On 7/5/2024 at 12:08 PM, Gannan said:

Technically Obama had an American citizen murdered so it’s not like this is an outrageous claim. 

It did make me recall that drone? strike as well

On 7/5/2024 at 12:15 PM, DrPhilly said:

Trump has already come out thru his lawyers saying all the events in and around Jan 6 were "official acts”. It literally happened within 48hrs after the ruling. 

I can say I'm 7 ft tall too

court will decide

1 hour ago, TEW said:

SCOTUS was not making a ruling on the extent of presidential powers. The case involved the question of immunity.

These are two totally separate things, and making a broad ruling on presidential powers would have been not only outside the purview of the case, but obvious politics.

If there is a case about a power being vested to POTUS, then bring that case. This is how the legal system works.

Oh, so in Miller they just ruled on the case at hand, and totally didn’t put a test in the ruling because of the broad implications?

9 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

I can say I'm 7 ft tall too

court will decide

Give that a try

12 hours ago, Bill said:

Oh, so in Miller they just ruled on the case at hand, and totally didn’t put a test in the ruling because of the broad implications?

Totally different court and the ruling is an absolute mess. Thanks for making my point.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Totally different court and the ruling is an absolute mess. Thanks for making my point.

Bill is breaking you down. Throw in the towel mate. 

2 hours ago, TEW said:

Totally different court and the ruling is an absolute mess. Thanks for making my point.

Miller was a mess?

 

(Just for the record I’m talking Miller vs. Cali, not US vs. Miller.)

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Miller was a mess?

 

(Just for the record I’m talking Miller vs. Cali, not US vs. Miller.)

Yes, Miller is a disaster of a ruling. The test itself is an absolute sh**show, and anyone who isn’t totally myopic can see this.

Just start with the implication of using "average person” and "contemporary” as a component of the threshold of legality for a constitutional right.

A shift in contemporary thought explicitly changes constitutional protections retroactively without a law or amendment ever needing to be written.

Do you not understand the problem with this?

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Yes, Miller is a disaster of a ruling. The test itself is an absolute sh**show, and anyone who isn’t totally myopic can see this.

Just start with the implication of using "average person” and "contemporary” as a component of the threshold of legality for a constitutional right.

A shift in contemporary thought explicitly changes constitutional protections retroactively without a law or amendment ever needing to be written.

Do you not understand the problem with this?

Bro, "average person” and "contemporary” have been the basis for the common law legal system for like hundreds of years. Who the F do you think a "reasonable person” is?

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Bro, "average person” and "contemporary” have been the basis for the common law legal system for like hundreds of years. Who the F do you think a "reasonable person” is?

Bro, the living constitution theory didn’t exist until the progressive era. This ruling applied it to obscenity in the 1970’s.

This isn’t some novel criticism on my part; the dissent made the same point:

 

Quote

 

But even those members of this Court who had created the new and changing standards of 'obscenity' could not agree on their application. And so we adopted a per curiam treatment of so-called obscene publications that seemed to pass constitutional muster under the several constitutional tests which had been formulated. See Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515. Some condemn it if its 'dominant tendency might be to 'deprave or corrupt' a reader.'2Others look not to the content of the book but to whether it is advertised "to appeal to the erotic interests of customers."3 Some condemn only 'hardcore pornography'; but even then a true definition is lacking. It has indeed been said of that definition, 'I could never succeed in (defining it) intelligibly,' but 'I know it when I see it.'4

45

Today we would add a new three-pronged test: '(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, . . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.'

46

Those are the standards we ourselves have written into the Constitution.5Yet how under these vague tests can we sustain convictions for the sale of an article prior to the time when some court has declared it to be obscene?

47

Today the Court retreats from the earlier formulations of the constitutional test and undertakes to make new definitions. This effort, like the earlier ones, is earnest and well intentioned. The difficulty is that we do not deal with constitutional terms, since 'obscenity' is not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. And the First Amendment makes no such exception from 'the press' which it undertakes to protect nor, as I have said on other occasions, is an exception necessarily implied, for there was no recognized exception to the free press at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted which treated 'obscene' publications differently from other types of papers, magazines, and books. So there are no constitutional guidelines for deciding what is and what is not 'obscene.' The Court is at large because we deal with tastes and standards of literature. What shocks me may be sustenance for my neighbor. What causes one person to boil up in rage over one pamphlet or movie may reflect only his neurosis, not shared by others. We deal here with a regime of censorship which, if adopted, should be done by constitutional amendment after full debate by the people.

