SCOTUS

[frmanfan]

Oops, now the NYT is walking the story back. Is there no smear they will not use just to protect abortion rights? Should every Dem candidate who came out over the weekend and smeared Kavanaugh apologize for it?

[youthathletics]

The NYT is just fine being the one that may 'potnetially' take down anything right of center...they make Fox news look like like journalists.

[foreverlax]

Oops, now the NYT is walking the story back. Is there no smear they will not use just to protect abortion rights? Should every Dem candidate who came out over the weekend and smeared Kavanaugh apologize for it?

As soon as Trump starts apologizing, we should expect the same from the rest...starting with his daily lies.

[seacoaster]

The NYT is just fine being the one that may 'potnetially' take down anything right of center...they make Fox news look like like journalists.

Please; there is no comparison between the Times and the Trump-State Media "and Friends."

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politic ... story.html

"A Democratic senator told the FBI last fall of new information he said was relevant to allegations made against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh — a claim that was not investigated at the time but has since become public in an upcoming book chronicling the bitter confirmation fight.

Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) wrote to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray on Oct. 2, 2018, requesting an “appropriate follow up” with one individual who had come to Coons with information about Kavanaugh. Although the person’s name was redacted in the one-page letter, a spokesman for Coons confirmed Monday that the individual was Max Stier, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale University who now leads a prominent nonpartisan group in Washington.

In the letter obtained by The Washington Post, Coons said “several individuals” contacted his office who had wanted to share information with federal authorities but said they had “difficulty reaching anyone who will collect their information.”

“I cannot speak to the relevance or veracity of the information that many of these individuals seek to provide, and I have encouraged them to use the FBI tip portal or contact a regional FBI field office,” Coons wrote to Wray. But Stier, Coons said, “was one individual whom I would like to specifically refer to you for appropriate follow up.”

The FBI promptly acknowledged receiving the letter from Coons, according to his spokesman, Sean Coit. The two top senators on the Judiciary Committee at the time — Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) — were copied on Coons’s letter to the FBI.

A spokesman for Grassley, who no longer chairs the Judiciary Committee, said Monday that the senator’s staff was unaware of the specifics of the information Stier had."

Well, no one can be sure from day to day whether Grassley is even a living creature. But it sure looks like the "Deep State" -- what most of us call the FBI -- seems to have gotten a message to curtail any investigation into a guy who appears to have lied to the Senate. That's something you guys and the Vampire Trey Gowdy used to care about....

[CU88]

This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS, it is just "dirt" to smear against Senator Collins from Maine in the next election.

[youthathletics]

This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS, it is just "dirt" to smear

^ You can say that again. Its more #whackamole

[seacoaster]

This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS, it is just "dirt" to smear against Senator Collins from Maine in the next election.

Do you really think so? That is certainly a by-product, but you think this is the purpose of the articles/expose?

[a fan]

But it sure looks like the "Deep State" -- what most of us call the FBI -- seems to have gotten a message to curtail any investigation into a guy who appears to have lied to the Senate.

No, no, no. You don't get it. The Deep State is only mean to Trump. The Deep State was invented when Trump was named the Republican nominee. And, apparently, the Deep State disappeared the minute the Mueller report arrive.

Neat, don't you think?

[youthathletics]

But it sure looks like the "Deep State" -- what most of us call the FBI -- seems to have gotten a message to curtail any investigation into a guy who appears to have lied to the Senate.

No, no, no. You don't get it. The Deep State is only mean to Trump. The Deep State was invented when Trump was named the Republican nominee. And, apparently, the Deep State disappeared the minute the Mueller report arrive.

Neat, don't you think?

They disappeared because they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

[a fan]

Oh good. So they're gone now?

I'll remember that.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

If Kavanaugh lied to the Senate, should he be removed from office? Yes or No.

yes. is there any argument that this is good behavior?

[Trinity]

Hard to admit you spent law school with your pants around your ankles.

[Trinity]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... cotus.html

[seacoaster]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... cotus.html

Good reminder; thanks, as always, for posting it.

