#preclusive

[boreal-sea]

Putting this as a meme so maybe y'all will actually read it.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

And this is why we cannot let Trump win another term: he now has complete immunity for any acts he "officially" performs as president. You thought he was bad before? Now he will have zero fear. He will do whatever he wants. And what he wants is outlined in Project 2025.

[thellawtoknow]

Res Judicata: What is Claim Preclusion

The Definition of Res Judicata The Purpose of Res Judicata Elements of Res Judicata1. A Final Judgment on the Merits 2. Same Parties or Parties in Privity 3. Same Claim or Cause of Action Claim Preclusion vs. Issue Preclusion Exceptions to Res Judicata1. Fraud or Misrepresentation 2. Lack of Jurisdiction 3. Change in Law Real-World Examples of Res Judicata Conclusion What is Res Judicata? Understanding the Legal Doctrine of "Claim Preclusion" In the legal world, many doctrines help maintain efficiency, fairness, and finality in litigation. Among these, Res Judicata stands as a fundamental principle that protects both courts and litigants from endless legal battles over the same issues. Often referred to as "claim preclusion," Res Judicata prevents the re-litigation of cases that have already been conclusively resolved.

The Definition of Res Judicata Res Judicata is a Latin term that translates to "a matter judged." In essence, once a court has delivered a final judgment on a matter, the same parties cannot bring a lawsuit again on the same claim or any other claim arising out of the same set of facts. It ensures that decisions are binding and conclusive, fostering legal certainty and preventing repetitive litigation. The Purpose of Res Judicata The doctrine of Res Judicata serves several key purposes: - Judicial Efficiency: Courts have limited resources, and allowing the same case to be brought repeatedly would clog the legal system. Res Judicata ensures that once a matter is decided, the courts can move on to new cases. - Fairness to Litigants: It is fundamentally unfair to require a person to defend against the same claim multiple times. This doctrine gives closure to both plaintiffs and defendants, allowing them to move on after a final judgment. - Consistency and Finality: By enforcing Res Judicata, legal systems maintain consistency in judgments, ensuring that once a matter is decided, it remains settled. Elements of Res Judicata For the doctrine of Res Judicata to apply, certain essential criteria must be satisfied. These elements ensure that the finality of litigation is upheld and that parties are not subjected to repetitive lawsuits on the same issues. Let’s examine these elements in greater detail: 1. A Final Judgment on the Merits For Res Judicata to take effect, the prior lawsuit must have resulted in a final, legally binding decision by a competent court. This judgment must be on the merits of the case, meaning the court must have addressed the substantive issues involved and rendered a resolution, not merely dismissed the case on procedural grounds. - Finality: The judgment must be conclusive, meaning that the legal process has been exhausted or that the window for appeals has closed. Without finality, there is no certainty in the outcome, and thus, Res Judicata cannot bar future litigation. - On the Merits: The court's decision must pertain to the substantive legal and factual issues presented. Dismissals on procedural grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction or improper filing, do not count as decisions on the merits and would not invoke Res Judicata. For instance, if a case is dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired, this might not qualify as a decision on the merits. 2. Same Parties or Parties in Privity Res Judicata applies only when the parties in both the previous and current cases are the same or are in legal privity. Privity refers to a close relationship between parties, where one party’s legal interests are sufficiently aligned with another’s that a judgment affecting one party should also apply to the other. - Same Parties: In most cases, the doctrine prevents re-litigation only between the exact same parties. For instance, if Party A sues Party B for breach of contract and loses, Party A cannot bring the same claim against Party B again in the future. - Privity: In some instances, individuals or entities not directly involved in the earlier case may still be bound by the outcome if they are in privity with a party from the original lawsuit. Privity might exist between a corporation and its shareholders, between trustees and beneficiaries, or between heirs and their decedent’s estate. 3. Same Claim or Cause of Action The current lawsuit must involve the same claim or cause of action that was decided in the earlier litigation. The “same claim” does not necessarily refer to the exact legal theory but the core set of facts and circumstances out of which the claim arose. - Same Transaction or Occurrence: Courts often apply a “transactional test” to determine if two cases arise from the same transaction or occurrence. If both lawsuits are based on the same set of facts, then Res Judicata may bar the second lawsuit, even if the legal theories differ. For example, if a person sues for damages resulting from a car accident and loses, they cannot later bring a new lawsuit for personal injury arising out of that same accident. - All Claims That Could Have Been Raised: Importantly, Res Judicata bars not only claims that were actually raised in the earlier case but also those that could have been raised. If a plaintiff had the opportunity to assert a particular claim but chose not to, they cannot later bring that claim in a separate lawsuit. This element is designed to prevent piecemeal litigation and to ensure that all issues arising from a single transaction are dealt with in a single proceeding. Claim Preclusion vs. Issue Preclusion Res Judicata (claim preclusion) is often confused with collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), but they serve different functions in the judicial system. While both doctrines are designed to prevent redundant litigation, they apply in distinct ways: - Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata): This doctrine prevents an entire claim or cause of action from being litigated again between the same parties once a final judgment has been rendered. This includes not only the claims that were raised in the original lawsuit but also those that could have been raised. - Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel): This doctrine prevents a specific issue that was already decided in the previous case from being re-litigated, even if the current lawsuit involves a different cause of action. For example, if a court decides that a particular contract clause is valid in one case, that issue cannot be contested in subsequent litigation between the same parties, even if the new lawsuit is based on a different breach of the same contract. Exceptions to Res Judicata While Res Judicata is a strict doctrine designed to protect the finality of judgments, there are notable exceptions that allow a previously settled case to be revisited under certain circumstances: 1. Fraud or Misrepresentation If it is discovered that a judgment was obtained through fraudulent means or through material misrepresentation, the losing party may seek to have the judgment overturned. Fraud could include falsified evidence or dishonest testimony that was critical to the outcome of the original case. - Example: If a party wins a lawsuit by presenting false documents, the opposing party may later challenge the judgment on the basis of fraud, potentially reopening the case despite the doctrine of Res Judicata. 2. Lack of Jurisdiction A fundamental requirement for any judgment is that the court must have proper jurisdiction over the case and the parties involved. If a court lacked either subject-matter jurisdiction (the authority to hear the type of case) or personal jurisdiction (the authority over the involved parties), the judgment may be deemed void. In such cases, Res Judicata would not apply. - Example: If a state court improperly ruled on a matter that should have been heard by a federal court, the judgment could be challenged, and Res Judicata would not bar future litigation on the same claim in the proper court. 3. Change in Law In rare cases, a substantial change in the law or legal landscape might provide grounds for a party to revisit a previously decided claim. However, courts are cautious when applying this exception, as allowing cases to be reopened based on new interpretations of the law could undermine the stability and finality that Res Judicata aims to provide. - Example: If a major Supreme Court ruling changes the legal standards applicable to a particular type of claim, a party might argue that they should be permitted to re-litigate their case under the new legal framework. The elements of Res Judicata are designed to uphold the finality of judgments while balancing fairness to the litigants involved. Understanding the requirements—such as the necessity of a final judgment on the merits, the involvement of the same parties, and the presence of the same claims—is crucial for both legal professionals and individuals involved in litigation. At the same time, recognizing the exceptions to the doctrine provides insight into when it may be possible to revisit a settled case, ensuring that justice is upheld in exceptional circumstances. Real-World Examples of Res Judicata Res Judicata plays a critical role in many legal systems around the world. For example: - In a civil dispute over breach of contract, if a court rules in favor of one party, the losing party cannot bring another lawsuit later, alleging the same breach of contract based on the same facts. - In tort law, if a person sues for personal injury damages from a car accident and loses, they cannot later file a new lawsuit for different types of damages arising from the same accident. Conclusion Res Judicata is a cornerstone of legal doctrine that upholds the finality and efficiency of judicial decisions. By preventing the endless re-litigation of resolved claims, it safeguards both the integrity of the court system and the rights of individuals. Understanding Res Judicata is essential for both legal practitioners and anyone involved in litigation, as it is a powerful tool that ensures justice is served only once for the same issue. Read the full article

[probablyasocialecologist]

Disco Elysium's setting was formerly the site of a communist revolution that established the Commune of Revachol. It didn't last long. The Coalition of Nations brutally put the communists down, divided the city among themselves, and enforced a free market capitalist system. The results are depressingly apparent in Revachol's dilapidated district of Martinaise. "The literacy rate is around 45% west of the river," Joyce Messier, a negotiator sent to parley with Martinaise's striking union, tells our protagonist. "Fifty years of occupation have left these people in an *oblivion* of poverty." This state of affairs is overseen by the Moralist International, a union of centre-left and centre-right parties that professes to represent the cause of humanism, but whose primary concern is transparently the preservation of capitalist interest – a Coalition official happily tells us that "the Coalition is only looking out for *ze price stabilitié*", arguing that inflation in Revachol must be prevented, comparing it to a heart disease that could block the "normal circulation of the economy". The people of Revachol don't matter. Their suffering and oppression is only significant as a necessary symptom of the system functioning as intended.  The most biting aspect of this critique of capitalist exploitation can be found in the cynicism of those who represent Moralism, or at least, its interests. The aforementioned Joyce Messier is its perfect embodiment. She does not believe in the facade of humanity Moralism presents to the world, and is under no illusions about what it has done to the people of Martinaise. She tells you how bad things are, freely admitting that the pieces of legislation put in place by the Moralist Coalition to govern Revachol are there to keep "the city in a [...] laissez-faire stasis to the benefit of foreign capital". This corrosion of belief via cynicism, this depiction of a system that continues to operate unimpeded despite few believing in it, feels all too familiar.  This critique of liberal capitalism's hypocrisy, cynicism, exploitation and deep-rooted connections to colonialism, is particularly powerful in recognising the precarious position it finds itself in. It has reached a stasis that seems, paradoxically, both insurmountable, and on the verge of collapse. Moralism relies on this contradiction. It's unofficial motto, "for a moment, there was hope", underlines the degree to which its dominance depends on the preclusion of the idea that a better world is possible, that there is no alternative, echoing the End of History sentiment that created the (rapidly disintegrating) political consensus of our lived reality. Despite growing dissatisfaction with the status quo in the real world, it has, indeed, proved difficult to imagine an alternative. The oft-repeated phrase attributed to literary critic and political theorist Fredric Jameson, that is is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is the end of capitalism, has almost become a cliché. However, the mistake Joyce makes, and one that we should avoid, is to assume that this means an alternative won't emerge nonetheless.

[...]

In a world where everyone is encouraged to look out for themselves, Disco Elysium suggests we should remember the value of collectivity, camaraderie and community. The Deserter has forgotten that though the communism he identified with is dead, the values that brought people to its cause in search of a better world remain as valid as ever. Bleak as it is, those values exist in Martinaise. They exist in us. Their latent power has the potential to lead us towards better horizons. 

[mangofresca]

luminary

He isn’t sure where it comes from, but it’s an urge that rises suddenly, all-consumingly, with no hunger or warning to prelude it, like a countdown placed upon his life only seen as it hits zero—a flash of red, and suddenly every second ticking by is another second too late, another moment lost.

