Author Topic: Supreme Court Cases Thread  (Read 29610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #775 on: June 29, 2022, 03:32:42 PM »
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/

Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.

So how did this happen? Were these facts not included in the record on appeal? How did SCOTUS mangle the facts so badly? As they say, bad facts make bad law.
that was my question too!  how is there a disagreement about the facts at the SCOTUS level?


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19683
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #776 on: June 29, 2022, 03:43:34 PM »

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #777 on: June 29, 2022, 03:57:37 PM »
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/

Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.

So how did this happen? Were these facts not included in the record on appeal? How did SCOTUS mangle the facts so badly? As they say, bad facts make bad law.

The facts seem to be present on Sotomayor's dissent. It appears the conservatives ignored them and went with their feelings like any MAGA would.

Offline dal9

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1782
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #778 on: June 29, 2022, 03:59:35 PM »
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/

Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.

So how did this happen? Were these facts not included in the record on appeal? How did SCOTUS mangle the facts so badly? As they say, bad facts make bad law.

the facts were in the record, as the dissent points out (seriously, people, read it, it's not that long). some were just outright ignored, others were deemed irrelevant by the majority for dubious technical reasons (most notably, they ignored the guys behavior up to the point where he got his first warning, and ignored everything he did/said outside of the postgame football field).
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 04:06:38 PM by dal9 »

Offline SkinnyBenny

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16698
  • good time rock-n-roll plastic banana FM type
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #779 on: June 29, 2022, 04:17:59 PM »
Are there any posters in this thread still clinging to any shred of their previous reverence and respect for this Supreme Court?
"walking around mhk and crying in the rain because of love lost is the absolute purest and best thing in the world.  i hope i fall in love during the next few weeks and get my heart broken and it starts raining just to experience it one last time."   --Dlew12

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20953
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #780 on: June 29, 2022, 04:18:33 PM »
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/

Pretty good summary of the coach praying case.

So how did this happen? Were these facts not included in the record on appeal? How did SCOTUS mangle the facts so badly? As they say, bad facts make bad law.

the facts were in the record, as the dissent points out (seriously, people, read it, it's not that long). some were just outright ignored, others were deemed irrelevant by the majority for dubious technical reasons (most notably, they ignored the guys behavior up to the point where he got his first warning, and ignored everything he did/said outside of the postgame football field).

Hmm. This is becoming a trend for this iteration of the Court. The Supreme Cherry-Pickers.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20953
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #781 on: June 29, 2022, 04:19:19 PM »
Are there any posters in this thread still clinging to any shred of their previous reverence and respect for this Supreme Court?

I used to be the resident SCOTUS Stan, but couldn't be me, anymore.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile

Offline nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15791
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #784 on: June 29, 2022, 06:50:11 PM »

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #785 on: June 29, 2022, 06:58:54 PM »
Are there any posters in this thread still clinging to any shred of their previous reverence and respect for this Supreme Court?

I used to be the resident SCOTUS Stan, but couldn't be me, anymore.

I’m also out.  Get rid of confirmation hearings too as they are worthless except to hear about what a POC the future justice is

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23382
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #786 on: June 29, 2022, 07:34:02 PM »
D Lew- what’s the popes view in contraception and should Americans be worried about being able to buy condoms anytime soon?

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #787 on: June 29, 2022, 07:58:37 PM »
D Lew- what’s the popes view in contraception and should Americans be worried about being able to buy condoms anytime soon?

This pope says wrap that rascal

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36550
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #788 on: June 29, 2022, 08:25:05 PM »
D Lew- what’s the popes view in contraception and should Americans be worried about being able to buy condoms anytime soon?

Magic Pope Ball says “Signs point to yes”

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #789 on: June 29, 2022, 08:26:29 PM »
D Lew- what’s the popes view in contraception and should Americans be worried about being able to buy condoms anytime soon?
Poor says contraception is a sin.  I don’t think serious people are considering banning contraception.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #790 on: June 29, 2022, 08:30:03 PM »
Same theme?

https://twitter.com/rebeccanagle/status/1542178900243013633
I haven’t read this opinion, but I had a case in OK federal court last year and everyone talked about what a shitshow McGirt has caused.

They’d be like “well there’s a good chance we don’t keep our trial date because of McGirt” and I’m like “who is McGirt? :dunno:


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23382
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #791 on: June 29, 2022, 09:09:05 PM »
D Lew- what’s the popes view in contraception and should Americans be worried about being able to buy condoms anytime soon?
Poor says contraception is a sin.  I don’t think serious people are considering banning contraception.

I’m not sure if this is a yes they should be worried or no they shouldn’t be worried. Vasectomies on the cutting board too?

