domain:parrhesia.co
anon_
1d ago
I think testing finding DNA evidence under the victim's fingernails that matches a guy convicted of rape would probably be fairly weighty evidence. Of course, to be weighed against everything else. Of course, that's a just-so manufactured scenario.
In this case, the perp confessed he was there to rob the victim and his co-conspirators went inside and murdered her instead. This appeals doesn't challenge his overall guilt for what happens, only whether he actually killed the victim or not. And that's relevant because the TX legislature (not a federal judge) specifically made that a precondition for the death penalty.
In other words, there is an actual factual question about what exactly this guy did.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Democrats failed to offer any organized opposition to Trump when he launched an illegal war
No they didn't - the fact that you falsely call it "illegal war" (it's not a war and it's completely legal) is owed solely to the organized effort of Democrat politicians and Democrat press. And it's working. It can't stop Trump - because, again, what he is doing is completely within his powers as the President and Commander of the military, so short of removing him from that position in some way, it is not possible to stop him from doing it - but it does what it intended to do, creates the false image of Trump violating the law.
anti_dan
1d ago
Without knowing specifics of a case, what the hell would DNA prove in a murder case? Did some guy shoot his own hand splattering the wall then shoot the victim?
This is why these sorts of appeals and objections are such BS. People just seize upon any possible avenue to delay an execution. Usually in such cases its not like there was a semen sample in the deceased vagina and he was convicted without testing done. Its obviously going to be some other thing.
anti_dan
1d ago
Well, this has happened to us once before, so using these two (which are similar) incidents, I don't think these food delivery people are just stealing all the food. From what I can tell, in both instances it was the last delivery of the day and they just had reached a breaking point where they wanted food. There was food. And this seemed like a way to get free food at that time. Both times it has happened to me were around 9:00 PM which is about the end of these apps delivery windows. Both times were also on Fridays.
So these people are generally okay employees most of the week (I suspect). And what they do is if at the end of their shift they think they can get away with something, they try it. And they do get away with it mostly because despite the prevalence of ring cameras, most people are too lazy to follow up and the companies can't really fire them for stealing 1/50 orders a week because the pool of replacement labor is even worse. She will probably eventually be fired if this is a pattern. But she will just move to a different delivery app at that point.
urquan
Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.
1d ago
My understanding is that, in addition to the physical component of masochism (some people really do find pain pleasurable -- maybe it's to do with mild endogenous painkillers released?), much of the interest in submission among people who swing that way is about surrendering control and shutting off your brain, just like you say. Humiliation is probably something else entirely. And frankly my politically-incorrect view is that people with humiliation kinks are people who truly believe they're inferior in some way and believe being placed in a situation where it's called out is just revealing and acknowledging a reality they already fear is true.
Hadad
1d ago
Yes, amnesty was entirely legal. It was also a disaster. It is but one of many reasons I no longer care if actions are lawful or not, merely whether they direct the country in the right direction.
anon_
1d ago
The fact that they let the nationwide injunction stand for another 30 days is likewise indicative of this.
anti_dan
1d ago
I will try but I have no idea how they work. We have had this happen one time before at our previous residence. The driver hung a bag over the fencing of the adjacent lot and took a picture then 3 minutes later I went to look for it and there was nothing. We never were told what happened in that case. I suspect unless I file my own police report (which I dont really have cause for because they fully refunded me) I would ever get any notice.
I know that on large purchases Amazon does file its own reports with local PD. But that is for over $1k at a single location, and then the PD will try to see if there is a camera and file charges. But for $50 of takeout we ordered because we both had really stressful Friday workdays? I doubt it.
anon_
1d ago
Gutierrez v. Saenz - Criminal Procedure. A lurid murder case gives rise to a pretty boring dispute about death-row inmates' standing to request post-conviction testing of DNA evidence. I can't really figure out the nuances of the Texas law at issue or the procedural history, but it looks like the Sotomayor-led majority thinks Gutierrez has standing; he has a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in the ability to request post-conviction DNA testing, even though the prosecutor apparently has both the right and the express intention to refuse that request in this case.[...] My read: SCOTUS lets a death-row inmate file a doomed, pointless post-conviction motion that doesn't have any hope of success but will probably delay his execution for a few more years (Gutierrez was convicted in 1998).
