SBBC: Diets are for homos

[Mr. 4K]

I gotcha. Might not do it tonight but if not, tomorrow. Also keep your money

Word!

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Not that I'm that familiar with either but I believe immigration courts are somewhat similar to Military courts. The military and immigration for the most part fall under the executive so these courts fall there. The military bureaucracy is most likely more stable than the DOJ doe.

It probably is, also the UCMJ is rather easy to interpret

Lots of younger enlisted who dont know better sign a rights waiver tho, which removes the automatic visit to Trial Defense attorneys on base. Pretty shady tactic IMO

 

[faustian]

Didn't Scalia practically invent originalist interpretation? Or at the very least he got it to where it is today?

I think his view was that there is a procedure to amend the constitution if the population wills it, otherwise you stick to the original script.

He's contradicted himself on that though. He's literally come up with Constitutional principles that are nowhere to be found in the text no matter which kind of interpretation you use. But even though I don't share his interpretation approach I do have to say that I love reading his opinions. Particularly his dissents. He goes line by line attacking the opposing opinion with direct and concise arguments. He's very convincing

But originalism at its core is flawed from birth; nowhere in the Constitution does it imply that justices should be bound by an originalist interpretation. It's an inherent contradiction

In reality, originalism is just one of the various subjective interpretations of how best to decide the good of the people. Every justice does their own balancing test where they weigh the values of the good of the people in the instant case vs the good of the people long-term (preserving Federalism by limiting the power of the Federal Government). Originalists just give much heavier weight to the latter

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Scalia came to Quantico, spoke to us students my senior year of HS

 

[therealdope]

Speechless.

 

[faustian]

Scalia came to Quantico, spoke to us students my senior year of HS

His dissent to Roberts' majority opinion on the tax issue in the Obamacare case was a besmirching of epic proportions

I would've handled the case exactly the way Roberts did, even tho I know the end result is technically unconstitutional. But I did dozens of KevinGarnett.gifs while reading Scalia's dissent

 

[white-pony]

Might have gotten food poisoning as I've been shitting everything out of my body if I just think of food. Have barely eaten anything for the past two days and have lost ten pounds in the past week.

Got some pizza on the way home on Monday that probably caused all of this. Pizza diet gets results.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

His dissent to Roberts' majority opinion on the tax issue in the Obamacare case was a besmirching of epic proportions

I would've handled the case exactly the way Roberts did, even tho I know the end result is technically unconstitutional. But I did dozens of KevinGarnett.gifs while reading Scalia's dissent

I took an Honors Philosophy class in undergrad that used his dissents as examples of pointing out and refuting logical fallacies and inconsistencies. He goes extremely hard

 

[El Chimpo]

 

[AOM]

Aroused

FTFY...

 

[faustian]

I took an Honors Philosophy class in undergrad that used his dissents as examples of pointing out and refuting logical fallacies and inconsistencies. He goes extremely hard

Lmao that's awesome. I knew I couldn't have been the only one to notice it

 

[Poon Goon]

All you need to know is this

 

[El Chimpo]

All you need to know is this

Grime
Time

 

[faustian]

I took an Honors Philosophy class in undergrad that used his dissents as examples of pointing out and refuting logical fallacies and inconsistencies. He goes extremely hard

btw this is the excerpt from Scalia's dissent in Sebelius (Obamacare) that convinced me that, logically, Roberts upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing power theory was unconstitutional. I still would've concurred with Roberts in a 'means justify the ends' kinda way, but Scalia sold me that I'd be doing so while knowingly violating the Constitution:

"For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. * * * We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry. * * * The Court's disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them."

​

You simply can't defeat that logic and Scalia had a way with words that just consistently compounded the force of his arguments

 

[El Chimpo]

Can jam

 

[PolishHeadlock]

@faustian @HunterSdVa29

“If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf — and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point — then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power ‘[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,’ U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a ‘fundamental’ aspect of golf.”

 

[faustian]

lmao

 

[faustian]

Scalia was alpha af

His dissent in Boumediene, a case deciding whether GITMO detainees were entitled to habeas corpus, was just pure brutality. Kennedy employed some suspect logic leaps in his reasoning to support his decision that said entitlement exists. Scalia wrote the dissent (which is now generally held to be the correct opinion):

"The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application. * * *

Eisentrager * * * held beyond any doubt that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign.

What drives today's decision is neither the meaning of the Suspension Clause, nor the principles of our precedents, but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy. * * * Our power "to say what the law is" is circumscribed by the limits of our statutorily and constitutionally conferred jurisdiction. * * * Today the Court breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every prisoner.

The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent."

​

 

[Revolver]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Graves The Elder]

not sure which is gayer and more disturbing.
trd's quasi-lesbo hanging grope/rape vid or
frausto's sudden perverse obsession with all things legal and irrelevant