• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About Tempra

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

10,055 profile views
  1. My thought as well. The movie was beautiful to watch and there were some quality scenes but totally underwhelming and did absolutely nothing to advance the story except clarify who the real bad guy is. Big whoop.
  2. The Supreme Court granted certiorari only on the free speech question and declined to hear the free exercise of religion argument. Nonetheless, whether the free exercise of religion clause protects the baker would likely have turned on whether there is a valid exercise of free speech. Here is what Scalia wrote in the peyote case (Employment Division v Smith): "The only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and of the press, see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. at 304, 310 U. S. 307(invalidating a licensing system for religious and charitable solicitations under which the administrator had discretion to deny a license to any cause he deemed nonreligious); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943) (invalidating a flat tax on solicitation as applied to the dissemination of religious ideas); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U. S. 573 (1944) (same), or the right of parents, acknowledged in Pierce v. Society of Sisters,268 U. S. 510 (1925), to direct the education of their children, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972) (invalidating compulsory school attendance laws as applied to Amish parents who refused on religious grounds to send their children to school). [Footnote 1] Page 494 U. S. 882 Some of our cases prohibiting compelled expression, decided exclusively upon free speech grounds, have also involved freedom of religion, cf. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705 (1977) (invalidating compelled display of a license plate slogan that offended individual religious beliefs); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624(1943) (invalidating compulsory flag salute statute challenged by religious objectors). And it is easy to envision a case in which a challenge on freedom of association grounds would likewise be reinforced by Free Exercise Clause concerns. Cf. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 468 U. S. 622 (1983) ("An individual's freedom to speak, to worship, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances could not be vigorously protected from interference by the State [if] a correlative freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends were not also guaranteed.")." Although the free exercise of religion question isn't at issue here, the conservative justices don't seem to be treading new ground--merely fitting this case into a well-established exception.
  3. Eh, "chode" has been a common pejorative term for 20+ years, at least in parts of the Northeast.
  4. As a lawyer, this is terrifying. As a citizen, it is appalling (though unsurprising) to see the extent the rich and their enablers (lawyers, lobbyists, etc) have deprived the public fisc through (likely legal) tax evasion schemes via elaborate offshore shell games. It is only a matter of time until most/all major multinational law firms are hacked. Those firms house valuable information and, for now, are soft targets. They better keep their insurance premiums paid with sufficient coverage for the inevitable lawsuits. Although I suspect some of these firms fear something worse than a simple lawsuit...
  5. Indeed. Scot, would you be providing pro bono defense services to accused police officers?
  6. The video should give everyone pause about the incentives of news media to hype / mislead / push the boundaries / fabricate / lie about news stories for ratings and money. But, because it received only two million YouTube views (likely not even unique!), the video isn't even real news.
  7. I'd be curious to hear women's views in comparable Government positions. There are roughly twice as many women in SES (Senior Executive Service) positions as there are equity law partners. Many of these positions are as prestigious or even moreso than their private sector counterpart. Those women aren't settling for an inferior job (just an inferior pay check). Why can the Government place women in leadership positions in significantly greater percentages (though not ideal)? The allure of work/life balance and robust affirmative action policies certainly help. How much of the leadership gap between Government and BigLaw can be attributed to not having to retain clients? How much of the bias against women in leadership positions is inherent to the law firm vs the client?
  8. It's hard to have a discussion unless you provide some factual information...
  9. Such as? The most 'shocking' nominee, John Bush, stands accused of being a political blogger and a member of the federalist society. How dare he! And, as a reminder, Democrats have little power to stop these rapscallions from ascending to the bench. Thanks, Harry Reid.
  10. Wow. RIP Bones. I am saddened to hear about your passing. My condolences to your friends and family.
  11. Sending good vibes to Bonesy and his family.
  12. I'm glad your daughter is safe, Mormont. My thoughts and prayers to everyone else still waiting to hear from their friends and family.
  13. Uh, federal lawyers (one's with litigating authority) have very broad prosecutorial discretion in all but a few hot button topics. I would also suggest that you review the voting alignments in 8-1, 7-2, and 6-3 cases because they don't line up to your suppositions. For example, Roberts drafted the opinion for only 1 of the 8 cases decided 7-2 during the October 2014 term (the last full term in which the Court had nine justices). And Roberts "went left" in the way you describe in only 2 out of 11 cases decided 6-3. Even for 5-4 decisions, over 30% didn't involve the typical 5-4 split with Kennedy being the swing vote.
  14. The Obama/Trump administrations may very well be wrong but i don't see how this case is a bellwether on Gorsuch. Was the district judge that denaturalized Maslenjak an "all-the-way-gone conservative"? The circuit judges that unanimously affirmed the district court's order? The other circuit judges that didn't grant an en banc review of the panel's opinion? The line attorneys that sought denaturalization? The appellate lawyers? The SG's office that defended the denaturalization at SCOTUS? All these actions occurred under Democratic and Republican administrations and appointees. Legal decisions, particularly ones that make it to the Supreme Court, are generally very complex and cannot easily be boiled down to liberal vs conservative positions (with maybe a handful of exceptions like abortion). Even if you could, I am not sure how citizenship stripping would fall on the conservative side, which often eschews expansive powers of the federal government.
  15. How would Gorsuch voting in favor of the position taken by the Obama/Trump administrations demonstrate that he is an "all-the-way-gone conservative"?