5
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org 10 points 1 day ago

Hi @BevelGear - Could you clarify a bit what kind of discussion you're after by posting this? Also, most folks on Beehaw are probably not lawyers so posting a supreme court ruling without any commentary or clarification probably isn't the most conducive to good discussion.

[-] BevelGear@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago

It was an interesting document to skim through and wanted to share it for the curious. That is all.

I understand you would like discussion and I apologize for disappointing you.

[-] TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org 2 points 11 hours ago

Sorry if it seems like you're being scolded - that's not my intention. I think it's fine to post something like this, but maybe I'm the future a brief explanation of why you found it worth posting would be helpful to get the discussion started - either in the post body or a comment.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago

This is, at best, 17 months old. (That October 2023 overline makes things unclear.)

It's fine to point out older sources; dumping them without context isn't particularly useful. As a community, we're here to have conversations, which this post does not engender. It's not a matter of the topic, just that it's old and has no bearing on current events.

[-] BevelGear@beehaw.org 1 points 23 hours ago

Duly noted. I won't so it again.

[-] Midnitte@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago

What about this old case that probably won't result in anything because the SC has no integrity?

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
5 points (85.7% liked)

Politics

10678 readers
135 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS