Purchases from Nazi approved retailers are no longer optional.There is no such thing as an illegal boycott. No one is compelled to purchase your product.
My current refrain is, "collaborators will get what they deserve."There needs to be real consequences for government employees participating in blatantly unconstitutional lawsuits. Removal or impeachment are not realistic when they do the bidding of the majority, wasting everybody's time, getting slapped, and then proudly adding it to their resumes.
Real consequences. Qualified immunity is part of our problem.
Nuremberg was pretty clear that pleasing the guy at the top should never be an excuse to break the law, and being part of the machine should never shield from gross misconduct.
I'm sorry, the judge's name is Sparkle?
Absolutely.I think this country and the world would be a hell of a lot better off if we had more judges named Sparkle and a lot fewer so-called judges named "Clarence" or "Brett" or "John." Sparkle on.
Of course if you are an individual rather than a government, you could get the bejesus sued out of you for doing that, or even face criminal charges.
King County, WA sues homeowners for chopping down trees for a better view
Nantucket Homeowner Sues After Neighbor Cuts Down Trees for Ocean View
Poisoned trees gave a wealthy couple a killer view — and united residents in outrage
I hope it gets a lot of play in conservative media and motivates someone stupid in the government to attempt to illegally retaliate against her. It's always nice when they latch onto something that appeals to stupidity and harm themselves.Yes I’m a child and yes the article is important and substantive and what I’m about to say takes away from that and yes it’s messed up to laugh at someone’s name. Nevertheless…
I absolutely love that we have a real judge with real power whose first name is Sparkle and I feel it should inspire a host of little girls to dress up as judge sparkle for Halloween and want to be judges when they grow up.
Exactly right. I was happy to give them a chunk of change today.
The odds of Trump not working some demeaning insult into an ad hoc public ramble, should someone mention this detail to him, are rather long.I hope it gets a lot of play in conservative media and motivates someone stupid in the government to attempt to illegally retaliate against her. It's always nice when they latch onto something that appeals to stupidity and harm themselves.
Illegal and unconstitutional impeachment proceedings against a US District court judge in 3... 2... 1...
^^^That's all it'll take to slow down or completely stop all the madness. Don't accept anything as the new norm. Don't shrug, walk away and say there's nothing you can do. That's defeatist bullshit. Fight it at all levels.
But Musk's "thermonuclear" attack—attempting to fight MMFA on as many fronts as possible—has appeared to be fizzling out.
A-fucking-men. The only thing more dispiriting as an outside observer than seeing the USA freely vote to reinstall the fascist who attempted to overthrow the country's democracy has been seeing how abundantly easy many have made it for him to push further and further past the norms of social democratic order. The endless, shameful toadying and normalisation both in the US and abroad (my own government is guilty of the same thing) has been absolutely disgusting so it's nice to see someone - anyone - in open defiance. The only morally defensible attitude to the Trump47 Administration.Angelo Carusone, told The New York Times that “the court’s ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration."
That's not a very good idea. That would discourage individual citizens, especially those who are less well off, from availing themselves of the legal system. It's hard enough for poor people to seek justice as it is.IMO, I believe that anyone who files a lawsuit and drops it should be liable for ALL lawyer costs AND all losses incurred to the defending party...
IOW, if you believe it is worth filing, it is worth paying to lose...
On the flip side, the respondents should also be allowed to force discovery before dismissal...
The trees are however perhaps not the best example here, because there's a massive amount of historic case law on trees, logging rights and compensation thereof and to say the fines can be punitive is an understatement. People regularly underestimate just what a tree can be worth (hardwoods especially can be $$$) and cities CAN be (and have been) required to replant trees in the exact same spot and provide it with enough space, clearance and care for it to re-grow into a similar sized tree. The oft used tactic in these cases to just let the replacement tree die and then go "oh-well, can't be helped" has ALSO resulted in judicial slapping. Cutting a tree down that has ongoing litigation about it is... legally not a smart move. Judges REALLY don't like that sort of thing.Yeah, the SCOTUS tactic lately seems to be not even arguing the merits of the case, but completely ignoring those merits, and proclaiming that lower courts have no authority to enjoin the administration from what sure look like Constitutional violations, until the case is fully heard. Or can only enjoin the government in that specific plaintiff's case, but can't enjoin the government from the exact same behavior applied to a million other people or companies.
So every Constitutional violation has to be fought on a case by case basis no matter how many times Trump's cronies violate people's rights, and the Government gets to 'cut down the trees' before the court is allowed to stop them. . .
