SCOTUS

[CU77]

Gorsuch is a libertarian at heart.

More intriguing is once again, the Court proves that only the 'conservative' jurists have any interest in law.

These two sentences directly contradict each other.

I'm betting that you didn't even notice.

[Peter Brown]

Gorsuch is a libertarian at heart.

More intriguing is once again, the Court proves that only the 'conservative' jurists have any interest in law.

These two sentences directly contradict each other.

I'm betting that you didn't even notice.

I'm betting you don't understand libertarianism. Actually, I don't need to bet; you don't know.

The defining characteristic of libertarian legal theory is its insistence that the amount of governmental intervention should be kept to a minimum and the primary functions of law should be enforcement of contracts and social order.

[seacoaster]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta ... ies_of_law

Nice Pete.

[njbill]

Pete paid his internet bill this month.

[Farfromgeneva]

Well the key part, especially if one has actually read Hayek, is that social order by the pure theoretical influences is a second derivative effect not a primary goal. It’s a “nice to have” element that often comes from such primary goals in that line of thought.

I’m a big fan of the theory of emergent order. Should be obvious someone like Talib appeals to me in the same spirit.

[6ftstick]

You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.

Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.

Have they needed to?

Two completely different things

[seacoaster]

You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.

Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.

Have they needed to?

Two completely different things

Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.

[seacoaster]

Here is the Court's decision in the Title VII case:

https://d2qwohl8lx5mh1.cloudfront.net/8 ... CQ/content

One curious thing is how or why it came to be Gorsuch writing the decision. Since the Chief was in the majority, presumably he got to assign the opinion to someone, and four more senior judges than Gorsuch were available. Did Neil just raise his hand first, or get the clue first on Jeopardy? Or did the Chief see an opportunity?

[DocBarrister]

Here is the Court's decision in the Title VII case:

https://d2qwohl8lx5mh1.cloudfront.net/8 ... CQ/content

One curious thing is how or why it came to be Gorsuch writing the decision. Since the Chief was in the majority, presumably he got to assign the opinion to someone, and four more senior judges than Gorsuch were available. Did Neil just raise his hand first, or get the clue first on Jeopardy? Or did the Chief see an opportunity?

Roberts tasked Gorsuch with putting a thin, textualist veneer on what was basically a liberal, activist decision. It was a last-gasp effort to avoid getting kicked out of the monthly Federalist Society Book Club.

DocBarrister

[6ftstick]

You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.

Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.

Have they needed to?

Two completely different things

Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.

Yeh really.

If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.

[seacoaster]

You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.

Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.

Have they needed to?

Two completely different things

Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.

Yeh really.

If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.

[Peter Brown]

Here is the Court's decision in the Title VII case:

https://d2qwohl8lx5mh1.cloudfront.net/8 ... CQ/content

One curious thing is how or why it came to be Gorsuch writing the decision. Since the Chief was in the majority, presumably he got to assign the opinion to someone, and four more senior judges than Gorsuch were available. Did Neil just raise his hand first, or get the clue first on Jeopardy? Or did the Chief see an opportunity?

Roberts tasked Gorsuch with putting a thin, textualist veneer on what was basically a liberal, activist decision. It was a last-gasp effort to avoid getting kicked out of the monthly Federalist Society Book Club.

DocBarrister

Doc's post is the chef's kiss why you never compromise with a liberal. Instead of celebrating the decision (a decision I agree with generally), or acknowledging that it is only the conservative jurists which bother anymore to read case law and provide reasoning for their decisions, Doc takes the opportunity to further his agenda.

The lIberal mob is never satisfied. No matter what you offer them it will never be enough. Remember that as you attempt to have rational conversations with them. What you think is a solution, to a liberal is an impediment.

[Kismet]

You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.

Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.

Have they needed to?

Two completely different things

Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.

Yeh really.

If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.

And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.

Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.

Have they needed to?

Two completely different things

Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.

Yeh really.

If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.

And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.

They can make it on TV instead

[6ftstick]

You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.

Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.

Have they needed to?

Two completely different things

Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.

Yeh really.

If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.

And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.

Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.

See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.

You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.

Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.

Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..

[MDlaxfan76]

well, there we have it, the stupid and scared ravings of the hard right wing.

[6ftstick]

well, there we have it, the stupid and scared ravings of the hard right wing.

Comeon Sir Intelligentia doesn't the constitution just pizz you off. Weren't all those old white guys in 1776 just looking out for themselves.

The fact they created the freesist and most successful country in human history was accidental.

[MDlaxfan76]

well, there we have it, the stupid and scared ravings of the hard right wing.

Comeon Sir Intelligentia doesn't the constitution just pizz you off. Weren't all those old white guys in 1776 just looking out for themselves.

The fact they created the freesist and most successful country in human history was accidental.

And if you exercise even a modicum of reading comprehension you would know that I agree that we have much for which to be thankful to our founders, though I wouldn't say our country is the "freesist"

[Kismet]

You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.

Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.

Have they needed to?

Two completely different things

Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.

Yeh really.

If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.

And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.

Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.

See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.

You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.

Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.

Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..

I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!

[6ftstick]

You are a little late to the party on this one, 6ft, but the court didn’t prohibit the exercise of religion. The court simply upheld a limit on the number of people who could be in the church.

Functionally, very similar to fire codes which for different health and safety reasons limit the number of people in a church. No one claims fire codes violate the First Amendment.

Have they needed to?

Two completely different things

Not really. They are both time, place and manner restrictions based on exigencies. One -- the fire code -- we have grown so used to that the restriction, say a limit of 400 in the pews, are not even noticed or commented upon. The second is a unique, unprecedented public health emergency in which the evidence (which Brother Kavanaugh simply disregarded) is clear that indoors, singing, talking in unison and taking back in big breaths, lend themselves to communication of the contagion. Two really similar things in the analysis.

Yeh really.

If the capacity for a church/synagogue/temple is X and the congregations never exceeds X reducing X by 75% necessarily prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I gave it a shot, but you insist on missing the point, and making the one your television insists you make. So, have a nice day.

And do let us know when you find any kind of credible lawyer willing to make that case in court.

Didn't the supreme court just decide the case some credible lawyers brought.

See its the likes off you enlightened super smart types that enable the destruction of our constitutional rights.

You just keep nibbling and nibbling at them, then ridicule us for wanting them to stay as conceived.

Why do you think your buddies are trying to destroy the reputations of the founding fathers.

Then the document they wrote can be written off as the product of rotten slave holding baztids and you can do away with the whole constitution that just gets in your way..

I'll repeat - let us know when you find some credible lawyers that will bring that case as you describe it (the ones you cite, likely wouldn't). Your non sequitur response is something we can expect from you. Have a nice day anyway!

So using two emojis makes you feel as superior as three.