Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Wait, this is the second 1184AZ vs. Peebs?!

I thought there were 3.

4 actually (although one was withdrawn within a few days).

[tmthforu94]

Bumping this in light of Suburban New Jersey Conservative v Tack50, MB, LouisvilleThunder, Adam Griffin.

[Former President tack50]

While the bump was in relation to another case, I'm kind of surprised the Supreme Court has taken no action on tack50 vs Wulfric; whether to dismiss or accept the case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

While the bump was in relation to another case, I'm kind of surprised the Supreme Court has taken no action on tack50 vs Wulfric; whether to dismiss or accept the case.

Now this is something that reminds me of 2013.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Honorable Justices,

I would like to ask for greater oversight on Discord. All of the above users, were involved in Discord discussions, which were to some extent, racist. They had said that immigrants have poor grammar, and compared someone's political views to the caste system, this was even more offensive, given that, that someone was Hindu. I would like for the justices to issue a broad ruling on this unregulated off-site messaging app. Since, Congress has already failed to take action, I feel that this is the only place, where action on this issue, can truly occur.

Thank you for your time,
SNJC

Is it just me, or does the plaintiff sound as if he is asking the Supreme Court to pass a new law banning racism?

[Former President tack50]

Honorable Justices,

I would like to ask for greater oversight on Discord. All of the above users, were involved in Discord discussions, which were to some extent, racist. They had said that immigrants have poor grammar, and compared someone's political views to the caste system, this was even more offensive, given that, that someone was Hindu. I would like for the justices to issue a broad ruling on this unregulated off-site messaging app. Since, Congress has already failed to take action, I feel that this is the only place, where action on this issue, can truly occur.

Thank you for your time,
SNJC

Is it just me, or does the plaintiff sound as if he is asking the Supreme Court to pass a new law banning racism?

From his later posts, I believe he is instead trying to get the Supreme Court to ban Discord lol

[Continential]

Honorable Justices,

I would like to ask for greater oversight on Discord. All of the above users, were involved in Discord discussions, which were to some extent, racist. They had said that immigrants have poor grammar, and compared someone's political views to the caste system, this was even more offensive, given that, that someone was Hindu. I would like for the justices to issue a broad ruling on this unregulated off-site messaging app. Since, Congress has already failed to take action, I feel that this is the only place, where action on this issue, can truly occur.

Thank you for your time,
SNJC

Is it just me, or does the plaintiff sound as if he is asking the Supreme Court to pass a new law banning racism?

From his later posts, I believe he is instead trying to get the Supreme Court to ban Discord lol

If it comes close to banning Discord, I'm friending everyone that seems active.

[ON Progressive]

Bumping this for discussion on the Dkrol v. Peanut Certiorari petition.

[Former President tack50]

Bumping this for further discussion of the Ben Kenobi cases.

Speaking of Ben Kenobi v Peebs, yesterday night I realized that Kenobi's case made no sense whatsoever as there is no possible remedy to what he is seeking. A civil case against Peebs should have been filed back in March when Kenobi was moved against his will, not now.

However, if Kenobi wants, a criminal case might make a bit more legal sense (still not much, but more sense). Peebs should not be sued civilly, but instead sued criminally for Misconduct in Public Office.

(h) Misconduct in Public Office. This offence shall be defined as the abuse of office for provable personal gain by cabinet officials or deputy cabinet officials.

Of course this has several problems:

1) The person in charge of the investigation and pressing charges would be Attorney General Truman as I believe private citizens can't sue criminally. I definitely can't imagine Truman suing Peebs unless there was a ton of evidence against her, and the evidence is flimsy at best considering all of Peebs' actions were 100% legal at the time. (Of course if the evidence was strong enough and he didn't handle this appropiately Truman could face impeachment or even be sued himself! This is not the case though, Truman should be safe.)

2) Ben Kenobi would be required to prove not just that Peebs abused her office; but that she did so for "provable personal gain". While I can think of some excuses to try and fulfill that requirement, they would be just that, excuses. I don't think there is a provable personal gain here.

Still; I would recommend Kenobi to go with the criminal angle rather than the civil one. That one would at least make legal sense instead of ending up with Ben Kenobi embarrasing himself in front of the Justices. It also has a 1% chance of getting Kenobi's desired outcome, as opposed to 0% with the curent case.

[Former President tack50]

I ask that Mr. Tack please be careful in making arguments around deregistration and the AZ vs Peebs case, for I do not want another unnecessary deregistration crisis on our hands.

For the record, it has never been my intention to create a possible crisis by my lawsuit. If the outcome somehow results in a huge mess and a huge crisis I will strongly and personally urge Congress to act as fast as possible to fix any issues.

I do think that is an unlikely situation though. Even under the worst dystopian endings I can think of, they are nowhere near game-breaking.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Here we go again.

[windjammer]

Don't worry,
Either the duel act gets struck down or not but that will be all.

[fhtagn]

My argument would be that duel losers are being stripped of their right to vote without due process and without their consent via forced deregistration

If someone participates in a duel and the conditions of said duel clearly state the one who loses must deregister for x period of time, they give their consent when they agree to the duel. Saying they are stripped of their right to vote without their consent is incorrect.

[Former President tack50]

My argument would be that duel losers are being stripped of their right to vote without due process and without their consent via forced deregistration

If someone participates in a duel and the conditions of said duel clearly state the one who loses must deregister for x period of time, they give their consent when they agree to the duel. Saying they are stripped of their right to vote without their consent is incorrect.

My point is that said condition is not a legally enforceable one. Dueling would still be legal through "gentlemen's agreement" kinds of deals; but that anything other than posting a "proper" deregistration post in the New Register thread is not a valid deregistration.

[Former President tack50]

I have to say, Suburban's new case is very underwhelming compared to his magnum opus in SNJC v. Tack50, MB, LT and Adam Griffin. Though maybe criminalizing Discord would have been for the better

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=320061.0

[Blair]

I actually like the cases that challenge law- the vast majority of cases have been election disputes and it's always a nice change of pace to have non-process cases

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=351962.msg7112046#msg7112046

The Supreme Court was surprisingly quick in dismissing Suburban's misunderstanding of what due process means.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Probably good to bump this just in case.

[Sestak]

Fwiw my instinctive guess here was that both the current cases being made would fail, with both the Lincoln and Southern laws being upheld. The current composition of the court is not really one that's particularly inclined to strike down lots of laws.

Questioning so far seems to be backing up that conclusion, though obviously there is still a lot of argument to be made.

[Pericles]

It doesn't seem like off-hand comments by one legislator in Lincoln (not representing the entire legislature and Governor of Lincoln) should be considered appropriate evidence by the Court. Plus, I thought fhtagn hated Discord leaks? In any case, the Supreme Court is not the appropriate venue for people to score political points against one another.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

It doesn't seem like off-hand comments by one legislator in Lincoln (not representing the entire legislature and Governor of Lincoln) should be considered appropriate evidence by the Court. Plus, I thought fhtagn hated Discord leaks? In any case, the Supreme Court is not the appropriate venue for people to score political points against one another.

There is the argument that the courts should not only consider the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law. And to understand the spirit of the law you must understand what the drafter of the law intended.

[S019]

It doesn't seem like off-hand comments by one legislator in Lincoln (not representing the entire legislature and Governor of Lincoln) should be considered appropriate evidence by the Court. Plus, I thought fhtagn hated Discord leaks? In any case, the Supreme Court is not the appropriate venue for people to score political points against one another.

I agree with this and those comments were taken out of context. But even if they weren't, they don't express the sentiments of Pragmatist_TNAG or then-Governor Jimmy7812, who also supported the bill. If they had objections to the bill, they would have voted it down. Fhtagn is clearly trying to score political points here and trying to use out of context comments from one person to say that everyone who supported the bill had bad intentions.

[Former President tack50]

On a sidenote from my case, I will note that Roe v. ZuWo (2016) is not the only court case in Atlasian history dealing with abortion, even if it is the one that is more directly tied to it.

The extremely old court case of Bono v. Atlasia I (2005) also dealt with abortion (and pregnancy in general), with a similar outcome to that of Roe v. ZuWo; although at the time it was much more tied to the issue of whether the federal government was a government of limited enumerated powers or not; given how badly written the First Constitution was.

I actually planned initially to use that case to justify the standing of my client, but after reading that case more in-depth I realized I could not use it for that purpose (plus the court gave certiorari anyways by the time I realized that).

[cinyc]

Does the court allow lawsuits in languages other than English? dfwlibertylover vs. Peebs is just weird. It doesn't even make sense after Google Translating it.

What is the argument? That you're eligible to vote in a Federal Election as long as you're a member of a party? That's just stupid, and would discriminate against Independents like me.

Anyway, I hope the court tosses the lawsuit.

[FairBol]

Not seeing much activity re Politics Fan v The South.  Wondering how close we might be to a ruling.