The reporter said the guards have AR-15's and shotguns, but I didn't see a single AR-15. The rifles are clearly chambered in handgun cartridges, or bullpups that might be semi-auto shotguns. Anyone recognize what they're carrying? Three options are the reporter sucks at her job or didn't even ask what the guns are, the guards are retarded and have no idea what they're carrying, or I'm retarded and dont know wtf I'm talking about.
Link to the 5th Circuit Court Opinion here. I recommend reading the opinion for a better understanding.
The District Court previously enjoined several governmental agencies from, among other activity, "meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms" The Defendants appealed the decision, where the 5th Circuit Court Affirmed, Reversed, Vacated, and Modified the District Court judgement.
The White House, Surgeon General, CDC, and the FBI "shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes."
That's the long and short of it, really. The 5th Circuit found that there was enough evidence of government coercion to order a preliminary injunction, but they reduced the amount of agencies enjoined by the District Court, as well as narrowing the language so the terms conditions aren't so broad.
The Defendants are likely to appeal the injunction to the Supreme Court, but they have yet to do so in the 3 days since the injunction was issued. There is another Missouri v. Biden case that recently filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, so if you do your own research be sure to get the right one.
Indictment here. NBC article, CNN article. Senator Bob Menendez, his wife Nadine, and some Egyptian's were all indicted on "Conspiracy to commit bribery" and "Conspiracy to commit honest services fraud." The senator and his wife were also indicted on "Conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right."
The indictment mentions Menendez providing "sensitive documents" to the Egyptian government as well, though no charges were filed for that at this time. The indictment appears to read as though the Feds have access to his phone and/or computer, though I am unsure if it was from the search warrant issued on his house, or if they previously infiltrated his communications. Bribery and fraud are quite hard to secure convictions under, and he has avoided a previous conviction. He was previously indicted in 2015 on Bribery charges, but the jury couldn't come to a unanimous decision.
While that article may seem alarming to those not familiar with the law, the alleged request did not matter at all, and had no bearing on the outcome of the case, nor did it affect standing. The 10th Circuit Court never mentioned the request when they found that 303 Creative had good standing, nor did they mention it when they ruled against 303 Creative. SCOTUS never mentioned it either, not even in the dissent. The District Court mentioned it, but only to say this:
"The Plaintiffs also direct the Court to an email that Ms. Smith received on September 21, 2016, after the Complaint in this matter was filed. Ostensibly in response to a prompt from 303’s website asking “If your inquiry relates to a specific event, please describe the nature of the event and its purpose”, the email states: “My wedding. My name is Stewart and my fiancee is Mike. We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites (sic.), placenames(sic.), etc. We might also stretch to a website.” This evidence is too imprecise, as well. Assuming that it indicates a market for Plaintiffs’ services, it is not clear that Stewart and Mike are a same-sex couple (as such names can be used by members of both sexes) and it does not explicitly request website services, without which there can be no refusal by Plaintiffs."
Setting aside that the email was never factored into the court rulings, whether they were for or against 303 Creative, it wasn't needed for standing in the type of lawsuit that was filed, a pre-enforcement challenge. It played no role in the 10th Circuit decision which determined there was standing but not otherwise a first amendment violation.
In the context of a pre-enforcement challenge, to show an injury in fact, a party must allege “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” SBA List, 573 U.S. at 159, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (quoting Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S. Ct. 2301, 60 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1979)); see also Colo. Outfitters Ass'n v. Hickenlooper, 823 F.3d 537, 545 (10th Cir. 2016). Article III does not require the plaintiff to risk “an actual arrest, prosecution, or other enforcement action.” SBA List, 573 U.S. at 158, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (citing Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459, 94 S. Ct. 1209, 39 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1974)). 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 6 F.4th 1160, 1171–72 (10th Cir. 2021).
There is no standing concern in 303 Creative, unless one wants to argue for drastically changing first amendment Pre-enforcement standing jurisprudence. The email in question was rejected by the District Court, and not considered by the appellate courts or the courts thereafter. The email is entirely irrelevant to the case.
Also, your bit about Justice Kagan isn't very clear. You make it sound as if she that in her dissent about 303 Creative, but it was in regards to an entirely separate case. Sotomayor wrote the sole dissent in 303 Creative, Kagan didn't write anything.
