POTUS or Prisoner; The '24 Trump Campaign Fvckery thread

GnauzBookOfRhymes

GnauzBookOfRhymes

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
12,451
Reputation
2,832
Daps
47,781
Reppin
NULL
BigMoneyGrip said:
Disney will appeal….

A Trump appointee lmaoo
Click to expand...

The crazy part is that ignoring legislative history is standard right wing jurisprudence. It's not even "trumpian" in the sense that it's way outside the norm for them. It's one of the main strategies right wingers have used to narrowly construe laws passed by Congress they don't like. They call it "textualism." Pure BS of course. The idea that you would ignore all of the debates, testimony etc that took place during the drafting/voting of a bill to try and discern the intent seems crazy to normal people but it's one of the conservative movements greatest legal victories in modern history.
 
Spidey Man

Spidey Man

Superstar
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
8,720
Reputation
840
Daps
25,080
Reppin
NULL
GnauzBookOfRhymes said:
I don't give a fukk about Cotton but anyone questioning tiktoks connections to the Chinese government and by extension their intelligence agencies etc is an idiot. That is obvious.
Click to expand...

It's fair to question the connection between the Chinese gov and tiktok, but everybody on that panel was given biographic data on the witnesses and he mentioned once that he wasn't Chinese. Cotton was just being racist just to be racist
 
B

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
51,804
Reputation
7,926
Daps
148,696
SubZeroDegrees said:
Click to expand...


Bing AI explanation:
Sure, let’s break down the text in the image you provided:
  1. Disney lacks standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary: This means that Disney doesn’t have the legal right to file a lawsuit against the Governor or the Secretary. In legal terms, “standing” refers to a party’s right to bring a lawsuit because they were directly harmed by the actions or circumstances the lawsuit is about.
  2. Claims against the CFTOD Defendants fail on the merits: This means that Disney’s complaints or accusations against the CFTOD Defendants aren’t strong enough to win the case. “On the merits” means the judge made the decision based on the facts of the case, not on a technicality.
  3. Facially constitutional: This means that on the surface, the law appears to follow the constitution. So, it doesn’t violate any constitutional rights or principles.
  4. Free-speech challenge… constitutionally impermissible purpose: This means you can’t argue that a law violates free speech rights just because you believe the people who made the law had bad or unconstitutional intentions. The reference to “In re Hubbard” is a court case that supports this statement.
In simpler terms, the text is saying that Disney can’t sue the Governor or the Secretary because it doesn’t have the legal right to. Also, Disney’s complaints against the CFTOD Defendants don’t hold up because they’re based on a law that follows the constitution. So, even if Disney argues that the people who made this law had bad intentions, it doesn’t matter because you can’t challenge a law for free speech reasons just by saying those who created it had unconstitutional motives.
Click to expand...


Sure, let’s simplify and elaborate on the text in the image:
  1. Courts shouldn’t look to a law’s legislative history to find an illegitimate motivation for an otherwise constitutional statute: This means that if a law is constitutional (meaning it doesn’t violate any part of the constitution), judges should not investigate the reasons or motivations behind the creation of the law to find any improper intentions.
  2. NetChoice, 34 F.4th at 1224 (citing Hubbard): This is a reference to a legal case that supports the above statement. Legal cases are often cited in this way to provide evidence or precedent for a point being made.
  3. Because that is what Disney seeks here, its claim fails as a matter of law: This means that Disney tried to challenge a law by looking into the motivations behind it. But because the law is constitutional, this kind of challenge isn’t allowed. So, Disney’s legal claim was not successful.
In simpler terms, the text is saying that according to the law, judges should not investigate the reasons behind the creation of a law to find any improper intentions if the law itself is constitutional. It cites a case to support this point. The text then mentions that Disney tried to do exactly this - look into the motivations behind a law - and because of that, their legal claim was not successful.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top