Welcome to Thunderdome

The current line is that race cannot be a primary consideration. So... yeah. It'll be vague until 100 more court cases refine it.

Might be ruling TX's favor on porn age verification law.

However, they acknowledge that they're worried it might trample some 1st rights.

Another, broader article on the issue.

States can pass laws. Not sure how age verification here would be different than on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. The only real problem...with such laws...is privacy.

The bigger problem is how ineffective such laws would really be considering porn is everywhere. Making actual businesses require age verification is silly when you can go to pretty much any other site and see the same content. Although, I would wager it would limit more hardcore stuff from being as easily seen.

What happens when the site is off U.S. shores though? Do we force ISPs to start doing age verification for households? How do we know who is using the internet at that time?

Also, does this become a slippery slope? If this goes through, what's next? Will YouTube be in the crosshairs for anything not G rated? Twitch? TikTok? FB? X? And so on?

Not SCOTUS, but surely heading there...

Minnesota SC rules the inside of cars are public spaces when on public roads.

Leisher wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2025 2:30 pm Not SCOTUS, but surely heading there...

Minnesota SC rules the inside of cars are public spaces when on public roads.

Those fucking retards.

I'm open to the idea that you can just see in and see something, and therefore not need a search warrant, but not the idea that they are inherently public space.

"If your wallet is in your pocket on a public sidewalk, then it's public space."

Retards.

Both can be right, but it still doesn't make the ruling correct.

If cocaine is sitting out on your car seat within view of any window, fine. That's probable cause and no warrant needed.

If cocaine is under your seat and out of view, that's not a public place.

SCOTUS says you need a background check for a ghost gun.

Good.

In other news, children can still buy beer ingredient kits.

GORDON wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 4:12 pm In other news, children can still buy beer ingredient kits.

Meh. Drinking age in Germany is like 10 and I don't think Germany's ever had a scandal or anything...right?

Bush- 6 - 3
Obama- 12 - 7
Trump- 64 - 59
Biden- 14 - 14
Trump- 96 - 83

That is a breakdown of injunctions on a president's policy and the second number is how many were done by judges from the opposing party.

No matter how deep into your preferred cult you are, you have to recognize that there's an issue here. Judges who make rulings based on politics should be immediately removed from the bench. From SCOTUS to Judge Judy.

The problem is...how the fuck can you tell? Sure, you can probably spot patterns, but once that becomes a determining factor, it's easy to game it.

Because there is a human involved, there will always be flaws. AI isn't the solution because law, while written in B&W, can be very grey.

The only things we can stop are lawsuits/legal challenges being pushed in certain states, districts, etc. because of a specific judge. I would think we could create a law to prevent that type of abuse.

Outside of that, I guess fucking deal with it.

I saw a thing recently that there's going to be an investigation about how one judge was randomly assigned 4 trump cases in a row, in a short time.

I'm all for investigations. I hope someone goes to jail over it.

GORDON wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 10:29 am one judge was randomly assigned 4 trump cases in a row, in a short time.

Yeah, I mentioned how such a tactic is easily spotted and stopped.

And yes, people caught gaming the system like this should be disbarred and removed from the bench. The law is not a place for politics.

You get a few of those middle people doing time, and in the future the middle people will begin requiring the illegal orders in writing to cover their asses.

Leisher wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 9:53 am No matter how deep into your preferred cult you are, you have to recognize that there's an issue here.

Yes, the president does not make laws via EOs, and should be blocked. Hopefully he'll be impeached for it.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 2:55 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 9:53 am No matter how deep into your preferred cult you are, you have to recognize that there's an issue here.

Yes, the president does not make laws via EOs, and should be blocked. Hopefully he'll be impeached for it.

Can we impeach former presidents too?

Number of EOs per president for the last 10.

They serve a purpose, sure, but not to the extent that they're being used in recent history.

And yes, some should be blocked. Others, perhaps not.

OG point still stands as well: The bench is not a place for politics. Judges should not be tied to political affiliation.

Leisher wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 10:23 pm OG point still stands as well: The bench is not a place for politics. Judges should not be tied to political affiliation.

Sure, but interpretation of law will always have some partisan component in the gray areas. Trump's unitary executive theory hasn't been popular in courts/law/etc in decades. So makes sense his stuff is getting blocked.

FDR hated the SCOTUS. Blocked his New Deal programs left and right. Tried to pack it with extra judges.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 7:29 am Trump's unitary executive theory hasn't been popular in courts/law/etc in decades.

Yeah, it's very telling that no other president used EOs like Trump.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 7:29 am So makes sense his stuff is getting blocked.

To an extent, sure. Running his stuff to the exact same judge 3 or 4 times in rapid succession? A judge whose wife's earnings come from USAID? Not so much.

One thing I agree with many folks on is that "reverse racism" isn't a thing. The "why" we disagree upon though. They say it's impossible to be racist against a majority. They say this because they're fucking ignorant. Seriously, take a damn history class once in your fucking life. I say racism is racism and doesn't need qualifiers like "reverse".

Anyway...

SCOTUS unanimously says discrimination against straights and honkeys exists and they can sue for it.

That's a game changer.

SCOTUS also unanimously tells Mexico it can't blame gun manufacturers for cartel violence.

Huge fucking "DUH" and a big blow to anti-gun folks here too.

If guns didn't exist and people just used tree limbs would you sue the Earth for murders using said limbs? IT'S THE FUCKING PEOPLE!!!!