Book removals have long been a hot button topic, and I was curious to see what the esteemed minds and scholars of Torn's P&L thought about them in general, as well as this case in particular.
I believe that in most scenarios, libraries can legally remove books from their collection, though it may be morally or ethically dubious depending on what is removed. If the local community doesn't like how their local government is curating the local libraries, they can elect local or state representatives to change that. Or, as in the case below, they can simply petition to their current government.
Little v. Llano County: In 2021, several Llano county residents complained to the County's Commissioners Court(CCC), whose duties include overseeing the library system, that several books in the children's section were "pornographic and overtly sexual" as well as seven "butts and farts" books. After the CCC advised the library director to remove the books, she did. At the end of 2021, seventeen books had been removed from the library, all at the behest of the CCC after complaints by residents.
The books can loosely be grouped into 4 categories:
1. seven butt and fart books, such as Gary the goose and his gas on the loose and I broke my butt!
2. 6 books touching on sexuality and gender identity
3. 2 books about racism in the U.S.A
4. 2 books with drawings depicting sexual acts and/or nude drawings of children
Other residents of Llano county sued, alleging First Amendment violations of the right to access information, and that the county engaged in viewpoint discrimination. The District court granted a temporary injunction, ordering all the books back on the shelves. That was appealed to the 5th CA, whose 3 judge panel modified the injunction to order categories 2 and 3 back on the shelve. Judge Wiener (H.W. Bush appointee) would not modify the injunction, and order all books back on the shelves. Judge Southwick (H.W. Bush appointee) Joined Wiener in part to add categories 2 and 3, but did not join to add category 1 and 4. Judge Duncan (Trump appointee) dissented entirely, and would remove the injunction. He believes that there is not a First Amendment violation. After the panel issued its 76 page opinion about the preliminary injunction, the 5th CA decided to take it up En Banc.
Source for literally everything. One of the more enjoyable reads. Watching Judges argue whether books about butts and farts even contain ideas or viewpoints to discriminate against is pretty funny. The oral arguments are even better.
The full list of books is, in order of category;
1. My Butt is So Noisy!; I Broke my Butt!; I Need a New Butt!, all by Dawn McMillan;
Larry the Farting Leprechaun; Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose; Freddie the Farting Snowman; Harvey the Heart Has Too Many Farts, all by Jane Bexley;
2. Freakboy by Kristin Elizabeth Clark;
Shine by Lauren Myracle;
Gabi, a Girl in Pieces by Isabel Quintero;
Spinning by Tillie Walden;
Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen by Jazz Jennings;
Under the Moon: a Catwoman Tale by Lauren Myracle.
3. Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson;
They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group by Susan Campbell Bartoletti;
4. It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health by Robie H. Harris and Michael Emberley
First of all, I find it funny that your objections are to the Virgin Mary and Zachariah, instead of the several people that are raised from the dead. There are medical conditions that can render someone temporarily mute, but I'm not aware of any that will resurrect people that have been dead for several days, let alone weeks, months, or years.
That being said, if you don't believe that one being has the power to create the universe and all life in it, perhaps you should try polytheism instead of monotheism.
No no, you don't understand. Trump was an undercover agent gathering evidence against the pedos. Even if he did abuse kids, he couldn't just blow his cover, could he? Obviously, going along with it is the only moral and correct desicion. We should be thanking him for his service, but instead the "media" paints him as a villain just because he molested some kids. Sad!!
Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah—a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing.
1st Corinthian 9.27: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
1st Corinthian 15.1-2: Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
I would much rather Congress pass data harvesting regulation, but at least they took one small, miniscule step in the right direction. Of course, data brokerage is too big of a market, so Congress will never have the gumption to do anything about it. But I guess this is better than nothing.
For what it's worth, I don't see much of a 1st amendment violation here. To me, it is very similar to Congress regulating Verizon, mandating that they must conform with the law or shut down. Sure, people can't use Verizon to speak anymore, but that is an incidental effect to the primary reason for the legislation, as the law isn't targeting some specific viewpoint or content. Combined with the national security concerns, I don't see Tik Tok winning this. Of course, I might be eating these words after SCOTUS issues their opinion.
I mostly agree with that sentiment, I just don't see a constitutional violation if the library does remove books that have "problematic" content, especially when they are removing books from the children's section that have nude images in them.
If it is a constitutional violation to remove books, then libraries could be forced to show pro-slavery, racist, homophobic books.
