striker42
Well-known member
Eliminating mail in ballots is pretty silly. I think they could use more security with those ballots but it should be a process issue, not an existence issue.
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Eliminating mail in ballots is pretty silly. I think they could use more security with those ballots but it should be a process issue, not an existence issue.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
We literally do everything by mail and computer
Literally just did the census by computer/internet by me logging in with a code
And that has huge repercussions for the country
The scare tactic of saying mail in and everything else is fraud “cause it might could happen” is exactly that. A scare tactic.
Literally just did the census by computer/internet by me logging in with a code
And that has huge repercussions for the country
The scare tactic of saying mail in and everything else is fraud “cause it might could happen” is exactly that. A scare tactic.
striker42
Well-known member
One problem that I see is that any attempt at greater security, even reasonable ones, is getting lumped in with everything else as a reaction to a conspiracy theory. Personally, I'd like states to think about how their elections could be meddled with and have common sense solutions. The fact that we're having people making barely above minimum wage verifying ballots by comparing signatures is pretty ridiculous. There's better security in getting and setting up a new debit card.
And I want this reasonable security to keep both parties in line. If one party finds a way to game the system, the other party will take that and double it.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a petition from a Christian florist who refused to create flower arrangements for a same-sex couple, declining for now to take another case asking when anti-discrimination laws must give way to religious convictions.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch indicated they would have accepted the case. But it requires four justices for a grant, and that means none of the court’s other three conservatives were willing to go along.
A unanimous Washington state Supreme Court found that the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act and Washington Law Against Discrimination, a state civil rights law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...367a62-db3b-11eb-bb9e-70fda8c37057_story.html
Interesting that ACB did not vote to take this case.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch indicated they would have accepted the case. But it requires four justices for a grant, and that means none of the court’s other three conservatives were willing to go along.
A unanimous Washington state Supreme Court found that the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act and Washington Law Against Discrimination, a state civil rights law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...367a62-db3b-11eb-bb9e-70fda8c37057_story.html
Interesting that ACB did not vote to take this case.
Last edited:
striker42
Well-known member
This court has shown little appetite for hugely controversial cases or sweeping decisions. They'll have to to take up this issue sooner or later.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://padailypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21CV38374O.pdf
Palo Alto cops sue the city because of a Black Live Matter mural that has Assata Shakur in it. Because she was convicted of killing a cop they say its discriminatory. LOLOLOLOL
Palo Alto cops sue the city because of a Black Live Matter mural that has Assata Shakur in it. Because she was convicted of killing a cop they say its discriminatory. LOLOLOLOL
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Dont be, if God didnt want him to be embarrassed he would have said something. Or does God only speak to these people to tell them to run for President?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
In what appeared to be the first ruling upholding a coronavirus vaccine mandate by a university, a federal judge affirmed on Monday that Indiana University could require that its students be vaccinated against the virus.
A lawyer for eight student plaintiffs had argued that requiring the vaccine violated their right to bodily integrity and autonomy, and that the coronavirus vaccines have only emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration, and should not be considered as part of the normal range of vaccinations schools require. He vowed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
“What we have here is the government forcing you to do something that you strenuously object to and have your body invaded in the process,” said the lawyer, James Bopp Jr.
He said that the appeal would be paid for by America’s Frontline Doctors, a conservative organization that has been pursuing an anti-vaccine agenda. Mr. Bopp, of Terre Haute, Ind., is known for his legal advocacy promoting conservative causes.
Mr. Bopp filed the lawsuit in June, after Indiana University announced the previous month that faculty, staff and students would be required to get coronavirus vaccinations before coming to school this fall.
The university, whose main campus is in Bloomington, Ind., said that students who did not comply would have their class registrations canceled and would be barred from campus activities.
The requirement permitted exemptions only for religious objections, documented allergies to the vaccine, medical deferrals and virtual class attendance.
On Monday, Judge Damon R. Leichty of the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana said that while he recognized the students’ interest in refusing unwarranted medical treatment, such a right must be weighed against the state’s greater interest.
“The Fourteenth Amendment permits Indiana University to pursue a reasonable and due process of vaccination in the legitimate interest of public health for its students, faculty and staff,” his ruling said, also noting that the university had made exceptions for students who object.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/19/world/covid-variant-vaccine-updates
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Notable that Judge Leichty is a Trump appointee.
A lawyer for eight student plaintiffs had argued that requiring the vaccine violated their right to bodily integrity and autonomy, and that the coronavirus vaccines have only emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration, and should not be considered as part of the normal range of vaccinations schools require. He vowed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
“What we have here is the government forcing you to do something that you strenuously object to and have your body invaded in the process,” said the lawyer, James Bopp Jr.
He said that the appeal would be paid for by America’s Frontline Doctors, a conservative organization that has been pursuing an anti-vaccine agenda. Mr. Bopp, of Terre Haute, Ind., is known for his legal advocacy promoting conservative causes.
Mr. Bopp filed the lawsuit in June, after Indiana University announced the previous month that faculty, staff and students would be required to get coronavirus vaccinations before coming to school this fall.
The university, whose main campus is in Bloomington, Ind., said that students who did not comply would have their class registrations canceled and would be barred from campus activities.
The requirement permitted exemptions only for religious objections, documented allergies to the vaccine, medical deferrals and virtual class attendance.
On Monday, Judge Damon R. Leichty of the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana said that while he recognized the students’ interest in refusing unwarranted medical treatment, such a right must be weighed against the state’s greater interest.
“The Fourteenth Amendment permits Indiana University to pursue a reasonable and due process of vaccination in the legitimate interest of public health for its students, faculty and staff,” his ruling said, also noting that the university had made exceptions for students who object.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/19/world/covid-variant-vaccine-updates
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Notable that Judge Leichty is a Trump appointee.
striker42
Well-known member
The common arguments you hear surrounding the abortion debate are some of the worst of any political issue. They grate on me when I hear them and people aren't just unwilling to budge on their positions, they're unwilling to even listen to what someone else is trying to say.
If you went into court and argued "my body my choice" or "abortion is murder" then the judge would tear you apart. That is assuming he hadn't thrown you in jail for unauthorized practice of law as you would have never graduated law school if that's what you would argue.
The real question at the center of the abortion debate is what is the legal and moral status of a fetus? That's not a question with an objective answer. If a fetus has the same legal and moral status as any living person then legislatures absolutely have the right to outlaw the termination of a pregnancy. If a fetus has no legal or moral status separate from the mother then the legislature has no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion performed.
But that question doesn't lend itself well to righteous indignation. It's much simpler to assume your stance on that is correct and then scream oppression or murder.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Those three vote in a block on major issues consistently, but the narrative is still that conservative ideologues own the court. What a joke.
striker42
Well-known member
Sometimes I believe justices take a position for reputational reasons that they know will never be successful. It's easy to oppose the lifting of the moratorium when you know how it will be decided and opposing it will not be precedent. You don't have to consider the long term ramifications and can instead guild your reputation. If your vote will matter, you have to take more into consideration.