Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The very possibility that a person could be wrongly convicted and executed by the state means we should eliminate capital punishment.

If everything ran perfectly, I have no moral objection to capital punishment.

We get it wrong too often.

We apply it unequally.

We can't even find a humane way to do it.

Edited by RomaVicta

  • Replies 12.9k
  • Views 815.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Brisketexan
    Brisketexan

    Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

  • Ghost of LL
    Ghost of LL

    The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

  • in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I thought Greg Abbott was going to get all of the rapists off of the street.

Well one way to erase all incidents of rape in Texas is to just lock up all the rape kits requiring testing in a vault and never open it open.  
 

There’s a lockbox joke in here somewhere in here if Greg has the courage to do what’s right

34 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

I can’t wait for the “but what if Americans want to elect a dictator” argument by Trump’s lawyers.

44 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Notably, the very last day of oral arguments this term.  

53 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

welp, either democracy dies or limps along a little further. we'll find out soon!

Yeah, they won't say he's immune, but they'll say he might be and punt it back down with some new procedural hurdles (e.g. the trial judge must make an appealable determination whether Trump's behavior constituted "official acts"). 

There is no way this trial will start before the election.

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, they won't say he's immune, but they'll say he might be and punt it back down with some new procedural hurdles (e.g. the trial judge must make an appealable determination whether Trump's behavior constituted "official acts"). 

There is no way this trial will start before the election.

This.

They’ll completely ignore all the meat around the fake electors shit and focus on super narrow actions that they can throw up their hands and punt by saying something like ‘we can’t discern if what he was doing was as a candidate or the president and an official act’.

its going to be bad and are only hope is the orange menace losing… which will still be bad bc im almost assured there will be more violence, because him winning is going to be REALLY bad.

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

This.

They’ll completely ignore all the meat around the fake electors shit and focus on super narrow actions that they can throw up their hands and punt by saying something like ‘we can’t discern if what he was doing was as a candidate or the president and an official act’.

its going to be bad and are only hope is the orange menace losing… which will still be bad bc im almost assured there will be more violence, because him winning is going to be REALLY bad.

Never underestimate the ability of this Court to come up with the worst possible outcome.

If the Court was serious, oral argument would have been much sooner than the end of April. The Steel Seizure Case went from the initial suit on April 5 to final resolution on June 2, including oral argument 10 days after the DC Circuit heard the case en banc

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I can’t wait for the “but what if Americans want to elect a dictator” argument by Trump’s lawyers.

I mean, I'm starting to think this is exactly what people want.  Maybe not the majority, but a huge fucking amount.

Treat them like any other statistical anomalies?  
You do understand they can no longer vote for your team once they’re convicted, right? 

NSIAP, but in Texas, A person with a felony conviction can vote if they have finished the full terms of their sentence. This includes any periods of incarceration, parole, community supervision, and probation.
Just now, scottsins said:


NSIAP, but in Texas, A person with a felony conviction can vote if they have finished the full terms of their sentence. This includes any periods of incarceration, parole, community supervision, and probation.

Well, that makes a lot more sense.  Still not acceptable to Stan for rapists imo, but I’ll let him do him.   

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Well, that makes a lot more sense.  Still not acceptable to Stan for rapists imo, but I’ll let him do him.   

Nobody is "stanning for rapists" you fucking schmoe.  People are stanning for justice and the concept of not imposing irrevocable sentences.

In what world is stanning for those falsely convicted of rape stanning for rapists?

False accusations of rape leading to felony convictions, loss of the franchise, and the death penalty were some nasty features of a certain time period of this country's history. So who is stanning for what, exactly?

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

In what world is stanning for those falsely convicted of rape stanning for rapists?

False accusations of rape leading to felony convictions, loss of the franchise, and the death penalty were some nasty features of a certain time period of this country's history. So who is stanning for what, exactly?

Ackshully, he took umbrage with me saying rapists should never have a chance to rape again, and started his one liner goal post moving shit about false convictions.  Which leads me to believe he thinks they are worth giving a second chance. Which they are not.  Which further leads me to believe he’s ok with them serving their 10, and down ballot voting D until the next time they reoffend.   

Inconvenient that prison demographics pretty solidly align with D voters. But the demo is the demo.  

Edited by fattyflattie

15 hours ago, troph said:

 

My hot take is kind of a spin off on mabury v Madison. They can’t rule for Trump but they want the outcome so agree to hear it, delay it until the last possible moment, all but ensures the case won’t go to trial until … oops, election time Trump can pardon himself for fed crimes. 
 

not saying it will work, but given the delays re the DC circuit and now this, that’s what I think they are doing - ruling against Trump but giving him what he wants.