My categories were only to sort the books by content, not necessarily the reason for their removal. Librarians generally use the MUSTIE standard to remove books.
Misleading or factually incorrect
Ugly/worn out
Superseded by a new edition or better source
Trivial, or no discernible literary or scientific merit
Irrelevant to the needs and interest of the community
Elsewhere availability
Llano county normally uses that process, but the books removed in the lawsuit were only removed because residents of the county complained about their content. Infact, the librarian ordered to remove them personally ordered some of the books in the first place.
Book removals have long been a hot button topic, and I was curious to see what the esteemed minds and scholars of Torn's P&L thought about them in general, as well as this case in particular.
I believe that in most scenarios, libraries can legally remove books from their collection, though it may be morally or ethically dubious depending on what is removed. If the local community doesn't like how their local government is curating the local libraries, they can elect local or state representatives to change that. Or, as in the case below, they can simply petition to their current government.
Little v. Llano County: In 2021, several Llano county residents complained to the County's Commissioners Court(CCC), whose duties include overseeing the library system, that several books in the children's section were "pornographic and overtly sexual" as well as seven "butts and farts" books. After the CCC advised the library director to remove the books, she did. At the end of 2021, seventeen books had been removed from the library, all at the behest of the CCC after complaints by residents.
The books can loosely be grouped into 4 categories:
1. seven butt and fart books, such as Gary the goose and his gas on the loose and I broke my butt!
2. 6 books touching on sexuality and gender identity
3. 2 books about racism in the U.S.A
4. 2 books with drawings depicting sexual acts and/or nude drawings of children
Other residents of Llano county sued, alleging First Amendment violations of the right to access information, and that the county engaged in viewpoint discrimination. The District court granted a temporary injunction, ordering all the books back on the shelves. That was appealed to the 5th CA, whose 3 judge panel modified the injunction to order categories 2 and 3 back on the shelve. Judge Wiener (H.W. Bush appointee) would not modify the injunction, and order all books back on the shelves. Judge Southwick (H.W. Bush appointee) Joined Wiener in part to add categories 2 and 3, but did not join to add category 1 and 4. Judge Duncan (Trump appointee) dissented entirely, and would remove the injunction. He believes that there is not a First Amendment violation. After the panel issued its 76 page opinion about the preliminary injunction, the 5th CA decided to take it up En Banc.
Source for literally everything. One of the more enjoyable reads. Watching Judges argue whether books about butts and farts even contain ideas or viewpoints to discriminate against is pretty funny. The oral arguments are even better.
The full list of books is, in order of category;
1. My Butt is So Noisy!; I Broke my Butt!; I Need a New Butt!, all by Dawn McMillan;
Larry the Farting Leprechaun; Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose; Freddie the Farting Snowman; Harvey the Heart Has Too Many Farts, all by Jane Bexley;
2. Freakboy by Kristin Elizabeth Clark;
Shine by Lauren Myracle;
Gabi, a Girl in Pieces by Isabel Quintero;
Spinning by Tillie Walden;
Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen by Jazz Jennings;
Under the Moon: a Catwoman Tale by Lauren Myracle.
3. Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson;
They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group by Susan Campbell Bartoletti;
4. It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health by Robie H. Harris and Michael Emberley
I dont think it's as cut and dry as you believe it is. All the cases Castle Rock and others are are civil cases, where the the family of victims or victims themselves sued police for damages related to their inaction.
The Uvalde lawsuit is criminal, which may enough of a difference to matter.
It's not #5 unless there are some serious modifications done that I cant tell from the outside. It's not #4 because that picture makes me physically ill, and AK's without wood furniture don't exist. It's not #3 because, while the ATF did attempt to prosecute a man for a shoestring machine gun, shoestrings in and of themselves are not. It may be #2, as I have seen some very nerf gun lookalike firearms before. It's probably #1, as it could have been registered before 1986. That being said, I think I'm being to rules lawery and that #3 is the correct answer. I would guess that #1 is either a replica, or has been partially destroyed in a deactivation requirement.
I think you mean to say the respondent's, counsel(Murray) floundered and got lost, I thought the petitioner's counsel(Mitchell) did quite well. Considering Trumps counsel in other case I was expecting Mitchell to have terrible answers. Murray, on the other hand, struggled with quite a few questions.
