SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

nicknyr15

HughFreakingDillon said:

dankind said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hey everybody, don’t speak up or out until your rights are really taken away. In fact, just wait until it’s happened and you have something to bitch about, okay?

Following a similar ordinance out of New Hampshire to shield its governor (R) from angry protestors outside his home, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu's (D) administration also limited the right to peacefully protest outside her home. Protesters are fined.

So there are a few cases in different municipalities that could possibly be used to clear the sidewalks in front of the Supreme Court justices' homes.

As I've shared, I live a few houses down from the governor of Massachusetts (R), and protests outside his residence from people who don't even live here really made a shitty place to live even shittier. Out of sheer cowardice, the town hid behind 1A to continue to allow the disturbances. These had crossed the line from peaceful protests to the detriment of our community's public health and public education. These were easy legal arguments that could have gotten these people the hell out of my town, according to every attorney I know, one being a US attorney, but the town sat on its hands. I'm still suffering from PTSD, and they've been dormant for a while since some of them are awaiting trial/sentencing for 1/6 offenses.

just move into a hotel until it blows over. /s

Ha. Nice. 

Halifax2TheMax

You think this shit just started? Now, imagine if you will, Hillary Clinton as a justice on SCOTUS, or Bill, and either of them were up to this type of shit on behalf of the POTUS loser AOC?

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pressed Arizona lawmakers after the 2020 election to set aside Joe Biden’s popular-vote victory and choose “a clean slate of Electors,” according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.

The emails, sent by Ginni Thomas to a pair of lawmakers on Nov. 9, 2020,argued that legislators needed to intervene because the vote had been marred by fraud. Though she did not mention either candidate by name, the context was clear.

Just days after media organizations called the race for Biden in Arizona and nationwide, Thomas urged the lawmakers to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure.” She told the lawmakers the responsibility to choose electors was “yours and yours alone” and said they have “power to fight back against fraud.”

Courts turned back dozens of lawsuits filed by Trump and his allies in an attempt to challenge the 2020 election outcome, and there is no evidence of voting-machine manipulation or other widespread fraud.

Ginni Thomas did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not respond to messages seeking comment from Clarence Thomas.

Ginni Thomas has insisted that she and her husband have kept their work separate, but her political activism has set her apart from other Supreme Court spouses. About a decade ago, she and Stephen K. Bannon — who later became chief strategist in the Trump White House— were among the organizers of Groundswell, a group formed to battle liberals and establishment Republicans. Groundswell dedicated itself to “a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation,” according to emails uncovered by Mother Jones at the time. “Election integrity” was among the topics discussed in the group’s first months, the emails show.

Thomas sent the messages via an online platform designed to make it easy to send pre-written form emails to multiple elected officials, according to a review of the emails obtained under the state’s public records law.

The messages show that Thomas, a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, was more deeply involved in the effort to overturn Biden’s win than has been previously reported. In sending the emails, Thomas played a role in the extraordinary scheme to keep Trump in office by substituting the will of legislatures for the will of voters.

Thomas’s actions also underline concerns about potential conflicts of interest that her husband has already faced — and may face in the future — in deciding cases related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Those questions intensified in March, when The Post and CBS News obtained text messages that Thomas sent in late 2020 to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, pressing him to help reverse the election.

jpgoegel

it's not the first time Ginni & Clarence have straddled the line of conflict

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/12/us/contesting-vote-challenging-justice-job-thomas-s-wife-raises-conflict-interest.html

Lerxst1992

The Texas shooting is horrific, but something maybe worse flew almost completely under the radar this week. The extremist court ruled that evidence is not enough of a basis to force a state court to grant an appeal. The defendant received incompetent counsel. Too bad, can’t force the states to look at evidence to determine if the defendant deserves a retrial, and will likely be executed. Nice free country this is.

The six are basically giving the middle finger to us. They can do whatever they want, give the states extraordinary power, even to kill a person, just because they have six on the court.

