Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

malice wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:No post on how the Supreme Court Marshal has informed Trump that articles of impeachment have been written up against him?

Louise Mensch said so at least.

fake, and completely wrong also. google it

I'm guessing Electro already knew that and was mocking Mensch.

malice wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

malice wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:No post on how the Supreme Court Marshal has informed Trump that articles of impeachment have been written up against him?

Louise Mensch said so at least.

fake, and completely wrong also. google it

I'm guessing Electro already knew that and was mocking Mensch.

you know, i just realized it was simpleschoolboy who posted that. For some dumb reason I thought it was dime

cutuphalfdead wrote:Do the right thing, SCOTUS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

cutuphalfdead wrote:Do the right thing, SCOTUS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Supreme Court strikes down law banning use of Facebook by registered sex offenders

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that bars the use of commercial social networking sites, including Facebook, by registered sex offenders.

A lower court upheld the law, but lawyers for Lester Gerard Packingham -- who is a registered sex offender -- say it is too broad and swept in their client even though his Facebook posting concerned the fact that his parking ticket was dismissed.
"No fine, no court costs, nothing spent... Praise be to God" he wrote.
After the office came upon the posting, Packingham was found guilty of violating the law that says "it is unlawful for a sex offender who is registered ...to access a commercial social networking site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking site."
North Carolina argues the law was passed to "confront the threat sexual predators pose to children."
Packingham's lawyers note that when they filed their petition Facebook had grown to 1.59 billion users. They argued the section of law at issue "imposes criminal punishment for activity fully protected under the First Amendment."
At oral arguments, David T. Goldberg said that the law reaches "vast swaths of core First Amendment activity that is totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose" and that it is "totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose." Goldberg noted that his client was not accused of communicating with or viewing the profile of a minor, but "speaking to his friends and family" about his experience in traffic court.
They maintained that the section of the law "is not narrowly tailored; it does not leave open ample alternative channels for the First Amendment activities it burdens; and it does not directly or effectively future the government's interests."

E.H. Ruddock wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/supreme-court-facebook-sex-offenders/index.html

Supreme Court strikes down law banning use of Facebook by registered sex offenders

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that bars the use of commercial social networking sites, including Facebook, by registered sex offenders.

A lower court upheld the law, but lawyers for Lester Gerard Packingham -- who is a registered sex offender -- say it is too broad and swept in their client even though his Facebook posting concerned the fact that his parking ticket was dismissed.
"No fine, no court costs, nothing spent... Praise be to God" he wrote.
After the office came upon the posting, Packingham was found guilty of violating the law that says "it is unlawful for a sex offender who is registered ...to access a commercial social networking site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking site."
North Carolina argues the law was passed to "confront the threat sexual predators pose to children."
Packingham's lawyers note that when they filed their petition Facebook had grown to 1.59 billion users. They argued the section of law at issue "imposes criminal punishment for activity fully protected under the First Amendment."
At oral arguments, David T. Goldberg said that the law reaches "vast swaths of core First Amendment activity that is totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose" and that it is "totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose." Goldberg noted that his client was not accused of communicating with or viewing the profile of a minor, but "speaking to his friends and family" about his experience in traffic court.
They maintained that the section of the law "is not narrowly tailored; it does not leave open ample alternative channels for the First Amendment activities it burdens; and it does not directly or effectively future the government's interests."

Green Habit wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/supreme-court-facebook-sex-offenders/index.html

Supreme Court strikes down law banning use of Facebook by registered sex offenders

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that bars the use of commercial social networking sites, including Facebook, by registered sex offenders.

A lower court upheld the law, but lawyers for Lester Gerard Packingham -- who is a registered sex offender -- say it is too broad and swept in their client even though his Facebook posting concerned the fact that his parking ticket was dismissed.
"No fine, no court costs, nothing spent... Praise be to God" he wrote.
After the office came upon the posting, Packingham was found guilty of violating the law that says "it is unlawful for a sex offender who is registered ...to access a commercial social networking site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking site."
North Carolina argues the law was passed to "confront the threat sexual predators pose to children."
Packingham's lawyers note that when they filed their petition Facebook had grown to 1.59 billion users. They argued the section of law at issue "imposes criminal punishment for activity fully protected under the First Amendment."
At oral arguments, David T. Goldberg said that the law reaches "vast swaths of core First Amendment activity that is totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose" and that it is "totally unrelated to the government's preventative purpose." Goldberg noted that his client was not accused of communicating with or viewing the profile of a minor, but "speaking to his friends and family" about his experience in traffic court.
They maintained that the section of the law "is not narrowly tailored; it does not leave open ample alternative channels for the First Amendment activities it burdens; and it does not directly or effectively future the government's interests."

Unpopular, but the correct opinion. Between this and The Slants case that also got decided today, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is one thing that this current incarnation of SCOTUS rarely gets wrong.

simple schoolboy wrote:This gets a link but not the Slants? Priorities people. =P

Simple Torture wrote:Anything to these Kennedy rumors you think, GH?

Green Habit wrote:Cert granted in the travel ban case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf

The Court is also going to reargue two immigration cases, and punted a third. Unfortunately, could be good news for Trump on this front...

Also, Sotomayor was really pissed at that Free Exercise Clause case I linked above. I'm going to have to read that closely.

Bi_3 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Cert granted in the travel ban case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_l6hc.pdf

The Court is also going to reargue two immigration cases, and punted a third. Unfortunately, could be good news for Trump on this front...

Also, Sotomayor was really pissed at that Free Exercise Clause case I linked above. I'm going to have to read that closely.

You disagree with the travel ban ruling or just dislike what it means for Trump going forward?