Quote :

"A Colorado web designer who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled could refuse to make a wedding website for gay couples had cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her."

Does it even really matter now?

7/3/2023 3:44:38 PM

Just sucks that not only was it a horrible decision, it was based on fraudulent claims. Smarter people than me will have to determine if that matters, if it leaves any additional recourse.

Otherwise it matters just bc it should be broadcast to further erode trust in this institution and push towards reform.

7/3/2023 5:24:57 PM

It’s also just a massive symptom of the degradation of our legal system. I mean, our legal system has always struggled to deliver justice since the country’s founding, that’s a given. Despite its flaws, at least our legal system had basic rules that were generally adhered to. Even the rich and powerful had to show they had standing (real harm was being committed) before they buried their opponents with a battalion of lawyers. Now even these basic guardrails are collapsing at the whim of the extremist SCOTUS majority.

I personally believe this cynical attitude is trickling down to even simple business contract law. I’ve been on the periphery of business contracts for ~6 years now as a part of my job (admittedly a short amount of time and I still consider myself a noob). The amount of language that is being recommended by industry groups to tighten our contracts has exploded in that short amount of time. It’s whack-a-mole to address all these cases of sniveling weasel lawyers twisting clear language, rules, and guardrails to accomplish whatever Big Money desires. Judges being deficient or complacent is possibly contributing too.

And I just look around, again from the periphery of our legal system, and ask “How can good lawyers just stand by and watch this slow degradation of the very system that grants them professional status? The very system that our economic, political, and justice systems rest on? How can they not smell the smoke on the breeze?”

7/3/2023 8:37:06 PM

Yikes there is NO hope

Burn it all down

7/3/2023 11:48:29 PM

People acting like the world is ending now really need to do two things

read SC cases other than just the famous ones and see the stats on votes
read SC history to see how bad things once were not that long ago

And no, I'm not doing that boomer thing of saying "look how bad it was back in the day"
the point is, like what Roberts said, stop making every case you don't like about the legitimacy of the court at large, cause it might just be your own, often justified in a moral sense, but regardless, bias speaking.
and yes, as I've said before, there might be minor issues, but again not to the scale people make them out to be

I mean just look at all the cries over barrett and kavanaugh and look at their voting records now

Thomas/alito, I get your point I guess, but he's been here a long while, and while I disagree on things, am glad to have the diversity on the court for the long run. it is easy to let emotions seep into things and that's all I'll say on that part cause it is the nature of the internet to show all the highs and lows of the short term, but it all evens out eventually
but people will, as is normal and... to be honest okay, insult, everyone from whatever side does the other in their own ego. I try to ignore social media especially on these topics. I myself am not super educated on the matter, why read hundreds from who are even less or who I don't even know

also I'd say that the difference between what scalia for example and what some of the dissents now are, is both the current environment of the country, with online influence, and how his comments tended to specifically criticize the interpretations, whereas the current ones have been more about speaking to the politics of the nation than the law. I can't say about the other judges mentioned by some though, don't know enough.

in the end, the balance of powers is what is important. the SC hasn't been perfect, but congress and the presidency have historically done much worse. don't make a deal with the devil to get rid of a problem, won't work well in the long run. if anything, protest the bozos in congress who make tiny clips to rile you up, have dinner afterwards, suck off some sponsors, and sleep a peaceful night.
all they do is outsource any meaningful work to their sponsors and to govt. agencies who make decisions without any vote in front of the public, and then put on charades for us to watch on fuckin' cspan

some links to read:
https://archive.is/DCvFK (the economist)
https://archive.is/AfAnh (the washington post, more in detail)
I used the archive site cause of paywalls

last sentence: Sure Judges may, very occasionally, fall into some bias -- but in the process, in the short term, let us not sacrifice judicial independence and let it all fall into the hands of con-gress. life is long

[Edited on July 4, 2023 at 10:47 AM. Reason : --]

7/4/2023 10:35:58 AM

I disagree that life is long.

7/4/2023 12:51:21 PM

I agree on an individual level
but meant so more in context of the court

7/5/2023 12:46:48 PM

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-other-billionaires-sokol-huizenga-novelly-supreme-court

Quote :

"A cadre of industry titans and ultrawealthy executives have treated [Clarence Thomas] to far-flung vacations aboard their yachts, ushered him into the premium suites at sporting events and sent their private jets to fetch him — including, on more than one occasion, an entire 737. It’s a stream of luxury that is both more extensive and from a wider circle than has been previously understood... Their gifts include: At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast."

8/10/2023 12:02:12 PM

...and nothing will happen and he'll just go harder to the right to keep owning them libs.

8/10/2023 1:04:39 PM

The Supreme Court appears to be more corrupt than I had even imagined.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/10/ginni-thomas-leonard-leo-citizens-united-00108082

9/11/2023 9:21:56 AM

Shocking, but not surprising: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas secretly participated in Koch network donor events

https://www.threads.net/@propublica/post/CxfV4FmAcD0/

9/22/2023 8:15:01 AM

Quote :

"Clarence Thomas wrote this concurring opinion in AFPF v. Bonta. He wrote that asking this Koch dark money group to disclose its donors violates those donors’ 1A rights. Now we have learned that he was secretly (“anonymously”) HELPING the Kochs SOLICIT MONEY from these donors."

https://twitter.com/clearing_fog/status/1705380824835834007

9/23/2023 4:29:01 PM

Oops!

