|
Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 27, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
CHIAVERINI ET AL. v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO Held: The presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment maliciousprosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. The parties, and the United States as amicus curiae, all agree with this conclusion, which follows from both the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice. KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:12
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:CHIAVERINI ET AL. v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO I assume Thomas' dissent is just "TO THE OUBLIETTE WITH THEM ALL!!!!" with some signatures at the bottom. Also they're really having fun drawing this out, aren't they.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:15
|
|
lmao I love Kagan's writingquote:But Chiaverini refused their request too, saying that it contradicted a letter he had just received from the police department telling him to retain the ring as evidence. And when repeating his refusal to another officer the next day, Chiaverini suggested (for reasons unclear) that he was operating his store without a
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:15
|
|
|
Diaz v. US not the last case today
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:16
|
|
|
Roberts for the last one then. Could be immunity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I assume Thomas' dissent is just "TO THE OUBLIETTE WITH THEM ALL!!!!" with some signatures at the bottom. The Republicans on the SC are doing their utmost duty to party first, to delay this poo poo as long as possible Every Republican official is a traitor, and would side with Putin and Trump over you
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
NO WHAMMY NO WHAMMY
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
Diaz v. US. NOT THE LAST OPINION Held: Expert testimony that “most people” in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about “the defendant” and thus does not violate Rule 704(b). Pp. 4–11. THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined. quote:This was a case about whether prosecutors in a drug-trafficking case can call a government witness to provide expert testimony to rebut a defendant’s contention that she did not know that she was carrying drugs. The question comes to the court in the case of a woman who was stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border with 28 kilograms of methamphetamine hidden in her car. She maintained that the car belonged to her boyfriend and that she didn’t know that the drugs were in it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
Gonzalez v. Trevino thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
Supreme Court Junkies
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:19
|
|
Per Curiam opinion, announced by the Chief. Final decision of the dayquote:In Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U. S. 391, 402 (2019), this Court Reading the tea leaves, this seems to be 8-1 with Thomas dissenting
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:For the life of me, I cannot figure out how Trump's Anti-Matter bubble shields him from Epstein/ pedophilia poo poo: Their win condition is not "have someone in charge who has the following list of characteristics, which Trump happens to match up with". It's "have TRUMP in charge" It's not like you can convince them that Trump is suddenly bad because he no longer fulfills one of those checkboxes. The logic flows the other direction. It doesn't matter what Trump does, whatever he does becomes what they wanted all along.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
Booo
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
The Court is doing its damndest to try to find opinions that get a majority of Justices on both sides it seems. Feels like Roberts is really leaning on Kavanaugh and Barrett at least
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
The Supreme Rulers-I mean Judges did not see it fit to plug the potentially constitutional timebomb today either. Too bad they’re above the law, like in any functioning democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:22
|
|
|
My guess is they'll issue another 3-4 tomorrow, then next week have 2-3 days where they dispose of everything except trump and then release that one on July 3rd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:24
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:Per Curiam opinion, announced by the Chief. Final decision of the day this entire case sounds stupid as hell; sounds like they arrested a 76-year-old woman for the crime of absentmindedly grabbing a binder
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:25
|
|
|
That women was no angel
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
Oh hey, happy Slayer of Cain-Day! https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1803791729021108246?s=46&t=G1x8XWIwrNxUQoXItlkh2w
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:26
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:My guess is they'll issue another 3-4 tomorrow, then next week have 2-3 days where they dispose of everything except trump and then release that one on July 3rd. You really think so? I think they'll dispense with everything next week tbh. I'd be extremely surprised now if they decide to punt into July because they can smell the jet fumes
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:29
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:You really think so? I think they'll dispense with everything next week tbh. I'd be extremely surprised now if they decide to punt into July because they can smell the jet fumes They’ll have to rule by July 11th at least, I would imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:32
|
|
|
Pot Smoke Phoenix posted:They’ll have to rule by July 11th at least, I would imagine. Hush money case is outside the scope of presidential immunity
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:33
|
|
|
kazil posted:Hush money case is outside the scope of presidential immunity Ah, right you are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
