Octopus Overlords

I'm not sure why I'm still surprised when I read stuff like this.

I just heard the audio of Alito's KKK comments at the hearing today. It's pretty far out (not offensive but just him throwing ridiculous unserious ideas out). However, the way he treats the female justices on the court? He is a pig; the guy is a major stain. History isn't going to be kind to that SOB.

malchior wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:11 pm I just heard the audio of Alito's KKK comments at the hearing today. It's pretty far out (not offensive but just him throwing ridiculous unserious ideas out). However, the way he treats the female justices on the court? He is a pig; the guy is a major stain. History isn't going to be kind to that SOB.

Gilead will give him a statue on the National Mall.

These are the same people who cry about America not putting more Jesus in Christmas. Consumers have different religious perspectives.

And the selective enforcement of religious views shows the discrimination. You can’t just say your biblical religion is anti-homosexual marriage and not against divorcees, wife-coveters, murderers, idolatry, etc.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:08 pm Let's see what's on the docket today:

So, even though she hasn't actually launched a wedding website business yet, she is pre-emptively challenging the Colorado's public accommodations law as a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech and expression.

I'd bet a lot of money that she'll never open a wedding website business regardless of the outcome. Some hypothetical chatter at cocktail hour and they came up with an idea for a SCOTUS bound lawsuit and someone to bankroll it.

I just read the 168 page transcript of today's 303 Creative argument. My head is spinning a bit. This is not an easy question.

Kurth wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:46 pm I just read the 168 page transcript of today's 303 Creative argument. My head is spinning a bit. This is not an easy question.

It's not easy at all. It's their job to take on hard questions but they also need to wise enough to choose the right time to address these hard questions. This court chose to take on this question prematurely before it even had its due as an experiment, despite having off-ramps to give it time to cook, and IMO it indicates how unwise and unsuited for power this panel is. This is the sort of case which was designed in a 'legal laboratory' to intentionally beat against the limits of our constitutional order. And like many of the recent fights they are intentionally taking these sort of culture war battles on to win political battles that can't be won in our democratic process. It is creating intolerable internal pressure.

Moore v Harper was argued today and it sounds like the crazy pants version of the independent state legislature theory is gonna crash and burn before SCOTUS.

pr0ner wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:16 pm Moore v Harper was argued today and it sounds like the crazy pants version of the independent state legislature theory is gonna crash and burn before SCOTUS.

I sure hope so. It seemed like Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas were all in.

stessier wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:41 pm

pr0ner wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:16 pm Moore v Harper was argued today and it sounds like the crazy pants version of the independent state legislature theory is gonna crash and burn before SCOTUS.

I sure hope so. It seemed like Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas were all in.

Thankfully that's not enough. Seems like the liberal wing and Roberts are against it, Kavanaugh is somewhere between siding with Alito et al and "this goes too far" and Barrett was having none of their nonsense. I'm guessing we get some kind of 6-3 vote with Kavanaugh agreeing in part and dissenting in part.

pr0ner wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:49 pm

stessier wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:41 pm

pr0ner wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:16 pm Moore v Harper was argued today and it sounds like the crazy pants version of the independent state legislature theory is gonna crash and burn before SCOTUS.

I sure hope so. It seemed like Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas were all in.

Thankfully that's not enough. Seems like the liberal wing and Roberts are against it, Kavanaugh is somewhere between siding with Alito et al and "this goes too far" and Barrett was having none of their nonsense. I'm guessing we get some kind of 6-3 vote with Kavanaugh agreeing in part and dissenting in part.

This is Elie Mystal's take, having been there to see the argument. We'll see. Either way too close for comfort given the potential ramifications of a bad decision. And not a great sign that they're even entertaining it.

Also, even if they don't go full crazypants, I worry that Kavanaugh or ACB will craft some decision that stops short of the full right wing theory but leaves enough breadcrumbs and holes for a GOP legislature to follow to get what they want but in a cleaner sounding package.

I bet Roberts or one of the liberals writes the decision on that one. Probably gives less room for ACB or, in particular, Kavanaugh from doing something else.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:53 pm

pr0ner wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:49 pm

stessier wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:41 pm

pr0ner wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:16 pm Moore v Harper was argued today and it sounds like the crazy pants version of the independent state legislature theory is gonna crash and burn before SCOTUS.

I sure hope so. It seemed like Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas were all in.

Thankfully that's not enough. Seems like the liberal wing and Roberts are against it, Kavanaugh is somewhere between siding with Alito et al and "this goes too far" and Barrett was having none of their nonsense. I'm guessing we get some kind of 6-3 vote with Kavanaugh agreeing in part and dissenting in part.

This is Elie Mystal's take, having been there to see the argument. We'll see. Either way too close for comfort given the potential ramifications of a bad decision. And not a great sign that they're even entertaining it.

Also, even if they don't go full crazypants, I worry that Kavanaugh or ACB will craft some decision that stops short of the full right wing theory but leaves enough breadcrumbs and holes for a GOP legislature to follow to get what they want but in a cleaner sounding package.

Elie's rant-y Twitter takes on this court are great.

Office Court Space

Ethics schmethics. A sitting Supreme Court justice partying with racists like Miller and dirtbags like Matt Gaetz, Sebastian Gorka, and Erik Prince (he was there too!) is just the norm now.

US Supreme Court justices don’t often seem too concerned about appearances.

Politico reported that Justice Brett Kavanaugh attended a private holiday party on Friday night at the home of Matt Schlapp, who is chairman of the Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC), and that attendees included Stephen Miller, whose group America First Legal Foundation has interests in cases now pending before the court.

Kavanaugh’s party-going raises questions about when a justice’s personal relationships cross a line and become problematic. Democrats have recently renewed calls for sitting Supreme Court justices to follow a formal judicial code of ethics.

How hard is it to find a Rule Follower that cannot stand to make holiday party arrangements?

Our judicially dominant leaders should be nearly allergic to social interactions.

It's not like it's unheard of, there just needs to be a massive (massive) sea change.

They threw a kegger.

Of course he was there.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

malchior wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 11:46 pm Ethics schmethics. A sitting Supreme Court justice partying with racists like Miller and dirtbags like Matt Gaetz, Sebastian Gorka, and Erik Prince (he was there too!) is just the norm now.

US Supreme Court justices don’t often seem too concerned about appearances.

Politico reported that Justice Brett Kavanaugh attended a private holiday party on Friday night at the home of Matt Schlapp, who is chairman of the Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC), and that attendees included Stephen Miller, whose group America First Legal Foundation has interests in cases now pending before the court.

Kavanaugh’s party-going raises questions about when a justice’s personal relationships cross a line and become problematic. Democrats have recently renewed calls for sitting Supreme Court justices to follow a formal judicial code of ethics.

Ok. Fuck this shit. If this is true, anyone who actually cares about a functioning government needs to go into overdrive beating the drum to get SCOTUS signed up on the fucking judicial code of ethics. This is outrageous. Like, truly, truly outrageous (and I’m not channeling GEM here).

I cannot fathom how anyone on the Supreme Court - let alone Chief Justice Roberts - could be ok with this.

You can’t be a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States and go partying with Stephen fucking Miller, Matt Gaetz, Sebastian Gorka, and Erik Prince.

Seriously. WTF????????

As long as he, Gorsuch, and Barrett sit, I will be reminded of why I can't vote for the for the GOP. Which probably means the rest of my lifetime. A full 1/3 of the court were sat through GOP treachery in 4 short years.

Kurth wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:26 amI cannot fathom how anyone on the Supreme Court - let alone Chief Justice Roberts - could be ok with this.

I'm sure he stares at his ceiling all the time wondering why most of the assholes are acting like children. At least Barrett keeps a relatively low profile. Beyond Kavanaugh hanging with racists, fascists, and wannabe warlords we have Alito and Gorsuch running around shooting their mouths off about all their power at political meetings. It's a disastrous mix of terrible people and no guardrails.

