Gromnir

have this backwards. democracy is what the conservatives is defending and that is precise the problem. the minority position is getting the fuzzy end o' the lollipop. 'course the foundational problem is that gun-toting and democracy loving americans don't understand what democracy is. democracy is goodness and liberty and equality, right? nope. the bill of rights and many o' the subsequent amendments is offering limits on democracy. the state shall not... Congress shall make no law... no person shall be held... local and state governments, through democratic voting and democratic elected representatives, create laws and schemes which favour the majority and handicap minorities. those disparate outcomes is predictable and normal in democracy. unfair is the ordinary outcome o' democracy and is precise why we got a Constitution to put limits on democracy. we got SCOTUS, a collection o' non democratic selected personages who sit on the bench for life, supposed insulated from the mob and acting as defenders o' the Constitution. so not democracy from an athenian pov. am not taking a dump on democracy, 'cause is better than the alternatives just so long as you got an educated public, but Americans got a horribly misguided notion o' democracy and the fact this Court is rolling over and playing dead for democracy when they should be defending against it is the problem. HA! Good Fun!

@alanschuafter the 2020 election we mentioned (over and over and over again) how the people cheering the Courts for killing trump campaign frivolous cases would need face the harsh reality that those same "brave" and "heroic" judges and Justices would be antagonistic to liberal notions o' free, fair and open elections. we predicted future voting rights cases were gonna skew heavily in favour o' a state's capacity to place onerous limits on an individual's right to vote. nevertheless, future Court decisions is gonna shock and enrage even so. yet another chapter in our ongoing cassandra play. oh, and for @Guard Dog please be aware that you is trying to have both ways, which is actual ordinary and common. the praying coach J. Gorsuch and conservative media did an excellent job o' selective presenting the fact o' the case. the Court's decision were focusing on the very limited facts involving a small number o' voluntary post-game prayers. the reality o' the coach's behaviour were a bit more complex and is the reason why the libs were concerned-- not just over-protective democrats trying to suppress religious and personal liberties. this Court is promoting a position which has state and local governments needing to not only recognize personal religious freedom but to defer. am personal an ardent defender o' personal liberties, but am nevertheless surprised what courts and SCOTUS is doing to radical change the law o' the land. when brown v. board of education were announced, one o' the Justices literal got off his death bed, left the hospital against doctor strenuous advice and made himself present so a 9-0 decision could be delivered to the nation. Jackson would return to the hospital and die a short time thereafter. the current Court is making similar extreme changes by the slimmest o' majorities and they is doing so with not but a hand wave to the textualism and judicial restraint they advocated for decades. HA! Good Fun!

rewatch the kagan video we earlier linked. 1:29. or read the following: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6793&context=lawreview is not that Gromnir is prescient. what the Court is doing with its subversion o' textualism is not subtle. there is policy and social concerns the conservative majority wishes to advance and if they need twist or ignore textualism to achieve such goals, then so be it. brave new world. HA! Good Fun!

kinda innocuous, right? read the responses. HA! Good Fun!

is it possible to surreptitiously get the entire student body burned as witches? if so, we might give it a whirl. HA! Good Fun!

was thinking specific in terms o' your pressure problem. in spite of being large environmental controlled buildings, hospitals need keep airborne pathogens from circulating or escaping. pressure changes need be controlled in specific rooms and areas o' a hospital. your problem is related to the normalization o' pressure whenever a doorway is utilized, which is exact the problem hospitals need address albeit not 'cause o' concerns 'bout radio. HA! Good Fun!

Turkey drops opposition to Finland, Sweden joining NATO HA! Good Fun!

unfortunately you would remain mistaken. courts and legislatures were still referencing prisoners as "slaves of the state" in multiple jurisdictions decades following the 13th amendment. the slavery/involuntary servitude distinction is a bit more fuzzy than you might believe, but regardless, weren't 'til the 20th century when SCOTUS closed the slavery loophole specific (kinda tangential related to 1930s tariff act as a matter o' fact) and the involuntary servitude bit remains. so guns didn't actual end the practice but were the Court which final eliminated the remaining vestiges o' a national sin... or perhaps senators wyden and brown as well as the obama administration by a surprising not unanimous vote to codify in 2015(?). not absolute positive o' the year. and yeah, involuntary servitudes for prisoners remain in most/many (not certain of numbers actually) states as o' 2022, and the courts has made clear there is little to distinguish the two practices in any meaningful sense. at least a few state courts still use the terms interchangeable in spite o' the 1930s SCOTUS case we reference 'bove. HA! Good Fun!