Alternative read: An enormous amount of capital appeals has been about everything except whether the defendant actually murdered someone. This Court in particular has had little patience for endless appeals regarding mental capacity, culpability, IQ, age, execution methods, history of abuse/neglect and all the other sentencing-phase stuff.
But now they are signaling that they are amenable to something like DNA that can (theoretically) be relevant to the actual verdict. The message seems to clearly tell the appellate folks what not to focus on.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
1d ago
Amnesty was an act of Congress signed by the President. The country was also a bit different then. We wanted the labor and felt compassion for people fleeing communist hell holes.
I'm not really arguing against ending birthright citizenship going forward given how much different the circumstances are now.
anti_dan
1d ago
Fully refunded + $10 on the platform my wife ordered through. Not worth my time to file a police report, but who knows what their policy is. If cops come in the next 30 days and ask for the footage I will have it.
jkf
1d ago
All of the effectiveness stats are 'effectiveness in use' -- so 'using' condoms includes 'yeah I use condoms but sometimes run out or whatever', just as 'using' the pill includes people who forget to take it, 'using' NFP includes 'but baby I need you now', and 'using' withdrawal includes... um, accidents.
anon_
1d ago
"Nationwide" or "universal" injunctions have been part of the playbook for activists' (especially progressive activists) lawfare for a long time. The idea is to find some sympathetic plaintiff who would be affected by a statute or executive action you don't like, shop around the whole country until you find a judge who agrees with you, and then get that judge--before the case has even been tried--to indefinitely prevent the government from applying the challenged law/regulation/action to anyone, anywhere in the country.
Oh short political memories. This was also the playbook of conservative activists, especially given that there are single-judge districts in the 5^th circuits with some very conservative jurists. You don't even have to shop them, you can 100% pick. And there were at least a dozen such nationwide injunctions against Biden-admin policies: Texas v. U.S (twice!), Louisiana v US, GA v US, NE v US Top Cop v Garland. Which was fair turnabout given Trump I given Obama (remember DACA and the DOL persuader rule, probably not) and so forth.
When there's next a D administration, it's gonna be short memories again, and everyone will trade places around a merry-go-round of pretending to be actually concerned about procedural matters. It's predictable and would be distressing except that I suppose we're all just numb to it now.
[ FWIW, if you care about my actual thoughts on the merits, I think the decision is fine. I would probably sign mostly onto Kav's concurrence which joins the opinion in full. ]
anon_
1d ago
Again, you can wish for a different Bruen.
how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century represented a critical tool of constitutional interpretation (internal quotes removed)
And
Second, we looked to “19th-century cases that interpreted the Second Amendment” and found that they “universally support an individual right” to keep and bear arms.
Bruen isn't a decision that grants you, personally, the precise 2A jurisprudence that you want.
Hadad
1d ago
It genuinely should be done. Amnesty was a mistake, generously; more cynically, it was treachery. Birthright citizenship is insane, and rewarding illegals for bleeding on our magic soil is deeply infuriating.
Hadad
1d ago
It's crazy on multiple levels. His age, like you said, but also that it's blatantly illegal.
This isn't crazy once you accept a not insignificant number of people -- an amount I perceive to be growing, not shrinking, with time -- believe the laws are already being routinely broken, including constitutional rights, with no penalty.
Sure, a third term's unconstitutional. So is the constant deprivation of my gun rights in blue states. I'm not convinced the third term rule is more important than the gun rule.
gattsuru
1d ago
Given that we could end up in situations where newborns in certain states acquire citizenship and other newborns don't, I would've thought the Supreme Court would issue a decision on birthright citizenship within the present term. Is it just that there's not enough time?
