U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

been following those cases for a while. lord, if SCOTUS rules the way I fear they might, the First Amendment won't make sense anymore, if private corporations are required to dismiss their own TOS

I listened to the last half of that hearing, when justices were questioning the plaintiffs (lawyers for Facebook etc), so I didn't hear to what degree they raked the Florda lawyer over the coals. But I wasn't super impressed with the justices' keen grasp of First Amendment law and the way media companies operate. Even some of the liberal justices. Granted, they're "just asking questions," but there was some serious concern about Facebook or YouTube or whoever "censoring" content. One of the conservatives — I wasn't taking notes, so I don't remember if it was Thomas or Kavanaugh — sneered at the plaintiff lawyers for using "euphemisms" like "content moderation" instead of "censorship."

I may or may not have been shouting at my laptop as I listened ...

I was reading some live reaction on Bluesky and it seemed like the Florida lawyer got bludgeoned pretty hard, particularly by Kavanaugh and Barrett (and Sotomayor and Kagan, but that was to be expected). A lot of the judges had "old person mystified by the internet" reactions and questions, but I really don't think Florida's gonna win that one.

Yeah, Barrett for sure was pretty clear on the free speech issues, though she thought there could be some applications where the law would be legal. Even just from what I heard it seemed likely the injunction will remain in place, but maybe with some asterisks or highlighted questions for the trial court to resolve. But I mean, even Brown was struggling with whether social media should be considered a modern "public square" and therefore subject to some anti-censorship protections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/opinion/constitutional-law-crisis-supreme-court.html

this is a very cute article. oh how nice it must be to believe in the rule of law!

it's a meet-cute then, because your comment is adorbs

Bump

Supreme Court decided not to dismiss Trump immunity petition today , but decided to hear arguments on it. But of course they didn’t decide to hear them on an expedited basis as the Supreme Court has done in years past, but to wait until April 22. The January 6 trial for Trump has to stay on hold until the immunity issue is resolved. So however long it takes to reach a decision after April will influence whether that trial can start before the election. Ugh.

Today’s hearing on bump stocks sounded bad too. Conservative justices were insisting that prior Congressional law banning automatic weapons should not apply to bump stocks for various reasons including an argument that one has to manually push on the stock in order for it make the gun fire hundreds of rounds. Therefore it’s not automatic.

Bump stock ban was, ironically, one of the few actual Trump achievements.

Listening to some the justices think aloud about getting rid of the bump stock was fucking pathetic, like listening to a sociopath resort to mental gymnastics to rationalize dismissing moral logic.

*to some of the justices think out loud

*bump stock ban

sorry, posting while traveling

https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1762992602373034400?s=46&t=u2ZSlsY3trRV36IPP6jNDQ

Sorta giving Court benefit of doubt re delay on Trump immunity pleading

because that's worked out so well in the past, smdh

what does it say. x no longer even works for me as a link.

you need a big big demonstration abouuuuut now.

Tweet said delay was not as long as Trump wanted .

... and why that's good, actualluy

... but is bad news for President Biden.

Two different things can be true:

#SCOTUS *isn’t* moving as fast as it possibly could/as fast as many folks want it to in resolving Trump’s immunity appeal; and

SCOTUS *is* moving much faster than Trump wanted it to *and* much faster than it does in virtually all of its cases

Two different things can be true:

#SCOTUS *isn’t* moving as fast as it possibly could/as fast as many folks want it to in resolving Trump’s immunity appeal; and

SCOTUS *is* moving much faster than Trump wanted it to *and* much faster than it does in virtually all of its cases

Two different things can be true:

#SCOTUS *isn’t* moving as fast as it possibly could/as fast as many folks want it to in resolving Trump’s immunity appeal; and
Nottingham Forest should be relegated

Just asking, Hunt3r: what would change as the result of a demonstration?

I was at almost every big antiwar demonstration of the 90s (both gulf wars) and the wars still happened. I was at the Million Mom March and gun violence still rages. My wife and daughter went to the 2017 Women's March (the one with the hats) and then Roe v. Wade was overturned a few years later.

I am not preaching despair, just noting that big demonstrations have had a poor batting average lately.

I'd say the Women's March and followups certainly buoyed me and millions of others into voting in the 2018 midterms but ymmv

demonstrations are supposed to give way to further escalations, they are supposed to be the warning that "there are many of us, and we are angry, and if things don't change, the next time we show up, things will not be so peaceful".

but nobody really has the stomach to riot after a high school kid got to murder two protesters without consequence

"those demonstrations got us to vote" man I'm sorry but this is pathetic.

In the end, we know what will work, it's just that none of us want to talk about it.

You go first, tough guy.

The US isn't going to spawn a militant mass movement to overthrow the current hierarchy and seize power. Talking about it isn't going to get us any closer.