Lovino is smiling so brightly that the simmering heat of Agrigento’s summer seems more akin to the frigid winds of winter. He’s laughing—not a snort, not the contrite brush aside or sardonic smirk he gets when he thinks he’s being clever—head thrown back and shoulders shaking with mirth.

Alfred forgets how to speak, how to think or move or breathe, forgets everything except how to stare—gawk, his brain helpfully supplies, very obviously—regarding Lovino as if he was the one to paint the stars across the sky, to sprinkle indigo and amethyst across the midnight horizon, to use hardened hands to cradle the sun and bring lighted warmth to the world. As if he was something beautiful, ethereal, untouchable.

Except, he’s not; he’s not untouchable in the way Alfred previously perceived him to be, distanced by water and antiquity and a complex Lovino tends to wear like his own form of bastardized battle armor. He is there, right there, laughing, and Alfred wants to reach out a hand and–

And.

He’s touching Lovino’s face before he’s even thought the action through, before he’s even realized he’s done it, cupping his hand around the swell of a cheek and feeling the heat of it still flushed with laughter and wondrously-worn glee. He feels the expression under his palm calm as that smile fades, replaced instead with slowly-dawning confusion, soft in its perplexity, and he traces his thumb across the dip of Lovino’s under-eye, if only to savor the way those dark eyelashes flutter.

“Alfred?” Lovino asks, painfully sincere, with a tone that melds between a question and vague, befuddled acknowledgement. His eyes are wide. He does not move away.

“Would it be cool if I kissed you right now?” It’s a reply in the technical sense, an answer to a question that had seemingly been hanging in the air for longer than he realized. His own voice is startlingly soft considering the pressing urgency he feels tugging at his gut, his hands, his tongue, like if he can’t have this nownownow he’ll die, starved, stripped of life before he’d even realized he was bleeding.

Lovino gapes at him, blinking slowly. The cheek beneath Alfred’s palm burns warm, and he almost expected Lovino to blush, to feel skin stain itself scarlet beneath the pads of his fingers. He wonders if he should ask why it doesn’t.

There’s a moment where hazel eyes flick from his down to his lips before rising again, and Lovino makes a noise in the back of his throat like a hum, a huh, like he’s realized something about himself and the world and the universe. Like the knowledge of whatever it is has only just settled, and now he must contend with life now that he has it.

He blinks at Alfred again. “Yeah.”

He says it like it’s easy, like it’s always been easy, like permission would have always been granted had Alfred ever had the wherewithal to ask. Alfred files that away for later, wondering, not for the first time, if he missed something in the tones of Lovino’s voice, if something else existed in the recesses of cutting words and huffed musings and trite insults that were never really all that insulting to begin with. But that’s for another time, or maybe never, because Alfred never really cared to indulge in worries and preclusions, and Lovino is too good to be wasted on half-baked ruminations when the now was so much better.

Lovino says it like it’s easy, and when Alfred ducks his head down and leans in, it certainly feels easy, easier than maybe he expected. It feels like old nights spent tucked beneath the dim lights of New York speakeasies, of hushed conversations held in the stacks of his library, like something big and bright and cosmic had settled off somewhere far away, a revelation exploding in the periphery of his universe, vast and grand in its own private corner.

Lovino’s hand settles boldly on his shoulder, fingers brushing the hairline at the back of his neck, and Alfred can feel every inch of it burn through his clothes. Lovino tastes like vintage wine and the cigarette he had been smoking not ten minutes ago, and even though Alfred hates the smell, he thinks he can learn to like the taste if it’s been tempered by sweet reds and the natural soft of Lovino’s tongue brushing past his lips. Alfred feels Lovino’s cheek move beneath his palm, and he doesn’t quite get why until he realizes that Lovino is smiling, pulling away enough that they look like two kids grinning into each other’s mouths, lost and dumb and found.

“Been wanting to do that for a while?” Lovino sounds smug, but his eyes are bright, sparkly, pretty, his hand fisting the back of Alfred’s shirt.

For a moment, Alfred thinks, if you count eighty seconds ago a while, sure, but that doesn’t seem right, isn’t right, and Alfred can feel certain pieces of their histories click into place—not any sort of life-altering change, but instead something soft, the clink of a plate placed in front of him on the nights when he wouldn’t bother with sleep, the fresh scent of pasta and garlic bread the only thing to bring him back into his own body, the reminder that he existed within the scope of four walls, the person as well as the land.

Lovino is so close, close enough for Alfred to feel the tickle of his bangs against his forehead, and suddenly every word and every gaze and every laugh pulled from scowling lips all align and glimmer like radiant galaxies, all with Lovino at the center.

“Nah,” he says, grinning at the eye roll. “Just thought of it now.” But that doesn’t stop him from doing it again.

[empty-movement]

Are you guys still doing essay submissions?

And are there any specific preclusions to who can or cannot submit one?

Happy christmas

We are! Being as they are still ~hand coded~ into the site, they don't always get uploaded right away, but there are actually new ones on the site right now!

They can be submitted to emptymovement (at) gmail (dot) com, and there aren't any preclusions or such per se, but there is a submission guide on the site as well that covers the general expectations. In short: it just needs to make sense as a coherent essay. We don't necessarily have to agree with its takes, there are essays on EM that we don't really agree with, but no TERFy radfem shit please, we're very over all that.

[mightyflamethrower]

Trump Wins: Supreme Court Says Presidents Covered by Limited Immunity

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion for the Court’s conservative majority, said:

This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic. … The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the Court’s three liberals in dissent, writing:

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

The case will now be remanded, and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., relating to the Capitol riot of January 6.

