Constitution’s framers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, because it was a compromise between those who wanted strict separation of church and state and those who wanted to protect state endorsement of Protestant Christianity.

“What they agreed on was language that was itself ambiguous,” David Sehat said. “From a historical perspective, there’s no real way of saying who was right. They disagreed before and after the amendment.”'

In keeping with MAGA-tism, I guess the SCs will just "do their own research"...

Dogdamn this SC is a fcuking joke. Just make shite up and profess it loudly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... n-lawsuit/

Oh, and he didn't lose any tangible benefit? Really?

'The jail argued that there was no such coercion, because there was “no evidence to demonstrate [Firewalker-Fields] lost any tangible benefit by choosing to remain in his cell during the service.”' Well sure, just stay in your cell. Fcuking insanity the drivel that spills from these idiots' mouths.

For the life of me I can't determine why any lawyers, as practitioners of the legal profession, are held in any regard re the intellectual abilities. The nonsensical reasoning and rationales for their positions are truly risible.

There are at least several cases in the lower courts now (and I am thinking of Second Amendment cases that followed the Court striking down the longstanding NY law about carry permits) that completely pan -- but are stuck applying -- this "history, tradition, and original meaning" "standard." All this does is provoke fights over "history, tradition, and original meaning" in a way that permits discussion untethered to any principle other than "We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

[HooDat]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

[Seacoaster(1)]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

[HooDat]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

[PizzaSnake]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

The rise of the Federalist Society and the thinly disguised influence of "dark money" interests is what has changed the balance. Oh, and fcuk the "spirit" or ethos of Antonin Scalia, that hack.

Any call to hew to an "originalist" anything smacks of the basest reactionary impulse. Or hypocritical pandering.

[Seacoaster(1)]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

Nope. I have no problem with someone as qualified, measured and thoughtful as Roberts or David Souter or Lewis Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor -- no matter how much I might disagree with them. These folks understood/understand that the Court's institutional place in the republic and in the operation of the constitutional order was crucial, and required an effort at staying above or outside of the political game.

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are outcome determinative foot soldiers of the culture wars. My mind isn't made up about Kavanaugh, and I think Barrett is not really qualified for this job. I don't, respectfully, think you have a proper feel for just how jarring the outcomes created by Alito and Co. are in the legal world. The Bremerton coach case was the most brazen, sordid effort at gaining a specific outcome that I have ever seen. The gun cases, starting with Heller are nearly laughable contortions of "history" to deliver the gun lobby the result it wanted and clamored for. Comparing Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas to, say, Breyer and Kagan, suggesting that they are just politicians with a different outlook, is almost juvenile.

[cradleandshoot]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

Nope. I have no problem with someone as qualified, measured and thoughtful as Roberts or David Souter or Lewis Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor -- no matter how much I might disagree with them. These folks understood/understand that the Court's institutional place in the republic and in the operation of the constitutional order was crucial, and required an effort at staying above or outside of the political game.

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are outcome determinative foot soldiers of the culture wars. My mind isn't made up about Kavanaugh, and I think Barrett is not really qualified for this job. I don't, respectfully, think you have a proper feel for just how jarring the outcomes created by Alito and Co. are in the legal world. The Bremerton coach case was the most brazen, sordid effort at gaining a specific outcome that I have ever seen. The gun cases, starting with Heller are nearly laughable contortions of "history" to deliver the gun lobby the result it wanted and clamored for. Comparing Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas to, say, Breyer and Kagan, suggesting that they are just politicians with a different outlook, is almost juvenile.