You can’t be a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States and go partying with Stephen fucking Miller, Matt Gaetz, Sebastian Gorka, and Erik Prince.

The problem is he can. There is nothing we can do about it. There is nothing Roberts can do about it even if he did try to institute an ethical code. What can he actually do? Not much.

This is why I'm so pessimistic. The Supreme Court is another institution with deep rot. They've defined away corruption for politicians. They don't subscribe to any semblance of ethics. They don't restrain themselves. They don't show judicious wisdom. They instead are granting themselves more power and bragging about it.

malchior wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 12:53 pm

Kurth wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:26 amI cannot fathom how anyone on the Supreme Court - let alone Chief Justice Roberts - could be ok with this.

I'm sure he stares at his ceiling all the time wondering why most of the assholes are acting like children. At least Barrett keeps a relatively low profile. Beyond Kavanaugh hanging with racists, fascists, and wannabe warlords we have Alito and Gorsuch running around shooting their mouths off about all their power at political meetings. It's a disastrous mix of terrible people and no guardrails.

You can’t be a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States and go partying with Stephen fucking Miller, Matt Gaetz, Sebastian Gorka, and Erik Prince.

The problem is he can. There is nothing we can do about it. There is nothing Roberts can do about it even if he did try to institute an ethical code. What can he actually do? Not much.

This is why I'm so pessimistic. The Supreme Court is another institution with deep rot. They've defined away corruption for politicians. They don't subscribe to any semblance of ethics. They don't restrain themselves. They don't show judicious wisdom. They instead are granting themselves more power and bragging about it.

Well, I wrote my senators (Wyden and Merkley) about this last night, but, yeah. Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and Justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate.

More SCOTUS ethical issues

In some years, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. does the honors. In others, it might be Justice Sonia Sotomayor or Justice Clarence Thomas presenting the squared-off hunks of marble affixed with the Supreme Court’s gilded seal.

Hewed from slabs left over from the 1930s construction of the nation’s high court and handed out in its magnificent Great Hall, they are a unique status symbol in a town that craves them. And while the ideological bents of the justices bestowing them might vary, there is one constant: All the recipients have given at least $5,000 to a charity favored by the justices, and, more often than not, the donors have a significant stake in the way the court decides cases.

The charity, the Supreme Court Historical Society, is ostensibly independent of the judicial branch of government, but in reality the two are inextricably intertwined. The charity’s stated mission is straightforward: to preserve the court’s history and educate the public about the court’s importance in American life. But over the years the society has also become a vehicle for those seeking access to nine of the most reclusive and powerful people in the nation. The justices attend the society’s annual black-tie dinner soirees, where they mingle with donors and thank them for their generosity, and serve as M.C.s to more regular society-sponsored lectures or re-enactments of famous cases.

The society has raised more than $23 million over the last two decades. Because of its nonprofit status, it does not have to publicly disclose its donors — and declined when asked to do so. But The New York Times was able to identify the sources behind more than $10.7 million raised since 2003, the first year for which relevant records were available.

At least $6.4 million — or 60 percent — came from corporations, special interest groups, or lawyers and firms that argued cases before the court, according to an analysis of archived historical society newsletters and publicly available records that detail grants given to the society by foundations. Of that, at least $4.7 million came from individuals or entities in years when they had a pending interest in a federal court case on appeal or at the high court, records show.

But, at the end of the day, this is really all that matters: The justices themselves were not asked questions or investigated, per what I gather from the Marshal's report.

(Further down the thread he says he asked (and has yet to hear back) if any of the justices were investigated, but his read from the report is that they weren't.

Defiant wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:28 pm(Further down the thread he says he asked (and has yet to hear back) if any of the justices were investigated, but his read from the report is that they weren't.

Sure. Why not avoid investigating powerful people who are the most likely suspects?

Meanwhile, in Justice Alito's office:

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:36 pm Meanwhile, in Justice Alito's office:

I'm sure OJ can fit it in while looking for his wife's real killer...