And I trust there will continue to be no ramifications.

9/23/2023 4:34:49 PM

A "Delicate Matter": Clarence Thomas' Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus

12/18/2023 12:33:08 PM

I can't even....

I remember when I was young I thought Supreme Court Justices were basically saints. Now I realize many are shittier than the average american scumbag.

[Edited on December 18, 2023 at 1:40 PM. Reason : watch out, HOT TAKE!]

12/18/2023 1:33:59 PM

I have a portrait of Clarence Thomas on my wall.
Time for a sledge hammer

12/18/2023 8:20:29 PM

I have no confidence this will happen, but I'd like to see the current Supreme Court hand Trump a series of legal defeats. It would be hilarious to see people he appointed rule against him, though direct appointees really should recuse themselves. They are academics. Do they really like Trump? In most cases, I doubt it.

12/22/2023 11:13:03 PM

Not sure if you've been paying attention, but this court has done nothing but hand him legal defeats. At the very least, they haven't bailed him out on any of his election fraud / Jan 6th shenanigans. As much as people bemoan the "partisanship" of this court, and it has certainly earned that at times, they've shown little to no deference to Trump's delusions. I expect that to continue relatively unabated. Maybe they narrow the scope of some of these gag orders and throw out the Colorado thing, but that's about as far as I see them going. I wouldn't be shocked to see them let the inevitable appeals court losses for Cheeto stand without even taking them up.

[Edited on December 22, 2023 at 11:30 PM. Reason : ]

12/22/2023 11:29:59 PM

The Supreme Court is a fine institution—

12/23/2023 12:35:22 AM

12/23/2023 7:54:11 AM

I didn't know that you were into that stuff

12/23/2023 9:53:56 AM

Not that there’s anything wrong with that

12/23/2023 10:38:05 AM

I'm a big fan of Yugoslavian Mountain Hound Insult Comic dogs.

12/23/2023 12:34:19 PM

Well done

12/23/2023 7:36:03 PM

Found an interesting post online that introduces views against the Colorado and Maine decisions.

Beyond the actual Trump situation, I think it's deeply interesting in the matter of the law itself and the dynamics between Federal, State, etc.
There's a lot of trendsetting to happen in the next year.

Quote :

" I want Trump gone, fired into the sun, and view him as an existential threat to democracy who must be stopped. But the use of the 14th amendment to disqualify him is a terrible, terrible idea. SCOTUS needs to issue a 9-0 ruling killing this idea (a 5-4 ruling would be terrible). The amendment was written with the Civil War in mind. Millions of men at arms, supporting separate governments, in uniformed armies, fighting for years. If insurrection is self-proving, as some have claimed, then it is only self-proving in that context, with that scale of conflict, with people who freely admitted that they were part of the Confederacy and engaged in a revolt. Whatever January 6th was, it wasn't that. Even if you believe January 6th was an insurrection, Trump was not in the crowd marching on the Capitol. Did his statements provoke the crowd? Of course. But do those statements themselves rise to the level of insurrection? I rather doubt it, I think they would be protected 1st Amendment political speech. Section 1 of the 14th amendment itself states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." To argue that somehow the insurrection clause is exempt from the due process requirements of Section 1 of the very same amendment is absurd. In my opinion, someone should only be disqualified under the 14th Amendment if they are convicted of insurrection under 18 USC 2383. To say that a single state employee or elected official can disqualify a candidate based on their subjective interpretation of whether that individual conducted an insurrection is pure insanity. The other qualifications for President (age 35, 14 years a resident) are objectively provable facts suitable to be determined administratively. Whether someone participated in an insurrection is a highly subjective political and legal question that can only be determined at trial. If this ruling stands, every partisan election official in the country will be labeling every protest, march, and instance of civil disobedience as an insurrection in an attempt to disqualify candidates they dislike. More nit-picky, and dangerous in its own right, but the 14th Amendment says "No person shall be a... or hold any office...". It only says they can't hold office, not that they can't run for office. The court could simply rule that the question is moot unless and until Trump is elected. Of course, the consequences then would be even more extreme, so I don't see them doing this. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." While it does not state that the states shall not have the power to enforce it, it clearly states that Congress does. It would be fairly easy to interpret that clause as saying that only Congress can enforce the provisions of the amendment, and thus only Congress can disqualify Trump. One could also argue that Congress doesn't have to vote to exclude Trump, but that Section 5 does require that Congress must pass enabling legislation to implement Section 3 and establish the procedures and criteria for defining an insurrection and excluding a person. And that if they have not done so, then Section 3 is unenforceable. Then of course there is the argument discussed in this very op-ed that the 14th Amendment does not include the President, and that this is not an oversight. I don't love this argument, and I don't think the case he presents in the op-ed is the best argument for it, but I think that this article in Slate makes a fairly compelling case that the President was intentionally excluded because every other office referenced is an official who is elected in a single state being disqualified by the officials of that state. In other words, the people who are depriving the voters of the opportunity to vote for a particular candidate are also directly accountable to those same voters, and can be removed from office if the voters disagree. With the President, it's different. If Colorado or Maine remove Trump from the ballot, and if Trump loses the election because he could not win those electoral votes, then the voters outside of Colorado or Maine have no recourse. They cannot vote to remove the officials who disqualified Trump and (theoretically) prevented him from winning election because they are in a different state. They have been deprived of the opportunity to an elect a candidate without the ability to take electoral action to correct that issue. Basically, allowing states to remove Presidential candidates upsets the system of checks and balances and gives certain states power over other states. In short, the 14th Amendment is very poorly worded. It was written in the context of a single recent historic event without giving thorough consideration to how it could or should be applied to a future event or set of circumstances. Trump is a menace and a threat to democracy who must be stopped, but equally, so too is the use of an archaic, poorly worded amendment written in response to a single event to disqualify Trump. This case and this idea are fucking radioactive and SCOTUS needs to squash the anti-democratic theory that individual state officials can subjectively decide to disqualify a candidate. "