“Under Justice Thomas’s majority opinion, federal courts may still conduct habeas proceedings when a criminal defendant alleges that they received inadequate assistance of counsel twice, but the federal court may not consider any evidence that wasn’t presented in earlier proceedings. As Thomas writes, “if a prisoner has ‘failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,’ a federal court ‘shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim’ unless the prisoner satisfies one of two narrow exceptions” that are not present in Jones’s case.

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez

HughFreakingDillon

STACK. THE. COURT. 

gimmesometruth27

HughFreakingDillon said:

STACK. THE. COURT. 

we have to at this point. we are a minority rule country and our system of government will not survive if it stays like this for much longer.

tbergs

Lerxst1992 said:

The Texas shooting is horrific, but something maybe worse flew almost completely under the radar this week. The extremist court ruled that evidence is not enough of a basis to force a state court to grant an appeal. The defendant received incompetent counsel. Too bad, can’t force the states to look at evidence to determine if the defendant deserves a retrial, and will likely be executed. Nice free country this is.

The six are basically giving the middle finger to us. They can do whatever they want, give the states extraordinary power, even to kill a person, just because they have six on the court.

“Under Justice Thomas’s majority opinion, federal courts may still conduct habeas proceedings when a criminal defendant alleges that they received inadequate assistance of counsel twice, but the federal court may not consider any evidence that wasn’t presented in earlier proceedings. As Thomas writes, “if a prisoner has ‘failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,’ a federal court ‘shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim’ unless the prisoner satisfies one of two narrow exceptions” that are not present in Jones’s case.

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez

I read this ruling the other day. Every decision coming out this year has just been one big pile of shit on top of another. This court is horrid.

OnWis97

Lerxst1992 said:

The Texas shooting is horrific, but something maybe worse flew almost completely under the radar this week. The extremist court ruled that evidence is not enough of a basis to force a state court to grant an appeal. The defendant received incompetent counsel. Too bad, can’t force the states to look at evidence to determine if the defendant deserves a retrial, and will likely be executed. Nice free country this is.

The six are basically giving the middle finger to us. They can do whatever they want, give the states extraordinary power, even to kill a person, just because they have six on the court.

“Under Justice Thomas’s majority opinion, federal courts may still conduct habeas proceedings when a criminal defendant alleges that they received inadequate assistance of counsel twice, but the federal court may not consider any evidence that wasn’t presented in earlier proceedings. As Thomas writes, “if a prisoner has ‘failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,’ a federal court ‘shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim’ unless the prisoner satisfies one of two narrow exceptions” that are not present in Jones’s case.

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez

There is nothing more difficult than having a conviction overturned (or even considered) regardless of how obvious someone's innocence may be. If I get brought in for spitting on the street, I'm not saying a word without a lawyer.

I recommend Rectify by Lara Bazelon for anyone that wants to learn about 1) how easy it can be for people to be wrongfully convicted and 2) how difficult it is to right those wrongs. It's my absolute last straw for my former support of the death penalty and a big part of the reason that I've abandoned most of my former "tough on crime" philosophy.

tbergs

OnWis97 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The Texas shooting is horrific, but something maybe worse flew almost completely under the radar this week. The extremist court ruled that evidence is not enough of a basis to force a state court to grant an appeal. The defendant received incompetent counsel. Too bad, can’t force the states to look at evidence to determine if the defendant deserves a retrial, and will likely be executed. Nice free country this is.

The six are basically giving the middle finger to us. They can do whatever they want, give the states extraordinary power, even to kill a person, just because they have six on the court.

“Under Justice Thomas’s majority opinion, federal courts may still conduct habeas proceedings when a criminal defendant alleges that they received inadequate assistance of counsel twice, but the federal court may not consider any evidence that wasn’t presented in earlier proceedings. As Thomas writes, “if a prisoner has ‘failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,’ a federal court ‘shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim’ unless the prisoner satisfies one of two narrow exceptions” that are not present in Jones’s case.

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez

There is nothing more difficult than having a conviction overturned (or even considered) regardless of how obvious someone's innocence may be. If I get brought in for spitting on the street, I'm not saying a word without a lawyer.

I recommend Rectify by Lara Bazelon for anyone that wants to learn about 1) how easy it can be for people to be wrongfully convicted and 2) how difficult it is to right those wrongs. It's my absolute last straw for my former support of the death penalty and a big part of the reason that I've abandoned most of my former "tough on crime" philosophy.

It truly is amazing. The mindset that our justice system is even somewhat functional, or close to being infallible, is ridiculous. Clarence Thomas has his head so far up Ginni's ass he can't even glimpse the sun. The justice system is overly flawed and weighted mightily against the poor and underserved who get caught up in its tentacles of hell. Of course the privileged and wealthy can evade it for their entire life so this is just one more ruling that most people don't give a shit about because it personally has no impact on them.

cblock4life

OnWis97 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The Texas shooting is horrific, but something maybe worse flew almost completely under the radar this week. The extremist court ruled that evidence is not enough of a basis to force a state court to grant an appeal. The defendant received incompetent counsel. Too bad, can’t force the states to look at evidence to determine if the defendant deserves a retrial, and will likely be executed. Nice free country this is.

The six are basically giving the middle finger to us. They can do whatever they want, give the states extraordinary power, even to kill a person, just because they have six on the court.

“Under Justice Thomas’s majority opinion, federal courts may still conduct habeas proceedings when a criminal defendant alleges that they received inadequate assistance of counsel twice, but the federal court may not consider any evidence that wasn’t presented in earlier proceedings. As Thomas writes, “if a prisoner has ‘failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,’ a federal court ‘shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim’ unless the prisoner satisfies one of two narrow exceptions” that are not present in Jones’s case.

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez

There is nothing more difficult than having a conviction overturned (or even considered) regardless of how obvious someone's innocence may be. If I get brought in for spitting on the street, I'm not saying a word without a lawyer.

I recommend Rectify by Lara Bazelon for anyone that wants to learn about 1) how easy it can be for people to be wrongfully convicted and 2) how difficult it is to right those wrongs. It's my absolute last straw for my former support of the death penalty and a big part of the reason that I've abandoned most of my former "tough on crime" philosophy.

If you mean Rectify that was on tv you’re right.  Totally worth watching.  

My advice also, ask for a lawyer as soon as you sit down. Don’t listen to one word they’ve got to say because it’s all bullshit.  

Halifax2TheMax

I would never want to be accused of a crime in this country, never mind facing a jury of my peers who get their information from Facebook, memes, Twitter and are unable to critically think. Then upon conviction, have the focus be on punishment till the end of your life with no hope of rehabilitation or forgiveness. Granted, some crimes are reprehensible and unforgivable but the million plus who are incarcerated? All of those?

nicknyr15

Halifax2TheMax said:

I would never want to be accused of a crime in this country, never mind facing a jury of my peers who get their information from Facebook, memes, Twitter and are unable to critically think. Then upon conviction, have the focus be on punishment till the end of your life with no hope of rehabilitation or forgiveness. Granted, some crimes are reprehensible and unforgivable but the million plus who are incarcerated? All of those?

Serving jury duty over 10 years ago made me come to this exact conclusion. Nobody wanted to be there and most of them would have said guilty or not guilty just to get out on a timely fashion. Just like that! No thought, no feelings, no critical thinking. Just me me me. It really scared the fuck out of me. 

cblock4life

The innocence project is a good place to start if anyone is interested in learning more.  

OnWis97

cblock4life said:

OnWis97 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The Texas shooting is horrific, but something maybe worse flew almost completely under the radar this week. The extremist court ruled that evidence is not enough of a basis to force a state court to grant an appeal. The defendant received incompetent counsel. Too bad, can’t force the states to look at evidence to determine if the defendant deserves a retrial, and will likely be executed. Nice free country this is.

The six are basically giving the middle finger to us. They can do whatever they want, give the states extraordinary power, even to kill a person, just because they have six on the court.

“Under Justice Thomas’s majority opinion, federal courts may still conduct habeas proceedings when a criminal defendant alleges that they received inadequate assistance of counsel twice, but the federal court may not consider any evidence that wasn’t presented in earlier proceedings. As Thomas writes, “if a prisoner has ‘failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,’ a federal court ‘shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim’ unless the prisoner satisfies one of two narrow exceptions” that are not present in Jones’s case.

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez

There is nothing more difficult than having a conviction overturned (or even considered) regardless of how obvious someone's innocence may be. If I get brought in for spitting on the street, I'm not saying a word without a lawyer.

I recommend Rectify by Lara Bazelon for anyone that wants to learn about 1) how easy it can be for people to be wrongfully convicted and 2) how difficult it is to right those wrongs. It's my absolute last straw for my former support of the death penalty and a big part of the reason that I've abandoned most of my former "tough on crime" philosophy.

If you mean Rectify that was on tv you’re right.  Totally worth watching.  

My advice also, ask for a lawyer as soon as you sit down. Don’t listen to one word they’ve got to say because it’s all bullshit.  

I read the book I linked. I'm unaware of anything on TV.

From the book, my takeaway was that police/prosecters/etc. are so focused on getting someone and so focused on thinking they have the right person, that they get tunnel vision and it impact the way they proceed. Most of it is their humanness (as opposed to actual corruption and intentionally locking up an innocent person; though that happens to). One of several ways this happens is with confessions. Sleep/food-deprived people confess after like 18 hours because their brains are now mush and telling the cop what they want to hear will stop the current madness. Innocent people confess way more than you'd think.

cblock4life

OnWis97 said:

cblock4life said:

OnWis97 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The Texas shooting is horrific, but something maybe worse flew almost completely under the radar this week. The extremist court ruled that evidence is not enough of a basis to force a state court to grant an appeal. The defendant received incompetent counsel. Too bad, can’t force the states to look at evidence to determine if the defendant deserves a retrial, and will likely be executed. Nice free country this is.

The six are basically giving the middle finger to us. They can do whatever they want, give the states extraordinary power, even to kill a person, just because they have six on the court.

“Under Justice Thomas’s majority opinion, federal courts may still conduct habeas proceedings when a criminal defendant alleges that they received inadequate assistance of counsel twice, but the federal court may not consider any evidence that wasn’t presented in earlier proceedings. As Thomas writes, “if a prisoner has ‘failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,’ a federal court ‘shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim’ unless the prisoner satisfies one of two narrow exceptions” that are not present in Jones’s case.

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez

There is nothing more difficult than having a conviction overturned (or even considered) regardless of how obvious someone's innocence may be. If I get brought in for spitting on the street, I'm not saying a word without a lawyer.

I recommend Rectify by Lara Bazelon for anyone that wants to learn about 1) how easy it can be for people to be wrongfully convicted and 2) how difficult it is to right those wrongs. It's my absolute last straw for my former support of the death penalty and a big part of the reason that I've abandoned most of my former "tough on crime" philosophy.

If you mean Rectify that was on tv you’re right.  Totally worth watching.  

My advice also, ask for a lawyer as soon as you sit down. Don’t listen to one word they’ve got to say because it’s all bullshit.  

I read the book I linked. I'm unaware of anything on TV.

From the book, my takeaway was that police/prosecters/etc. are so focused on getting someone and so focused on thinking they have the right person, that they get tunnel vision and it impact the way they proceed. Most of it is their humanness (as opposed to actual corruption and intentionally locking up an innocent person; though that happens to). One of several ways this happens is with confessions. Sleep/food-deprived people confess after like 18 hours because their brains are now mush and telling the cop what they want to hear will stop the current madness. Innocent people confess way more than you'd think.

