Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and chief justice John Roberts all worked on Bush V Gore and handed Bush the presidency. Evil is playing the long game
this 1000%. they don't give a shit about Roe (or even really the ACA). i believe they're going to lull us by not overturning either (tho i'm sure they'll continue to chip away at Roe). the real objectives will come out over rulings on regulation, taxation and the environment. i'm afraid in 10 years (hell, probably 3 years), 'corporations are people' is going to feel like it was written by the warren court.
I see what Robyn is getting at here with a libel ban, but I can also see why YouTube and other social media sites would be very reluctant to go that route.
First of all, as she herself noted, if such a ban is based on the legal definition of libel (in broad strokes), it would miss most of the worst content, as the "victims" are public figures. Not only is the legal bar for libel of a public figure extremely high, but many things that might technically be libellous in that sense still fall under the umbrella of legitimate commentary. If I were to call Trump a pig-fucker, it would not be libel even though I know it's untrue and I said it with obvious malice. It's hyperbole, and thus legitimate political commentary.
Second, there's a question of liability for YouTube. Any ban of any kind opens the door for lawsuits, including the kind that a social media corporation probably fears the most: nuisance and other bad-faith suits that are intended to harass and intimidate rather than win. So they do have to be very careful about how they define them. Libel is such a slippery, subjective concept that YouTube's lawyers must be horrified at the notion of enacting a ban based on it.
I'm not feeling a lot of sympathy for the giant social media corporations, here. They created this situation for themselves by ignoring the problem for so long. But yeah, it's now a really tough one for them to solve.
First of all, stop calling it court-packing! Why the fuck do we always let Republicans define the terms of the debate? It's Court Reform, and it's about a lot more than how many Supreme Court justices we:re gonna have. Lower courts are just as packed with conservative hacks as the Supreme Court, and maybe even more important.
Other issues: How should the S.C operate? Appellate courts initially hear most cases with a panel that is far smaller than the court as a whole, and it's conflicts within the panels that send cases to the full court for a decision. Should the Supreme Court operate that way. What about tenure? The Constitution would allow a more limited tenure on the Supreme Court itself, I am told -- it only mandates lifetime tenure for Federal judges in general. There's nothing preventing a law requiring an S.C. justice to step down to a seat on a lower courts after a set period of time. Perhaps we would like more turnover in the highest court in the land?
15 judges. 7-6 is too close. 9-6 is way better. Add six. Make them all 23-year-old Black Lives Matter activists. Three of them LGBTQ, 1 of the six non-christian, 1 of the six a released convicted felon and two of the six recent immigrants.
THERE ARE NONE, ZERO, NADA qualifications for supreme court justices. Not age, not citizenship, not law school, not nothing. Let's take advantage.
it's more like the final nail in the coffin of free and fair elections. They showed they were willing to subvert democracy early on so they were groomed by the federalist society for the ultimate positions on scotus where they will finish the job.
I need more content like this today. And maybe some nice times. I just can't even read the liveblog about Bony Carrot. Stressing me out too much.
Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and chief justice John Roberts all worked on Bush V Gore and handed Bush the presidency. Evil is playing the long game
https://www.rawstory.com/20...
this 1000%. they don't give a shit about Roe (or even really the ACA). i believe they're going to lull us by not overturning either (tho i'm sure they'll continue to chip away at Roe). the real objectives will come out over rulings on regulation, taxation and the environment. i'm afraid in 10 years (hell, probably 3 years), 'corporations are people' is going to feel like it was written by the warren court.
I see what Robyn is getting at here with a libel ban, but I can also see why YouTube and other social media sites would be very reluctant to go that route.
First of all, as she herself noted, if such a ban is based on the legal definition of libel (in broad strokes), it would miss most of the worst content, as the "victims" are public figures. Not only is the legal bar for libel of a public figure extremely high, but many things that might technically be libellous in that sense still fall under the umbrella of legitimate commentary. If I were to call Trump a pig-fucker, it would not be libel even though I know it's untrue and I said it with obvious malice. It's hyperbole, and thus legitimate political commentary.
Second, there's a question of liability for YouTube. Any ban of any kind opens the door for lawsuits, including the kind that a social media corporation probably fears the most: nuisance and other bad-faith suits that are intended to harass and intimidate rather than win. So they do have to be very careful about how they define them. Libel is such a slippery, subjective concept that YouTube's lawyers must be horrified at the notion of enacting a ban based on it.
I'm not feeling a lot of sympathy for the giant social media corporations, here. They created this situation for themselves by ignoring the problem for so long. But yeah, it's now a really tough one for them to solve.
I don't think they should pack the courts.
I think they should shrink the court to 6, using a last in, first out policy (like jobs...)
Then when 6 proves not enough, they can expand it to 9 again...
They've been planning this one party theocracy since Reagan with help from international mob.
GW had Putin visit his ranch and he was buddies with Saudis.
Comey inexplicably removed Semion Mogilevich from the Most Wanted list.
We are fucked.
GW Bush won't dare say a word against Tramp. I wonder why.
https://www.washingtonpost....
That isn't packing, it's balancing.
I know, right?
And let the GOP retaliate and add more! The more judges we have, the less any one judge matters. That's good for all of us.
Congress can also just strip SCOTUS of its appellate jurisdiction in whichever areas it wants.
First of all, stop calling it court-packing! Why the fuck do we always let Republicans define the terms of the debate? It's Court Reform, and it's about a lot more than how many Supreme Court justices we:re gonna have. Lower courts are just as packed with conservative hacks as the Supreme Court, and maybe even more important.
Other issues: How should the S.C operate? Appellate courts initially hear most cases with a panel that is far smaller than the court as a whole, and it's conflicts within the panels that send cases to the full court for a decision. Should the Supreme Court operate that way. What about tenure? The Constitution would allow a more limited tenure on the Supreme Court itself, I am told -- it only mandates lifetime tenure for Federal judges in general. There's nothing preventing a law requiring an S.C. justice to step down to a seat on a lower courts after a set period of time. Perhaps we would like more turnover in the highest court in the land?
Original intent crowd did this shit? Hahahaha, fuckin hypocrites.
15 judges. 7-6 is too close. 9-6 is way better. Add six. Make them all 23-year-old Black Lives Matter activists. Three of them LGBTQ, 1 of the six non-christian, 1 of the six a released convicted felon and two of the six recent immigrants.
THERE ARE NONE, ZERO, NADA qualifications for supreme court justices. Not age, not citizenship, not law school, not nothing. Let's take advantage.
So, a SCOTUS seat is the reward for their loyalty to the RNC?
it's more like the final nail in the coffin of free and fair elections. They showed they were willing to subvert democracy early on so they were groomed by the federalist society for the ultimate positions on scotus where they will finish the job.