They don't have a current case on it; almost everything is early in preliminary process at the district or appeals level. The oral args brought up cases in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuit, there's no chance of the feds winning the 9th Circuit barring pod people, and the feds committed to requesting cert if they lost (for whatever a lawyer's promise is worth, lol). Bondi's statement, charitably, would involve a fast resolution to one of those cases, an October term hearing, and decisions months after that. This timeline might not give us an answer until Spring or Summer 2026 (although I think it'd be obvious before then).
But I don't think CASA prohibits all preliminary protections. The majority opinion openly invites class certification and class-wide relief, and the extent that the feds tried to argue against class certification during oral args was kinda a joke:
KAVANAUGH: If you were to oppose it, on what basis would you plausibly oppose [classwide certification]?
GENERAL SAUER: There may be problems of commonality and typicality, for example. For -- for example, there's two different sets of groups that are affected by the Executive Order. There are those where the mothers are temporarily present and those where the mother are illegally present, and in both cases, the father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. So there might be issues of typicality. Adequacy of representation might very well be an issue. So there would have to be that rigorous application of those criteria. Now the argument may be this is a case that is a natural candidate for a Rule 23(b)(2) certification. That may well be true. The government hasn't taken a position on that. Our position is not that class certification will necessarily be granted.
((I'm increasingly thinking SCOTUS picked such a broad case because the more grounded alternatives for preliminary relief are fairly straightforward.))
What are the chances that the Supreme Court actually strikes down birthright citizenship? My impression from the start was that this was always going to be a losing case given how far back the precedent goes, but I'm far from an expert.
It's pretty low. The legal arguments aren't as obviously wrong as at first glance, but they're still a long reach, and mixing that, the reliance interests, the seeing-as-a-state problems, everything like that... I don't want to say zero, because zero isn't a probability, but it's low low. I'd honestly consider 9-0 more likely than 6-3 or 7-2.
Hadad
1d ago
If Trump declared elections suspended tomorrow and proclaimed himself first emperor of America, he would have more supporters than Obama trying to run for a third term, and lots of his opponents would object less.
I'm not convinced this is true. I think Obama would absolutely cinch the vote if he ran for a third term, especially given the other options Democrats have to choose from.
Agreed on the headlines, though. Obama had significantly more earnest and intense elite buy in than Trump. They loved Obama as much as they hate the orange man.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
1d ago
First time hearing of a woman doing this. I usually only see videos of dysgenic looking men do it. Did you file a complain?
anti_dan
1d ago
I've been saying it for a while: it's gotten to a point where saying "having a kid out of wedlock is a bad idea" is left-coded.
Only to the extent that its a subset of "having kids is bad" which is a strong left coded meme. I think if you are to have a child the left generally would prefer it being out of wedlock.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
"Now, sure, every time in the last 200 years that a nation declared itself as enlightened atheists guided by pure reason they immediately proceeded with the worst atrocities yet visited upon man, but hey, what's religion got to do with anything?"
Which non-communist countries would these be? Because I think the single unifying trait you are ignoring here is communism.
You're better than this response, not least of all because your challenges were answered and you missed it in your haste to throw down the "tl;dr lol."
My response was not "tl;dr lol." You did not answer my challenges, you just keep insisting that Rome and China and the Weimar republic all fell for reasons they did not.