Justice Alito certainly asked some softball questions, but I thought Justice Barret grilled Mitchell pretty hard, and Chief Justice Roberts had some tougher questions for him. Justice Jackson, on the other hand, seemed to be arguing with Mitchell and Murray that because President isn't listed in the 14th amendment, it shouldn't apply to the president. Justice Kagan seemed skeptical that the State's should have the power to enforce the 14th amendment, which is why I think she may side with petitioner.
The Constitution defines what an officer is in the Commission's clause, Appointments clause, and the Impeachment clause, which all read to exclude the President. The Court also has a long history of about 150 years that Officers are only appointed officials, not elected officials.
Anderson doesn't have a very good argument for why the president is an officer, but they do point out that the president takes an oath to "Preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, which sounds an awful lot like an oath to "support the Constitution", as required in Section 3 of the 14th amendment.
Based on the Oral Arguments, I think its going to be a 7-2 or 8-1 decision in favor of Trump. Justice Jackson seemed receptive of both the Officer argument as well as the Enforcement argument. Justice Kagan seemed more on the fence, but leaning towards the majority. Justice Sotomayor didn't talk much, but she seemed against both arguments. It possible its a 9-0 decision, but I think its gonna be Justice Sotomayor and maybe Justice Kagan in dissent.
No, the President holds office. and the presidential office is an Office of the U.S. that is not in contention. It is whether the President is an Officer.
This gonna sound very nitpicky, but those are not the questions before SCOTUS. The only question presented is, "Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?" The questions you have are the rough arguments Trump and his lawyers are using, but they are not the question presented before the Court. Question Presented
As for your question 2. it is not "Is the President an office of the United States" . The argument is A. "the President is not “an officer of the United States,” and B. "the presidency is not an "office under the United States." Cert petition. "Officer of the United States" and "under the united States". Again, very nitpicky, but both are used as qualifiers used in section 3 of the 14th amendment, which is why it must be defined.
For your question 3, "is this section self enforcing", you left out section Section 5. of the 14th amendment. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." That is not an end all be all, as many other constitutional amendments are self-enforcing, and Section 5 may be there for other sections of the 14th amendment, such as section 2 or 4, but it is relevant.
It was a State Supreme Court (Colorado) that disqualified Trump, but whether they followed the Constitution is exactly what's up for debate before the Supreme Court Of The United States right now. There are multiple reasons for Trump to not be disqualified, which is why the decision by Colorado to disqualify him was decided in a 4-3 majority, not a 7-0.
Assassination of MLK Cutter-Turkey pipeline Project Artichoke/CHATTER Operation CHAOS PRISM and ECHELON Five eyes, Nine eyes, Fourteen eyes. Gulf of Tonkin Bay Operation Mockingbird Family Jewels Operation Sea Spray and related tests P2OG COINTELPRO Nord Stream pipeline
New Jersey lawsuit. Current. Unclear what they do with the blood, they keep it for 23 years. Law enforcement has used the DNA
Texas lawsuit. 2010. Blood was used for research, sold to private companies, and government agencies.
Michigan lawsuit. 2018-current. Sold to private companies, and accessed by police.
There are more lawsuits, but I ain't got the time to find them all. I know Texas was sued twice, Indiana, and Minnesota have their own lawsuits. For all you lads not American, I'd be curious to see if you also have this problem. Given how widespread it is here, I would not be surprised. I know the UK had a kind similar scandal in the Alder Hey scandal, with the unauthorized collecting of removed tissue and blood, including but not limited to newborns.
All 50 states mandate that a blood sample be taken from a newborn to test for various diseases and genetic problems. However, the process after that vary wildly. Several states, not just the ones above, have sold the data to private companies, and allowed law enforcement to access the database. Some states require law enforcement to get a warrant, some just hand it over. Some states get consent from the parents to use the blood in research, some states don't tell the parents the blood is stored indefinitely. This study funded by the NIH, has a good overview of the states laws regarding blood samples. It is from 2010, but the few states I checked out have the same regulations.
When I first heard about the Texas case, I thought it was some incredible malpractice unique to the state. Words cannot describe how confused, stunned, and disgusted I felt when I found the NIH study, and realized secretly collecting, selling, and researching babies blood was normal for some states. Whenever I think I cannot distrust the government more, life finds a way.
The New Jersey lawsuit is brought by the Institute for Justice. They do really good work, and I highly suggest you American lads support them.
