she was 75 12 years ago and in TERRIBLE health. That's some massive arrogance the idea that no one could do the job as good as you. Or just the selfishness to keep the position and prestige. I dunno what her motivation was to stay on for eight years but it's indefensible and here we all are. Right where…
she was 75 12 years ago and in TERRIBLE health. That's some massive arrogance the idea that no one could do the job as good as you. Or just the selfishness to keep the position and prestige. I dunno what her motivation was to stay on for eight years but it's indefensible and here we all are. Right where we all knew we'd be in Nov '16.
That's game folks. Supreme Court gave Trump his first squeaker, when he was a joke candidate without incumbency and before all his liabilities were fully normalized by the Chaits and Cillizzas of the world.
If you thought the Trumpers were turning out in droves to vote in a president who was running in a primary unopposed, wait till you see them brave a pandemic they ignore specifically to spite their enemies, to vote in their godhead over the antifa Biden, and secure a 6-3 majority, thereby invalidating any democratic initiative that any Lib president, congress, governor, or state or city legislature might try to enact for the next 30 years.
Youre god damned right. The fucking bipartisan gerontocracy will kill us all. Ginsburg and Breyer both should have retired the day Obama got inaugurated to his first term of office.
Fucking dems out here still playing to civility and norms after Bush V Gore (and everythign in the decades preceding Bush v Gore).
She should have retired when she got her first cancer diagnosis, in 1999, under Clinton. But nope.
Just talking about Bush V Gore with a friend. You could play what if all day, and the GOP would never have nominated someone who WASN'T a partisan hack. But Thomas was one vote of the 5-4 majority, and guess who we have to thank for Thomas, despite decent people's best attempt to stop him.
Anyway, real excited for another election that's squeaker close, in which counting the ballots will be a multi-month nightmare, allowing whichever side has the least scruples to hash it out in the court of public opinion before turning it over to a 6-3 Republican SC to decide.
right, Thomas's role in bush v gore is particularly rich given who nominated him. Of course Thomas doesnt get on the court w/o Dem votes, iirc. Centrists gonna centrist!
I think youre being optimistic here in thinking this will last months. Trump will declare victory on election night, set loose the cops and the civilian white supremacists, there will be a few mass shootings and that will be that. He replaces Pence with Ivanka, Trump will then either retire/die, Ivanka pardons him, runs and "wins" in 2024 and the hereditary dynasty will be ensconced.
Friend predicts that after a couple closed door sessions, Principled Moderate Republicans Murkowski, Collins and Romney all vote 'No' on ramming through an 11th hour replacement, to burnish their credentials.
And then Pence casting the tiebreaker of course to make it all moot.
(Though as a guy said below, why bother with politesse and kayfabe when they're one smash and grab from unaccountable power for at least a generation. And a one-vote majority didn't work so well repealing ACA either)
Katz brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against petitioner and other officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, alleging that defendants had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to arrest him.
The Supreme Court in an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy held that Saucier was entitled to qualified immunity.[2]
The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity analysis must proceed in two steps. A court must first ask whether "the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right." Then, if a constitutional right was violated, the court would go on to determine whether the constitutional right was "clearly established."[3]
Majority Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas; Souter (parts I, II)
The case focuses on "consent once removed," a theory espoused by some lower courts that acts as an exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Under the doctrine, if a suspect to a crime opens the door for an undercover police officer, the suspect unknowingly is also allowing further police officers to enter without a warrant.
Majority Alito, joined by unanimous
There's more but who the fuck can be bothered by looking up all of her fucking attacks on the fifth and fourth amendments.
If I may speak ill of the dead:
she was 75 12 years ago and in TERRIBLE health. That's some massive arrogance the idea that no one could do the job as good as you. Or just the selfishness to keep the position and prestige. I dunno what her motivation was to stay on for eight years but it's indefensible and here we all are. Right where we all knew we'd be in Nov '16.
That's game folks. Supreme Court gave Trump his first squeaker, when he was a joke candidate without incumbency and before all his liabilities were fully normalized by the Chaits and Cillizzas of the world.
If you thought the Trumpers were turning out in droves to vote in a president who was running in a primary unopposed, wait till you see them brave a pandemic they ignore specifically to spite their enemies, to vote in their godhead over the antifa Biden, and secure a 6-3 majority, thereby invalidating any democratic initiative that any Lib president, congress, governor, or state or city legislature might try to enact for the next 30 years.
Youre god damned right. The fucking bipartisan gerontocracy will kill us all. Ginsburg and Breyer both should have retired the day Obama got inaugurated to his first term of office.
Fucking dems out here still playing to civility and norms after Bush V Gore (and everythign in the decades preceding Bush v Gore).
She should have retired when she got her first cancer diagnosis, in 1999, under Clinton. But nope.
Just talking about Bush V Gore with a friend. You could play what if all day, and the GOP would never have nominated someone who WASN'T a partisan hack. But Thomas was one vote of the 5-4 majority, and guess who we have to thank for Thomas, despite decent people's best attempt to stop him.
Anyway, real excited for another election that's squeaker close, in which counting the ballots will be a multi-month nightmare, allowing whichever side has the least scruples to hash it out in the court of public opinion before turning it over to a 6-3 Republican SC to decide.
right, Thomas's role in bush v gore is particularly rich given who nominated him. Of course Thomas doesnt get on the court w/o Dem votes, iirc. Centrists gonna centrist!
I think youre being optimistic here in thinking this will last months. Trump will declare victory on election night, set loose the cops and the civilian white supremacists, there will be a few mass shootings and that will be that. He replaces Pence with Ivanka, Trump will then either retire/die, Ivanka pardons him, runs and "wins" in 2024 and the hereditary dynasty will be ensconced.
Friend predicts that after a couple closed door sessions, Principled Moderate Republicans Murkowski, Collins and Romney all vote 'No' on ramming through an 11th hour replacement, to burnish their credentials.
And then Pence casting the tiebreaker of course to make it all moot.
(Though as a guy said below, why bother with politesse and kayfabe when they're one smash and grab from unaccountable power for at least a generation. And a one-vote majority didn't work so well repealing ACA either)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saucier_v._Katz
Katz brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against petitioner and other officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, alleging that defendants had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to arrest him.
The Supreme Court in an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy held that Saucier was entitled to qualified immunity.[2]
The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity analysis must proceed in two steps. A court must first ask whether "the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right." Then, if a constitutional right was violated, the court would go on to determine whether the constitutional right was "clearly established."[3]
Majority Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas; Souter (parts I, II)
Concurrence Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Breyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Callahan
The case focuses on "consent once removed," a theory espoused by some lower courts that acts as an exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Under the doctrine, if a suspect to a crime opens the door for an undercover police officer, the suspect unknowingly is also allowing further police officers to enter without a warrant.
Majority Alito, joined by unanimous
There's more but who the fuck can be bothered by looking up all of her fucking attacks on the fifth and fourth amendments.