Fogbow

neeneko wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 3:03 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 1:51 pm

Supreme Court sides with Ted Cruz, striking down cap on use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans

Supreme Court decision supports campaign, candidate corruption

I rewrite headlines for fun.

I wonder how long until SCOTUS decides pay to play and outright bribes are also 'freedom of speech'.

I'm not being facetious when I say I think they would probably do it right now. They've chipped away at McCain-Feingold every chance they've got over the last twenty years and that was before the current makeup. It would need be wrapped in only the thinnest of charade, if any.

The call is coming from…inside the house.

lisa hendricks @MsLisaHendricks wrote: The Buffalo shooter: “White birth rates must change…people must achieve a birth rate…that is about 2.06 births per woman.”

SCOTUS: “the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life…had become virtually nonexistent.”

So, infants are now part of the supply and demand chain?

I think we need Gregg to give us his keen insight into the economics behind this. This could be the beginning of a nascent natal industry, amirite?

Perhaps a home grown cottage industry…

Like puppy farming..

I know you meant that as a joke, but…….

Well, the Quiverfull movement (of which my ex-wife’s mother seemed to advocate) is that there is a coming war (any day now, of course) and it is the responsibility of true believers to have many children (a quiver full of “warriors”). It is not important to educate them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 11:58 am

Off Topic

Speaking of antifa, Andy Ngo will bring them to justice for the low low price of only $35 (or more.)
[img]https: //pbs.twimg.com/media/FSWAFNyXsAEMmUd?format=jpg&name=900x900[/img]

Andy Ngo was once "brutally assaulted" by a vegan vanilla milkshake during his coverage of a Portland Summer Protest Festival (which we seem to have turned into an annual thing).

Danraft wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 9:41 am Well, the Quiverfull movement (of which my ex-wife’s mother seemed to advocate) is that there is a coming war (any day now, of course) and it is the responsibility of true believers to have many children (a quiver full of “warriors”). It is not important to educate them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

Never mind that they will be twenty years late to the war (killing of course alloed years before they may touch alcohol (officially). Then again my guess is they will have their own version of the Hitlerjugend

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 10:08 pm

lisa hendricks @MsLisaHendricks wrote: The Buffalo shooter: “White birth rates must change…people must achieve a birth rate…that is about 2.06 births per woman.”

SCOTUS: “the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life…had become virtually nonexistent.”

He doesn't appear to be taking into account the fact that most parents who are adopting a child want to adopt an *infant*, or that many families that want to adopt an infant would choose to forego adopting all together rather than adopting a child if an infant is unavailable.

It's always been difficult to get children who are more than 3 or 4 years old a new, permanent family, which they need as much, if not more than, an infant does. Barring abortion does nothing to address this aspect of the problem. Yes, it would increase the supply of infants, but it doesn't help decrease the number of older children needing homes. The main thing that would happen is that more families might be able to adopt infants, including some of those families who are turned away or decide to stop trying to adopt if no infants are available for them. That still leaves all the children who aren't getting adopted now (because they're not infants) needing homes.

A better way to address this matter would be to offer some kind of incentive to encourage people to adopt older children. At the same time, create disincentives for adopting infants. Some possible incentives for adopting children might be to offer tax breaks, provide some child care support or looking for ways to speed up the adoption process - provided, of course, that it can be done without compromising the safety checks. As for disincentives for adopting infants, those could include making that process a bit more difficult or requiring prospective parents to pass an assessment of their parenting skills. I'm sure there are many more (and probably better) ideas out there. Doing something like this would help rebalance the infant-to-child ratio of adoptions without any women having to lose their rights.

Of course, this presumes that the availability of adoptable infants is actually what they're concerned about, as opposed to, say, controlling a woman's sex life...

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:49 am Barring abortion does nothing to address this aspect of the problem. Yes, it would increase the supply of infants, but it doesn't help decrease the number of older children needing homes. The main thing that would happen is that more families might be able to adopt infants, including some of those families who are turned away or decide to stop trying to adopt if no infants are available for them.

Studies dispute this, as it turns out, the vast majority of women who are forced to carry a pregnancy to completion opt to keep the baby.

Of course, this presumes that the availability of adoptable infants is actually what they're concerned about, as opposed to, say, controlling a woman's sex life...

