Can you name one good Trump pick for any position at all? I've become disenchanted with the guy but I am a little disturbed at the fact that I can't think of one. In the end, I can only think of snakes.
My memory is clouded by picks like the head of exxon, the ex head of the cia, 30 pieces of silver Pence, omarosa, barret, kavanaugh, fauci (not technically his pick but he created the pedastal for fauci during covid), mad dog mattis, and that one time he brought in some eceleb troll on the teir of Martin Skrelli/Milo Yiannopolis who immediately started making ridiculous statements and got fired. I can't remember his name.
Never really had any problems or scandals, and one of the first things she did was rescind the "Dear Colleague" memorandum which basically ended the basis for the Title IX tribunals that were plaguing colleges. The tribunals still exist (because the schools refuse to get rid of them), but expelling students for unproven allegations of rape has become a guaranteed win in federal court.
As far as I know, he's the only justice that takes a road trip in an RV every summer instead of flying to Europe or some shit. Connecting with the common folk keeps him grounded.
One had an out-group fetish and a hobby of adopting africans, and the other prided himself with having only mentored and hired women throughout his career.
I mean there was just no way to predict this outcome.
They want a clear line of effect to stamp their names on - without it the obvious correlation is just 'circumstantial'.
The dissent is correct in my opinion, as the presence of government communication in itself is a free speech issue, but the rest of the court doesn't wanna rock the boat too much, as with the decision in Rahimi (TLDR yeah uh we didn't say all gun laws guys, don't get mad at us, here's some damage control BS).
don't get mad at us, here's some damage control BS
Which is totally not their job, and just means they're a bunch of cowards. Elites wouldn't be so bad, probably, if they were actually, you know, elite.
Instead we have a bunch of midwits who think they're hot shit, and have massive power over us.
Arguably Kakistocracy, where the inheritors of the elites are all fuck-ups and promote people less competent than they are to expand their zone of control.
At this point, it's fencepost turtles all the way up. (You see someone elevated somewhere way above their ability, and damn well know they didn't get there on their own-- they were placed there)
I'm pretty sure someone put the fear of god into them after they took down Roe, the fact that it was the only actual leaked decision should speak volumes about how foundational that was to some people.
Biden has been saying he wants to "pack the court" since the beginning of his term. They're terrified to rule on anything that isn't a slam dunk, unfortunately for abortion cultists, Roe was bad law even at the time and was destined to be overturned. The idea that the fact that you have a 4th amendment right to keep any medical information private from anyone somehow means unrestricted access to abortion is absurd and always was.
[W]hile the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. The Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence. The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole.
You know why evidence collected illegally is inadmissible, even if it absolutely, irrefutably proves the guilt of the defendant? Because we want to create the most powerful disincentive possible for police officers violating the law in obtaining evidence.
I don't particularly care if Facebook would have chosen to censor the same stuff the government asked it to on its own. I don't care if it was just a suggestion that Facebook was free to refuse and not coercion. The idea of the federal government even asking a private company to be their proxy in censorship is so repugnant to the 1st Amendment that the nuances don't matter, and it should be treated under a similar "fruit of the poison tree doctrine" as illegal searches.
It's shit decisions like this that have convinced me that, just like politics and elections, the judicial branch is just a bunch of kayfabe bullshit.
Worse than the Canadian judicial system not allowing challenges to the Covid mandates because they had been retracted by the time the cases got to trial and were thus "moot"?
Ironically, Germany of all places, just had a minor victory for free speech. A DA refused to charge people who chanted "Ausländer raus" (foreigners out). Although that wasn't the recent case of people chanting it that got some media attention but one that happened several months ago.
He said it's covered by free speech UNLESS you're a right-winger, because of course we still have the usual two tiered justice system.
