U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

we don't call them background checks, we call them factground checks.

anything else is fake

Forget the background, just give me the facts, Jack. That’s what I’d say if I were Gordon Cole.

Give me the facts, Jack
Spy on QAnon, Ron
Is there a Deep State, Nate?
Just give it to me

pic.twitter.com/CxkgwkyHTY

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) March 16, 2021

🙃🙃🙃

lol same guy pic.twitter.com/GPv144dosu

— ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ ❌🍁❌ (@mattgcn) March 16, 2021

Noah Feldman probably gullible enough to believes what he writes. Obviously, this makes him useful as a cat's paw for promoting various publications' unstated editorial stances.

hai boo

🚨Clarence Thomas suggests that social media companies may NOT have a First Amendment right to regulate speech on their platforms, analogizing them to "common carriers" and "places of public accommodation." https://t.co/2zx7nCtIAz pic.twitter.com/ZleTE1aI0S

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 5, 2021

I analogize Justice Clarence Thomas to a common carrier.

I have to hand it to him, the man really loves standing up for people who want him dead.

I don't know, it's been pretty dizzying seeing conservatives adopt the longstanding arguments of liberal/leftish social media and ISP critics. This "common carrier" argument is almost exactly equivalent to the Net Neutrality position--though pertinently, those critics were talking about the Internet's network infrastructure rather than specific platforms (indeed, one of the NN fears was a scenario where Verizon makes you pay extra to use Google or Facebook). Still, there are liberal/left arguments that FB and Google have become infrastructural (deliberately) and should be regulated as such.

That said, and I should click through to the whole opinion, but I am very curious how he squares this interpretation of social media with personal-data-driven algorithmic content feeds and microtargeted advertising, i.e., the mass personalization/customization that is the entire business model of these supposed common carriers. Those aren't the forms of speech moderation that conservatives are upset about but I don't see a meaningful legal distinction.

love that Very Serious People jumped through hoops for years to square Scalia’s bald-faced activism from the bench. Thankfully I don’t see much of that any more for these clowns. At least not from anyone very serious. (Or perhaps I’m not looking in the right spots)

The only positive thing one can say about Scalia is that he could write— he was a great stylist.

But, yknow, a lot of evil motherfuckers have been great writers, so...

great post rob.

The only positive thing one can say about Scalia is that he could write— he was a great stylist

Can't agree with this; I think his style was flashy but in the end more attention-grabbing than good.

Jiggery-pokery, come on, that's some warmed over William Safire shit.

he could write

Who hasn't danced a jiggery whenever they're about to pokery?

i have a legal writing book by him which makes me feel bad every time i see it on the shelf. i think i will sell it. i have long hated reading his opinions and think his style is grating and smug. the book does have good advice on writing for lawyers, which is obv not the same as opinion writing.

In the context of footnote-laden and windy legal prose, Nino stood out in the late '80s and early '90s. Read one of his opinions from the last decade of his life. They read like copy-and-pasted Tweets, no doubt by clerks.

Agreed. I was referring to the stuff from the 80s and 90s.

Who hasn't danced a jiggery whenever they're about to pokery?

― avatar of a kind of respectability homosexual culture (Eric H.), M

Not since March '20.

Taken from someone’s tweet re the 5-4 decision released around midnight April 9

As a result of the SCOTUS rule, until April 15 (when the reg changes), Californians can host people from more than three households in their homes ONLY if they are engaged in religious practices. Bible study: yes; BBQ: no.

Religious non-discrimination or religious favoritism?

CALI SANTERIA PARTY IS A GO

The Cali Covid rules previously limited home religious and secular events to 3 households, but conservative majority decided that home religious events should be able to follow non-home rules

I think you could make a fair argument that BBQ is a religious practice

X-post - Yes!!!

Santeria & barbecue both, yes

If at some point the host says "god bless us one and all", would that gathering fall under under this SCOTUS ruling?

How about if somebody sneezes and someone else says bless you?

How about if eating meat is the national religion?

What if you have an apron that says Grill God?

As a nonbeliever, I remain steadfast in my insistence upon being part of whatever secular superspreader event I choose.

If God didn't want me to be a super spreader, he would not have created super spreader events.

If God didn't want me to be a super spreader, he would not have created super spreader events.

see, I just accidentally super spreaded that post, complete act of God.

OL, if you missed out on the big motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota, there's always this year!

Ghoulish

First opinion of the day is in Jones v. Mississippi. By a 6–3 vote with Kavanaugh writing, the court rules that a sentencer need NOT make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing a defendant under 18 to life without parole. https://t.co/XS5CPsa2In

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 22, 2021

Fucking why?

Easier way to keep propping up the for profit prison system is what it basically comes down to, I assume. Not that it is in any way a defensible position.

the sick thing about this is juvenile detention has been dropping over the past couple decades iirc

some info here: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/juvenile-life-without-parole/

Kavanaugh ( who has forgotten about his own youthful indiscretions) believes youths who get arrested for crimes deserve life . So-called Christian Coney Barrett too

Fucking why?

Our present SCOTUS has six justices with an inherent bias toward strengthening the current power structure instead of protecting individuals from its abuses. They won't ever admit it, and if questioned would throw up a smokescreen of solemn legalistic nonsense, but a white supremacist oligarchy suits them just fine.

The 2012 Montgomery case Majority that ruled against Juvenile life sentences was : Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

Kennedy is gone, and Roberts decided to stick with the conservatives this time

...
Long before the Trump era, Ruddy was best known as the young New York Post reporter probing the 1993 suicide of Clinton White House aide Vince Foster — and exploring the wilder, false claims that he had been murdered. His work made its mark: Brett M. Kavanaugh, then working for Kenneth Starr's investigation into the Lewinsky affair, circulated Ruddy's articles to lawyers who joined the team.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/ruddy-newsmax-trump/2021/05/05/32b09714-9d32-11eb-9d05-ae06f4529ece_story.html

from a piece on piece of shit Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy. imagine America's Golden Boy Brett Kavanaugh working for Kenneth Starr and Lewinsky, bringing in a fucking NYPost article on Vince Foster, and then he not only doesn't lose his job, but in fact he goes on to be given a blatantly stolen SC seat

"oh wow, what's this New York Post article? GREAT research work, ya golden boy! this is a VERY good source!!"

well, remember when Kav's teary-beery monologue mentioned the Clintons?

i did, but then angry mom lindsey graham came in and yelled at everyone to leave the good boy alone

uncle durbin should have chugged a beer and thrown a table

love that this clown will probably outlive me