might be worth checking hospitals to see how they deal with a similar if unrelated problem. due to construction or the recent pandemic, rooms or sections o' the hospital needs have functional decompression chambers added to the existing structure. scale is gonna be different 'cause in a hospital is typical an isolated floor pressure as 'posed to an entire building. you need a permanent solution and there will be aesthetic considerations, but am s'posing is worth looking into hospital solutions. HA! Good Fun!

is possible the interviewer did in fact understand the metaphor and were giving amentep the chance to choose some other explanation, any other explanation, for why he would choose albatross as his answer. HA! Good Fun!

admitted for a job we knew we had no chance o' getting hired, we answered as follows: tardigrade. we pointed out to the interviewer that we were likely the toughest sob she had ever met or would ever likely meet... evar. spent a couple minutes explaining why we were toughness personified. weren't complete serious; thought we were just kinda being an arse, but were fun as we had nothing to lose anyways. ... we got a job offer. go figure. however, we were later informed our tardigrade response were most certain not the correct response. offered in spite o' our answer. HA! Good Fun!

Alito is selective with his history analysis. is the legal history and traditions o' common law and US at and previous to 1789 and 1868 which matter for dobbs v. jackson, but to allow a giant cross on public land, community history and traditions o' the last few decades is dipositive, 'cause the legal traditions woulda' made clear the cross were verboten. when Alito's draft o' dobbs were leaked, historians pounced on the Justice's bad analysis, chastising Alito for misrepresenting individuals and events. nevertheless, when the full and final opinion were released, Alito made no effort to correct his history missteps. the problem we got with the current approach advocated most dramatic by thomas and Alito is that history and traditions is being used as an excuse for reaching predetermined conclusions as 'posed to a guide for arriving at decisions. admitted, such a criticism has always dogged the textualists, but were only a couple years ago when Scalia's analytical scheme were lauded even by those who disagreed with him. HA! Good Fun! ps these kinda theatrics tend to leave us flaccid, but am gonna admit our curiosity is peaked. edit: Former Meadows aide to testify in surprise Jan. 6 committee hearing hmm. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* we knew a local dean and were asked to give advice to soon-to-be graduates o' a local law school every year for 'bout a decade. we invariably pointed out one o' the most common stoopid interview questions were, "if you were a tree/animal/whatever, what sort of tree/animal/whatever would you be?" HA! Good Fun!

keep in mind miranda is alive and well; evidence illegal obtained in violation o' miranda will continue to be excluded. however, miranda is a due process implied right, so if justice thomas gets his way, it will be reexamined and obliterated. even so, this is yet another example o' Congress failing to address an obvious problem, 'cause while there is indeed a statute which identifies fed agents violating fed rules and laws exposes the agent to civil liability, the current Court is making clear that judicial decisions don't count as fed rules and laws... unless the Court specific carves out an exception. sovereign immunity is the Rule, and unless Congress (or in rare cases, the Court) creates an exception, the crown/government cannot be sued. perhaps you recall a similar issue came up with the recent warrantless search of a property on the border 'tween the US and kanada? weren't 'bout exclusion o' evidence but rather 'bout capacity to sue the bad agent... an agent who were fired btw. Congress could quite easily amend §1983 to fix this issue, but at the moment, with stoopid levels o' polarization, ez is much more difficult than it should be. HA! Good Fun!

yeah, we were aware o' the plagiarism accusations. had a university roommate who raged 'bout such frequent... keep in mid our university were late 80s. am thinking such criticisms is justified. the thing is, we were introduced to zeppelin via their blues stuff and for a number o' years we viewed zeppelin in the context o' being perhaps the whitest blues cover band evar (although the stones are serious challengers to the title,) so learning their other stuff were no more original perhaps bothered us a bit less than it shoulda'. HA! Good Fun!

have mentioned previous how the presence album is a bit o' a departure for led zeppelin and is vast underrated in our estimation. robert plant were not well for presence as he were recovering from a car accident, so the band had to make adjustments and compensate. were not what zeppelin fans had come to expect, but it were technical more sophisticated and arguable represents the best work o' bonham and page. HA! Good Fun!