I think we should decide which one of us gets to become a billionaire donor to the Democratic Party and then we can dictate to the party what we want. I volunteer for this dangerous task.

ymp point taken, admitted. you are each correct. imo.

i was just talking about big big demonstations. the best demonstrations.

Marxist junior officers in the US military should institute a bloodless coup, and nationalize key industries--it worked in Portugal in '75!

In the end, we know what will work, it's just that none of us want to talk about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVmYspx9qnI

what we talk about when we talk about things we don't want to talk about, a new play

You go first, tough guy.

*shrugs* I like being bitten in the neck.

table I believe your intentions are good but I think the "Mr. Choppy" stuff is, frankly, kinda ghoulish.

I am a tad happier w/ the lesser evil vampires than the let’s ban Muslims ones , but I recognize that on some issues they’re looking equivalent. Since this is the Supreme Court thread , I am a happier with the appointments to the court by the lesser evil vampires, but again recognize there are issues

Mr. Choppy is a nice fantasy, I sympathize with Tabes on that. But any sort of left-wing violent uprising in this country would be crushed easily even more violently, and an excuse for instituting more repression; or it would be hijacked into a populist/fascist anti-other pogrom.

table, I really don't think you are wrong and I appreciate your passion, but it often comes across like you are coming at us other posters for the lack of choices. I think we can all agree that the "choice" we get this November is a farce and completely depressing, but coming at us as if we're all just too stupid to see that feels really unhelpful at best, super condescending at worst. we see it too, there's just not much we can do beyond advocating for change down ballot and supporting the orgs making a difference. come November though, I'm going to plug my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils that hasn't specifically outlined plans to deport, ban or outright slaughter people I know and love.

(and yes I realize that choice will still support, indirectly, the slaughter of other people still. but either choice is going to get us there because, well, fuck America. but I'll take the small shifts I can.)

table, I really don't think you are wrong and I appreciate your passion, but it often comes across like you are coming at us other posters for the lack of choices. I think we can all agree that the "choice" we get this November is a farce and completely depressing, but coming at us as if we're all just too stupid to see that feels really unhelpful at best, super condescending at worst.

Seconding all of this. Many of us have been on message boards for twenty-five years, and if I didn't know you, table, I'd say you came across as another posturing blowhard based on your most bombastic posts.

and I know you're not because, again, I've been reading you since the late '00s.

Just fwiw, my initial post was more stating a reality: we do all know what could change things, but we are either too afraid to engage with them (for entirely fair reasons— "you can't trust violence" is an iconic Low lyric for a reason!!) or we're too in thrall to things working as they are.

On the latter point, what would it take for every single even mildly left-wing person in the US to not go to work for a day? A week? A month? They can't fire us all, and the sheer amount of economic damage it would cause might really change some things. A general strike could do wonders, but so many people have been gaslit into the false gospel of workerism that I doubt such a major action could ever be pulled off. Still, I maintain *some* modicum of hope in that regard.

Basically, I feel like there's too much comfort, and I indict myself as part of that comfortable class (as Alfred rightly did, too), despite my own economic struggles. There's a resignation to the "choice" that we "have" to make that I want more of us to reject, because I don't actually think that we're resigned to this pale imitation of what life should be. We're all dreaming and desirous of something better, so why not try to actually *do* something about it instead of simply continuing to engage with a system that isn't built for us?

On the latter point, what would it take for every single even mildly left-wing person in the US to not go to work for a day? A week? A month?

Deposit $20,000 into each of their bank accounts in advance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vqgdSsfqPs

See? A post about wanting something better, met with utter cynicism and a basic "shut the fuck up hippie" implied. And people wonder why I resort to bombast.

Everyone here wants something better. We may disagree on the means, but you are wrong if you think we disagree on the desired ends.

I won't try to speak for what unperson meant, but I didn't read cynicism so much as sad realism. I mean, everywhere I look I see coworkers so brow-beaten by capitalism that, even after a global pandemic, they won't even skip work when feeling deathly ill with a contagious illness. Those people aren't going to be convinced to participate in a general strike, even if the support it. The terror of losing your job, more key your access to insurance, is so hard-wired in folks that I just can't see it happening as much as it is needed.

you are wrong if you think we disagree on the desired ends.

https://heygrillhey.com/static/f0c62ab3592ac05efafd719f308ecc88/Brisket-Burnt-Ends.png

A post about wanting something better, met with utter cynicism and a basic "shut the fuck up hippie" implied.

Dude, come on. Most people in America who are likely to be open to a left-wing political message are also likely to be in positions of economic precarity, for a variety of reasons: shitty job, too many kids, health issues, whatever. They can't afford to stop working. I could probably afford to take a month off work, but what would it solve? If I won the Powerball, I would achieve my political goals through bribes, but in what universe is "economic damage" gonna push a country like the US left?