Avarice is self-evidently ruinous. Caprice was explained at the top:
Sure, but I could name a bunch of other ruinous traits also easily found in most countries in decline. This argument is specifically about whether it's control of women (or lack thereof) that is a unifying thread. You mentioned automation. I could mention that and a host of other economic, technological, and tribal concerns that probably figure much more prominently in any potential societal collapse than the "mistake" of letting women have sexual agency.
anti_dan
1d ago
Condoms are not used correctly, in practice, is my understanding of their failure rate. Contra @alexander_turok's assertions in the OP, condoms are, actually, the low class birth control option. If you aren't willing to go raw with a man you shouldn't even be pondering sex with them. And condoms are easy to sabotage both intentionally (hole pokes being most common) and inadvertently (heat, cold, old age, abrasion). Also, apparently there are application problems that are common specifically regarding looseness and tightness of fit which are vague memories I have from sophomore age sex ed.
So yeah, its birth control for dumb, untrustworthy, probably intoxicated people. Of course it doesnt work well.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
But the prohibition on ex post facto laws is about laws. The supreme court is not very consistent about when its declared constitutional rules apply retroactively, but the answer is not "never." To the extent individuals have gotten citizenship by birth due to the fourteenth amendment (rather than an act of Congress) such citizenship would be open to retroactive removal by the court.
This one's weird.
The law is probably reasonable enough or close to reasonable enough (if not necessarily my idea of well-designed), but the lower court just set it against rational basis review. Previous SCOTUS decisions either put restrictions on adult content either fully in strict scrutiny (Ashcroft I and II, where restrictions were on the basis of the content's adult nature) or rational basis (obscenity to minors, movie theatres). And strict scrutiny, at least in a free speech context, is ruinously hard to achieve, in ways that even Thomas probably doesn't want to water down. The closest obvious parallel in previous law was adult theatres, which was admittedly a pretty jank decision of its own by pretending it was separating the effects of the content from the content to justify rational basis review. But that'd be the same as no review at all.
I guess this case didn't fall close enough to the commercial speech restriction cases for the adult theatre side to be even remotely palatable? But it's Thomas, and his willingness to go to the bat for bizarrely aggressive paternalism (eg, en loco parentis) is one of the bits that's long been a go to, for better or worse. Instead, he reaches (through BSA v. Dale for some reason) to the draft-card burning regulations from US v. O'Brien, saying restrictions on speech here are incidental to restrictions on behavior, so intermediate scrutiny. From that view, it's not unreasonable.
Then Thomas differentiates it from the strict scrutiny CDA cases by saying those "effectively suppresse[d] a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive”. But the analysis is just limited to privacy concerns and stigma (aka, more privacy concerns). Yet these restrictions have potentially massive costs to speakers, not just receivers, on adult-content sites or even mixed-content that don't go up to that mark. Likewise, he tries to distinguish the CDA as regulating noncommercial sites that would not readily take up credit card processing, but HB1181 applies to all commercial entities, not just commercial sites. Burden can't drive level of scrutiny up, but this sort of perfunctory analysis gives little idea of what the actual analysis is, especially since intermediate review is a little ad hoc to start with.
Some of that burden review is probably because the Free Speech Coalition advocate comes across as kinda a nutcase during oral args. He mentions costs to site managers once in oral arguments and it's a stunning 40k USD per 100k users, and then spends much more of his time ranting about the motivations of anti-porn people. But then intermediate scrutiny's biggest bite is specifically in the prong of the O'Brien test that asks if the government interest is tied to the suppression of information, which is where the whole anti-porn thing rises anyway.
It rounds out to normal -- Thomas does everything short of wink-and-nod to say that pretextual restrictions on obscenity-to-minors that try to cover restrictions on adults are invalid -- but it's just such a bizarre way of getting there, and it's going to invite a lot of mess from lower courts.
Yeah, probably. I'm really skeptical that a DNA test with no return of Gutierrez's DNA from the few samples available would factually demonstrate that he was outside of the trailer (or for a positive result to have his advocates want him in the chair), and while I could kinda see the arguments for allowing it anyway, it's hard to care. There's a chance Texas will just punt on killing him, but it's Texas, so that's a real far outlier. The process and procedural stuff might matter for other cases, perhaps? The court just didn't like the lower courts ignoring past dicta?
More options
Context Copy link