The Supreme Court

[bune]

In other words, SCOTUS judges are literally above the law?
All 83 ethics complaints against Brett Kavanaugh dismissed

[Green Habit]

[Strat]

i swear to fucking christ if this assclown gets to nominate yet another justice....

[The Argonaut]

We had a great time at your dinner party, the wife wanted me to extend our thanks

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

[96583UP]

can't wait for ginsburg to announce she has 8 days to live and then Karl Rove gets sworn in

[LoathedVermin72]

If RBG dies while Trump is President, I hope god sends her to hell

[Bi_3]

i swear to fucking christ if this assclown gets to nominate yet another justice....

[bune]

i swear to fucking christ if this assclown gets to nominate yet another justice....

Huh. MacGuyver's had some work done.

[simple schoolboy]

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?

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

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?

[simple schoolboy]

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.

[96583UP]

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

[Simple Torture]

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

[E.H. Ruddock]

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?

[Simple Torture]

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.

[Green Habit]

Translation: the Kennedy-less SCOTUS wants to rule this a non-justiciable political question. I do not expect this to be good at all.

[BurtReynolds]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... feea608177

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.

“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.

[Green Habit]

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

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.

“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.

[Strat]

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

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.

“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....

[96583UP]

but the issue is not the graphic depicting a rice-paddy ch*nk stereotype?

asking for a self-loathing white cis friend