What I mean by 'cut down the trees' is, my dad actually gave a great example of when he first learned about the expression 'fait accompli' - he was a young engineer fresh out of college, and there was a city that, I don't remember exactly, I think they had an airport - for whatever reason, the city leaders wanted to cut down some trees in a park, maybe because the park was adjacent to the airport and they wanted to clear the airspace more. And some members of the public who wanted to preserve the trees in the park, so they tried to sue the city, but the city cut down the trees before the plaintiffs could argue why they thought it was illegal for the city to cut down the trees. . . and that was that.
Once the trees are gone, you can't bring them back.
And some things are far more important than trees, but likewise, cannot be undone if the court doesn't prevent their doing in the first place. If ICE kills someone, the court cannot redress that. If ICE sends someone to a cruel third world dictator's prison, where they get raped or mutilated (e.g. have a finger or hand cut off or eye gouged out), the court cannot redress that. Last I checked, the Constitution banned cruel and unusual punishments and I don't think "this one weird trick" of just sending people to other countries to face cruel and unusual punishment at US taxpayer expense, should be constitutionally allowed.
If Courts can't enjoin such behavior, the Constitution is over. Gone.
Unfortunately, there is such a thing in US law - the Office of Antiboycott Compliance exists to force US entities to refuse to participate in certain forms of foreign boycott.There is no such thing as an illegal boycott. No one is compelled to purchase your product.
I thought ponies aren't allowed until Page 7 but damn, it's got a sparkly gavel and everything. Nice!Absolutely.
View attachment 116066
The US as a whole doesn't have a prohibition against primary boycotts, but plenty of states prohibit boycotting Israel specifically.Unfortunately, there is such a thing in US law - the Office of Antiboycott Compliance exists to force US entities to refuse to participate in certain forms of foreign boycott.
So far, the US doesn't have a prohibition against "primary boycotts" that I can find (that's where you refuse to buy a product). But it does have some prohibitions against joining "secondary boycotts" (where you refuse to deal with an entity unless they engage in a primary boycott of someone you disagree with) and "tertiary boycotts" (where you also require that everyone you deal with forces their suppliers and other customers to engage in a boycott of an entity you disagree with).
But the principle is established in US law that organised boycotts can, in some cases, be illegal.
I would hope Judges don't like that, but you're getting a little too focused on that example and missing the point at large, which was more about people's basic constitutional rights, and once you send them to a third world prison, and without due process, that can't really be undone, even if you bring them back. They will still have suffered severe trauma.The trees are however perhaps not the best example here, because there's a massive amount of historic case law on trees, logging rights and compensation thereof and to say the fines can be punitive is an understatement. People regularly underestimate just what a tree can be worth (hardwoods especially can be $$$) and cities CAN be (and have been) required to replant trees in the exact same spot and provide it with enough space, clearance and care for it to re-grow into a similar sized tree. The oft used tactic in these cases to just let the replacement tree die and then go "oh-well, can't be helped" has ALSO resulted in judicial slapping. Cutting a tree down that has ongoing litigation about it is... legally not a smart move. Judges REALLY don't like that sort of thing.
When do the people who are queuing up to help others into power start to learn that lesson in advance?I would tend to point out, also, that the history of autocracy is that the autocrats almost universally dump the people who helped put them in power, since having the ability to put someone in power means having the ability to put someone else in power. The influential within the LEFP should keep that in mind.
Not if His Royal Orangeness has been removed by an Amendment or two.Sounds good, but... if they are doing the bidding of His Royal Orangeness, they can always hope for a pardon to protect them.
Stop that. You are not helping. Those are conservative talking points. Nobody overplayed anything, certainly not the Democrats overplaying their hand on human rights for minorities. Backing down to conservative lies won't solve anything, it will just further alienate what little base the Democrats have left.Just remember that the decades of prior planning that put conservatives in power to do all this to start with should also be theoretically possible for Democrats to do the same planning in half or less time where the usual Republican incompetence is exploited, to excise Republicans from power permanently, and even have popular support to do exactly that.
But they won't get there if they keep trying to tie one hand behind their backs with their 'big tent' rhetoric splitting their focus (such as overplaying their hands on identity politics and culture war issues, those issues are important but can only be resolved with the broad support of the working class regardless of rule of law)
Musk is a faux lawyer AND a faux engineer? Huh.Who knows how this will turn out, but one thing we know for sure: Lawyers created this mess and lawyers are the only winners in this mess.
I feel the same way! I have a medical doctor at my medical center who's first name is Sweetheart, and I'd love to see little girls who want to grow up to be doctors because of her!Yes I’m a child and yes the article is important and substantive and what I’m about to say takes away from that and yes it’s messed up to laugh at someone’s name. Nevertheless…
I absolutely love that we have a real judge with real power whose first name is Sparkle and I feel it should inspire a host of little girls to dress up as judge sparkle for Halloween and want to be judges when they grow up.