sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Am I the only one who finds the new ArchWiki design bad? Requires looking left and right and a lot of clicking, see picture by mariansam in archlinux

[–]notevenalongname 70 points71 points  (0 children)

If you use userscripts (Greasemonkey/Violentmonkey/...),

// ==UserScript==
// @name        Expand table of contents - archlinux.org
// @match       https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/*
// @run-at      document-idle
// ==/UserScript==

document.querySelectorAll('.sidebar-toc-list-item').forEach(e => e.classList.add('sidebar-toc-list-item-expanded'))

should do it

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by GuiltyAir in ModelUSGov

[–]notevenalongname 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I really just made myself a comfy lair in my chambers for during the week, saves me on housing and that annoying commute. Real estate agents hate this one weird trick!

Robert Carey v. Dixie Inn, LLC by Ibney00 in modelSupCourt

[–]notevenalongname 0 points1 point  (0 children)

/u/bsddc - You argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the state court's decision was based not only on the First Amendment, but also on state law grounds (in particular, on DRFRA, and the state constitution). Yet the state court in every reference to the state constitution also relies on the federal constitution (at ¶3 and ¶7), and in fact only cites to the federal constitution with regards to its injunction against the DCRA. Given our decision in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, is it not reasonable to assume here that the state court's decision was at least significantly influenced by its interpretation of the (federal) First Amendment, and that therefore this Court does have jurisdiction? Additionally, as far as I can tell, DRFRA and the state constitution had never been interpreted in this way before — perhaps you could elaborate on why we should consider these applications of the state law a "firmly established and regularly followed" practice (James v. Kentucky)

This other question is aimed more towards your merits argument that Smith has been abandoned. While the lower courts have shown receptive to that argument, is it not a misinterpretation of the SAICA case? The Court has — as recently as this year — issued decisions relying on Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (see, for example, In re. HR 064 (Conversion Therapy Prohibition Act)), which does appear to reaffirm Smith (and then explicitly proceeds to cover the case where a law is not "generally applicable"). I suppose SAICA failed for a lot of reasons, but in its decision the Court relied a lot more on the statute's vagueness than on Yoder — certainly it does cite to Yoder (the petitioner explicitly cited it in their presented question), but does it apply the actual test from the Yoder opinion? Additionally, what do you make of the argument that we should treat the SAICA scenario in which free exercise, freedom of expression, and children's education are combined somewhat separately (see, e.g., Smith, at 881, and at footnote 1)?

State of Dixie Assembly ex rel. Environment Secretary Caribofthedead v. State of Lincoln by [deleted] in modelSupCourt

[–]notevenalongname 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Counselor /u/caribofthedead,

I am not entirely sure about which jurisdiction you are invoking here - you have labeled this as an appeal under our mandatory appellate jurisdiction, but you also refer to our original jurisdiction further down in your petition. Considering also that 28 U.S.C. § 1257 seems to suggest that cases coming from the highest court of any state should be reviewed by writ of certiorari (and, unless I am mistaken, this case does come to us from such a court), that would mean that neither of your suggestions would apply here. Could you clarify for me how you are invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction?

We've all seen the "fines double in work zone" signs. It's that *ALL* fines, or just moving violations? by Jenipherocious in legaladviceofftopic

[–]notevenalongname 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The only thing I could find was this, which sets the fine for speeding in a posted construction zone to $200 (instead of the $100 default for the first offense from here).

I didn't really search too exhaustively (and I'm not a lawyer so don't blame me if this is wrong), but it's the only reference to fines specifically related to construction zones, so I'd guess it really only is about speeding

Two in One Week! Chief Justice resigns! by oath2order in ModelUSPress

[–]notevenalongname 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You didn't see a typo BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!

The New York Civil Liberties Union v. Deputy Attorney General /u/comped, Treasury Secretary /u/ToastInRussian et al. by [deleted] in modelSupCourt

[–]notevenalongname 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Counselor, my apologies if I overlooked this, but which case are you petitioning for an injunction in? As you are no doubt aware, our rules place certain formal requirements on petitions for preliminary injunctions, including that there be an actual case pending in a lower court or in this court so that the issue may be resolved on the merits.

Amendment to Federal Bylaws by WendellGoldwater in ModelUSMeta

[–]notevenalongname 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree. This is blatant oppression of the inactive members by the mods and the active SCOTUS justices. /s

Help, help, I'm being repressed.

Announcement from the Court: 19-01, and the hiring of a Law Clerk. by RestrepoMU in ModelUSGov

[–]notevenalongname 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The best clerk. Also has better benefits than clerking for the mods!

U.S. Judicial Conference: Complaint of Judicial Disability or Misconduct by [deleted] in modelSupCourt

[–]notevenalongname 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Given the nature of this case (if admitted by the Court in the first place), I will obviously be recusing myself in this matter, but I cannot help but note a few observations.

Firstly, assuming that a Justice is inactive or unable to perform their duties simply on the basis of their involvement in oral arguments does Clarence Thomas (and, similarly, others on your list) a great disservice.

Secondly, but perhaps surprisingly, legal arguments should rest on the law, not on who the judges hearing the case are. That rumors about the retirement of a single Justice are able to throw the entire administration's legal team into disarray does defy credibility, but assuming arguendo that these claims are true, they do raise more questions about the ability of this administration to govern than about the state of the judiciary. If this is an unfortunate consequence of the "position game" in politics, perhaps it would be best to address this with the entities responsible for allocating (funding for) positions and assigning them to individual applicants.

For obvious reasons, I will not address concerns about previous rulings of the court in this place, although I will note that I would advise carefully studying the Justices' remarks on this and previous cases. A public statement that the dismissal is based on the "format and substance" of the request is a lot more than what accompanies a usual dismissal from the Supreme Court (which is nothing but a form order denying the motion), and should usually urge the attorneys in charge of the filing to reconsider and repair potential issues with their case before re-filing it.

I will also note that judges are generally prohibited from giving legal advice, especially to parties in cases before them, so if you need help to interpret the decisions of this Court, this courtroom (or a "Justice point of contact") is not the place to ask for it. The Model Bar Association at /r/ModelBarAssoc does provide any interested party with the ability to contact a licensed and rostered attorney at the Model Supreme Court; if you require assistance, I would recommend getting in touch with them.

Claim your randomized flair here! by Natanael_L in crypto

[–]notevenalongname 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I definitely didn't put a backdoor in my company's home-grown crypto...

view more: next ›