America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,194 comments
- 1,746,196 views
- 19,656
- Alabamamania
Next, Florida's going to want their own Space Force...oh, wait...Like...a State Guard or similar state defense force?
Edit:
State defense force - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I'm not sure which I have more justification to question, Ron's statement or CNN's reporting (bare minimum headline and lede, because it's CNN and I didn't actually read the article).
Last edited:
- 29,785
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Republicans: "CANCEL CULTURE!!!"
Also Republicans: * REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE *
Also Republicans:
Oh and definitely don't go scrolling through the replies if you don't want to see giant dildos photoshopped in place of those guns. You have been warned.
Also Republicans: * REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE *
Also Republicans:
Oh and definitely don't go scrolling through the replies if you don't want to see giant dildos photoshopped in place of those guns. You have been warned.
- 29,785
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
So for those unaware, the Second Circuit affirmed in Knight v. Trump that when a state actor creates a space for engagement with the public, even if that space exists on private property (like a hotel or a Twitter account), those protected by the First Amendment cannot be prohibited from engaging with the state actor. Because of this ruling, a Twitter block runs afoul of the First Amendment. Something like a "mute" through which the state actor won't see a user's submissions would likely be permissible, though, because, per jurisprudence pertaining to the "redress of grievances" clause of the First Amendment, a state actor is not actually required to reciprocate.
Knight v. Trump was actually appealed to the Supreme Court subsequent to the defendant's Twitter ban, but because there was no relief to be sought by the plaintiff against this particular defendant, the case was remanded back to the Second Circuit. The lower court's ruling maybe could have been upheld, but that wouldn't have been something expected of the Court, regardless of demographics, and remanding the case to the lower court in this instance is certainly preferable to overturning its ruling.
I actually argued this matter with a Trumper on this forum and they insisted (after repeatedly moving the goalposts) that the decision would be appealed. I don't suppose they'd be interested in taking the L now.
Knight v. Trump was actually appealed to the Supreme Court subsequent to the defendant's Twitter ban, but because there was no relief to be sought by the plaintiff against this particular defendant, the case was remanded back to the Second Circuit. The lower court's ruling maybe could have been upheld, but that wouldn't have been something expected of the Court, regardless of demographics, and remanding the case to the lower court in this instance is certainly preferable to overturning its ruling.
I actually argued this matter with a Trumper on this forum and they insisted (after repeatedly moving the goalposts) that the decision would be appealed. I don't suppose they'd be interested in taking the L now.
Last edited:
- 29,796
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
On the subject of the initial picture generally, tone-deafness seems to be a huge problem. The auld mantra of just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Showing off arrogantly and brashly makes you an unlikeable 🤬 most of the time, doing it like that and because of guns is completely lacking in tact, grace, decorum, modesty and consideration.
And yes, I'm aware I've just described the checklist of things you need to lack to join the Republican Party.
And yes, I'm aware I've just described the checklist of things you need to lack to join the Republican Party.
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,251
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
That's not really an additional consideration as they would probably reply no matter when he posted the photo.
There's probably no ideal time to ost something like this but within a week of a school shooting is doubly insensitive and Massie's 1A-busting blocking of people who complain is the cherry on the 💩 cake.
Last edited:
- 20,906
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
Going back to a government official blocking someone on social media: Couldn't the work around be that any government official must then have two social media accounts, one personal and one for official capacities? If a personal account blocks you then that's fine, but a governmental account....
- 20,906
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,251
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
That's right. Trump had two accounts and he used his personal one as a public forum.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump - Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Last edited:
- 35,320
- Downtown North Dakota
- Cy-Fi
@POTUS doesn't say his name anywhere and that's just not acceptable.That's right. Trump had two accounts and he used his personal one as a public forum.
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump - Wikipedia
Narcissists gotta narcissist.
- 29,785
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I mean...I'm okay with it. The presidency itself is in part an exercise in narcissism. I gather he didn't use the POTUS account much anyway*, perhaps because it didn't have his name on it.
*Until his rDT account got suspended and he used the POTUS account to circumvent that action, but Jack Dorsey beat him back down as was his wont and his right.
- 29,785
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
"Section Two" referred to by Garland above is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups. The law was amended in 1982 to apply to practices and procedures that resulted in a discriminatory effect rather than requiring proof of intent, and this amendment cleared Congress with 474 total delegates (both houses) voting for and 32 against before being signed into law by Reagan.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Ok. Good to know. My first reaction was to think that this is purely performative, but it sounds like there might be some room for it to add clarity. I still don't give it a big chance of success, but at least it could theoretically win if Gill was about party affiliation.
Last edited:
- 29,785
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I think Miller v. Johnson of 1995 was the last racially discriminatory gerrymandering case the Court heard and it ruled against the district.
As an aside, the "Miller" in that case was Zell Miller, of whom Will Forte did a spectacular impersonation on SNL during one of the Chris Matthews 'Hardball' sketches. I can't think of Zell Miller without thinking back to how red Will's face got and how quickly it got there. I would have been concerned for his health if I hadn't been laughing so hard. I can't find the clip. Pity.
Edit: Oh, that's interesting. There are presently two Justices who also sat on Miller v. Johnson, one majority and one dissenting. Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy and Stephen Breyer dissented.
Edit: So I've done some more reading and it looks like Cooper v. Harris (2017) is the most recent case directly relevant to Section 2 of the VRA. Also, Shaw v. Reno was in 1996 and therefore not before Miller v. Johnson as I previously believed. In Cooper v. Harris, the majority held that the North Carolina General Assembly based its redistricting on racial demographics. 5-3 Kagan authoring the opinion and joined by Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor with Thomas sitting in concurrence.
Last edited:
