The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 ... 106  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu December 20, 2018 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:03 pm
Posts: 9397
Location: Washington State
Quote:
In other words, SCOTUS judges are literally above the law?
All 83 ethics complaints against Brett Kavanaugh dismissed


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri December 21, 2018 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6144


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri December 21, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
Posts: 38894
Location: Mountains
i swear to fucking christ if this assclown gets to nominate yet another justice....


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri December 21, 2018 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Looks Like a Cat
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 1:53 pm
Posts: 14171
Location: dinner party
We had a great time at your dinner party, the wife wanted me to extend our thanks

_________________
Wife, dinner party, thanks


Last edited by The Argonaut on Sat June 29, 2019 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri December 21, 2018 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 11338
96583UP wrote:
96583UP wrote:
can't wait for ginsburg to announce she has 8 days to live and then Karl Rove gets sworn in

_________________
Best RM Poster of the Year 2018


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri December 21, 2018 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm
Posts: 43136
Location: Garbage Dump
The Argonaut wrote:
If RBG dies while Trump is President, I hope god sends her to hell

:lol:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri December 21, 2018 10:49 pm 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 5857
Strat wrote:
i swear to fucking christ if this assclown gets to nominate yet another justice....



Image

_________________
Kaius wrote:
I really hope we get this figured out soon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri December 21, 2018 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:03 pm
Posts: 9397
Location: Washington State
Bi_3 wrote:
Strat wrote:
i swear to fucking christ if this assclown gets to nominate yet another justice....



Image

Huh. MacGuyver's had some work done.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sat December 22, 2018 1:43 am 
Offline
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 1549
I wonder who will come out of the woodwork to accuse Amy Coney Barrett of sexual assault. Will there be more than 3 accusers this time, and will Avenatti be involved again?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sun December 23, 2018 10:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Thu November 21, 2013 10:01 pm
Posts: 1122
simple schoolboy wrote:
I wonder who will come out of the woodwork to accuse Amy Coney Barrett of sexual assault. Will there be more than 3 accusers this time, and will Avenatti be involved again?


Curious why you think this yet Gorsuch had no such problems?

_________________
McParadigm wrote:
I mean nothing says libertarian more than talking a lot of shit and then getting your ass kicked in an actual one on one...

Dev wrote:
Clutch rules you dummy.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Mon December 24, 2018 2:01 am 
Offline
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 1549
meatwad wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
I wonder who will come out of the woodwork to accuse Amy Coney Barrett of sexual assault. Will there be more than 3 accusers this time, and will Avenatti be involved again?


Curious why you think this yet Gorsuch had no such problems?


Gorsuch meant the court kept its previous balance, despite the "stolen seat" objection. The spectre of Kavanaugh meant changing the balance of the court and everyone went insane about abortion, among other things.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Mon December 24, 2018 2:09 am 
Offline
User avatar
I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 11338
i think over time in practice we will see that Kavanaugh's votes will not be the 'down the party line' far-right-stereotype-monstrosity that the arugula party is fearing

_________________
Best RM Poster of the Year 2018


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed January 02, 2019 3:40 pm 
Online
User avatar
10Club Complaint Department
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
Posts: 16105
Location: Cumberland, RI
I recently learned something that makes a lot of sense in hindsight: the 3rd amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights never to be challenged at the Supreme Court. Federal courts have been asked to review a few cases on it, but it's never risen higher than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Ame ... rpretation

_________________
McParadigm wrote:
lol


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed January 02, 2019 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Worst Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm
Posts: 55531
Simple Torture wrote:
I recently learned something that makes a lot of sense in hindsight: the 3rd amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights never to be challenged at the Supreme Court. Federal courts have been asked to review a few cases on it, but it's never risen higher than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Ame ... rpretation

We've not really had any situations that would call for the challenging of it, recently anyway, right?