Here's my best guess as to what's happening with the Trump case This is an extremely complex case with novel, never before argued points. The Justices are well aware of this. My suspicion is that they had an initial vote, the vote went one way and as opinions began to be drafted there was horse trading and the majority controlling opinion shifted. My best guess is that Roberts is writing the opinion on this since that seems to be his thing. The three liberals are locked in one way and Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are locked in the other, so it's really coming down to who can sway Kavanaugh and Barrett
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:36
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:Here's my best guess as to what's happening with the Trump case You've answered this before, but for the life of me I don't understand the complexity, since, at root, isn't this just a question of whether a President is above all laws, or not? Both in and outside of their duties as President?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:38
|
|
|
lol https://x.com/atrupar/status/1803794736311927208
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:38
|
|
|
Have any studies been done on how much of the Republican voting pool has died due to COVID misinformation/suiciding on  ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:38
|
|
|
 RIP Tim Scott
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:My guess is they'll issue another 3-4 tomorrow, then next week have 2-3 days where they dispose of everything except trump and then release that one on July 3rd. Just in time for Civil War II: Electrified Boogaloo Boys.  What you've suggested is sadly believable. And it would be because some out of touch white dude smugly nodded to himself that: "Ahh yes, this is poetic and will go down in history and I will be H I S T O R I C." This timeline is too loving stupid and too loving ridiculous to be a simulation and I can't decide if that makes it better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:41
|
|
|
beef sweat posted:Have any studies been done on how much of the Republican voting pool has died due to COVID misinformation/suiciding on Several. You can see a blue county and red county next each other with one have a significantly larger fatality rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:41
|
|
|
kazil posted:
drat. He put in some high level toadying too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:Here's my best guess as to what's happening with the Trump case Is it possible there's some internal politicing going around to make Thomas and Alito exclude themselves from the case due to recent allegations, or is that just wishful thinking
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:43
|
|
|
Pot Smoke Phoenix posted:Is it possible there's some internal politicing going around to make Thomas and Alito exclude themselves from the case due to recent allegations, or is that just wishful thinking Wishful thinking. Alito and Thomas don’t give a drat about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:My guess is they'll issue another 3-4 tomorrow, then next week have 2-3 days where they dispose of everything except trump and then release that one on July 3rd. They're saving the "potentially destroy the country" decisions for the very end. This is more of an artifact of the court following their usual procedure rather than an evil plot (though I think a very good case can be made that their handling of the Trump immunity case is malicious compliance considering everyone and their cousin pointed out to them the bad conseques of doing that). It's disappointing, but it's not unexpected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:45
|
|
redshirt posted:You've answered this before, but for the life of me I don't understand the complexity, since, at root, isn't this just a question of whether a President is above all laws, or not? Both in and outside of their duties as President? Most people think there are two options: 1) the president must be immune all the time for everything 2) the president cannot be immune to anything So let's take the second option. Suppose a president orders a drone strike on a terrorist convoy and it kills civilians. This is clearly an official act. However, should he be able to be prosecuted for it? Setting aside the moral implications; I'm talking about legal ones. What if the president does something that's an unofficial act, say, calling political donors from the oval office? Should he be prosecuted for that after leaving office? In fact, what even justifies an official vs an unofficial act? We've never had to answer these questions. We shouldn't HAVE to answer these questions, but now we do. What if a president whips up a mob and incites it to storm the capitol, but he does it from the White House Press Room instead of a rally outside? Is that an official act? Where is the line? Legally, this is an extremely tricky area to deal with because you start getting into a whole host of hypotheticals Pot Smoke Phoenix posted:Is it possible there's some internal politicing going around to make Thomas and Alito exclude themselves from the case due to recent allegations, or is that just wishful thinking Wishful. They would have recused already if so Seth Pecksniff fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jun 20, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
beef sweat posted:Have any studies been done on how much of the Republican voting pool has died due to COVID misinformation/suiciding on Yeah, look at any election results vs the polling since 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
Stupid question: has accidentally killing civilians during congressionally approved military operations ever been considered "illegal"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 27, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
No because it's considered a consequence of war I mean go back throughout human history and civilians have always been targeted in war actions. It's just mostly been recently that it hasn't been allowed to be on purpose (someone with a better sense of military history feel free to correct me)
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2024 15:54
|
|