one o' the more misunderstood phrases related to First Amendment is separation of church and state, 'cause thomas jefferson, the guy who came up with the wall o' separation bit, clear would disagree with gd. if jefferson had input, a school coach, acting as a school coach on school property most certain coulda and shoulda' been barred from any overt religious displays. HOWEVER, the Court has never actual recognized a genuine separation o' church and state approaching anywhere close to what jefferson described. also, the Court does not reexamine the facts as determined by the lower Court, so what we were talking 'bout were three instances o' voluntary prayer in which players were invited but not coerced to join. am thus not particular surprised by the decision and if one takes facts given as true, and that is what we is supposed to do, then voluntary and non coercive prayer after a game were unlikely to be prohibited. now admitted there is a bit o' the willful obtuse required to ignore coach behaviours as described by parents and others which suggests the prayer groups following games were less voluntary than they has been described. simple say is voluntary don't make true especial in a team situation and with a coach asking for participation. nevertheless, such questions is for the finder o' fact and the Court only reviews the law. disagree. the Court has upheld islamic, jewish and even santerian practices which offended christians. have referenced the la county court house nativity scene display case. practical result o' allowing the crèche on public property is that every denomination and religion may also have space for their display; can't have the government endorse one faith over another, so if one receives a benefit so do all the rest. Gorsuch, in particular, is gonna presumptive find in favour o' religion, regardless o' the practice... even to logic stretching extremes. that said, with the busted arse history and traditions approach to textualism Alito and thomas now use, does result in christians getting more leeway than other denominations 'cause there is necessarily gonna be more tradition and history supporting christian causes. need be aware o' thomas and Alito as they is going a dangerous route with their selective history approach which necessarily favours bigoted outcomes. HA! Good Fun!

you have met young people, yes? folks such as you and Gromnir expressing bemusement or curiosity is exact why the fad persisted, 'cause it were mostly young people with the pants and every time somebody older complained or questioned the fad, particular somebodies who didn't look much like those embracing the fad, it further legitimized and entrenched the fad. the quickest way to end virtual any youth embraced fad is for every "old" person to adopt the fad. HA! Good Fun!

given the recent overturn o' roe v. wade, we were considering which SCOTUS decisions were worst from our pov. is a disturbing number to choose from, however, near the top o' our list is the twin cases o' schenck v. united states and debbs v. united states. am not discussing the law of either case, but we recollected bernie sanders did a documentary o' eugene debbs and even read a number o' debbs speeches, including the one which sent the socialist firebrand to prison. am knowing is more than a few bernie bros on these boards and we thought we would share the linked video. aside, SCOTUS upheld the debbs conviction 9-0. sentence were ten years but President warren harding would commute debbs sentence in 1921, two years after debbs were imprisoned. HA! Good Fun!

am never taking the twitter length stuff 100% serious, but to be fair, guns didn't have a right to an abortion previous to today. women losing a right don't necessarily mean they got less rights than guns... particular as firearms literal have no rights whatsoever. that said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is specific enumerated in the Constitution. you are gonna have difficulty finding abortion or privacy anywhere in the Constitution. Alito, thomas, Gorsuch ACB and Kavanaugh says non-enumerated rights may exist, but only if history and tradition circa 1789 and 1868 supports such a finding. republicans should be no less incensed as democrats by the manner in which roe were overturned 'cause is now a whole bunch o' rights important to conservatives on the proverbial chopping block, though as previous stated, women and minorities is the most obvious losers from the move away from Scalia's brand o' textualism to the history and tradition focused originalism o' the current conservative (but curious activist) Justices. regardless, and like it or not, the authors o' the Constitution specific identified firearms and a very small number o' other freedoms and liberties. one reason so few freedoms is enumerated is 'cause the founders as a whole trusted democracy, particular state and local democracy, to protect rights. even so, american democracy had five decades to fix the roe problem and every Congress since 1973 chose to instead ignore. HA! Good Fun!

have mentioned previous how we respected thomas as a judge if not as a Justice. fair. consistent. past couple years has forced us to reevaluate. HA! Good Fun!

is not your fault. SCOTUS opinions is poor understood by the public and the US media does a questionable job o' clarifying. the original roe v. wade were not a decision which balanced a woman's right to choose against the state's interests in the rights of unborn children, or not for the most part. "roe were decided 7:2, but there were three concurrences, which meant there were effective four different justifications for roe. ... "some ineffable alchemy o' the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments, in addition to griswold v. connecticut privacy notions plus a possible nod to substantive due process results in abortions being granted the status o' a fundamental right, but a fundamental right which nevertheless must be considered in light o' a state's desire to protect the lives o' unborn children. at conception, 'ccording to roe, a mother's privacy rights 'tween her and her doctor as she seeks medical treatment is paramount, but with each passing day, the state's interest in protecting unborn children grows. is why otherwise arbitrary trimesters is so important when discussing abortion law in the US." medical privacy were the linchpin for creating a right to abortion, and Alito and thomas just delivered a one finger salute to any/all fuzzy and non enumerated privacy rights. in the portion you linked, thomas specific calls out griswold as a potential future target for correction, yes? keep in mind, when tucker carlson and the maga nation raged about vaccine mandates, the basis for their anger were medical privacy and Alito and thomas just b!tch slapped the snot outta medical privacy. the maga crowd which is cheering today's decision have no idea what is the actual implications o' the change in substantive due process jurisprudence. can't have democracy work as envisioned by the founders w/o an educated populace but the law is intentional arcane. if the law were ez to understand and clear w/o reliance on counter-intuitive and issue specific jargon which further limits comprehension, you wouldn't need pay somebody many hundreds o' dollars an hour to handle your legal problems. lawyers have a vested interest in keeping the law complicated and confounding. nevertheless, when voters go to polls, all too often the issues o' the day has a significant legal component. is a fundamental problem but one poor recognized. HA! Good Fun! ps one additional point to observe is how most western democracies with some kinda abortion right is enjoying their right 'cause o' their national legislative body. it were monumental stoopid for the US to rely on roe v. wade for decades w/o Congress addressing and cementing a right. am not saying am ok with how Alito arrived with his decision, but this were a fixable problem and were more than enough time to address previous to 2022.

