Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[unofan]

In another case SCOTUS struck down a NC law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media sites.

Which was the easiest call they've made all term. That was a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Which was the easiest call they've made all term. That was a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.

I suspect the SCOTUS is going to also side with sex offenders in the lawsuit over Minnesota's sex offender program:
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota...urt/423234353/

[LynahFan]

Fixed that for you. Nobody plays the "just asking questions with a strong hint of silent disapproval" act better than Fishy. I suggest leaving it to him.

Now, now. Don't sell Joe short - he is a champ in this arena. The limerick I made up for him in that other thread:

There once was a poster named Joe
Who pretended never to know.
But the questions he asked
Were transparent as glass -
Supposition and innuen-do.

[joecct]

Now, now. Don't sell Joe short - he is a champ in this arena. The limerick I made up for him in that other thread:

There once was a poster named Joe
Who pretended never to know.
But the questions he asked
Were transparent as glass -
Supposition and innuen-do.

As Cornell grads go, you don't hold a candle to Kepler. He may out vitriol you in certain matters, but at least you can follow and understand his opinions, even when we strongly disagree.

To simplify -

If 3 people can be called "parent" why can't they get married? It's coming, I'm giving it 10 years.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It was plainly obvious what you were getting after. It's also plainly obvious that after 2 years, Obergefell still chaps your hide, and so you go after it with the tired slippery slope argument, "If same-sex marriages are OK, then why not polygamy?"

The state has a legitimate financial and legal interest in keeping polygamy illegal. Not so with same-sex marriages.

Please Joe, you don't have to hide your distaste for the decision. Just admit you don't find it natural, and/or the Bible says it's a sin, and that's how you try to live. It's perfectly fine (wrong, but fine).

[LynahFan]

As Cornell grads go, you don't hold a candle to Kepler.

Unfortunately for you, I'm complimented just being mentioned in the same sentence - thanks!

To simplify

Not needed. My dead grandmother could see where you were heading with that one.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

LOL. Money is speech. Won't make any difference.

Hard to believe this Court will deliver anything but the usual pro forma plute knob job, but hey... Kennedy does like to Go Big.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

If 3 people can be called "parent" why can't they get married? It's coming, I'm giving it 10 years.

It may be coming. But this is not a harbinger -- marriage and parenthood have never been identical, and their overlap waxes and wanes with hemlines.

Let me ask you something, though. Let's say there were several studies with impeccable methodology that cast serious doubt on the hypothesis that having 2 parents was better for children. The ideal number turned out to be, let's say, odd to prevent deadlocks.

Honestly, would you consider re-evaluating your position?

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I suspect the SCOTUS is going to also side with sex offenders in the lawsuit over Minnesota's sex offender program:
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota...urt/423234353/

Good that program is wrong. The intention is good but the State doesnt get to lock you up for the same crime twice and that is exactly what that program does.

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It may be coming. But this is not a harbinger -- marriage and parenthood have never been identical, and their overlap waxes and wanes with hemlines.

Let me ask you something, though. Let's say there were several studies with impeccable methodology that cast serious doubt on the hypothesis that having 2 parents was better for children. The ideal number turned out to be, let's say, odd to prevent deadlocks.

Honestly, would you consider re-evaluating your position?

What does The Bible and its sequel Jesus Boogaloo say on the matter? That is what joe is gonna answer...

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Good that program is wrong. The intention is good but the State doesnt get to lock you up for the same crime twice and that is exactly what that program does.

Yep. Couldn't agree more.

What's worse though is the second lockup has an indefinite hold as well. It's awful.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

There was a 4-2 ruling today that federal government officials cannot be sued personally for administrative actions taken immediately after 9-11 to inordinately detain Arabs on legitimate lesser charges while they were being investigated for more serious charges.

Sotomayor and Kagan both recused themselves as they had been involved in some of the original cases, and the case was heard before Gorsuch was seated.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

There was a 4-2 ruling today that federal government officials cannot be sued personally for administrative actions taken immediately after 9-11 to inordinately detain Arabs on legitimate lesser charges while they were being investigated for more serious charges.

Sotomayor and Kagan both recused themselves as they had been involved in some of the original cases, and the case was heard before Gorsuch was seated.

Interesting. I would have thought that you couldn't sue federal government officials personally for administrative actions in any event, as long as they followed USG policy. Seems odd to me that the case even went forward, so I must be missing something important.

[unofan]

Interesting. I would have thought that you couldn't sue federal government officials personally for administrative actions in any event, as long as they followed USG policy. Seems odd to me that the case even went forward, so I must be missing something important.

What you're missing is that the officials were sued in their official capacity, so the plaintiffs were essentially suing the USG.

The court essentially said "you should've brought a habeas petition to get free sooner, but you can't sue for money even if your detention was unlawful"

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

What you're missing is that the officials were sued in their official capacity, so the plaintiffs were essentially suing the USG.

The court essentially said "you should've brought a habeas petition to get free sooner, but you can't sue for money even if your detention was unlawful"

OK, so they weren't being sued personally, they were placeholders for a suit against the USG. That makes sense.

I never quite understand how and when political entities can be sued. Certainly you can sue claiming your rights have been abridged, but you can't sue if, say, Congress bans asbestos and you own Asbestos Kwik-E-Mart, right?