[columboscreens]

I hope it isnt rude or presumptuous of me to barge in and vent, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on Columbos family. I just finished "no time to die" and I can't get over how bad that episode was. Maybe its me and my headcanons getting in the way but No Way is he from a family of cops. And not a single one of them sounds like they're Italian or new yorkers the blasphemy! To me that mans from an Jewish immigrant family, and proud of it.

combined with:

yeah the whole "family of cops" thing in no time to die came off as cheesy, contrived 90s copaganda, so i just kind of ignore it. it's hardly canon, so feel free to do the same! i picture columbo with a big, loud, italian family myself, in which he's just about the only cop.

I will say though, i actually totally agree that he comes off as more jewish than not. columbo is, in canon, a good little italian boy married to a catholic woman, so the natural assumption is that he, too, is catholic. but peter falk was a very organic, naturalistic actor--as a student of sanford meisner, his primary acting imperative was to live and behave truthfully to the self under imaginary circumstances. so for someone who was barely religious himself in the way "cultural jews" tend to be...

what i'd pay to hear the words "had the fuckin bar mitzvah'" come out of that man's mouth

...to me, falk's "truthful self" is just so jewish to his core that, because he puts so much of himself into the character, it bleeds clean through to columbo, and we get all these jewish mannerisms out of the supposed catholic! (jews, of course, have a rich and historic presence in italy, so there's no preclusion on that front.)

once you notice the little things, you can't stop. his phrasings, his gestures, the ways he interacts with others, his boiled eggs, his gastrointestinal sensitivity, even his sense of humor.

chag pesach sameach

there are, of course, more substantial pieces of evidence than ordering chinese food for his extended family or needing an antacid every time he eats too quickly. i'm not jewish myself, but i grew up in a very jewish neighborhood, had more jewish than gentile friends growing up, and my partner of seven years is jewish. to me, what really codes columbo as a jewish man is how well he embodies many aspects of specifically jewish ethos.

being honorable, sensitive, and humble, he's the ideal mensch. one tenet strongly prioritized in judaism is tzedek, or one's ethical obligation to righteousness, equity, and compassion. he is both moved by suffering and tenaciously committed to justice.

jews hold the deepest respect for both religious and civil law, and you will note that columbo is neither an outsider nor a vigilante--he is a sanctioned agent of the legal system respecting and following the process of the law in his pursuit of murderers. he functions within it, sometimes in spite of it, but not outside of it. when he gets creative, he toes, but never quite crosses the line.

he thinks for himself and thus has a strong moral compass; he treats everyone with kindness and empathizes readily with individual struggle. he is patient, courageous, and clever--all particularly valued qualities in judaism.

(rakish semitic looks aside)

paramount is columbo's intellectual curiosity, love of learning, and propensity to question, which is, too, seen as fundamental to a faith built entirely on asking questions. whether he's gently yet methodically poking holes in a suspect's alibi or wondering how much a random stranger paid for his shoes, he never has a shortage of them. he's a little guy bursting with chutzpah, perfectly at home both asking a prime suspect if he can have a closer look at his hand, and God Himself to spare sodom and gomorrah if he can only find a few good people...

if you really needed any further evidence that he's God's Chosen...

[foreverlogical]

It long had seemed that the “stall” would be the worst thing the Supreme Court could do when it came to Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution. How naive.

Delay there will be. The six justices in the Republican-appointed supermajority held, “A former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his ‘conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.’” They added, “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” Rather than make clear that trying to overthrow the Constitution’s peaceful transfer of power is not an official act, the justices send the whole matter back to trial judge Tanya Chutkan. Expect more consideration, more parsing, more rulings, more appeals. It will all likely end up at the Supreme Court again in a year, if the whole prosecution isn’t shut down entirely.

But damage to our system goes well beyond delay. Trump v. U.S. astounds in its implications. It grants the president the power of a monarch. Richard Nixon defended his conduct in Watergate, telling interviewer David Frost, “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Effectively, the Supreme Court’s supermajority has now enshrined that brazen claim.

To be clear, there are reasons to be nervous about prosecuting former chief executives, so some standards make sense. In this case, though, the Court has issued an instruction manual for future lawbreaking presidents: Make sure you conspire only with other government employees. You’ll never be held to account. 

What makes something an official act? “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” the justices ruled. And a jury cannot learn about the other parts of a criminal conspiracy that may involve official acts.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not agree with this last critical point. She said that of course juries can consider the context of a criminal act. Neither Justice Samuel Alito (who flew insurrectionist flags outside his two homes) nor Justice Clarence Thomas (whose wife was on the Ellipse on January 6) recused themselves. They cast the deciding votes to keep from jurors the full story of the attempted overthrow of the Constitution. 

The founders said repeatedly that presidents have no special immunity, as a brief filed by the Brennan Center on behalf of top historians made plain. After all, that was one of the very things about the British monarchy that they hated and against which they rebelled.

Even more directly, this ruling undoes the restrictions on presidential abuse of power put in place by officials and jurists of both parties since the 1970s.

The imperial presidency described an age of growing executive authority and abuse of power. It came crashing to an end during Watergate and after revelations about the misuse of intelligence and law enforcement by Nixon’s predecessors.

The presidential immunity concocted today would have blessed most of Nixon’s crimes. Nixon ordered his White House counsel to pay hush money to burglars in an Oval Office meeting on March 21, 1973. Presumptively an official act? He dangled clemency before E. Howard Hunt, one of the conspirators. Use of the pardon power — entirely immune? He resigned when a tape revealed he had ordered the CIA to go to the FBI to end the investigation of the burglars sent by his campaign committee. “Play it tough,” he told his White House chief of staff. On its face, official.