_________________
Clouuuuds Rolll byyy...BANG BANG BANG BANG


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed January 02, 2019 4:01 pm 
Online
User avatar
10Club Complaint Department
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
Posts: 16105
Location: Cumberland, RI
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
Simple Torture wrote:
I recently learned something that makes a lot of sense in hindsight: the 3rd amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights never to be challenged at the Supreme Court. Federal courts have been asked to review a few cases on it, but it's never risen higher than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Ame ... rpretation

We've not really had any situations that would call for the challenging of it, recently anyway, right?


The most recent case involved a guy who sued the police for using his house as a base of operations to survey his neighbor without his consent. The appeal was denied, and it set the important precedent--I guess--that city/county/state police are not "soldiers" for the purposes of the 3rd amendment.

_________________
McParadigm wrote:
lol


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri January 04, 2019 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6144
Translation: the Kennedy-less SCOTUS wants to rule this a non-justiciable political question. I do not expect this to be good at all.



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sat January 05, 2019 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 37478
Location: Donkeys live a long time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... feea608177
Quote:
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.


Quote:
“The scandalous-marks provision does not prohibit any speech, proscribe any conduct, or restrict the use of any trademark. Nor does it restrict a mark owner’s common-law trademark protections,” Francisco wrote. “Rather, it simply directs the USPTO to refuse, on a viewpoint-neutral basis, to provide the benefits of federal registration to scandalous marks.”

But the Supreme Court in 2017 ruled unanimously that another part of the trademark law — one that banned registering trademarks that were considered “disparaging”— violated the First Amendment.

That ruling, Matal v. Tam, came in a case that involved an Asian American rock group called the Slants, which tried to register the band’s name in 2011. The band was turned down by the USPTO because officials said it was likely to offend Asian Americans.


heh, FUCT.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sun January 06, 2019 12:49 am 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6144
BurtReynolds wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-decide-if-trademark-protection-can-be-denied-to-scandalous-brands/2019/01/04/83c18948-1061-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.c4feea608177
Quote:
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.


Quote:
“The scandalous-marks provision does not prohibit any speech, proscribe any conduct, or restrict the use of any trademark. Nor does it restrict a mark owner’s common-law trademark protections,” Francisco wrote. “Rather, it simply directs the USPTO to refuse, on a viewpoint-neutral basis, to provide the benefits of federal registration to scandalous marks.”

But the Supreme Court in 2017 ruled unanimously that another part of the trademark law — one that banned registering trademarks that were considered “disparaging”— violated the First Amendment.

That ruling, Matal v. Tam, came in a case that involved an Asian American rock group called the Slants, which tried to register the band’s name in 2011. The band was turned down by the USPTO because officials said it was likely to offend Asian Americans.


heh, FUCT.
This aspiring business will be keen[e]ly watching this case.



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sun January 06, 2019 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
Posts: 38894
Location: Mountains
Green Habit wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-decide-if-trademark-protection-can-be-denied-to-scandalous-brands/2019/01/04/83c18948-1061-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.c4feea608177
Quote:
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.


Quote:
“The scandalous-marks provision does not prohibit any speech, proscribe any conduct, or restrict the use of any trademark. Nor does it restrict a mark owner’s common-law trademark protections,” Francisco wrote. “Rather, it simply directs the USPTO to refuse, on a viewpoint-neutral basis, to provide the benefits of federal registration to scandalous marks.”

But the Supreme Court in 2017 ruled unanimously that another part of the trademark law — one that banned registering trademarks that were considered “disparaging”— violated the First Amendment.

That ruling, Matal v. Tam, came in a case that involved an Asian American rock group called the Slants, which tried to register the band’s name in 2011. The band was turned down by the USPTO because officials said it was likely to offend Asian Americans.


heh, FUCT.
This aspiring business will be keen[e]ly watching this case.



Oh c'mon. Pho Pun's are an american fucking tradition.

WE have a Pho20 here....


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sun January 06, 2019 4:02 am 
Offline
User avatar
I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 11338
but the issue is not the graphic depicting a rice-paddy ch*nk stereotype?

asking for a self-loathing white cis friend

_________________
Best RM Poster of the Year 2018


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 ... 106  Next

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], potatojunkie and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Sun August 18, 2019 11:45 am