You’re absolutely correct about everything above and it’ sounds like it’s the same Rectify 

Another good watch is The Night Of.  

benjs

cblock4life said:

OnWis97 said:

cblock4life said:

OnWis97 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The Texas shooting is horrific, but something maybe worse flew almost completely under the radar this week. The extremist court ruled that evidence is not enough of a basis to force a state court to grant an appeal. The defendant received incompetent counsel. Too bad, can’t force the states to look at evidence to determine if the defendant deserves a retrial, and will likely be executed. Nice free country this is.

The six are basically giving the middle finger to us. They can do whatever they want, give the states extraordinary power, even to kill a person, just because they have six on the court.

“Under Justice Thomas’s majority opinion, federal courts may still conduct habeas proceedings when a criminal defendant alleges that they received inadequate assistance of counsel twice, but the federal court may not consider any evidence that wasn’t presented in earlier proceedings. As Thomas writes, “if a prisoner has ‘failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,’ a federal court ‘shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim’ unless the prisoner satisfies one of two narrow exceptions” that are not present in Jones’s case.

https://www.vox.com/2022/5/23/23138100/supreme-court-barry-jones-shinn-ramirez

There is nothing more difficult than having a conviction overturned (or even considered) regardless of how obvious someone's innocence may be. If I get brought in for spitting on the street, I'm not saying a word without a lawyer.

I recommend Rectify by Lara Bazelon for anyone that wants to learn about 1) how easy it can be for people to be wrongfully convicted and 2) how difficult it is to right those wrongs. It's my absolute last straw for my former support of the death penalty and a big part of the reason that I've abandoned most of my former "tough on crime" philosophy.

If you mean Rectify that was on tv you’re right.  Totally worth watching.  

My advice also, ask for a lawyer as soon as you sit down. Don’t listen to one word they’ve got to say because it’s all bullshit.  

I read the book I linked. I'm unaware of anything on TV.

From the book, my takeaway was that police/prosecters/etc. are so focused on getting someone and so focused on thinking they have the right person, that they get tunnel vision and it impact the way they proceed. Most of it is their humanness (as opposed to actual corruption and intentionally locking up an innocent person; though that happens to). One of several ways this happens is with confessions. Sleep/food-deprived people confess after like 18 hours because their brains are now mush and telling the cop what they want to hear will stop the current madness. Innocent people confess way more than you'd think.

You’re absolutely correct about everything above and it’ sounds like it’s the same Rectify 

Another good watch is The Night Of.  

Agreed on The Night Of. Peter Moffat just did another miniseries called 61st Street, very well done.

HughFreakingDillon

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/supreme-court-religious-schools/index.html

the further eroson of the separation of church and state. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/supreme-court-religious-schools/index.html

the further eroson of the separation of church and state. 

This one doesn't bother me as much...the argument being that if you can use a voucher for a non-religious private school you should also be able to use a voucher for a religious school.

The problem was allowing vouchers to begin with.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/supreme-court-religious-schools/index.html

the further eroson of the separation of church and state. 

This one doesn't bother me as much...the argument being that if you can use a voucher for a non-religious private school you should also be able to use a voucher for a religious school.

The problem was allowing vouchers to begin with.

I do agree with that, but it just seems these back doors are being used to further the re-indoctrination of youth on public funds. 

bootlegger10

I haven’t read the rulings, but to me a school is a school.  I get one school may have a religious focus in some aspects (so science may be different), but on the whole I would guess the private religious schools provide a great education overall in line with non-religious based schools.  

To me this is not about separation of church and state but really is more of a question of why one school can get funding and another cannot.  If a good school happens to be part of the catholic diocese, and can’t get vouchers like an equally good private school next door, then there is a question of whether there is religious freedom.  You are punishing religion in this case.  

I hate rulings on party lines like this.  It makes me think that (on both sides) the law is not being evaluated but personal opinions and activism is involved.