The US Supreme Court and its decisions

Xaaron

Active member
Citizen
As I'm sure you know, what you're describing is tribalism. There ARE legally recognizable differences between Trump and McKesson's actions, but you openly don't care. Your stated philosophy is people you agree with should be allowed to break the law, and people whose cause you oppose should be punished. Donald Trump and the Republicans agree with you. I do not.

Donald Trump is a despicable human being with horrible intentions who refuses to play by the rules. You're willing to break the rules too in order to stop his intentions. I believe his intentions would be stopped if the rules were enforced appropriately. I suspect that debate will go unsolved long after we're both dead.
 
MrBlud

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
The ruling has a chilling effect on free speech and assembly. The same way abortion restrictions do. Doctor’s aren’t sure where the line is so they just don’t do anything for fear of prosecution. This ruling assures the same thing with protests.

As for the difference between that and what Trump did. There are several, foremost among them is the fact Trump had legal authority to stop it (calling in the National Guard) yet did not. McKesson did not.
 

Xaaron

Active member
Citizen
I would distinguish that the media coverage of the ruling has a chilling effect on free speech and assembly, not the ruling itself. That Vox article makes it sound like states have passed new, anti-protest laws in light of BLM to quash future dissent, but that isn't true. Yes, headlines like "Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest" or "It is no longer safe to organize a protest in..." are terrifying, but...wrong.

Again, this man has not been convicted of anything. No court has made any findings on the merits of the case. The law already on the books and ratified by the Supreme Court in 1982 states that this man could face liability, if he encouraged violent or unlawful activity during the protest he organized. The officer who brought the suit has been allowed the opportunity to prove the organizer is liable under the existing, 40 year old precedent.

Admittedly, I had to leave the news article, go read the original court documents, and apply my experience as an attorney to uncover that information. But I think that condemns the journalism here, not the courts, don't you?
 
PrimalxConvoy

PrimalxConvoy

NOT a New Member.
Citizen
From my limited knowledge, the BLM organiser was not guilty of any wrong-doing or crimes and the priest was peaceful*. The difference, from what I've read, was that Trump seemed to encourage people to break the law, which resulted in deaths/bodily harm, whereas the BLM A activist helped to organise a legal protest that resulted in the injury of a police officer by an as-yet unidentified assailant, presumed to be linked to the protestors.


* https://www.vox.com/2022/4/2/230046...ture-deray-mckesson-doe-protest-supreme-court
 
Pocket

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
There's also a world of difference between a handful of people trying and failing to turn a peaceful protest into a riot, and the entire crowd of literally thousands of people all actively trying to break down the doors to the Capitol and then pouring into the building once they succeed. If a protest over a good cause ever somehow managed to get that violent, you can bet that the powers that be on both sides of the aisle would be united in condemning it and trying to bring those involved to justice, and that they wouldn't need these draconian new laws to do it.
 
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
FB friend:
Goddamn, they're actually doing it: they're actually normalizing Trump's belief that he's above the law. By talking about a "middle ground" as if that's reasonable, they're normalizing it.

Instead of flatly denying that he's above the law, they're seriously asking how FAR above the law he should be. And they're seriously asking stupid questions like "what's to stop a president from vindictively prosecuting his predecessor", as if the solution to that problem is not already known: DON'T COMMIT CRIMES.

The rule of law in America is dead.
Click to expand...
 
KidTDragon

KidTDragon

Now with hi-res avatar!
Citizen
The rule of law in America died some time ago. They've just gotten tired of Weekend at Bernie'sing its corpse.
 
Pocket

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
And we're normalizing their normalizing by continuing to pretend any part of our current government is actually legitimate and that all we need to do is continue participating in The System to fix it.

A country that owes its entire existence to a bloody revolution, and a document written by a man who once believed such revolutions should reoccur once a generation, has become so complacent in the status quo that they will not actually take up arms against a tyrant until he is already at their door with a warrant for their extermination.

We're pathetic, and we deserve what's coming.
 
Dekafox

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
So this is interesting:


Apparently you have only 3 years to file suit on copyright infringement to recover damages. Seems like there's never been any Supreme Court level precedent set on whether the 3 years is from the date of infringement or the date of discovery, but everyone has been assuming discovery, and the court makes it clear they haven't decided one way or the other on that.

Found out about it because some people were clickbait fearmongering about how this "changes copyright forever" or somesuch, but the only thing they decided on is if you could only collect the corresponding 3 years of damages relating to your suit, or go all the way back to the original infringement - spoilers, it was the latter. However, I could see someone trying to intentionally bring a case on that "discovery vs date of infringement" bit in the future, though I'd expect them to stick with 3 years from discovery(which doesn't change anything).
 
NovaSaber

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
Alito may in fact still be the worst:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797425114906345941

and every judge on the appeals court unanimously agreed that strip searching a child was an extremely fucked-up thing to do — and also, a violation of the Fourth Amendment, since the child’s name was not on the search warrant.
no, wait — it wasn’t every judge on the appeals court. actually, there was one dissenting judge who was totally down with traumatizing a child. can you guess who that judge was?
if you said Sam Alito, congratulations."
Click to expand...
 
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
FB friend:
I remember when Alito was first confirmed, and all the Republicans were insisting that he's actually a moderate. I have to believe there are closed-door meetings with these Supreme Court nominees where they tell the GOP what they ACTUALLY believe. Then they go to the Senate and lie and pretend to be moderates so that the confirmation process will go smoothly.

This is organized collusion and deception, not a remarkable coincidence of GOP SCOTUS nominees always swinging hard to the right after being confirmed.
Click to expand...
 
NovaSaber

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
For half of them this is their broken clock moment:

www.newsbreak.com

Unanimous Supreme Court preserves access to widely used abortion medication - NewsBreak

The Supreme Court has preserved access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year. Highlights: Replay AP’s live coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision to preserve access to mifepristone. WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously...
www.newsbreak.com www.newsbreak.com
 
MrBlud

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
They 100% did that 9-0 to try and whitewash the rest of their jive decisions due this month.

This isn’t even a “win” it just leaves stuff the way it has been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Top Bottom