| Red Mosquito http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/ |
|
| The Supreme Court http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15 |
Page 25 of 192 |
| Author: | malice [ Mon May 22, 2017 6:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Green Habit wrote: malice wrote: simple schoolboy wrote: No post on how the Supreme Court Marshal has informed Trump that articles of impeachment have been written up against him? fake, and completely wrong also. google itLouise Mensch said so at least. you know, i just realized it was simpleschoolboy who posted that. For some dumb reason I thought it was dime 
|
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon May 22, 2017 7:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
malice wrote: Green Habit wrote: malice wrote: simple schoolboy wrote: No post on how the Supreme Court Marshal has informed Trump that articles of impeachment have been written up against him? fake, and completely wrong also. google itLouise Mensch said so at least.
|
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 05, 2017 3:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
I hope Kennedy is reading these tweets and thinking that having Trump replace him isn't a good idea. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Thu June 08, 2017 8:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
| Author: | Norris [ Sun June 11, 2017 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Do the right thing, SCOTUS. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Sun June 11, 2017 11:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
cutuphalfdead wrote: That article does an excellent job of describing how dangerously close SCOTUS came to foreclosing any challenge to partisan gerrymandering on the basis of it being a nonjusticiable political question. Kennedy saved the day by saying there could be a way for the courts to intervene. I'm sure that if cert is granted, all briefs filed are going to be aimed squarely at convincing Kennedy (as is so often the case).
|
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 19, 2017 1:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
cutuphalfdead wrote: It's on. |
|
| Author: | E.H. Ruddock [ Mon June 19, 2017 4:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/ ... index.html Quote: Supreme Court strikes down law banning use of Facebook by registered sex offenders
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that bars the use of commercial social networking sites, including Facebook, by registered sex offenders. A lower court upheld the law, but lawyers for Lester Gerard Packingham -- who is a registered sex offender -- say it is too broad and swept in their client even though his Facebook posting concerned the fact that his parking ticket was dismissed. "No fine, no court costs, nothing spent... Praise be to God" he wrote. After the office came upon the posting, Packingham was found guilty of violating the law that says "it is unlawful for a sex offender who is registered ...to access a commercial social networking site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking site." North Carolina argues the law was passed to "confront the threat sexual predators pose to children." Packingham's lawyers note that when they filed their petition Facebook had grown to 1.59 billion users. They argued the section of law at issue "imposes criminal punishment for activity fully protected under the First Amendment." At oral arguments, David T. Goldberg said that the law reaches "vast swaths of core First Amendment activity that is totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose" and that it is "totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose." Goldberg noted that his client was not accused of communicating with or viewing the profile of a minor, but "speaking to his friends and family" about his experience in traffic court. They maintained that the section of the law "is not narrowly tailored; it does not leave open ample alternative channels for the First Amendment activities it burdens; and it does not directly or effectively future the government's interests." |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 19, 2017 6:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
E.H. Ruddock wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/supreme-court-facebook-sex-offenders/index.html Unpopular, but the correct opinion. Between this and The Slants case that also got decided today, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is one thing that this current incarnation of SCOTUS rarely gets wrong.
Quote: Supreme Court strikes down law banning use of Facebook by registered sex offenders Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that bars the use of commercial social networking sites, including Facebook, by registered sex offenders. A lower court upheld the law, but lawyers for Lester Gerard Packingham -- who is a registered sex offender -- say it is too broad and swept in their client even though his Facebook posting concerned the fact that his parking ticket was dismissed. "No fine, no court costs, nothing spent... Praise be to God" he wrote. After the office came upon the posting, Packingham was found guilty of violating the law that says "it is unlawful for a sex offender who is registered ...to access a commercial social networking site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking site." North Carolina argues the law was passed to "confront the threat sexual predators pose to children." Packingham's lawyers note that when they filed their petition Facebook had grown to 1.59 billion users. They argued the section of law at issue "imposes criminal punishment for activity fully protected under the First Amendment." At oral arguments, David T. Goldberg said that the law reaches "vast swaths of core First Amendment activity that is totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose" and that it is "totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose." Goldberg noted that his client was not accused of communicating with or viewing the profile of a minor, but "speaking to his friends and family" about his experience in traffic court. They maintained that the section of the law "is not narrowly tailored; it does not leave open ample alternative channels for the First Amendment activities it burdens; and it does not directly or effectively future the government's interests." |
|
| Author: | B [ Mon June 19, 2017 8:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
I remember a fight in my Town over whether a registered sex offender had access to the computers at the library, b/c there was children's program upstairs. I don't know, as a parent, you don't want a sex offender anywhere near your kids, but if you're not going to put them in prison, you have to give them a shot at a life I guess. They have to be able to find shelter, food, and have a chance a job. If you don't give a sex offenders the means to live whatever kind of shitty life they have left or the means to at least eat, you might as well just stick them back in prison. I say that thinking that more probably should be in prison or some kind of residential facility. |
