Mon May 22, 2017 6:00 pm
Green Habit wrote:I'm guessing Electro already knew that and was mocking Mensch.malice wrote:fake, and completely wrong also. google itsimple schoolboy wrote:No post on how the Supreme Court Marshal has informed Trump that articles of impeachment have been written up against him?
Louise Mensch said so at least.
Mon May 22, 2017 7:38 pm
So we both fucked up.malice wrote:you know, i just realized it was simpleschoolboy who posted that. For some dumb reason I thought it was dimeGreen Habit wrote:I'm guessing Electro already knew that and was mocking Mensch.malice wrote:fake, and completely wrong also. google itsimple schoolboy wrote:No post on how the Supreme Court Marshal has informed Trump that articles of impeachment have been written up against him?
Louise Mensch said so at least.
Mon June 05, 2017 3:29 pm
Thu June 08, 2017 8:28 pm
Sun June 11, 2017 9:08 pm
Sun June 11, 2017 11:19 pm
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).cutuphalfdead wrote:Do the right thing, SCOTUS.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
Mon June 19, 2017 1:46 pm
It's on.cutuphalfdead wrote:Do the right thing, SCOTUS.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
Mon June 19, 2017 4:31 pm
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."
Mon June 19, 2017 6:05 pm
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.E.H. Ruddock wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/supreme-court-facebook-sex-offenders/index.htmlSupreme 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."
Mon June 19, 2017 8:55 pm
Wed June 21, 2017 7:20 am
Green Habit wrote: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.E.H. Ruddock wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/supreme-court-facebook-sex-offenders/index.htmlSupreme 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."
Wed June 21, 2017 3:19 pm
It likely has more impact for the Washington Redskins than anything of significance in Washington, DC.simple schoolboy wrote:This gets a link but not the Slants? Priorities people. =P
Mon June 26, 2017 1:47 pm
Mon June 26, 2017 1:49 pm
Mon June 26, 2017 1:58 pm
Mon June 26, 2017 2:00 pm
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.Simple Torture wrote:Anything to these Kennedy rumors you think, GH?
Mon June 26, 2017 2:18 pm
Mon June 26, 2017 2:37 pm
Mon June 26, 2017 4:35 pm
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.
Mon June 26, 2017 6:52 pm
Both. Trump himself has so comically ruined his own case with his tweets. But all it takes is to count to five justices, we'll see if he has them.Bi_3 wrote:You disagree with the travel ban ruling or just dislike what it means for Trump going forward?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.