What about other criminal cases involving high officials? In the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s, numerous officials were charged (including the national security advisor and the defense secretary). Ronald Reagan faced no charges, but not because he was presumed immune. What if he did break the law — would he have escaped accountability? In 2001, federal prosecutors probed whether Bill Clinton sold pardons. They cleared him — but issuing a pardon is surely an official act.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it plainly: “Under [the majority’s] rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed ‘unofficial’ is destined to be vanishingly small.” 

So, yes, all this will delay Trump’s trial. In that sense, he gets what he craved. But the implications are far worse for the structure of American self-government.

It is a massive failure for Chief Justice John Roberts. The other major rulings on presidential accountability for legal wrongdoing have been unanimous. U.S. v. Nixon (limiting executive privilege) was written by the Republican chief justice Nixon appointed, and it was unanimous. Clinton v. Jones (opening the president to civil suit even while in office) was unanimous. Let’s grant that Roberts is an institutionalist. He is presiding over the collapse of public trust in the very institution he purports to revere.

And Trump v. U.S. has enormous implications for the future of the presidency. Remember that utterly bonkers hypothetical from the appeals court argument — that a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate an opponent? Sotomayor again: “A hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics . . . has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model.” 

We read sonorous language in the majority opinion that “the president is not above the law.” But just in time for Independence Day, the Supreme Court brings us closer to having a king again.

[eesirachs]

the hebrew bible heightens violence by omitting it, and by, in doing so, forcing us to story our way into the blood. amos and hosea are killed in the assyrian psychological warfare against samaria, and yet, the bible does not tell us this. it only reminds us that they are there before samaria falls, and not there after. the concubine of judges 19 is dismembered by an unnamed levite: but one moment she is sobbing, the next she is in twelve pieces. again, the bible demands that we take the saw to her because it will not. moses does something so horrible to god's body that he is condemned to die in the wilderness. we will spend the rest of our exegetical lives imagining what it was and, in doing so, taking for granted the right-ness of the preclusion. again and again, the biblical text forces us to take on the role of perpetrators if we are to make any sense of it. i am trying to talk about the holes of violence in the text and in the bodies entextualized in it, how they are hemorrhaging not because they are holes but because we are making them wider

[kp777]

By Brett Wilkins

Common Dreams

July 1, 2024

"Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday said she will file unspecified articles of impeachment U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" performed while he was in office, a decision that prompted dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor to declare her "fear for our democracy."

Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on social media that "the Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."

"Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture," she added. "I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."

The House of Representatives reconvenes next Monday.

The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines Monday in Trump v. United States that "the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and that "he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

Dissenting, Sotomayor asserted: "Never in the history of our republic has a president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former presidents will be cloaked in such immunity."

Far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dismissed calls to recuse themselves from the case over alleged conflicts of interest. In addition to them and Chief Justice John Roberts, the court's three Trump appointees sided with the ex-president in the case.

The decision means it is highly unlikely that Trump will face a trial for his alleged role in fomenting the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection before November's election, in which he is the presumptive Republican nominee. In addition to four felony charges in that case, Trump faces one trial in Fulton County, Georgia for his alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election and another in Florida over his alleged mishandling of classified documents.

In May, Trump was convicted on 34 felony charges related to the falsification of business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election. The former president was also impeached twice while in office, although the Senate did not convict him either time.

At least one other House lawmaker—Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.)—said he supports Ocasio-Cortez's move. Other progressive lawmakers expressed alarm over Monday's ruling.

"Presidents are not kings. Trump should absolutely be held criminally liable for inciting a violent mob to overturn the 2020 election," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "This ruling sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. This extremist court has put our democracy on life support."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "the far-right extremist majority has politicized our highest court, undermined its legitimacy, and has created a dangerous 'absolute' immunity for a president's official acts."

"This is a rogue, untethered, and damaging Supreme Court. MAGA extremist justices also are ignoring the festering corruption in their ranks," he added. "We need justices committed to justice. Stolen seats filled with partisan hacks lead to alarming results. Today's ruling is devastating to our democracy."

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) asked, "If brazenly attempting to overturn a democratic election by claiming the powers of the presidency can be a so-called 'official' act of the president, then where does it end?"

"If a former president who has fomented an insurrection at our Capitol and who now promises to serve as a dictator on day one back in office can avoid accountability in a court of law, then as Justice Sotomayor stated, I too 'fear for our democracy,'" he added.

Some progressive groups and campaigners also called for the impeachment of the six right-wing justices.

"The Supreme Court is a corrupt institution that's more concerned with advancing their ideological agenda than upholding the Constitution," Sunrise Movement said on social media. "Congress must move forward with impeachment."

Erica Payne, founder and director of Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement that "the Supreme Court's decision effectively legalizes the use of political violence by a president so long as it is an 'official act.'"

"This relieves the presidency—and the sitting president—from the most basic level of accountability while putting our entire constitutional republic in mortal danger," she continued. "Donald Trump incited an insurrection and encouraged his thugs to storm the Capitol. The idea that he should not be held accountable if these actions were 'official' is an egregiously partisan attempt to deny reality."

"This decision is the culmination of a relentlessly executed, multidecade plan to destroy American democracy," Payne contended. "It is the inevitable outcome of rank corruption facilitated by a malignant class of American oligarchs who, over decades, bought and paid for a complicit Supreme Court."

"The frog in the pot is now at a rolling boil," she added. "The president can encourage his thugs to murder members of Congress without fear of legal repercussions. If Democrats do not immediately take bold action, historians will mark today as the moment illiberal authoritarians cemented their rule over the United States of America."