Again, if you don’t see the problem here, I don’t know what to tell you? Perhaps imagine Trump winning the election, replacing some more judges with those whom do not hold the originalist doctrine of more recent GOP judges, and then ask yourself what they might rule to be obscene under these nebulous guidelines? Those Catholics are gaining quite a stronghold, you know…

Or perhaps a leftist court in the not so distant future? Jokes depicting Muhhomad, or trannies, or whatever other special interest? 

And that’s just the first part of the test. Do we really want to get into national vs state standards for a literal constitutional protection? Or what constitutes "serious” value?

It’s absurd at every level. Do you really not see the intrinsic problem here?  

The court legislated from the bench. Full stop. And not only did they legislate from the bench, but the standard itself is, by their decree, nebulous and ever changing. And not only that, but can be applied retroactively. It’s literally one of the worst rulings in SCOTUS history with implications that won’t be a problem until they are, and then they will be massive.

Bottom line, deal with constitutional language as written. There is no "test” for what is protected under the first amendment. The court just made that up.

If "the average person” is so plainly inclined to find something obscene, and consensus is so solid, then passing a constitutional amendment should not be a problem. And if future generations no longer find it obscene, then they can amend it again. This is how our constitution is SUPPOSED to work, but no one wants to do the actual process and, instead, delegate amending the constitution to SCOTUS. 

2 hours ago, TEW said:

Bro, the living constitution theory didn’t exist until the progressive era. This ruling applied it to obscenity in the 1970’s.

This isn’t some novel criticism on my part; the dissent made the same point:

 

Again, if you don’t see the problem here, I don’t know what to tell you? Perhaps imagine Trump winning the election, replacing some more judges with those whom do not hold the originalist doctrine of more recent GOP judges, and then ask yourself what they might rule to be obscene under these nebulous guidelines? Those Catholics are gaining quite a stronghold, you know…

Or perhaps a leftist court in the not so distant future? Jokes depicting Muhhomad, or trannies, or whatever other special interest? 

And that’s just the first part of the test. Do we really want to get into national vs state standards for a literal constitutional protection? Or what constitutes "serious” value?

It’s absurd at every level. Do you really not see the intrinsic problem here?  

The court legislated from the bench. Full stop. And not only did they legislate from the bench, but the standard itself is, by their decree, nebulous and ever changing. And not only that, but can be applied retroactively. It’s literally one of the worst rulings in SCOTUS history with implications that won’t be a problem until they are, and then they will be massive.

Bottom line, deal with constitutional language as written. There is no "test” for what is protected under the first amendment. The court just made that up.

If "the average person” is so plainly inclined to find something obscene, and consensus is so solid, then passing a constitutional amendment should not be a problem. And if future generations no longer find it obscene, then they can amend it again. This is how our constitution is SUPPOSED to work, but no one wants to do the actual process and, instead, delegate amending the constitution to SCOTUS. 

Jesus F dude. The Miller decision overturned a conviction for violating obscenity laws and it Fing super narrowed what could be labeled as obscene. You keep citing the first part of the test, without noting that there’s two whole other parts of the test that also need to be held to that further restrict what can be labeled as obscene. 

Also I find it hilarious that the resident EMB super Libertarian cited Douglas, who was an FDR appointee and is known as the biggest liberal that ever served in SCOTUS. Never mind the fact that Douglas was looking for an exactness that couldn’t ever delivered, as pointed out by Berger.

Under the holdings announced today, no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive "hard core" sexual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law, as written or construed. We are satisfied that these specific prerequisites will provide fair notice to a dealer in such materials that his public and commercial activities may bring prosecution. See Roth v. United States, supra, at 491-492. Cf. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S., at 643 . 10 If [413 U.S. 15, 28] the inability to define regulated materials with ultimate, god-like precision altogether removes the power of the States or the Congress to regulate, then "hard core" pornography may be exposed without limit to the juvenile, the passerby, and the consenting adult alike, as, indeed, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS contends. As to MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' position, see United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 379 -380 (1971) (Black, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., dissenting); Ginzburg v. United States, supra, at 476, 491-492 (Black, J., and DOUGLAS, J., dissenting); Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 196 (Black, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., concurring); Roth, supra, at 508-514 (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting). In this belief, however, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS now stands alone.

