erinlefey: (Angry Shadowed)
erinlefey ([personal profile] erinlefey) wrote2010-04-20 08:31 pm

Supreme Court in the modern age

[Public]

They just had to deal with "crush videos".

If you don't know what they are...I envy you. I now know. (I'll define it in the comments if you really want to know.) And I have never come across a concept that literally made my stomach spasm and attempt to vomit based on the IDEA. I initially said that I hate to be a member of the human race now. I've rethought that. People into that are not human. Y'all know that I'm a live-and-let-live, your-kink-is-OK kind of girl. But if I find someone who thinks such things are nifty, I'm rebooting them into the next reincarnation.

Comment away. But don't joke. My sense of humor is absent on this subject.

[identity profile] erinlefey.livejournal.com 2010-04-21 12:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Got to disagree. While I hate the subject of the legislation, it was incredibly poorly written. This law needed to be overturned. Alito didn't look at the law, he looked at his gut, a textbook 'activist judge'.

Nifty thing though: this law had a signing statement that clarified the law and said it would only apply to these sort of videos. The high court said that signing statements had no bearing on the issue. All those statements Bush did just got declared irrelevant.

[identity profile] willful-zephyr.livejournal.com 2010-04-21 01:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Woo hoo! That is a plus.