[haggishlyhagging]

What is the difference between the women's movement we had and the one we have now, if it can be called a movement? I think the difference is liberalism. Where feminism was collective, liberalism is individualistic. We have been reduced to that. Where feminism is socially based and critical, liberalism is naturalistic, attributing the product of women's oppression to women's natural sexuality, making it "ours." Where feminism criticizes the ways in which women have been socially determined in an attempt to change that determination, liberalism is voluntaristic, meaning it acts like we have choices that we do not have. Where feminism is based on material reality, liberalism is based on some ideal realm in the head. And where feminism is relentlessly political, about power and powerlessness, the best that can be mustered by this nouveau movement is a watered-down form of moralism: this is good, this is bad, no analysis of power or powerlessness at all. In other words, members of groups, like women, who have no choice but to live life as members of groups are taken as if they are unique individuals. Their social characteristics are then reduced to natural characteristics. Preclusion of choices becomes expression of free will. Material reality is turned into ideas about reality. And concrete positions of power and powerlessness are transformed into mere relative value judgments about which reasonable people can form different but equally valid preferences. Women's experience of abuse becomes a "point of view."

The way this gets itself up in law is as gender neutrality, consent, privacy, and speech. Gender neutrality means that you cannot take gender into account, you cannot recognize, as we once knew we had to, that neutrality enforces a non-neutral status quo. Consent means that whatever you are forced to do is attributed to your free will. Privacy protects the sphere of women's intimate oppression. Speech protects sexual violence against women and sexual use of women because they are male forms of self-expression. Under the First Amendment, only those who already have speech have protected speech. Women are more likely to be men's speech. No one who does not already have these rights guaranteed them socially gets them legally.

What has been achieved for women through these politics of liberalism? The ERA has been lost. Abortion funding has been lost. Nothing very significant has been accomplished with rape law reform. The Supreme Court is fashioning some progressive law on sex discrimination largely on its own. You know, it is an incredible insult when the state does sex equality better than the women's movement does it. We would have lost statutory maternity leave if this feminism had its way. And pornography has been saved.

Liberalism makes these results necessary, in part because it cannot look at sexual misogyny. This is because misogyny is sexual. To be clear, it is sexual on the left, it is sexual on the right, it is sexual to liberals, and it is sexual to conservatives. As a result, sexuality, as socially organized, is deeply misogynist. To male dominance, of which liberalism is the current ruling ideology, the sexual misogyny that is fundamental to all these problems cannot be seen as a sex equality issue because sexuality is premised on sex inequality. Equality law cannot apply to sexuality because equality is not sexy and inequality is. Equality cannot apply to sexuality because sexuality occurs in private and nothing is supposed to interfere in the private, however unequal it is. And equality cannot be more important than speech because sexual expression is sex and unequal sex is something men want to say.

-Catharine A. MacKinnon, “Liberalism and the Death of Feminism” in The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism

[lamiaprigione]

Se i detti del Nuovo Testamento non li consideriamo come comandamenti ma come espressione di una straordinaria, profondissima conoscenza dei misteri dell'animo umano, la cosa più saggia che sia mai stata detta, il breve compendio di tutta l'arte di vivere e di essere felici, è la frase «ama il prossimo tuo come te stesso», che del resto si trova già nell'Antico Testamento. Il prossimo lo si può amare meno di noi stessi: e allora si è l'egoista, l'arraffone, il capitalista, il borghese, e si possono accumulare quattrini e potenza ma è impossibile avere un cuore veramente lieto, e ci restano precluse le più delicate e squisite gioie dell'anima. Oppure si può amare il prossimo più di se stessi: e allora si è un povero diavolo, pieno di sensi d'inferiorità, pieno di desiderio d'amare tutto, eppure colmo di rancore e di crudeltà verso se stesso e si vive in un inferno che ci si apparecchia ogni giorno da sé. Di contro a ciò: l'equilibrio dell'amore, la possibilità di amare senza restare in debito ora in questo, ora in quello, un amore di se stessi che non ruba niente a nessuno, un amore per gli altri che però non diminuisce né violenta il nostro io! Il segreto di tutta la felicità, di tutta la beatitudine è racchiuso in quella parola. E se si vuole, la si può rigirare anche alla maniera indiana e darle il significato di: ama il prossimo tuo, perché sei tu stesso!, una traduzione cristiana del «tat twam asi». Oh, l'intera saggezza è così semplice, ed è stata enunciata e formulata da tanto mai tempo e con così indubitabile precisione! Perché dunque ci appartiene solo a momenti, nelle giornate buone, e non sempre?

Hermann Hesse, La cura

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum at Popular Information:

On Monday, six members of the Supreme Court granted Donald Trump — and every future president — broad criminal immunity. The court found that, as president, Trump was free to use his "official" powers to commit crimes. Considering the President of the United States is the most powerful position in the world, this is a breathtaking pronouncement.  Writing in dissent, Justice Sotomayor details the implications:

[When [the President of the United States] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. ]

The Supreme Court invented this new kind of presidential immunity 235 years after the Constitution was ratified. And it lacks any grounding in the Constitution's text. Instead, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, cites the need for the president to take "bold and unhesitating action" without "undue caution." Justice Sotomayor explains that the Constitution contains provisions granting various forms of criminal immunity to federal officials. But the President of the United States was not included:

[The Framers clearly knew how to provide for immunity from prosecution. They did provide a narrow immunity for legislators in the Speech or Debate Clause. See Art. I, §6, cl. 1 (“Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”). They did not extend the same or similar immunity to Presidents. ]

Indeed, the Constitution specifically contemplates the criminal prosecution of a former President. The Constitution states that even after a President is impeached, convicted, and removed from office, the former President "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Trump's own lawyers, during his second impeachment trial, argued that Senators should not convict him because if there was evidence supporting wrongdoing, Trump could be criminally prosecuted for the events of January 6 after leaving office.  