This seems like such an open and shut case that it scares me they are soliciting viewpoints.

The US Supreme Court wants the Biden administration to weigh in on the Texas and Florida social media laws before justices decide whether to take up cases involving Big Tech industry lawsuits against the two states.

In a list of orders released this morning, the Supreme Court did not decide whether to hear the cases. Instead, the court asked the Department of Justice's Solicitor General to provide the agency's view.

"The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States," the Supreme Court said.

That is bullshit. If they’re asking for briefs, there’s an issue to hear.

Zarathud wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:33 pm That is bullshit. If they’re asking for briefs, there’s an issue to hear.

I'm confused why what you are saying. Can you try to be clearer?

That this is still being kicked around is nuts by itself.

stessier wrote:

Zarathud wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:33 pm That is bullshit. If they’re asking for briefs, there’s an issue to hear.

I'm confused why what you are saying. Can you try to be clearer?

Maybe I should file a brief?

There is a potential argument — that social media is like public travel accommodation so that non-discrimination should apply. But a Supreme Court that invalidated Roe v. Wade as judicial overreach on a “major question” should not be touching this First Amendment issue.

Zarathud wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:23 pm

stessier wrote:

Zarathud wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:33 pm That is bullshit. If they’re asking for briefs, there’s an issue to hear.

I'm confused why what you are saying. Can you try to be clearer?

Maybe I should file a brief?

There is a potential argument — that social media is like public travel accommodation so that non-discrimination should apply. But a Supreme Court that invalidated Roe v. Wade as judicial overreach on a “major question” should not be touching this First Amendment issue.

Ah - so the two original statements weren't commenting on the same aspect - got it.

That being said, the argument that it's a public square is really, really bad imo.

stessier wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:10 pm This seems like such an open and shut case that it scares me they are soliciting viewpoints.

The US Supreme Court wants the Biden administration to weigh in on the Texas and Florida social media laws before justices decide whether to take up cases involving Big Tech industry lawsuits against the two states.

In a list of orders released this morning, the Supreme Court did not decide whether to hear the cases. Instead, the court asked the Department of Justice's Solicitor General to provide the agency's view.

"The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States," the Supreme Court said.

It's even stranger with Musk running Twitter into the ground and services like Mastodon springing up as part of the social media ecosystem.

There's also the reverse question, regarding US State Gov't bans of media applications such as TikTok on university campuses, etc.

Just because why not? There is now a surprise documentary about Kavanaugh with new evidence the FBI buried reports of sexual assaults reported to them. When the story about the premier dropped a flood of tips came in and they decided to dig into those and make sure they didn't miss anything important.

Washington Post

“We’re getting more tips,” Amy Herdy announced Friday night after the Sundance Film Festival premiere of “Justice,” a documentary she produced about the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The film’s existence was a surprise, with the festival only revealing on Thursday, its opening night, that it was making a very last-minute addition to the lineup: the first documentary from “Swingers” and “The Bourne Identity” director Doug Liman. Within half an hour of the news getting out, Liman said in the post-screening Q&A, the film team started hearing from people who had sent the FBI tips before Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which the agency did not further investigate.

Suddenly, what was finished began anew. The tips were compelling enough for the team to start investigating and filming again with plans to add footage to the completed film, Liman said. In a wild and rare move, the finished documentary had converted back to a work in progress.

“I thought I was off the hook,” said Liman, who self-funded the film to retain independence and keep it secret. “I was like, ‘We’re at Sundance. I could sell the movie.’ … And yesterday, Amy’s like, ‘We’re not done.’ Seriously. Monday morning, they’ll be back at it.”

The film, which Liman said in a news release is meant to “[pick] up where the FBI investigation into Brett M. Kavanaugh fell woefully short,” debuted to a packed house of nearly 300 people. Someone asked if he’d show it to Kavanaugh. The answer was a joking yes. “We’re looking for buyers,” said Liman, “and it had occurred to us that he might buy it.”

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:36 pm Meanwhile, in Justice Alito's office:

When we find out who did it, we need to spank their bare butt, balls and back.

