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.
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22286
96583UP wrote:
96583UP wrote:
can't wait for ginsburg to announce she has 8 days to live and then Karl Rove gets sworn in
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
i swear to fucking christ if this assclown gets to nominate yet another justice....
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
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?
Joined: Thu November 21, 2013 10:01 pm Posts: 1843
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?
_________________ I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.
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.
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22286
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
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am Posts: 19718 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
Guys, I am not a moderator! I swear to God! Why does everyone think I'm a moderator?
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm Posts: 47196
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
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am Posts: 19718 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.
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.
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.
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.
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22286
but the issue is not the graphic depicting a rice-paddy ch*nk stereotype?
asking for a self-loathing white cis friend
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Users browsing this forum: philpritchard and 8 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
