No more non-unanimous jury convictions: Alito accuses GOP colleagues of being cucks

[Mr. Reactionary]

Oh cool. This is definitely the outcome I wanted in tge case, although it arguably overturns multiple 20th century scotus opinions that accepted nonunanimous verdicts as Constitutional. Ah well, while this has little real world effect, its certainly good news.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Taking away somebody's freedom should be unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Alito is a damn fool to not see the obvious links in America's criminal justice system and white supremacy. You often wonder what these people learned in school. What books did they read? Are they willfully ignorant or simply ignorant? Very sad that somebody so blind or uncaring about America's history like Alito can make it to the highest court in the land.

Are you willing yet to condemn ALL racism? The other day you seemed blind and uncaring to about 80% of potential racism in the world so if you're going to impugn the motives of a Supreme Court justice as being icky racism, itd be nice for you to at the very least condemn ALL racism yourself. It seemed like a pretty easy request then and instead you changed the subject twice and then refused to answer. Its kind of hard to take someone inferring that a neutral argument is "racist" seriously, when that same person refuses to acknowledge that more than just 20% of the world is capable of racism.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Taking away somebody's freedom should be unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Alito is a damn fool to not see the obvious links in America's criminal justice system and white supremacy. You often wonder what these people learned in school. What books did they read? Are they willfully ignorant or simply ignorant? Very sad that somebody so blind or uncaring about America's history like Alito can make it to the highest court in the land.

Are you willing yet to condemn ALL racism? The other day you seemed blind and uncaring to about 80% of potential racism in the world so if you're going to impugn the motives of a Supreme Court justice as being icky racism, itd be nice for you to at the very least condemn ALL racism yourself. It seemed like a pretty easy request then and instead you changed the subject twice and then refused to answer. Its kind of hard to take someone inferring that a neutral argument is "racist" seriously, when that same person refuses to acknowledge that more than just 20% of the world is capable of racism.

 
 What on Earth are you babbling about?

From the thread on expelling students for off-premesis internet comments.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Taking away somebody's freedom should be unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Alito is a damn fool to not see the obvious links in America's criminal justice system and white supremacy. You often wonder what these people learned in school. What books did they read? Are they willfully ignorant or simply ignorant? Very sad that somebody so blind or uncaring about America's history like Alito can make it to the highest court in the land.

Are you willing yet to condemn ALL racism? The other day you seemed blind and uncaring to about 80% of potential racism in the world so if you're going to impugn the motives of a Supreme Court justice as being icky racism, itd be nice for you to at the very least condemn ALL racism yourself. It seemed like a pretty easy request then and instead you changed the subject twice and then refused to answer. Its kind of hard to take someone inferring that a neutral argument is "racist" seriously, when that same person refuses to acknowledge that more than just 20% of the world is capable of racism.

 
 What on Earth are you babbling about?

From the thread on expelling students for off-premesis internet comments.

From the thread on the expelled students for making a dehumanizing racist video against black people.

 What about it?

Hypothetically, if the 2 students had been say Samoan or Alaskan Inuit or something not white and did a Vine or whatever about 10 reasons why white people are devils, would you similarly demand that the public school expel them?

I guess like that (sat through 30 seconds and got bored) but with the Speaker being a minority and the targeted group being honkies. Should such a hypothetical minority student be expelled from public school for making the hypothetical video at home and posting it online with no identifying information about what school they attended? Asking for a friend.

Maybe? The news report talked over the video so I couldn't really make out what the student said. So what's your answer to the above hypothetical question (which is worded clearly enough without need for a real life example)?

BTW you must have forgotten to answer the above hypothetical question. It really isnt that hard.

I asked 4 times, and you dodged twice, ignored once, then never came back.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So does this repeal Oregon’s non-unanimous conviction law

Not automatically but because the precedent is set if they ever tried to rely on a nonunanimous verdict no court could ever uphold it without a tongue lashing from SCOTUS. Whats more likely to incorporate this is the inevitable sec. 1983 cases from persons already convicted or punished by nonunanimous verdicts and convicts seeking habeas or retrospective relief from a sentence imposed by nonunanimous verdicts. I doubt those succeed on the merits but there would assuredly be a finding by a court in Oregon that Oregon's law is prima facia unconstitutional which is all u really need.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Taking away somebody's freedom should be unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Alito is a damn fool to not see the obvious links in America's criminal justice system and white supremacy. You often wonder what these people learned in school. What books did they read? Are they willfully ignorant or simply ignorant? Very sad that somebody so blind or uncaring about America's history like Alito can make it to the highest court in the land.

Are you willing yet to condemn ALL racism? The other day you seemed blind and uncaring to about 80% of potential racism in the world so if you're going to impugn the motives of a Supreme Court justice as being icky racism, itd be nice for you to at the very least condemn ALL racism yourself. It seemed like a pretty easy request then and instead you changed the subject twice and then refused to answer. Its kind of hard to take someone inferring that a neutral argument is "racist" seriously, when that same person refuses to acknowledge that more than just 20% of the world is capable of racism.

 
 What on Earth are you babbling about?

From the thread on expelling students for off-premesis internet comments.

From the thread on the expelled students for making a dehumanizing racist video against black people.

 What about it?

Hypothetically, if the 2 students had been say Samoan or Alaskan Inuit or something not white and did a Vine or whatever about 10 reasons why white people are devils, would you similarly demand that the public school expel them?

I guess like that (sat through 30 seconds and got bored) but with the Speaker being a minority and the targeted group being honkies. Should such a hypothetical minority student be expelled from public school for making the hypothetical video at home and posting it online with no identifying information about what school they attended? Asking for a friend.

Maybe? The news report talked over the video so I couldn't really make out what the student said. So what's your answer to the above hypothetical question (which is worded clearly enough without need for a real life example)?

BTW you must have forgotten to answer the above hypothetical question. It really isnt that hard.

I asked 4 times, and you dodged twice, ignored once, then never came back.

Sorry buddy, I don't feed trolls.



Especially those with this image in their profile.

 You need to resolve your own racist feelings and paranoia. You're absolutely nobody to me that I have to massage your white fragility. In a thread where you minimize real world examples of racism, you have no standing to demand some blanket condemnation about hypothetical(your words) racism against whites. Your question is totally insulting and loaded with your own pre-conceived prejudices. That's your problem not mines. Please engage somebody else in this foolishness.

Ok then Ill ask the question, Im brown.

And to think, if he'd just said "yes" Id agree to disagree because at least he's consistent and drop the issue. But yeah, anyone who claims racial bias is literally the worst thing ever but only when 1 group representing like 20% of the world does it and if the other 80% do literally the exact same thing its NBD because magical privilege power, has NO credibility in calling out racism. There is no objective evidence Alitos desire to adhere to stare decisis was icky racism. To claim it is while simultaneously excusing potential racism from 80+% of the world demonstrates that any alleged concern about racism is merely partisan bluster.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Taking away somebody's freedom should be unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Alito is a damn fool to not see the obvious links in America's criminal justice system and white supremacy. You often wonder what these people learned in school. What books did they read? Are they willfully ignorant or simply ignorant? Very sad that somebody so blind or uncaring about America's history like Alito can make it to the highest court in the land.

Are you willing yet to condemn ALL racism? The other day you seemed blind and uncaring to about 80% of potential racism in the world so if you're going to impugn the motives of a Supreme Court justice as being icky racism, itd be nice for you to at the very least condemn ALL racism yourself. It seemed like a pretty easy request then and instead you changed the subject twice and then refused to answer. Its kind of hard to take someone inferring that a neutral argument is "racist" seriously, when that same person refuses to acknowledge that more than just 20% of the world is capable of racism.

 
 What on Earth are you babbling about?

From the thread on expelling students for off-premesis internet comments.

From the thread on the expelled students for making a dehumanizing racist video against black people.

 What about it?

Hypothetically, if the 2 students had been say Samoan or Alaskan Inuit or something not white and did a Vine or whatever about 10 reasons why white people are devils, would you similarly demand that the public school expel them?

I guess like that (sat through 30 seconds and got bored) but with the Speaker being a minority and the targeted group being honkies. Should such a hypothetical minority student be expelled from public school for making the hypothetical video at home and posting it online with no identifying information about what school they attended? Asking for a friend.

Maybe? The news report talked over the video so I couldn't really make out what the student said. So what's your answer to the above hypothetical question (which is worded clearly enough without need for a real life example)?

BTW you must have forgotten to answer the above hypothetical question. It really isnt that hard.

I asked 4 times, and you dodged twice, ignored once, then never came back.

The answer to your above-referenced questions, is if a non-white student of Samoan or whatever ethnicity you choose made a video similarly racist and derogatory towards Caucasians, they would deserve the same punishment. There is a school of thought that non-whites can be prejudiced but not racist, because racism by definition is the combination of Prejudice plus institutional power which non-whites fundamentally lack. I didn't agree with it in college and don't agree with it now, as do most progressives.

Thank you Badger. That's all I wanted to hear since it did come up in a discussion about how a specific category of Constitutionally protected speech is soooo terrible and harmful and bad that Constitution be damnned, it needs to be punished. Had he REALLY felt that way, hey, you can make that argument fairly even if I think your wrong. But yeah, demanding racist enforcement of racist speech fundamentally undermines the argument.

[Mr. Reactionary]

What happens in Puerto Rico?

This doesn't apply immediately. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) held there was no 6th amendment rights in Puerto Rico and the 6th Amendment has not been subsequently incorporated. Long term there is a school of legal thought (including myself) that think the insular cases dealing with rights in the territories were flat out wrong and need to be overturned. That would require additional SCOUTUS cases though.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Well this is a complicated one.

GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, III, and IV–B–1, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B, IV–B–2, and V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–A, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring as to all but Part IV–A. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined, and in which KAGAN, J., joined as to all but Part III–D.

Kagan done lost her mind.

Yes, what's III-D? I can't seem to find the Alito dissent in its entirety.

Here. Its towards the bottom.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf

Basically III-D was Alito explaining why he thought it was ok to overturn stare decisis in several recent cases over the last few years but that this case was different. As Kagan dissented in the cases cited by Alito (on stare decisis grounds) it makes sense that she wouldn't agree with that part.