[seacoaster]

Nice little history lesson in the Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/opin ... court.html

"Frankfurter and Laski would later achieve their own fame: Frankfurter was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1939, and Laski was elected chairman of England’s Labour Party at the end of World War II. But in 1919, they were young academics (Frankfurter was 37, Laski 26) still making names for themselves. They were also part of a circle of younger intellectuals who worshiped Holmes for his willingness to uphold progressive labor legislation despite his own doubts about the wisdom of such laws. This circle, which included two of the founding editors of The New Republic, Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann, published tributes to Holmes, feted him with parties and dinners, and passed around his opinions like sacred texts.

Holmes was buoyed by the admiration of these acolytes, believing he was finally receiving the recognition he had long desired as nothing less than the “greatest jurist in the world.” He also developed a genuine affection for the “young lads,” as he called them, treating Frankfurter and Laski like the sons he never had.

So when the two men came under attack for their “radical” views — Frankfurter for his support of labor unions, Laski for his socialist leanings — Holmes sprang to their defense. He wrote to the president of Harvard, where both men taught, and sought help from the Harvard Law School alumni association.

He also began to rethink his stance on the First Amendment, an endeavor his young friends encouraged. For more than a year, they waged an intense behind-the-scenes campaign to strengthen Holmes’s appreciation for free speech. They fed him books on political liberalism, wrote him long letters on the value of tolerance and engaged him in impassioned debates. At one point, Laski even arranged a meeting at his summer bungalow between Holmes and Zechariah Chafee, a Harvard law professor who had written an article criticizing the justice’s views. “You won’t forget that you are coming down on Saturday for the week-end,” Laski wrote Chafee. “Holmes is coming to tea, and I want you to arrive in good time. For I have given him your article and we must fight on it.”

Holmes did not change his mind all at once. In March 1919, he wrote three opinions for the court upholding the convictions of socialists for criticizing the war. These opinions hinted at an internal struggle. Holmes retreated from his earlier belief that free speech protects only against prior restraints. And he rejected the “bad tendency” test, writing that speech can be punished only if it poses a “clear and present danger.” But he failed to explain how the defendants’ speech met that test, falling back instead on his commitment to majority rule and judicial restraint.

Eight months later, when the court heard another case under the Espionage and Sedition acts, Holmes’s conversion was complete. By this point, Laski was in serious trouble, having spoken out in support of a labor strike by Boston police officers. The strike was a disaster; with no officers on duty, the city descended into chaos, and the soldiers who were brought in to restore order killed eight people. Laski’s support for the strike thus won him the enmity of the entire New England establishment. The press denounced him as an “boudoir Bolshevist,” while the Harvard Board of Overseers opened an investigation to determine whether he was fit to teach.

It was against this backdrop that Holmes wrote his famous defense of free speech. A majority of the court voted to uphold the latest convictions under the Espionage and Sedition acts. But Holmes, joined by his close friend Justice Louis Brandeis, dissented. Acknowledging the appeal of persecution, which he had once himself embraced, he now offered a powerful rebuttal:

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

With those words, Holmes provided a justification for free speech that fit with his conception of democracy. We should protect speech not to promote the liberty of the individual over the interests of the majority. We should protect speech because doing so promotes the collective interest — in other words, the interests of us all."

[cradleandshoot]

Hard to admit you spent law school with your pants around your ankles.

Same could be said of Bill Clinton.

[Trinity]

Yup.

[ABV 8.3%]

Hoping most of you already know the news that the Supremes rejected a lower court's ruling, essentially getting it ready for trial.

Sandy Hook. The victims can go ahead and sue gun makers.

And all this time, thought the Supremes were full of CONservatives

[seacoaster]

Hoping most of you already know the news that the Supremes rejected a lower court's ruling, essentially getting it ready for trial.

Sandy Hook. The victims can go ahead and sue gun makers.

And all this time, thought the Supremes were full of CONservatives

The Court declined to accept Remington's appeal. The case was brought by the Estates of several people killed in the shootings, and alleged liability under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Remington had asserted that a federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, immunized it from liability. The Act generally gives gun manufacturers and sellers immunity from lawsuits “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of guns by others. However, the law carves out an exception that allows lawsuits to go forward when the manufacturer or seller knowingly violated state or federal law governing the sale of guns, and that violation caused the harm at issue. So there must have been a credible allegation that the manufacturer or seller violated state or federal law.

The case looks like it has nothing to do with any liberal/conservative dichotomy, but just a look at the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint in relation to the scope of the federal statute.

[jhu72]

The prosecution claims Remington broke the law against certain types of advertising / marketing.