Any reservations about Justice Brown in her young tenure on the court? I'm guessing she checked all your boxes before she was ever sworn in? Before you have an aneurysm counselor I like justice Brown. She just hasn't had the opportunity being solidified with the liberal wing of the court to really tick off the other side via her very vocal dissents. Pretty soon the pendulum will swing in Justices Brown direction. Can you imagine counselor what the Republicans will start saying about Justice Brown when the tables turn in a few years? I noticed that Adam Schiff has introduced a brand new version of a constitutional amendment to revoke Citizens United. So when you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling you want a constitutional amendment to address your grievance? So maybe the Republicans should have went the constitutional amendment route to abolish R v W ???? You see where I'm going with this counselor? I'm not the seasoned legal eagle that you are but trying to correct a perceived wrong via a constitutional amendment is a fools errand. It is great for political theatrics but it is a dead end.

[MDlaxfan76]

So far, Justice Brown has been very measured and quite strong in her analysis of various issues.

[PizzaSnake]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

Nope. I have no problem with someone as qualified, measured and thoughtful as Roberts or David Souter or Lewis Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor -- no matter how much I might disagree with them. These folks understood/understand that the Court's institutional place in the republic and in the operation of the constitutional order was crucial, and required an effort at staying above or outside of the political game.

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are outcome determinative foot soldiers of the culture wars. My mind isn't made up about Kavanaugh, and I think Barrett is not really qualified for this job. I don't, respectfully, think you have a proper feel for just how jarring the outcomes created by Alito and Co. are in the legal world. The Bremerton coach case was the most brazen, sordid effort at gaining a specific outcome that I have ever seen. The gun cases, starting with Heller are nearly laughable contortions of "history" to deliver the gun lobby the result it wanted and clamored for. Comparing Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas to, say, Breyer and Kagan, suggesting that they are just politicians with a different outlook, is almost juvenile.

Any reservations about Justice Brown in her young tenure on the court? I'm guessing she checked all your boxes before she was ever sworn in? Before you have an aneurysm counselor I like justice Brown. She just hasn't had the opportunity being solidified with the liberal wing of the court to really tick off the other side via her very vocal dissents. Pretty soon the pendulum will swing in Justices Brown direction. Can you imagine counselor what the Republicans will start saying about Justice Brown when the tables turn in a few years? I noticed that Adam Schiff has introduced a brand new version of a constitutional amendment to revoke Citizens United. So when you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling you want a constitutional amendment to address your grievance? So maybe the Republicans should have went the constitutional amendment route to abolish R v W ???? You see where I'm going with this counselor? I'm not the seasoned legal eagle that you are but trying to correct a perceived wrong via a constitutional amendment is a fools errand. It is great for political theatrics but it is a dead end.

Hmm.

[MDlaxfan76]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

Nope. I have no problem with someone as qualified, measured and thoughtful as Roberts or David Souter or Lewis Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor -- no matter how much I might disagree with them. These folks understood/understand that the Court's institutional place in the republic and in the operation of the constitutional order was crucial, and required an effort at staying above or outside of the political game.

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are outcome determinative foot soldiers of the culture wars. My mind isn't made up about Kavanaugh, and I think Barrett is not really qualified for this job. I don't, respectfully, think you have a proper feel for just how jarring the outcomes created by Alito and Co. are in the legal world. The Bremerton coach case was the most brazen, sordid effort at gaining a specific outcome that I have ever seen. The gun cases, starting with Heller are nearly laughable contortions of "history" to deliver the gun lobby the result it wanted and clamored for. Comparing Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas to, say, Breyer and Kagan, suggesting that they are just politicians with a different outlook, is almost juvenile.

Any reservations about Justice Brown in her young tenure on the court? I'm guessing she checked all your boxes before she was ever sworn in? Before you have an aneurysm counselor I like justice Brown. She just hasn't had the opportunity being solidified with the liberal wing of the court to really tick off the other side via her very vocal dissents. Pretty soon the pendulum will swing in Justices Brown direction. Can you imagine counselor what the Republicans will start saying about Justice Brown when the tables turn in a few years? I noticed that Adam Schiff has introduced a brand new version of a constitutional amendment to revoke Citizens United. So when you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling you want a constitutional amendment to address your grievance? So maybe the Republicans should have went the constitutional amendment route to abolish R v W ???? You see where I'm going with this counselor? I'm not the seasoned legal eagle that you are but trying to correct a perceived wrong via a constitutional amendment is a fools errand. It is great for political theatrics but it is a dead end.