"the problem with the J. alito opinion overturning roe is it indulges the same kinda fuzzy reasoning as did roe while pretending to be a textualist interpretation. is a pandora's box scenario as the aforementioned griswold's right to privacy, as well as a whole bunch o' other substantive rights didn't have the weight o' tradition and history to support their recognition as fundamental when SCOTUS created. another J. alito opinion, american legion v. american humanist association (2019), held that giant cross were okie dokie on public land in part if it had managed to endure long enough. same tradition and history which supports giant crosses woulda' no doubt failed with an enormous star o' david or a colossal basalt statue o' baphomet, eh? the current abortion case might as well be a cf cite to the maryland cross case. tradition and history. history and tradition. is too many instances o' Justices getting history horrible wrong btw." and hard to believe, but not even technical true. is nothing in the Constitution 'bout "voting rights." voting is mentioned, and so the Court observes rights for voting is necessarily implied. worse, the Constitution does specific observe the individual state legislatures is responsible for elections, which is why jim crow laws which created literacy tests and discriminatory limits on voting were deemed Constitutional by the Court until Congress passed legislation to protect voting rights. however, there is nothing in the Constitution which forces or compels Congress to pass laws to protect implied rights. converse, there is a specific right to free exercise o' religion, which would be meaningless if it didn't cover jesus, odin and Gozer The Destructor. likewise, the process for admitting states is described even if the names is not pre established. etc. that said, there is a whole lotta implied rights in the Constitution most o' us take for granted. well of course interracial marriage is a right... isn't it? we mentioned in a linked post how loving is at risk from this Court. right to privacy. miranda rights. right against self incrimination. possible most immediate relevant is the right to die. according to the Court, a person suffering may forgo medical treatment or even take their own life, albeit unassisted. such a right to die as it were is based on much o' the same reasoning as roe. if roe fails, then why would a right to die persist, a right which also has considerable history and tradition which would weigh in favour o' state efforts to criminalize? also ... highlight the following: is no reason for most obsidian posters to recognize, but the real danger o' the recent 2nd amendment case, while unrelated to substantive due process, is that thomas relied on the same so not textualist busted arse "history" approach used by alito to overturn roe. women and minorities (religious, racial, etc.) were marginalized during much o' the history o' this nation and the substantive due process analysis applied by alito and thomas considers history contemporaneous and previous to 1789 (original constitution and bill o' rights) and 1868 (fourteenth amendment.) how many women want to turn back the legal clock to 1868 or 1789? those were the salad days for asian and/or jewish americans? the new conservative majority has abandoned textualism and instead embraced a skewed and self-serving history approach. the Justices has shown time and again their historical scholarship is selective and suspect but even when the do get it right, the history and traditions contemporaneous and previous to relevant Constitutional sections and clauses is gonna almost always burden women and minorities to a unconscionable degree. the new conservative Court is not only reactionary but it has become unabashed activist. is a whole lotta rights americans believe to be sacrosanct, rights which Alito and thomas has now made abundant clear they is seeing as unconstitutional, and they has managed to convince at least three other Justices to go along with their slash and burn approach to substantive rights on multiple occasions. is good reason to be concerned 'bout the future o' many US liberties and freedoms. will such fears be enough to get democrats to vote? history says no, but recent elections is changing the history a bit. there were record turnouts for primaries in places such as georgia even after the recent passage o' the state's new jim crow voting law. how long will democrats remain invested in outcomes? HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

"ken klukowski" is the s'posed author o' the infamous jeffery clark memo. ... kinda major info just sortaa slipped into the hearing is klukowski, who weren't appointed to doj until dec. 15, 2020 (?), were working with eastman both previous to doj appointment and subsequent. representative perry and mark meadows both refer to kluwkowski as being involved in the overall january 6 effort. add another name to list o' those who should take 5th. HA! Good Fun!