Wow.

More POC (and whites but mostly POC) for slave labor and windfall profits at for-profit prisons. It's not a bug, it's a feature!!!!

Prepare yourself for the return of debtors' prison.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 10:32 am Wow.

Do you want to know the worst thing about this decision that denies relief to people who have already been denied justice due to incompetent counsel?

Under current federal law, it's completely reasonable.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) puts severe, one-sided, and (IMO) unfair barriers in front of state prisoners trying to obtain federal habeas relief.

The majority opinion's policy justifications for its decision strike me as abhorrent. (Editorial aside: I would expect as much from an opinion authored by Justice Thomas.) But at its heart, the opinion is reading the plain text of AEDPA, and determining that it means what it says.

And it's not as if AEDPA was recently snuck through Congress in the dead of night by a narrow margin. It was passed in 1996, with a Senate vote of 91-8, and a House vote of 293-133. 25 years of senators and representatives and presidents have let it stand since then.

This SCOTUS can't undo rights fast enough.

I'll leave the detailed parsing of Laurence Tribe's op-ed piece to the legal experts here. I have no feeling one way or another if Mr. Tribe is spot on from a legal sense or just how scholarly he is in the academic side of the legal trade. Clearly, he is famous and can make good argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ence-tribe

From my viewpoint out in the bleachers, his argument makes perfect sense. Courts are supposed to be flexible as times and society change, and the Constitution was drafted in a way so as not to prohibit this. Stare decisis is not absolute, but you better have a gosh darn super compelling reason to overturn past opinions. Reactionary beliefs are not even kinda sorta compelling.

The burning question in my mind: If the Virginia case that tossed the anti-miscegenation laws is revisited, will Thomas recuse himself? Will he be asked to recuse? If it is overturned, will he be forced to divorce his wife?

I read the opinion by Tribe a day or two ago. I thought he made excellent arguments, too. He has a proven track record with the Supreme Court.

As a refresher, one of the highlights we've seen so far is the decision that actual innocence isn't enough to save someone from execution. Looking forward, we have a big gun decision, and of course the abortion one as well. I'm sure they will be decided in a reasonable fashion. Where is a hole to crawl in?

Moar Tribe. I dunno, seems off to me.

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw wrote: This unsolicited advice from @mjs_DC is worth what the law clerks paid for it. This isn't a criminal investigation, and any law clerk who values his or her job at the Court and the perks that job carries with it going forward would be smart to cooperate with this inquiry.

Mark Joseph Stern @mjs_DC wrote: If any law enforcement official ever asks you to hand over your phone or phone records without a warrant, the answer is "no," then "talk to my lawyer." Supreme Court clerks know this better than most.

PopeHat would (did) tell them to get lawyers immediately.

I don’t trust any R any more. My worst fear has come to pass, that the right will make their “revolution” about absolute bullshit Q things, truth and sanity be damned.

Short of Jeebus coming down to reprimand them, I don’t see how to end it. Fox will never be banned.

Slate ran an article with an interesting idea: If four justices recuse themselves, SCOTUS will lack a quorum. Meaning, the lower court's ruling stands. (The 5th Cir. had enjoined Texas' law.)

Anyone counting noses will realize the Chief would have to be the fourth, and I very much doubt he'll do this.

Would they need to state a valid reason to recuse, bob?

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:01 pm Would they need to state a valid reason to recuse, bob?

Legally, no. Politically/"for posterity," perhaps.

In routine recusals, some judges explain why but others don't. Sometimes it is obvious but sometimes it isn't.

Ta.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 700e809fd2

According to a report from Rolling Stone, officials in Donald Trump's administrationconned Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) into voting for current Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh while ridiculing her at the same time for being easy to manipulate with one going so far as to crassly mock her as a "cheap date."

As the Rolling Stone's Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley report, Collins "was deliberately manipulated by Trump administration officials — and a future Supreme Court Justice — who viewed her as an easy mark."

Collins, often mocked for her constant professions of being "concerned" by current events, was considered to be a walkover by the Trump administration officials and supporters of Kavanaugh who felt she only needed "vague assurances" that Kavanaugh would not be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

According to Rolling Stone, two former Trump officials admitted that they played Collins and then laughed at her behind her back.