 

 

*Be twenty years removed from not being able to show a toilet on television.*

*Some a-hole in CA mass mails porn fliers to get business for his porn store.*

*Said a-hole gets arrested, charged, and convicted of violating state obscenity laws.*

*SCOTUS overturns conviction, severely narrows definition of obscenities compared to previous rulings.*

*Be fifty years later and a shizz-poster on a football message board is REEEE-ing over the most broad part of a super restrictive test and say they could use to to restrict non porn stuff, even though part two specifically limits it to porn.*



 

 

 

 

Bill lands a haymaker

Gee another Russian asset, just like maga pedos, there's a pattern here. Birds of a feather

Clarence Thomas Took Free Yacht Trip to Russia, Chopper Flight to Putin’s Hometown: Dems

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been accused of not disclosing a yacht trip to Russia and a private helicopter flight to a palace in President Vladimir Putin’s hometown, among a slew of other gifts and loans from businessman Harlan Crow.

Buried on page 14 of a letter that two Democratic senators sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday, in which they urged Garland to appoint a special counsel to probe Thomas, was an astonishing list of dozens of "likely undisclosed gifts and income” from Crow, Crow’s affiliated companies, and "other donors.”

In the letter, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) said Thomas, one of the court’s staunchly conservative justices, even may have committed tax fraud and violated other federal laws by "secretly” accepting the gifts and income potentially worth millions.

On 7/7/2024 at 8:49 PM, Bill said:

Jesus F dude. The Miller decision overturned a conviction for violating obscenity laws and it Fing super narrowed what could be labeled as obscene. You keep citing the first part of the test, without noting that there’s two whole other parts of the test that also need to be held to that further restrict what can be labeled as obscene. 

Also I find it hilarious that the resident EMB super Libertarian cited Douglas, who was an FDR appointee and is known as the biggest liberal that ever served in SCOTUS. Never mind the fact that Douglas was looking for an exactness that couldn’t ever delivered, as pointed out by Berger.

Under the holdings announced today, no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive "hard core" sexual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law, as written or construed. We are satisfied that these specific prerequisites will provide fair notice to a dealer in such materials that his public and commercial activities may bring prosecution. See Roth v. United States, supra, at 491-492. Cf. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S., at 643 . 10 If [413 U.S. 15, 28] the inability to define regulated materials with ultimate, god-like precision altogether removes the power of the States or the Congress to regulate, then "hard core" pornography may be exposed without limit to the juvenile, the passerby, and the consenting adult alike, as, indeed, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS contends. As to MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' position, see United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 379 -380 (1971) (Black, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., dissenting); Ginzburg v. United States, supra, at 476, 491-492 (Black, J., and DOUGLAS, J., dissenting); Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra, at 196 (Black, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., concurring); Roth, supra, at 508-514 (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting). In this belief, however, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS now stands alone.

 

 

*Be twenty years removed from not being able to show a toilet on television.*

*Some a-hole in CA mass mails porn fliers to get business for his porn store.*

*Said a-hole gets arrested, charged, and convicted of violating state obscenity laws.*

*SCOTUS overturns conviction, severely narrows definition of obscenities compared to previous rulings.*

*Be fifty years later and a shizz-poster on a football message board is REEEE-ing over the most broad part of a super restrictive test and say they could use to to restrict non porn stuff, even though part two specifically limits it to porn.*



 

 

 

 

somebody want to check on TEW?

All very performative, obviously

25 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

All very performative, obviously

5 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

 

31 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

All very performative, obviously

Born too late to experience late 19th century politics. 
 

Born just in time to experience late 19th century politics. 

 

20 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

 

but .......................................................................................... hunter?

 

29 minutes ago, toolg said:

 

Deflection move to keep press from Biden and  rally up votes.

2 hours ago, mr_hunt said:

 

Biden should just have him arrested. Total immunity!

8 minutes ago, Procus said:

Ahhh, wrong party. Trump and the broader Republican party used chicanery and a series of dirty tricks to stack the courts in the way the directly undermines democracy and will be the basis for a Trump dictatorship, you f***ing dolt.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Ahhh, wrong party. Trump and the broader Republican party used chicanery and a series of dirty tricks to stack the courts in the way the directly undermines democracy and will be the basis for a Trump dictatorship, you f***ing dolt.

This from the guy who told us that Biden would kill it in the debate.