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #792 on: June 29, 2022, 09:13:28 PM »
There is zero percent chance contraception is going to be banned.  I can’t imagine vasectomies are going anywhere.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20953
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #793 on: June 29, 2022, 09:14:20 PM »
There is zero percent chance contraception is going to be banned.

Define contraception.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #794 on: June 29, 2022, 09:16:13 PM »
There is zero percent chance contraception is going to be banned.

Define contraception.

BC, condoms, vasectomies, plan b (apparently?).  Idk.  Is “the sponge” still a thing?


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline Tobias

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29139
  • hypoclique lieutenant
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #795 on: June 29, 2022, 09:19:03 PM »
so contraception confirmed banned, we heard it from dlew first

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #796 on: June 29, 2022, 09:41:29 PM »
I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."

Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)

Yes, that's what people are saying but there hasn't been anything actually proven that he was literally coercing his players to pray. The people who say he was coercing the players to pray think that the act of him doing the praying itself constitutes coercion. Despite what dal thinks, I've read a lot about this case, even before the ruling and it has never been said, on the record, that this coach ever verbalized his intent to make the team pray with him or punished someone who didn't.

Again, of course he intended the players on joining him, but schools shouldn't be punishing and courts can't be ruling against inferences. You want to talk about a slippery slope, oooh boy.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20953
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #797 on: June 29, 2022, 09:56:25 PM »
I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."

Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)

Yes, that's what people are saying but there hasn't been anything actually proven that he was literally coercing his players to pray. The people who say he was coercing the players to pray think that the act of him doing the praying itself constitutes coercion. Despite what dal thinks, I've read a lot about this case, even before the ruling and it has never been said, on the record, that this coach ever verbalized his intent to make the team pray with him or punished someone who didn't.

Again, of course he intended the players on joining him, but schools shouldn't be punishing and courts can't be ruling against inferences. You want to talk about a slippery slope, oooh boy.

Buddy, inferences are allowed in court, so long as they're more likely than not to be true. You and I obviously disagree with this. Then again, I have a healthy dislike of religion in my schools because I believe it poisons everything.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #798 on: June 29, 2022, 10:01:11 PM »
I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."

Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)

Yes, that's what people are saying but there hasn't been anything actually proven that he was literally coercing his players to pray. The people who say he was coercing the players to pray think that the act of him doing the praying itself constitutes coercion. Despite what dal thinks, I've read a lot about this case, even before the ruling and it has never been said, on the record, that this coach ever verbalized his intent to make the team pray with him or punished someone who didn't.

Again, of course he intended the players on joining him, but schools shouldn't be punishing and courts can't be ruling against inferences. You want to talk about a slippery slope, oooh boy.

Buddy, inferences are allowed in court, so long as they're more likely than not to be true. You and I obviously disagree with this. Then again, I have a healthy dislike of religion in my schools because I believe it poisons everything.
Do you fishing religion in schools or do you dislike forced Christianity?

Issue with a teacher wearing a hijab? Issue with the choir singing a song in Hebrew? Issue with a kid being allowed to sculpt a Buddha statue?

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20953
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #799 on: June 29, 2022, 10:34:25 PM »
I only got 2 pages in;
"The contested exercise here does not involve
leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy
only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students
after three games in October 2015."

Isn't this what is said is being misconstrued, though? Lots of smart, reasonable people say that the conservative justices lied about the facts of the case. (The same justices who lied under oath about Roe.)

Yes, that's what people are saying but there hasn't been anything actually proven that he was literally coercing his players to pray. The people who say he was coercing the players to pray think that the act of him doing the praying itself constitutes coercion. Despite what dal thinks, I've read a lot about this case, even before the ruling and it has never been said, on the record, that this coach ever verbalized his intent to make the team pray with him or punished someone who didn't.

Again, of course he intended the players on joining him, but schools shouldn't be punishing and courts can't be ruling against inferences. You want to talk about a slippery slope, oooh boy.

Buddy, inferences are allowed in court, so long as they're more likely than not to be true. You and I obviously disagree with this. Then again, I have a healthy dislike of religion in my schools because I believe it poisons everything.
Do you fishing religion in schools or do you dislike forced Christianity?

Issue with a teacher wearing a hijab? Issue with the choir singing a song in Hebrew? Issue with a kid being allowed to sculpt a Buddha statue?

Can't figure out what the typo was supposed to mean, but I don't have a problem with personal/private expression of religious beliefs. I do have a problem with forced speech and violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Regarding the preceding sentence, I think anything even conceivably bordering on it is a no-go in public schools. To pull a card from the Conservative playbook, "I don't want my tax dollars supporting that."