 

How long can SCOTUS sit on a case after they hear arguments?  If there's no time limit (and they do seem to be playing Calvinball), I predict they will sit on the case until the day after next year's inauguration.  If Biden wins, they'll say POTUS does not have immunity, if dotard wins, they'll rule the POTUS does have immunity. 

 

4 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

 

Inconvenient that prison demographics pretty solidly align with D voters. But the demo is the demo.  

Able to explain the figures/math on this? I’m doubting higher educated inmates make up half the prison population. 

5 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Which further leads me to believe he’s ok with them serving their 10, and down ballot voting D until the next time they reoffend.   

Inconvenient that prison demographics pretty solidly align with D voters. But the demo is the demo.  

This is a pretty weird thought... especially to think that rapists are a bloc... I don't know,  I'm fairly certain that rapists don't vote as one,  and would also think that there's probably an inordinate amount of rapists in the maga tent... and

 

Thinking about crime as a whole,  and the demographics of prisons... I'm also pretty sure they don't match the democratic party. 

 

But you do you... considering the fact that you think rapists are irredeemable,  but will probably vote for one come November (along with the rest of the maga contingent)

54 minutes ago, bluto said:

Able to explain the figures/math on this? I’m doubting higher educated inmates make up half the prison population. 

Come on man. By demographics he meant black people. 

26 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Guys, look who you’re arguing with.

They never learn. 

5 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Ackshully, he took umbrage with me saying rapists should never have a chance to rape again, and started his one liner goal post moving shit about false convictions.  Which leads me to believe he thinks they are worth giving a second chance. Which they are not.  Which further leads me to believe he’s ok with them serving their 10, and down ballot voting D until the next time they reoffend.   

Inconvenient that prison demographics pretty solidly align with D voters. But the demo is the demo.  

we can all read what you and he wrote and this is a retcon.

half this country doesn't vote so assuming anyone votes any particular way isn't a great bet.

Edited by elfenix

6 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Ackshully, he took umbrage with me saying rapists should never have a chance to rape again, and started his one liner goal post moving shit about false convictions.  Which leads me to believe he thinks they are worth giving a second chance. Which they are not.  Which further leads me to believe he’s ok with them serving their 10, and down ballot voting D until the next time they reoffend.   

Inconvenient that prison demographics pretty solidly align with D voters. But the demo is the demo.  

I don't understand this opinion when you voted for a convicted rapist. 

6 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Ackshully, he took umbrage with me saying rapists should never have a chance to rape again, and started his one liner goal post moving shit about false convictions.  Which leads me to believe he thinks they are worth giving a second chance. Which they are not.  Which further leads me to believe he’s ok with them serving their 10, and down ballot voting D until the next time they reoffend.   

Inconvenient that prison demographics pretty solidly align with D voters. But the demo is the demo.  

I took umbrage with your support for capital punishment.

Rapists should be executed . . . unless they’re running for president and makes libtards mad, in which case, I’m voting for him for a third time.

I assume this has been posted before.

046e5216044776d270fd87abc899b078.jpg

Is Orginalism Bullshit?

Quote

Is Originalism Bullshit?

57 PagesPosted: 

Michael L. Smith

St. Mary's University School of Law

Date Written: March 5, 2024

Abstract

It’s finally time to answer the big question. This Article draws on the surprisingly robust literature examining the definition, essence, and significance of bullshit and evaluates whether originalist constitutional interpretation fits the bill. I begin with Harry Frankfurt’s definition of bullshit as utterances made in pursuit of the speaker’s goals without regard for their truth value. I also rely on alternate formulations, including bullshit as unclarifiable nonsense as well as contextual and audience-centric variations of bullshit. 

While not all instances of originalism are bullshit, I identify those instances which are, and go on to demonstrate that originalism is uniquely prone to bullshit as a result of institutional demands on those involved in constitutional disputes. When interpreters engage in historical analysis for purposes other than determining the correct original public meaning or original intentions, they veer into bullshit territory. An attorney who argues from selective historical research or citations designed to support his client’s case or a judge who relies on what she suspects may be incomplete party submissions but which are enough to reach the desired outcome are both engaging in bullshit originalism. 

Originalist bullshit is more likely in light of the Supreme Court urging parties to resolve complex historical questions with nothing more than party submissions, as well as originalists’ discounting of historians’ work. Ethical and institutional demands incentivize bullshitting—especially when these actors are working outside of their comfort zone by attempting to make arguments regarding historical meaning and tradition. Legal actors’ unfamiliarity with historical analysis also makes originalist bullshit harder to call out. This Article begins the task of calling out bullshit in originalist theory and practice. It also serves as a template for further work devoted to calling out bullshit elsewhere in the legal field. 

 

 

Keywords: originalism, bullshit, constitutional law, constitutional interpretation, lies, lying, history, legal practice, Supreme Court

 

I would like to subscribe to his newsletter

  • Author

Coming soon to the Supreme Court ….