….god I love that show.

Wait, what?

The Supreme Court did not disclose its longstanding financial ties with former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff even as it touted him as an expert who independently validated its investigation into who leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

The court’s inquiry, released last week with Chertoff’s endorsement, failed to identify who was responsible for the unprecedented leak. The decision to keep the relationship with Chertoff quiet is a reflection of a pattern of opacity at the nation’s highest court, whose rulings affect every American.

CNN has learned from sources familiar with the arrangements that the court in recent years has privately contracted with The Chertoff Group for security assessments, some broadly covering justices’ safety and some specifically related to Covid-19 protocols at the court itself.

The estimated payments to Chertoff’s risk assessment firm, for consultations that extended over several months and involved a review of the justices’ homes, reached at least $1 million. The exact amount of money paid could not be determined. Supreme Court contracts are not covered by federal public disclosure rules and elude tracking on public databases.

Again. I had to fill out a 12 page document detailing my income, my spouses income and other sources of money I make so I can volunteer my time on a public board. This is unreal.

Our little corner of the internet could disappear.

Kurth wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 2:36 pm

Alefroth wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:47 pm The case of the Bad Spaniels.

Parody at stake.

The court agreed on Monday to hear a dispute between the maker of Jack Daniel’s whiskey and a company that manufacturers dog toys resembling the Tennessee distillery’s iconic bottle.

Parody is not at stake. What’s really at stake here is whether the Supreme Court is going to allow the 9th Circuit to create a loophole in trademark law you can drive a truck through.

The 9th Circuit’s decision is deeply flawed and needs to be reversed. It’s a good sign the SC granted cert.

For those following the Bad Spaniels case, VIP Products (makers of the "Bad Spaniels" dog toy) just filed its brief to the Supreme Court. It's an interesting read.

I thought it was well done and persuasive on some fronts. To me, their most convincing argument is that the typical multi-factor analysis for TM infringement is fact intensive and particularly ill-suited for disposing of cases without protracted litigation. This allows brands to use litigation as a weapon against expression the brands don’t like. From their perspective, the Rogers framework provides an early litigation off-ramp that’s needed to prevent brands from overreaching.

I think the facts in front of the Court are helpful for them in making that argument. JDPI is not a particularly sympathetic plaintiff. Some of the testimony from their executives that attempted to bolster the strength of their brand is kind of nauseating (“there are people all over the world who feel … like they have been injured when Jack’s been injured.” ), and there's an argument that the “Bad Spaniels” product is a reasonably strong parody. I think the underlying case is kind of BS here, and I get how some might view this as a perfect example illustrating the need for Rogers to protect expression against overreach.

Where it all fell apart for me was when they got to their actual analysis of the Rogers framework at II (C) and their discussion of the “artistic relevance” and “explicitly misleading” prongs. They argue that “Rogers provides a valuable adjunct to the multifactor test by establishing a threshold that can screen qualifying expressive works from the expensive and time-consuming litigation process and uncertainty that the multifactor test engenders.” (p. 46). Good in theory, but when they describe how that screen functions, it all falls apart. On the “artistic relevance” prong, they boil it all down like this: “If the consumer is primarily buying the artistic expression, then what is at stake is protected speech. If the consumer is primarily buying a widget . . . then the purchase transaction is more likely to be purely commercial and the dispute is relegated to the multifactor test.” Does that sound like a workable “screen” to you? Good luck figuring out what the consumer is “primarily buying” when a consumer is purchasing consumer goods that also embody expressive elements. When it comes to the “explicitly misleading” prong, they dodge entirely because JDPI waived its challenge to the Ninth Circuit ruling on that prong. But that’s a huge question when “expressive works” incorporate the pristine marks of third parties.

Can’t wait for argument on this one! Really hoping the SC either (1) rolls Rogers back to its original incarnation -- applying only to the titles of artistic works; or (2) provides some much needed clarification about the distinction between a commercial good and an artistic/expressive work and when Rogers is applicable.