Standing is a literal legal fiction and needs to fuck off.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
That's what the Constitution has to say. This bullshit about demonstrating particularized injury and whatnot is hogwash.
technically not lost, but the federal government is unimpeded now. as awful as it is, the thing that needs to happen next is someone who was actually removed from social media due to government censorship needs to bring the case forward. at least then they won't have the excuse to hide from the case for standing.
Information Operations campaigns directed against the American people by the federal government are not actions of the federal government. If these Information Operations silence you, that is not censorship, that's a choice, and there were no damages. Chilling Effect says what?
Roberts and Kavanaugh are both Bush creatures, Kavanaugh in particular played a key role in making the Patriot Act difficult to challenge in court. So it's no surprise he sided with the deep state.
Idk much about ACB, but I'm guessing she has a similar background.
There was also a recent court case by RFK Jr.'s founded organization Children’s Health Defense that was rejected. And one more, I want to say, along similar lines.
Comment Approved: The vast and sweeping majority of this forum is not anti-porn, and certainly the anti-porn movement has basically no significant power nation-wide. It's mostly an issue on the internet. Beyond that, the government has been aggressively targeting right-wing speech since LBJ with basically no pushback up until 2018 or so.
Robert Barnes says Trump should never have listened to the federalist society for those two picks.
I completely agree with Robert Barnes on this.
ACB and Kavanaugh are trash.
Can you name one good Trump pick for any position at all? I've become disenchanted with the guy but I am a little disturbed at the fact that I can't think of one. In the end, I can only think of snakes.
My memory is clouded by picks like the head of exxon, the ex head of the cia, 30 pieces of silver Pence, omarosa, barret, kavanaugh, fauci (not technically his pick but he created the pedastal for fauci during covid), mad dog mattis, and that one time he brought in some eceleb troll on the teir of Martin Skrelli/Milo Yiannopolis who immediately started making ridiculous statements and got fired. I can't remember his name.
What are some good picks?
Gorsuch is as good as we can get. He has his weird issues, but all in all very solid scotus pick.
Steven Miller?
Michael Flynn (fired)
Steve Bannon (fired)
(fired and looking at jail time.)
"tRuMp wIlL gO aFtEr hIs pOlItIcAl oPpoNeNtS!!!1"
Betsy DeVos, unironically.
Never really had any problems or scandals, and one of the first things she did was rescind the "Dear Colleague" memorandum which basically ended the basis for the Title IX tribunals that were plaguing colleges. The tribunals still exist (because the schools refuse to get rid of them), but expelling students for unproven allegations of rape has become a guaranteed win in federal court.
Ah nice I totally forgot about her.
That's why she's one of the best. She did her shit and didn't get in trouble.
Trump also picked Mark Milley despite being warned that he was an idiot. Milley repaid Trump by stabbing him in the back.
At this point I am convinced that Clarence Thomas is the only sensible justice left on the bench.
As far as I know, he's the only justice that takes a road trip in an RV every summer instead of flying to Europe or some shit. Connecting with the common folk keeps him grounded.
You dropped this: r
Who could have known.
One had an out-group fetish and a hobby of adopting africans, and the other prided himself with having only mentored and hired women throughout his career.
I mean there was just no way to predict this outcome.
Remember that Republicans will always look for the most minute, technical process flaw and use it to avoid acting.
Meanwhile liberals do whatever they feel like and make up a justification for it later.
The entire Supreme Court is an act to keep the goy waiting 2 more weeks.
Of course they did.
They want a clear line of effect to stamp their names on - without it the obvious correlation is just 'circumstantial'.
The dissent is correct in my opinion, as the presence of government communication in itself is a free speech issue, but the rest of the court doesn't wanna rock the boat too much, as with the decision in Rahimi (TLDR yeah uh we didn't say all gun laws guys, don't get mad at us, here's some damage control BS).
Which is totally not their job, and just means they're a bunch of cowards. Elites wouldn't be so bad, probably, if they were actually, you know, elite.