 

For the record, political party affiliation of ex-cons:

“The survey was distributed in March 2020. Of White respondents, 36% identified as Republicans, 30% Independent, and 18% Democrats. Only 11% of Black respondents identified as Republicans, while 29% identified as Independent and 45% as Democrats.“

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2020/aug/1/survey-8000-prisoners-political-views-finds-surprising-results/

5 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

For the record, political party affiliation of ex-cons:

“The survey was distributed in March 2020. Of White respondents, 36% identified as Republicans, 30% Independent, and 18% Democrats. Only 11% of Black respondents identified as Republicans, while 29% identified as Independent and 45% as Democrats.“

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2020/aug/1/survey-8000-prisoners-political-views-finds-surprising-results/

Don’t tell fattie. 

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Don’t tell fattie. 

Yeah, but 99% of criminals are black [/fatty]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:48 AM, fattyflattie said:

Ackshully, he took umbrage with me saying rapists should never have a chance to rape again, and started his one liner goal post moving shit about false convictions.  Which leads me to believe he thinks they are worth giving a second chance. Which they are not.  Which further leads me to believe he’s ok with them serving their 10, and down ballot voting D until the next time they reoffend.   

Inconvenient that prison demographics pretty solidly align with D voters. But the demo is the demo.  

I’m so glad you have finally confirmed you won’t vote for Trump. 

6 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

I’m so glad you have finally confirmed you won’t vote for Trump. 

Fatty doesn't believe Donny is a rapist, b/c he'd gladly drop to his knees to service dotard at the drop of a hat. 

6 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Don’t tell fattie. 

That told me exactly what I expected.  

3 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

I’m so glad you have finally confirmed you won’t vote for Trump. 

I didn’t vote for Trump round 2 either.  So I’m also partially to blame for this country going to shit.  

55 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I didn’t vote for Trump round 2 either.  

giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952uxm37ito5d22btqwu3

55 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So I’m also partially to blame for this country going to shit.  

Yes, this country has gone to shit in the last 3 years.  Totally gone to shit.  How's your 401K doing?  Wait, don't tell me.  I don't really want to know.

Edited by DDD Dad

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

How's your 401K doing? 

Just fine, like everyone else’s since the mid-late 00’s. 

See Fatty make apparent uninformed comment about the political leanings of prisoners:

image.thumb.png.00962463173565c556e7fa6433364df4.png

 

image.thumb.png.e01ac7122ed88c82763631ee3e8a8c43.png

See Fatty confirm his uninformed opinion that all criminals are Dems and all Dems are criminals.

image.thumb.png.cb5e9a8ffd5636653b4fb7b75ef4386d.png

 

See data brought to the discussion.

image.thumb.png.3f046369c0bdfe7dd21cbe8c147ce73e.png

 

See Fatty not bothering to click link and do math.

image.thumb.png.afbc3c6fdfdd5865f65cd33ae56ac5dc.png

 

 

See link text, more data, and quick math showing a rough, even split among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. See Fatty being very wrong in his uninformed opinion that all criminals are Dems and all Dems are criminals.

Survey of 8,000 Prisoners’ Political Views Finds Surprising Results

The survey was inserted into The Marshall Project’s print publication, News Inside. It is distributed to more than 500 prisons and jails in the United States. The respondents racially identified themselves as: White 41%, Black 20%, Latino 14%, Native American 17%, Asian or other races 19%, and 8% did not provide information. Because respondents could choose more than one race, the total percentage exceeds 100%. Among the respondents, 57% said they had never cast a vote.

image.png.c696e16c64516658115638a5164c776e.png

 

Big news out of the Supreme Court this morning. Lindke v. Freed is out.

A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf

49 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Big news out of the Supreme Court this morning. Lindke v. Freed is out.

A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf

Interesting opinion, I don't think I have any major issue with it.  By the way, this is the type of relatively ordinary, down-the-middle shit that MOST federal courts need to deal with on a regular basis.  Yes, this one has a bit of an interesting angle because the First Amendment is always interesting, but it's an honest academic discussion and consideration.  The courts should stick to that, instead of participating in and facilitating an attempt to overthrown the fucking government or to impose a christofascist police state.  Just a suggestion from old Brisket here.

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The courts should stick to that, instead of participating in and facilitating an attempt to overthrown the fucking government or to impose a christofascist police state.  Just a suggestion from old Brisket here.

Best I can do is Gilead

9 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Supreme Court hearing cases from the 5th Circuit, on events that never happened. The judiciary is one huge banana court ….

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-conservatives-5th-circuit-dumb-case.html

It's not mentioned in that article and scarcely mentioned in other coverage, but much of the behavior they're bitching about in this case was during the Trump administration. They're basically just pretending that it was evil Biden looking to stifle conservative speech. 

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.