Hmm.

yes, that's exactly what should happen.

[NattyBohChamps04]

So when you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling you want a constitutional amendment to address your grievance? So maybe the Republicans should have went the constitutional amendment route to abolish R v W ???? You see where I'm going with this counselor? I'm not the seasoned legal eagle that you are but trying to correct a perceived wrong via a constitutional amendment is a fools errand. It is great for political theatrics but it is a dead end.

Yes, you ceate a constitutional amendment. That's literally how our Constitution works, even if it's a fools errand.

I feel like I'm in Schoolhouse Rock. If something is not in the constitution or ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, and you want it in the constitution? You propose a thing called an Amendment to add it to the constitution. We have the ability to change the United States Constitution if enough people want to.

Citizens United is extremely unpopular among Democrats AND Republicans. We're talking enough people to create an amendment banning it if it were up to the voting public. But of course it's up to politicians who benefit from it.

And of course a Citizens United amendment is only a fools errand because Republican states wouldn't ratify it even if their Republican constituents want them to.

[Farfromgeneva]

23 pages of "we can't pin this on Sam because our institutional credibility is already in the sh*tter.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo ... 9_2023.pdf

"The draft majority opinion was circulated on February 10, 2022. Politico published the draft opinion on the evening of May 2. The investigation focused on Court personnel – temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees – who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication by Politico."

Are the Justices themselves "permanent employees"?

"The investigators determined that in addition to the Justices, 82 employees had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion. On February 10, the draft opinion was sent via email to a distribution list consisting of law clerks and permanent personnel who work on opinions. The vote memos were also subsequently sent to this list. There were 70 unique, active users on the distribution list. On March 22, eight more permanent personnel received the draft opinion via email. The investigators also found that two additional permanent personnel accessed the draft opinion electronically by separate means. In sum, the investigators determined that 80 personnel received or had access to electronic copies of the draft opinion."

Seems like a lot if confidentiality is what you are after....

"The draft majority opinion was also distributed in hard copy to some Chambers. The two Chambers personnel who were not on the email distribution list would have had access to the circulated hard copies and to any other copies that were printed in Chambers. Thirty-four personnel confirmed they printed out copies of the draft opinion and four were unsure; many printed out more than one copy. And, as noted in Section D below, in the course of their interviews, several personnel acknowledged that they did not treat information relating to the draft opinion consistent with the Court’s confidentiality policies. The investigators searched all available logs for evidence of who handled the draft majority opinion after circulation. A few circumstances justified closer inspection, which was conducted but did not result in any solid leads as to the identity of who may have disclosed the document. Consistent with standard policy for most law enforcement agencies, this report does not identify any individuals who received additional scrutiny because (a) certain aspects of the investigation may yield additional pertinent information and (b) in any event, there is not adequate evidence, even applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, to conclude that any particular individual was responsible for the disclosure."

A lot of copies sitting around on folks desks too....

"The investigators did not find any logs or IT artifacts indicating that the draft opinion was downloaded to removable media, but it is impossible to rule out."

Huh. Kind of a big caveat, no?

The report strikes me as an investigation in form, not in fact.

Every time I hear chamber my mind goes to 36 Chambers…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enter_t ... _Chambers)

[Farfromgeneva]

This sounds like a great plan.

'“But ... the Supreme Court upended that approach” with its ruling in favor of a high school football coach who led postgame prayers on the field, a three-judge panel said this week. “In its place,” the judges said, “courts should use an analysis that focuses on history, tradition, and original meaning.”'

What fcuk do SC justices know about history? Or literature, for that matter? Who the fcuk knows what is going through an author's mind? The stupidity and ignorance of this SC is breathtaking. Long live the homeschooled, I guess. I see the lessons offered by Horace Mann are lost on today's society.