Giving Trump everything he wants

The majority attempts to frame its decision as a compromise, because it states that former Presidents do not have immunity for unofficial acts. But that was the position of Trump's own lawyers. So it is hardly a concession.  It also creates a very narrow definition of "unofficial" acts. The President is acting in an official capacity as long as the President's actions are "not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority." Further, when making that evaluation as to whether an action is official or unofficial "courts may not inquire into the President’s motives." That's why, if the President accepts $10,000,000 to issue a pardon, the President cannot be prosecuted criminally for issuing the pardon because the President's "motive" for the pardon, an official act, is off limits. 

The majority then states that when the President's actions fall within the office's "conclusive and preclusive" authority — powers that stem directly from the Constitution or legislation — the President has absolute immunity. The majority uses this standard to declare "Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials," which is part of the federal indictment against Trump related to January 6. Notably, the majority does not state what, if any, of Trump's actions that form the basis of the criminal charges are unofficial acts. The heart of the majority decision is that, for all other official acts, the President has "at least presumptive immunity." The majority finds the President is immune unless "the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'" 

[...] But the implications for Trump's criminal prosecution pale in comparison to the longterm impact on the nation. "The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can… become a law unto himself," Justice Ketanji Jackson wrote in a separate dissent. "Presidents alone are now free to commit crimes when they are on the job, while all other Americans must follow the law in all aspects of their lives, whether personal or professional." 

Judd Legum writes in Popular Information that Monday’s heinously insane Trump v. United States ruling at SCOTUS is a disaster for the rule of law, as it gives Donald Trump and all future presidents broad immunity while in office.

[bi-male-bottom]

My Guide to Having Your First Prostate Orgasm

Preclusively, don't worry if you haven't achieved prostate orgasm yet. I had to ride my dildo many times before I finally had a prostate orgasm. That technically was my third dildo since my other two were glass, and I couldn't well manipulate them because of where they go, so I also recommend a softer (non-porous) material like silicone and a built-in suction cup.

Before you continue, you might notice, while stimulating your prostate, that ejaculation and orgasm are separate. Ejaculation is the releasing of cum, and orgasm is that bout of involuntary pelvic muscle contractions, so when together cum releases and gets shot out like what you've experienced with penile orgasms. Ejaculating without orgasming might feel like you accidentally pissed a little, but if your cock drips, drizzles, or otherwise leaks, it's cum (technically, prostatic fluid, which is a major part of cum) that comes out, not pee. Also, when trying to have your first prostate orgasm, you may need to actively think about orgasming from your prostate.

First, think about what gives you physical sexual pleasure other than ejaculating and orgasming. Personally, I love the feeling of fullness from a dildo passively pushing back on my walls to be inside me. Physical sexual pleasures also can include being touched deep inside, your hole opening and closing, stimulating your prostate of course, and ones that aren't inside like rubbing the shaft of a dildo along your hole. Don't forget about the erogenous like caressing your inner thigh, squeezing your ass cheeks, rolling your nipples in between your fingers, and grabbing your earlobe. Focus on those feelings of sensual and sexual pleasure while you masturbate to get you in the mood and especially when you're stimulating your prostate. Remember mood is important for how easy it is to orgasm from the prostate.

Here are some examples of simple sexual acts I had tried before I first had a prostate orgasm and that might help with getting used to feeling your prostate as a part of your body you can orgasm from. Try stimulating your penis and prostate one after the other or at the same time. The best of this might be to stimulate your penis intermittently while riding a dildo. While stimulating your prostate, try manually contracting and releasing in rhythm those pelvic muscles that move involuntarily during an orgasm.

If you can't tell whether you are stimulating your prostate, you could increase the amount of stimulation you put into the area. Try using a thicker dildo or a prostate massager. While your dildo is inside you, curving towards your back if it does curve, and stuck in place on a wall or between your cheeks, try leaning back, so the length of it pushes along your front wall. This'll only work well if your dildo is rigid enough but not too rigid. If you can be precise, you could try aiming the tip of your dildo into your front wall and poking yourself until you find the spot where you feel it the most. Remember that'll be in a little and towards your front.

If you had an orgasm and do stimulate your penis, check if it was indeed your first prostate orgasm by seeing whether your penis is painfully sensitive or your hole clamped shut like after a penile orgasm. If you did have a prostate orgasm, you should be able to continue riding your dildo without pain and, importantly, have more prostate orgasms that increase in intensity before you need to stop. Technically, you can orgasm from both the penis and prostate at the same time, so when you're trying to have multiple prostate orgasms, make sure you stay far enough away from penile orgasm.

[sapphire-weapon]

Watching RE fandom go full "So you hate waffles?" has been so frustrating to watch.

"Leon is in RE9." "Oh so Jill isn't????" NO ONE SAID THAT. THAT'S A WHOLE NEW SENTENCE.

"Leon is in RE9." "So they just dropped the whole BSAA using BOWs plot????" THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS. THAT'S A WHOLE NEW SENTENCE.

"Another RE1 Remake might be in the works." "So we're not getting RE9????" THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS. NO ONE SAID THAT. THAT'S A WHOLE NEW SENTENCE.

Multiple things can be true at the same time!!!!! The inclusion of one thing does not automatically mean the preclusion of another!!!!! Why are you all stupid!!!!!

