The Slants get an 8-0 win for the Skins

[Fife]

From the Volokh Conspiracy: The Slants (and the Redskins) win: The government can’t deny full trademark protection to allegedly racially offensive marks

SCOTUSblog page: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lee-v-tam/ (Check out the various opinion pieces under "Symposium" in the SCOTUSblog Coverage section.

OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf

Lots and lots to unpack here, should be good reading. Advance tidbit from Little Tony: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

[TheReal_ND]

Arrr rook the same

[Fife]

An early run-down from a SCOTUSblog contributor:

The Constitution prohibits government’s “happy-talk” requirement for trademark registration

Alito’s opinion also considered whether trademark regulation should be analyzed as a restriction on commercial speech. In its briefs, the government focused on arguing that the disparagement clause is not a speech restriction. But the government alternatively argued that “ecause the essential function of trademarks is to identify goods and services as emanating from a particular commercial source, trademarks are ‘commercial speech’ and receive ‘a limited form of First Amendment protection.’” Fortunately, the government’s argument was not persuasive.

I'm sure Beauregard Sessions was crushed.

[clubgop]

An early run-down from a SCOTUSblog contributor:

The Constitution prohibits government’s “happy-talk” requirement for trademark registration

Alito’s opinion also considered whether trademark regulation should be analyzed as a restriction on commercial speech. In its briefs, the government focused on arguing that the disparagement clause is not a speech restriction. But the government alternatively argued that “ecause the essential function of trademarks is to identify goods and services as emanating from a particular commercial source, trademarks are ‘commercial speech’ and receive ‘a limited form of First Amendment protection.’” Fortunately, the government’s argument was not persuasive.

I'm sure Beauregard Sessions was crushed.

What doea he have to do with this? What does he care abiut trademarks?

[clubgop]

An early run-down from a SCOTUSblog contributor:

The Constitution prohibits government’s “happy-talk” requirement for trademark registration

Alito’s opinion also considered whether trademark regulation should be analyzed as a restriction on commercial speech. In its briefs, the government focused on arguing that the disparagement clause is not a speech restriction. But the government alternatively argued that “ecause the essential function of trademarks is to identify goods and services as emanating from a particular commercial source, trademarks are ‘commercial speech’ and receive ‘a limited form of First Amendment protection.’” Fortunately, the government’s argument was not persuasive.

I'm sure Beauregard Sessions was crushed.

You want a real laugh, go read the comments for this story on Espn or facebook. SJWs thinks this clears the way for vanity plates that read any old thing. Because the Constitution is whatever a snowflake thinks it is. Like GCF thinking a subpoena is entrapment. Constitutional scholars, wgole generation of them.

[Fife]

An early run-down from a SCOTUSblog contributor:

The Constitution prohibits government’s “happy-talk” requirement for trademark registration

Alito’s opinion also considered whether trademark regulation should be analyzed as a restriction on commercial speech. In its briefs, the government focused on arguing that the disparagement clause is not a speech restriction. But the government alternatively argued that “ecause the essential function of trademarks is to identify goods and services as emanating from a particular commercial source, trademarks are ‘commercial speech’ and receive ‘a limited form of First Amendment protection.’” Fortunately, the government’s argument was not persuasive.

I'm sure Beauregard Sessions was crushed.

What doea he have to do with this? What does he care abiut trademarks?

I just wish the current administration would do everything possible to repudiate the litigation positions taken by the last one. Maybe I'm just impatient; but I'm skeptical.

[clubgop]

An early run-down from a SCOTUSblog contributor:

The Constitution prohibits government’s “happy-talk” requirement for trademark registration



I'm sure Beauregard Sessions was crushed.

What doea he have to do with this? What does he care abiut trademarks?

I just wish the current administration would do everything possible to repudiate the litigation positions taken by the last one. Maybe I'm just impatient; but I'm skeptical.

This thing predates the current administration man. Chill, bro.

[Fife]

What doea he have to do with this? What does he care abiut trademarks?

I just wish the current administration would do everything possible to repudiate the litigation positions taken by the last one. Maybe I'm just impatient; but I'm skeptical.

This thing predates the current administration man. Chill, bro.

I'm not much of a fan of the current administration's litigation platform, beyond the fact that it is the administration that didn't occur but almost did. If you read and understand the Obama administration's litigation positions in cases like Little Sisters, they really were out on limbs previously unknown in America.

Those kind of positions are what I would really like to see get burnt down and pissed on. I mean absolutely turned into one big grease spot.

The hard fact is that Sessions is just another Swamp Thing. Trump had to make a much bolder mover on AG, to make me happy.

I'm hoping for Gosuch-Wan Kenobi / the Repo Man to bring my stuff back to me at this point.

[clubgop]

I just wish the current administration would do everything possible to repudiate the litigation positions taken by the last one. Maybe I'm just impatient; but I'm skeptical.

This thing predates the current administration man. Chill, bro.

I'm not much of a fan of the current administration's litigation platform, beyond the fact that it is the administration that didn't occur but almost did. If you read and understand the Obama administration's litigation positions in cases like Little Sisters, they really were out on limbs previously unknown in America.

Those kind of positions are what I would really like to see get burnt down and pissed on. I mean absolutely turned into one big grease spot.

The hard fact is that Sessions is just another Swamp Thing. Trump had to make a much bolder mover on AG, to make me happy.

I'm hoping for Gosuch-Wan Kenobi / the Repo Man to bring my stuff back to me at this point.

I get it. But after Holder, you know wasnt going the route of a cuck.