|
| Author: | simple schoolboy [ Wed June 21, 2017 7:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Green Habit wrote: E.H. Ruddock wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/supreme-court-facebook-sex-offenders/index.html Unpopular, but the correct opinion. Between this and The Slants case that also got decided today, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is one thing that this current incarnation of SCOTUS rarely gets wrong.Quote: Supreme Court strikes down law banning use of Facebook by registered sex offenders Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that bars the use of commercial social networking sites, including Facebook, by registered sex offenders. A lower court upheld the law, but lawyers for Lester Gerard Packingham -- who is a registered sex offender -- say it is too broad and swept in their client even though his Facebook posting concerned the fact that his parking ticket was dismissed. "No fine, no court costs, nothing spent... Praise be to God" he wrote. After the office came upon the posting, Packingham was found guilty of violating the law that says "it is unlawful for a sex offender who is registered ...to access a commercial social networking site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking site." North Carolina argues the law was passed to "confront the threat sexual predators pose to children." Packingham's lawyers note that when they filed their petition Facebook had grown to 1.59 billion users. They argued the section of law at issue "imposes criminal punishment for activity fully protected under the First Amendment." At oral arguments, David T. Goldberg said that the law reaches "vast swaths of core First Amendment activity that is totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose" and that it is "totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose." Goldberg noted that his client was not accused of communicating with or viewing the profile of a minor, but "speaking to his friends and family" about his experience in traffic court. They maintained that the section of the law "is not narrowly tailored; it does not leave open ample alternative channels for the First Amendment activities it burdens; and it does not directly or effectively future the government's interests." This gets a link but not the Slants? Priorities people. =P |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Wed June 21, 2017 3:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
simple schoolboy wrote: This gets a link but not the Slants? Priorities people. =P It likely has more impact for the Washington Redskins than anything of significance in Washington, DC.
|
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 26, 2017 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
SCOTUS just granted cert in Masterpiece Cakeshop. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, to determine whether or not a cakeshop has First Amendment rights to not be compelled to make cakes for same sex marriages. Although I can see possible Free Speech Clause issues here, I'm going to be really, really pissed if they ignore those but find in their favor on Free Exercise Clause grounds. Also, a big load of bad news for simple schoolboy today: SCOTUS denied cert in Peruta v. California. There is yet to be a right established to carry a gun in public. But Thomas dissented from that denial, and Gorsuch joined. |
|
| Author: | Simple Torture [ Mon June 26, 2017 1:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Anything to these Kennedy rumors you think, GH? |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 26, 2017 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
And since today appears to be all about gays and guns on the Court: --It summarily reversed a ruling in Arkansas in which the state was not putting the names of both spouses on birth certificates of their children. Gorsuch dissented, joined by Thomas and Alito. (It hasn't taken Gorsuch long at all to demonstrate where he's going to stand.) --The Court also denied cert in a case dealing with whether former criminals can possess guns. Ginsburg dissented from the denial, joined by Sotomayor. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 26, 2017 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Simple Torture wrote: Anything to these Kennedy rumors you think, GH? I can't read his mind, so I have no clue. If I were Kennedy and in good health though, I wouldn't retire on the grounds that I'd still remain the most powerful jurist in the United States.
|
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 26, 2017 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
And to add God to guns and gays, they found a Free Exercise Clause violation here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_khlp.pdf I'll have to read up more about this one before I opine, though. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 26, 2017 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Cert granted in the travel ban case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf The Court is also going to reargue two immigration cases, and punted a third. Unfortunately, could be good news for Trump on this front... Also, Sotomayor was really pissed at that Free Exercise Clause case I linked above. I'm going to have to read that closely. |
|
| Author: | Bi_3 [ Mon June 26, 2017 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Green Habit wrote: Cert granted in the travel ban case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf The Court is also going to reargue two immigration cases, and punted a third. Unfortunately, could be good news for Trump on this front... Also, Sotomayor was really pissed at that Free Exercise Clause case I linked above. I'm going to have to read that closely. You disagree with the travel ban ruling or just dislike what it means for Trump going forward? |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon June 26, 2017 6:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Supreme Court |
Bi_3 wrote: Green Habit wrote: Cert granted in the travel ban case. You disagree with the travel ban ruling or just dislike what it means for Trump going forward?https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf The Court is also going to reargue two immigration cases, and punted a third. Unfortunately, could be good news for Trump on this front... Also, Sotomayor was really pissed at that Free Exercise Clause case I linked above. I'm going to have to read that closely. |
|
| Page 25 of 192 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|