[levysoft]

Utilizzare le onde gravitazionali emesse dalle coppie di buchi neri più piccoli come segnale “portante” per cogliere quelle a frequenza molto più bassa emesse da sistemi binari di buchi neri supermassicci, attualmente precluse agli interferometri. L’idea, illustrata questa settimana su Nature Astronomy da un team guidato dal Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, richiederebbe rivelatori sensibili ai decimi di hertz

Pensando all’immensità dello spazio l’idea di trovare qualcosa potrebbe sembrare come dover cercare un ago in un pagliaio. L’esperienza comune suggerirebbe, come anche il modo di dire, che trovare un oggetto piccolo sia molto più difficile che trovarne uno enorme, eppure in astrofisica non è così per tutto, non almeno quando si parla di coppie di buchi neri: con gli interferometri per onde gravitazionali, per esempio, è più facile trovare una coppia di aghi che di mietitrebbie. Un team di ricercatori guidato dal Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik (Mpa, in Germania) ha dunque proposto una nuova idea per rilevare le coppie dei buchi neri più grandi – quelli supermassicci – analizzando le onde gravitazionali prodotte dalla fusione di buchi neri piccoli presenti nelle vicinanze: un approccio, illustrato lunedì scorso su Nature Astronomy, che richiederà rilevatori di onde gravitazionali sensibili a frequenze nell’ordine dei decimi di hertz (“deci-Hz”) per studiare coppie di buchi neri che altrimenti rimarrebbero inaccessibili.

Ci sono ancora dei grandi misteri nell’astronomia, e uno di questi è proprio l’origine dei buchi neri supermassicci che si trovano al centro delle galassie: potrebbero essere sempre stati massicci ed essersi formati quando l’universo era ancora molto giovane; oppure potrebbero essere cresciuti nel tempo accrescendo materia ed altri buchi neri. Quando un buco nero supermassiccio sta per divorarne un altro massiccio, la coppia emette onde gravitazionali, ovvero increspature nello spazio tempo che si propagano attraverso l’universo.

Scenario studiato in cui un piccolo buco nero binario (“binario compatto”) risiede nella stessa galassia di un buco nero binario supermassiccio (“SMBHB”). Rilevare modulazioni nel segnale delle onde gravitazionali provenienti dal piccolo buco nero binario potrebbe rivelare indirettamente la presenza del buco nero binario supermassiccio. Crediti: Lorenz Zwick

Negli ultimi anni sono state rilevate onde gravitazionali da queste fusioni, ma solo provenienti da piccoli buchi neri, che sono i resti delle stelle. Ad oggi, infatti, rilevare i segnali di singole coppie di  buchi neri supermassicci è ancora impossibile, in quanto gli attuali interferometri non sono sensibili alle bassissime frequenze delle onde gravitazionali che emettono. I futuri rilevatori in corso di realizzazione – come la missione spaziale Lisa, guidata dall’Esa – dovrebbero risolvere questo problema, anche se rimarrà estremamente impegnativo rilevare le coppie di buchi neri più massicci.

«La nostra idea funziona fondamentalmente come l’ascolto di una stazione radio. Proponiamo di utilizzare il segnale proveniente da coppie di piccoli buchi neri in modo simile a come le onde radio trasportano il segnale. I buchi neri supermassicci sono la musica codificata nella modulazione di frequenza (Fm) del segnale rilevato», spiega Jakob Stegmann, autore principale dello studio e ricercatore post-dottorato al Mpa «L’aspetto innovativo di questa idea è quello di utilizzare le alte frequenze, che sono facili da rilevare, per sondare le frequenze più basse, alle quali non siamo ancora sensibili».

Risultati recenti ottenuti dai pulsar timing array supportano già l’esistenza della fusione di sistemi binari di buchi neri supermassicci. Questa prova è, tuttavia, indiretta e proviene dal segnale collettivo di molte binarie distanti che creano effettivamente rumore di fondo.

Simulazione di due buchi neri supermassicci in collisione che emettono onde gravitazionali che potrebbero essere rilevate con questo nuovo metodo. Crediti: Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Scott Noble; simulation data, d’Ascoli et al. 2018

Il nuovo metodo proposto per rilevare le fusioni di singole coppie di buchi neri supermassicci sfrutta le piccole perturbazioni che le onde gravitazionali a bassa frequenza da esse emessi – la “musica” della stazione Fm, nell’analogia di Stegmann – imprimono sulle onde gravitazionali a frequenza molto più elevata – la “portante”, sempre nell’analogia – emesse dalla fusione di una coppia di piccoli buchi neri di massa stellare presente nelle vicinanze. Il sistema binario dei piccoli buchi neri funzionerebbe quindi come un “faro” in grado di rivelare l’esistenza della coppia di buchi neri massicci. Captando le minuscole modulazioni di frequenza nei segnali provenienti dai sistemi binari di piccoli buchi neri, gli scienziati potrebbero così identificare i sistemi binari di buchi neri supermassicci fino a oggi nascosti, quelli con masse che vanno da 10 milioni a 100 milioni di volte quella del Sole, anche a grandi distanze.

«Mentre il percorso per il Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (Lisa) è ora impostato, dopo l’adozione da parte dell’Esa lo scorso gennaio», dice Lucio Mayer, coautore dello studio e teorico dei buchi neri all’Università di Zurigo, «la comunità deve valutare la migliore strategia per la prossima generazione di rilevatori gravitazionali, soprattutto su quale gamma di frequenze focalizzarsi – studi come questo portano una forte motivazione a dare priorità alla progettazione di un rilevatore deci-Hz».

«L’articolo presenta un’idea molto bella e intelligente, che è ancora fantascienza finché non avremo un rilevatore di deci-Hz», commenta Selma E. de Mink, direttrice del Mpa, non coinvolta nello studio, «ma abbiamo davvero bisogno di creatività e idee fuori dagli schemi come questa se vogliamo avere la possibilità di risolvere i più grandi misteri dell’universo».

Per saperne di più:

Leggi sul Nature Astronomy l’articolo “Imprints of massive black-hole binaries on neighbouring decihertz gravitational-wave sources”, di Jakob Stegmann, Lorenz Zwick, Sander M. Vermeulen, Fabio Antonini e Lucio Mayer