The Supreme Court

[simple schoolboy]

but the issue is not the graphic depicting a rice-paddy ch*nk stereotype?

asking for a self-loathing white cis friend

"Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined VC! Anyone with Chibi eyes is a VC Major! You should do a story about me sometime!"

[simple schoolboy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-decide-if-trademark-protection-can-be-denied-to-scandalous-brands/2019/01/04/83c18948-1061-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.c4feea608177

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.

“The scandalous-marks provision does not prohibit any speech, proscribe any conduct, or restrict the use of any trademark. Nor does it restrict a mark owner’s common-law trademark protections,” Francisco wrote. “Rather, it simply directs the USPTO to refuse, on a viewpoint-neutral basis, to provide the benefits of federal registration to scandalous marks.”

But the Supreme Court in 2017 ruled unanimously that another part of the trademark law — one that banned registering trademarks that were considered “disparaging”— violated the First Amendment.

That ruling, Matal v. Tam, came in a case that involved an Asian American rock group called the Slants, which tried to register the band’s name in 2011. The band was turned down by the USPTO because officials said it was likely to offend Asian Americans.

heh, FUCT.

This aspiring business will be keen[e]ly watching this case.

Between this and the Slants case (presuming FUCT prevails) what would be the standard for refusing trademarks?

[Bi_3]

The RBG situation is not looking good.

[96583UP]

can't wait for ginsburg to announce she has 8 days to live and then Karl Rove gets sworn in

[Bi_3]

Supreme Court 2020: Dis suit’s tossed tonight, you can build dat thick ass wall tonight
President: thanks Justice Ye!

[Simple Torture]

The RBG situation is not looking good.

Some reports this morning that the White House is already putting together a short list of replacements. People need to start girding themselves for this now, because it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

[Bi_3]

The RBG situation is not looking good.

Some reports this morning that the White House is already putting together a short list of replacements. People need to start girding themselves for this now, because it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

Warm up the [tweet][/tweet], you know who is gonna drown this thread.

Spoiler: show

(love you McP).

[B]

14 months and Mitch McConnell will refuse to interview replacements until the people have a chance to vote.

[McParadigm]

The RBG situation is not looking good.

Some reports this morning that the White House is already putting together a short list of replacements. People need to start girding themselves for this now, because it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

Warm up the [tweet][/tweet], you know who is gonna drown this thread.

Spoiler: show

(love you McP).

I just rock in the tree tops all day long, hoppin' and a-boppin' and singin my song

[Simple Torture]

[Bi_3]

[Green Habit]

Everyone's talking today about SCOTUS refusing to stay Trump's trans ban in the military, but what alarmed me more was the right wing signaling that they're interested in reversing Employment Division v. Smith. That would be a disaster waiting to happen.

[bune]

That does seem oddly specific.

[B]

No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?

[epilogue]

No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?

I mean...

[4/5]

No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?

From what I read it sounded like this Louisiana law is virtually identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. If that's the case it's interesting that a circuit court voted to upheld this law.

In the 2016 case Roberts dissented and Kennedy was still on the Court. So if the Supreme Court does hear this case it isn't hard to envision a 5-4 opinion reversing Hellerstedt (the Texas case) if Roberts rules the same way and Kavanaugh and Gorsuch rule in favor of it. (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both voted to allow the LA law to go into effect as it is reviewed, while Roberts ruled with the 4 liberals to issue a stay.)

It's definitely a case to watch. I could be wrong, but I believe that only the Supreme Court is left, so if they end up not hearing the case it would allow the law to go into effect. If they heard the case they could follow 2016's precedent and strike it down, or they could obviously go the other way and reverse Hellerstedt.

[Green Habit]

[Green Habit]

No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?

I guess I shouldn't have forgotten about commenting on this.

My simple read is that Roberts wants to slow down the train on any sort of vote that could significantly curtail Roe or the right to an abortion in general, knowing how hot button of an issue it is--perhaps the most hot button of them all.

[Green Habit]

Thomas wants to junk the actual malice requirement against public figures that must be satisfied in order for a defamation lawsuit against them to pass First Amendment muster. He cleverly uses such a suit against Bill Cosby to make this case. (Starts at page 45 on this order list.)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_2dp3.pdf

I agree that this double standard should be junked. Either subject all defamation cases to the actual malice standard, or subject none of them to it.

[Bi_3]

Thomas wants to junk the actual malice requirement against public figures that must be satisfied in order for a defamation lawsuit against them to pass First Amendment muster. He cleverly uses such a suit against Bill Cosby to make this case. (Starts at page 45 on this order list.)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_2dp3.pdf

I agree that this double standard should be junked. Either subject all defamation cases to the actual malice standard, or subject none of them to it.

You aren’t worried that would lead to silencing dissent?