12/31/2023 1:57:07 AM

I agree in principle we should ignore archaic poorly worded amendments, including the 2nd amendment, we’ll see how much of a precedent ignoring 14th sets for this

1/2/2024 10:15:23 AM

^LOL!

No, wait! That's not what we meant. . .

1/2/2024 10:41:40 AM

nevermind

[Edited on January 2, 2024 at 1:25 PM. Reason : -]

1/2/2024 1:21:58 PM

Why does your post make me think of a baby's penis?

1/2/2024 7:34:54 PM

Sometimes you post when it would be nice for others to post or no one post at all

1/2/2024 8:11:22 PM

Sorry! You are right. One thing TWW really needs is less posting.

1/2/2024 8:30:54 PM

Lol from the likes of you perhaps. However your stock market posts are top notch. Your last post in the froshkiller washing machine thread sucks bad. Its like you posted cause you wanted him to speak to you directly. Even though its obvious he doesn’t want to speak to you

1/2/2024 8:49:54 PM

Yes, that was a troll post. He did not get to the root cause which was quite unsatisfying for an engineer. The post was a suggestion that there had been no true resolution despite his follow-up.

Was it the baby penis post that really set you off? I'll tell you what sets me off -- someone posting and then blanking it out for unexplained reasons. I welcome constructive (or non-constructive) feedback. I thought we had a winner with NTTAWWT.

My stock market posts are pretty repetitive if you haven't noticed, but glad if anyone has found them useful.

Please note that my posting doesn't preclude anyone else from posting. If they want to post, they should.

1/2/2024 9:03:12 PM

^

Quote :

"someone posting and then blanking it out for unexplained reasons"

I made a remark that wasn't productive and recognized that, so I said "nevermind", since I think that's a better alternative.

hope that clears it up

1/2/2024 9:44:12 PM

The words are so tiring. Getting old sucks

1/2/2024 10:08:28 PM

Are you OK? I was already concerned about BubbleBobble. Do I need to add you to the list of TWW users on mental health wellness watch?

1/2/2024 10:50:13 PM

What's going on in here??

1/3/2024 9:24:05 AM

[Edited on January 3, 2024 at 12:29 PM. Reason : Nope]

1/3/2024 12:29:37 PM

[Edited on January 3, 2024 at 2:04 PM. Reason : Nah. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.]

1/3/2024 2:04:03 PM

I was just gonna post an always sunny picture but couldn't get it to work nothing controversial

1/3/2024 3:01:15 PM

lol what happened in here?

1/3/2024 5:26:01 PM

^I think it is due to age

1/3/2024 10:05:24 PM

YOU CANNOT BE DENIED COVERAGE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

1/4/2024 2:04:45 PM

1/4/2024 7:24:39 PM

Not credible.

2/28/2024 5:51:47 PM

Might still rule against him. Hopefully so. But of course it works well with his strategy of delay and gaming the system.

2/28/2024 7:58:23 PM

I think that the Supreme Court will definitely rule against him, but it will be too late to hold the January 6 trial before the election.

Here’s hoping that I’m wrong about the timing.

2/28/2024 8:29:17 PM

I'm starting to second-guess whether the Supreme Court will rule against him at this point.

Did Justice Alito decide after Justice Scalia passed away that now how he should be the worst jurist in the history of the court?

[Edited on April 25, 2024 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

4/25/2024 12:16:15 PM

If they don’t rule against him, all Biden has to do is kill the conservative judges, and appoint new ones— he’ll be immune at that point

4/25/2024 1:21:47 PM

This Supreme Court is very adept at authoring opinions with carve-outs that pertain to specific circumstances but not others.

I wouldn't be surprised to see similar tomfoolery with this opinion.

4/25/2024 2:06:01 PM