PleaseBlitz Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 1 minute ago, PokerPacker said: Assuming you can identify the actor. Yes, that's a good point. I guess I was thinking he'd be pretty easily identifiable. 1 minute ago, tshile said: Did they say that? Here is the issue boiled down by the Supreme Court experts at ScotusBlog. Issue: Whether the First Amendment and this court’s decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. foreclose a state law negligence action making a leader of a protest demonstration personally liable in damages for injuries inflicted by an unidentified person’s violent act, when it is undisputed that the leader neither authorized, directed, nor ratified the perpetrator’s act, nor engaged in or intended violence of any kind. If you want to assume facts like the protest was somehow unlawful, you're going to have to provide some justification for that assumption. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 58 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: If you want to assume facts like the protest was somehow unlawful, you're going to have to provide some justification for that assumption From SCOTUS blog article … Quote At issue in Mckesson was whether DeRay Mckesson can be held responsible for the officer’s injuries when he did not directly harm the officer himself but instead organized the demonstration and, the officer said, “knew or should have known” that violence would result. Quote After the Louisiana Supreme Court issued an opinion indicating that, under the facts alleged by the officer, a protest leader could be sued for negligence, a divided 5th Circuit issued a new opinion allowing the lawsuit to go forward. Doe had alleged, the majority wrote, that Mckesson had “organized and directed the protest in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk that one protester would assault or batter” the officer. idk it seems to be saying exactly what I’m saying. I don’t know how those southern states work but around here we have rules for doing things lawfully, and it mostly coincides with doing things safely theyre saying he didn’t do it safely. Maybe they don’t need permits. But unless I’m missing something (you haven’t pointed to anything yet) then you and the article are like the ones claiming that now parents will go to prison if their kid steals a candy bar 🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 3 hours ago, China said: The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not hear Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act. It is possible that this outcome will be temporary. The Court did not embrace the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision attacking the First Amendment right to protest, but it did not reverse it either. That means that, at least for now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is the law in much of the American South. For the past several years, the Fifth Circuit has engaged in a crusade against DeRay Mckesson, a prominent figure within the Black Lives Matter movement who organized a protest near a Baton Rouge police station in 2016. The facts of the Mckesson case are, unfortunately, quite tragic. Mckesson helped organize the Baton Rouge protest following the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling. During that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock or similar object at a police officer, the plaintiff in the Mckesson case who is identified only as “Officer John Doe.” Sadly, the officer was struck in the face and, according to one court, suffered “injuries to his teeth, jaw, brain, and head.” Everyone agrees that this rock was not thrown by Mckesson, however. And the Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that protest leaders cannot be held liable for the violent actions of a protest participant, absent unusual circumstances that are not present in the Mckesson case — such as if Mckesson had “authorized, directed, or ratified” the decision to throw the rock. Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.” The reason Claiborne protects protest organizers should be obvious. No one who organizes a mass event attended by thousands of people can possibly control the actions of all those attendees, regardless of whether the event is a political protest, a music concert, or the Super Bowl. So, if protest organizers can be sanctioned for the illegal action of any protest attendee, no one in their right mind would ever organize a political protest again. Click on the link for the full article Interesting. So, the Supreme Court has said that they're cool with holding a person who organizes a protest liable for what the attendees of said protest, do. That might be of considerable interest, to a former President. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 What the Supreme Court case on tent encampments could mean for homeless people On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the most consequential case in decades concerning the rights of people experiencing homelessness. In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court will decide whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to fine, ticket, or jail someone for sleeping outside on public property if they have nowhere else to go. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would make it easier for communities to clear out homeless people’s tent encampments, even if no available housing or shelter exists. Over 650,000 people in America experience homelessness on any given night, and roughly 40 percent of those individuals are sleeping outside on the streets, in cars, parks, train stations, and other settings not designed primarily for human residence. Federal data published in late 2023 shows a rise in homelessness in most states. In two major decisions over the last six years, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that criminalizing homelessness when a city lacks adequate shelter or housing violates the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution. But amid a worsening homelessness crisis, government leaders have pressed the Supreme Court to reconsider, arguing those earlier rulings were incorrectly decided and left them unable to safely manage their communities. “The Ninth Circuit and respondents have tried to downplay the ways in which the ruling ties local leaders’ hands, but their arguments only confirm the decision’s ambiguity and unworkability,” Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote in an amicus brief filed in September. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Supreme Court rejects broad challenge to consumer watchdog CFPB Quote The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a broad challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, reversing a lower-court ruling that would have undermined the watchdog agency Congress created in the wake of the financial crisis to protect borrowers from predatory lenders, junk fees and other abuses. In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said the CFPB’s funding mechanism is constitutional. The agency draws its budget through profits of the Federal Reserve, not an annual appropriation by Congress. The CFPB ruling is the first of a series of closely watched decisions the justices will issue this term that could broadly reshape the power and reach of federal agencies. Thursday’s decision was praised by consumer advocates and President Biden, who called it “an unmistakable win for American consumers.” This is a bigger deal in most people’s day to day lives than most of the SCOTUS cases that get the most attention, like abortion. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Supreme Court rejects broad challenge to consumer watchdog CFPB This is a bigger deal in most people’s day to day lives than most of the SCOTUS cases that get the most attention, like abortion. Is this the "experts at agencies set limits because they are experts" case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 29 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Is this the "experts at agencies set limits because they are experts" case? No it has to do with the particular way Congress chose to fund CFPB. It's a 7-2 with Thomas writing the majority, so a pretty uncontroversial imo. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 36 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Is this the "experts at agencies set limits because they are experts" case? No, that case involves the EPA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display After the 2020 presidential election, as some Trump supporters falsely claimed that President Biden had stolen the office, many of them displayed a startling symbol outside their homes, on their cars and in online posts: an upside-down American flag. One of the homes flying an inverted flag during that time was the residence of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in Alexandria, Va., according to photographs and interviews with neighbors. The upside-down flag was aloft on Jan. 17, 2021, the images showed. President Donald J. Trump’s supporters, including some brandishing the same symbol, had rioted at the Capitol a little over a week before. Mr. Biden’s inauguration was three days away. Alarmed neighbors snapped photographs, some of which were recently obtained by The New York Times. Word of the flag filtered back to the court, people who worked there said in interviews. While the flag was up, the court was still contending with whether to hear a 2020 election case, with Justice Alito on the losing end of that decision. In coming weeks, the justices will rule on two climactic cases involving the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, including whether Mr. Trump has immunity for his actions. Their decisions will shape how accountable he can be held for trying to overturn the last presidential election and his chances for re-election in the upcoming one. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 49 minutes ago, China said: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” Click on the link for the full article I assume the sign in question stated that black lives matter, which he took to be quite objectionable and personally insulting. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 Images of it fwiw. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 When Barack got elected, some of my in-laws did something similar...put the rebel flag above the US flag on their property. We were never cool with that. Impeach that ****er. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 I would have imagined a justice lived in a nicer looking house 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ball Security Posted Friday at 01:00 PM Share Posted Friday at 01:00 PM Alito claims that his wife is responsible for the flag display. Does Harrison Butker need to have a conversation with him about how to run a household? 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted Friday at 01:19 PM Share Posted Friday at 01:19 PM Did his wife tell him how to rule on those Trump cases, too? And the next ones? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted Friday at 02:37 PM Share Posted Friday at 02:37 PM (edited) 9 hours ago, tshile said: I would have imagined a justice lived in a nicer looking house Maybe that's just the one he paid for. Suspect he has other vacation properties he uses regularly that were gifted. Edited Friday at 02:54 PM by The Evil Genius 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted Friday at 04:26 PM Share Posted Friday at 04:26 PM 1 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted Monday at 04:27 AM Share Posted Monday at 04:27 AM Next we're going to find out he tore up his Nikes after they signed Kapernick 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted Tuesday at 03:31 AM Share Posted Tuesday at 03:31 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted Tuesday at 04:20 AM Share Posted Tuesday at 04:20 AM Somebody needs to interview Alito's wife, ask her what really happened and whether she enjoys being thrown under the bus. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted Tuesday at 06:15 AM Share Posted Tuesday at 06:15 AM I thought Republicans believed in men controlling what their wives do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted 14 hours ago Share Posted 14 hours ago Quote Last summer, two years after an upside-down American flag was flown outside the Virginia home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., another provocative symbol was displayed at his vacation house in New Jersey, according to interviews and photographs. This time, it was the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which, like the inverted U.S. flag, was carried by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Also known as the Pine Tree flag, it dates back to the Revolutionary War, but largely fell into obscurity until recent years and is now a symbol of support for former President Donald J. Trump, for a religious strand of the “Stop the Steal” campaign and for a push to remake American government in Christian terms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted 14 hours ago Share Posted 14 hours ago Hang 'im! 🤠 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted 13 hours ago Share Posted 13 hours ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now