Instead we have a bunch of midwits who think they're hot shit, and have massive power over us.
midwits and.or the third generation inheritors of the mantle the elites handed down.
I'm not saying aristocracy was better, bad kings happened, but the culture was at least one that aspired to greatness, rather than low equity.
What we have is aristocracy in all but name, and it ends the same way: Inbreeding and retardation.
Arguably Kakistocracy, where the inheritors of the elites are all fuck-ups and promote people less competent than they are to expand their zone of control.
At this point, it's fencepost turtles all the way up. (You see someone elevated somewhere way above their ability, and damn well know they didn't get there on their own-- they were placed there)
I'm pretty sure someone put the fear of god into them after they took down Roe, the fact that it was the only actual leaked decision should speak volumes about how foundational that was to some people.
Biden has been saying he wants to "pack the court" since the beginning of his term. They're terrified to rule on anything that isn't a slam dunk, unfortunately for abortion cultists, Roe was bad law even at the time and was destined to be overturned. The idea that the fact that you have a 4th amendment right to keep any medical information private from anyone somehow means unrestricted access to abortion is absurd and always was.
You know why evidence collected illegally is inadmissible, even if it absolutely, irrefutably proves the guilt of the defendant? Because we want to create the most powerful disincentive possible for police officers violating the law in obtaining evidence.
I don't particularly care if Facebook would have chosen to censor the same stuff the government asked it to on its own. I don't care if it was just a suggestion that Facebook was free to refuse and not coercion. The idea of the federal government even asking a private company to be their proxy in censorship is so repugnant to the 1st Amendment that the nuances don't matter, and it should be treated under a similar "fruit of the poison tree doctrine" as illegal searches.
It's shit decisions like this that have convinced me that, just like politics and elections, the judicial branch is just a bunch of kayfabe bullshit.
"standing" is such a lazy and cowardly way to avoid ruling.
Worse than the Canadian judicial system not allowing challenges to the Covid mandates because they had been retracted by the time the cases got to trial and were thus "moot"?
Ironically, Germany of all places, just had a minor victory for free speech. A DA refused to charge people who chanted "Ausländer raus" (foreigners out). Although that wasn't the recent case of people chanting it that got some media attention but one that happened several months ago.
He said it's covered by free speech UNLESS you're a right-winger, because of course we still have the usual two tiered justice system.
Standing is a literal legal fiction and needs to fuck off.
That's what the Constitution has to say. This bullshit about demonstrating particularized injury and whatnot is hogwash.
ammo box looms in the distance
technically not lost, but the federal government is unimpeded now. as awful as it is, the thing that needs to happen next is someone who was actually removed from social media due to government censorship needs to bring the case forward. at least then they won't have the excuse to hide from the case for standing.
Information Operations campaigns directed against the American people by the federal government are not actions of the federal government. If these Information Operations silence you, that is not censorship, that's a choice, and there were no damages. Chilling Effect says what?
No Standing seems to be a pretty popular ruling.
Roberts and Kavanaugh are both Bush creatures, Kavanaugh in particular played a key role in making the Patriot Act difficult to challenge in court. So it's no surprise he sided with the deep state.
Idk much about ACB, but I'm guessing she has a similar background.
There was also a recent court case by RFK Jr.'s founded organization Children’s Health Defense that was rejected. And one more, I want to say, along similar lines.
But don't worry, there will be some conveniently timed controversy around abortion upcoming - https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-inadvertently-releases-opinion
Meanwhile, for those who weren't looking, the U.S. Scrotum also broadened the usage of experts' testimonies - https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-broadens-use-expert-testimony-against-accused-criminals
MAGA...
Comment Reported for: Troll User
Comment Approved: The vast and sweeping majority of this forum is not anti-porn, and certainly the anti-porn movement has basically no significant power nation-wide. It's mostly an issue on the internet. Beyond that, the government has been aggressively targeting right-wing speech since LBJ with basically no pushback up until 2018 or so.