'The author of a book about religion in American public life said it is impossible to say what the Constitution’s framers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, because it was a compromise between those who wanted strict separation of church and state and those who wanted to protect state endorsement of Protestant Christianity.

“What they agreed on was language that was itself ambiguous,” David Sehat said. “From a historical perspective, there’s no real way of saying who was right. They disagreed before and after the amendment.”'

In keeping with MAGA-tism, I guess the SCs will just "do their own research"...

Dogdamn this SC is a fcuking joke. Just make shite up and profess it loudly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... n-lawsuit/

Oh, and he didn't lose any tangible benefit? Really?

'The jail argued that there was no such coercion, because there was “no evidence to demonstrate [Firewalker-Fields] lost any tangible benefit by choosing to remain in his cell during the service.”' Well sure, just stay in your cell. Fcuking insanity the drivel that spills from these idiots' mouths.

For the life of me I can't determine why any lawyers, as practitioners of the legal profession, are held in any regard re the intellectual abilities. The nonsensical reasoning and rationales for their positions are truly risible.

I know a stateegislator in SC, married this chick who’s parents are friends w the in laws. Mouth breather, nice on the surface but I wouldn’t give him autonomy over too many decisions. Went to Clemson then got some very basic work then a generic law school with an eye on politics the whole time. Worked for a firm for a couple of years in upstate SC (Greenville area is considered upstate) then at like 25-26 ran for office but it was always his plan. Probably not the worst offender but not what you’d call an independent thinker.

Looks like he’s out now actually.

http://westcox.com/meet-west/

[Farfromgeneva]

This sounds like a great plan.

'“But ... the Supreme Court upended that approach” with its ruling in favor of a high school football coach who led postgame prayers on the field, a three-judge panel said this week. “In its place,” the judges said, “courts should use an analysis that focuses on history, tradition, and original meaning.”'

What fcuk do SC justices know about history? Or literature, for that matter? Who the fcuk knows what is going through an author's mind? The stupidity and ignorance of this SC is breathtaking. Long live the homeschooled, I guess. I see the lessons offered by Horace Mann are lost on today's society.

'The author of a book about religion in American public life said it is impossible to say what the Constitution’s framers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, because it was a compromise between those who wanted strict separation of church and state and those who wanted to protect state endorsement of Protestant Christianity.

“What they agreed on was language that was itself ambiguous,” David Sehat said. “From a historical perspective, there’s no real way of saying who was right. They disagreed before and after the amendment.”'

In keeping with MAGA-tism, I guess the SCs will just "do their own research"...

Dogdamn this SC is a fcuking joke. Just make shite up and profess it loudly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... n-lawsuit/

Oh, and he didn't lose any tangible benefit? Really?

'The jail argued that there was no such coercion, because there was “no evidence to demonstrate [Firewalker-Fields] lost any tangible benefit by choosing to remain in his cell during the service.”' Well sure, just stay in your cell. Fcuking insanity the drivel that spills from these idiots' mouths.

For the life of me I can't determine why any lawyers, as practitioners of the legal profession, are held in any regard re the intellectual abilities. The nonsensical reasoning and rationales for their positions are truly risible.

There are at least several cases in the lower courts now (and I am thinking of Second Amendment cases that followed the Court striking down the longstanding NY law about carry permits) that completely pan -- but are stuck applying -- this "history, tradition, and original meaning" "standard." All this does is provoke fights over "history, tradition, and original meaning" in a way that permits discussion untethered to any principle other than "We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

Friend who went to law school at GT and ended up in TX, he told me a lot of the ethics on the exam is related to how you bill time for clients or in those areas. This was nearly 20yrs ago and even my generally decent memory is stale but if that’s even meaningfully true perhaps the system needs some scrubbing in general since that’s where they train.

(If anyone needs a small shop and can’t afford HooDat in TX look up a guy named Alex Brauer-quality individual)