The Supreme Court Wrecking Ball (and state balls too)

[CrimsonFox]

Just read an article calling that Roberts'supreme court is using the 1st amendment like a wrecking ball.

There is just so much to digest this week alone. Enough for its own home for sure.

[CrimsonFox]

I seriously don't think most of the justices believe one bit anything they are saying as reasons. Their one and only reason is "God told me to"

[CrimsonFox]

But really the notion that LGBTQ people will stop being allowed in hospitals is what inevitably follows. It's not just about wedding cake.
And the whole notion that someone who doesn't want to work on Sunday can sue their employer on religious grounds is so ridiculous.
I presume the satanist church is going to start trolling these decisions.

I saw a thing on facebook saying a woman was going to call up a bakery and ask if they could make a wedding cake for their gay marriage...and if they answered yes then say "oh good. I was just checking to see if you were a douchebag. It's actually for my son's birthday".

[Edward64]

Poll results re: use of race for college admissions.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-approve-supreme-court-decision-restricting-race-college/story?id=100580375
On Thursday, the Supreme Court set new limits on affirmative action programs in cases involving whether public and private colleges and universities can continue to use race as one factor among many in student admissions.
A little more than half of Americans – 52% -- approve of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions, while 32% disapprove and 16% saying they don't know.

A majority of Republicans (75%) and independents (58%) approve of the ruling, while a distinct minority of Democrats approve (26%).
And there are deep divisions between racial groups. Most white people (60%) and Asian people (58%) approve of the Supreme Court's decision to limit the use of race in college admissions, while only 25% of Black people support the decision. Hispanic people are split, with 40% approving and 40% disapproving.

I understand the Asian and Black, but I'd thought there would have been more Hispanic support for use of race.

Still, despite most Americans supporting the decision to end affirmative action in universities, Americans are less likely to think Black and Hispanic students have a fair chance of getting into the college of their choice compared to their white and Asian student counterparts. About two-thirds of Americans say that white and Asian students have a fair chance compared to only 47% who say this about Black students and 50% for Hispanic students.

[QuikSand]

I think the correct view is that the Supreme Court, on matters of policy, has simply just turned into another legislative body, albeit one without the usual measures of accountability for such. They now merely construct whatever legal facade they choose after starting out with the policy outcomes they prefer. Oddly enough, as it's mostly the left who supports this disillusionment, it's Gorsuch who is as close as a bastion of legalism as we have right now.

Maybe I was naive before then, but Bush v. Gore was my own eye-opener there, and it has been downhill ever since.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't think it's that simple. There are still many cases on which justices vote against their personal policy preferences. Not as many as there used to be, but it still happens quite often and is not even uncommon. It's just that for evident reasons these cases aren't generally the ones that get the most press attention.

[BYU 14]

I understand the Asian and Black, but I'd thought there would have been more Hispanic support for use of race.

Honestly this just comes along party lines since roughly 40% of Hispanic's are republican/have conservative leanings, where for Blacks it is around 6%, Asians around 34%.

So both Black and Asian voters seem to have a higher percentage of democrats backing the decision than Hispanic's.

[flere-imsaho]

+1 to what QuikSand said. The main recent difference is that since they got the right-wing supermajority, Thomas & Alito haven't even bothered to hide their naked partisanship. Which makes sense, as they were too busy hiding their naked corruption.

[CrimsonFox]

+1 to what QuikSand said. The main recent difference is that since they got the right-wing supermajority, Thomas & Alito haven't even bothered to hide their naked partisanship. Which makes sense, as they were too busy hiding their naked corruption.

and their pubes in coke

[CrimsonFox]

I think the correct view is that the Supreme Court, on matters of policy, has simply just turned into another legislative body, albeit one without the usual measures of accountability for such. They now merely construct whatever legal facade they choose after starting out with the policy outcomes they prefer. Oddly enough, as it's mostly the left who supports this disillusionment, it's Gorsuch who is as close as a bastion of legalism as we have right now.

Maybe I was naive before then, but Bush v. Gore was my own eye-opener there, and it has been downhill ever since.
yup
like i said. They are just making whatever desicion is the conservative decision and just making up wordsalad as a justification

[Toddzilla]

For me, the fact that the court just decided on a case brought by a woman who HASN'T EVEN STARTED HER OWN BUSINESS YET CLAIMED DAMAGES due to the possible future case where she'd be asked to serve a gay person is everything you need to know about the current court's naked appetite for creating law out of thin air.

[Atocep]

For me, the fact that the court just decided on a case brought by a woman who HASN'T EVEN STARTED HER OWN BUSINESS YET CLAIMED DAMAGES due to the possible future case where she'd be asked to serve a gay person is everything you need to know about the current court's naked appetite for creating law out of thin air.

The debt forgiveness ruling was weird too, but falls in line with the direction the court is headed in. Rather than turning down cases like these, where standing isn't entirely clear or is questionable at best, they've decided to create policy from the bench.

[JPhillips]

Douthat and I agree.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">John Roberts “acts, in many ways, like the farsighted Republican president we haven’t had this century — ideological but careful, moderating his own side’s demands but still seeking its advantage,” says <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DouthatNYT</a>. <a href="https://t.co/DOeGo93bG7">https://t.co/DOeGo93bG7</a></p>&mdash; New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1675519136103792642?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[CrimsonFox]

I just thought of the term "The Supreme Cult" and now I want to trademark it

[CrimsonFox]

so not to be a smartass here but really curious what you guys think (as I don't really know much about the history of it)...

What in your opinion was the reason and origin story around Affirmative Action?
What have been its positive and negative impacts?
Where has it been used and where does the law actually state it applies?
How much is it still needed today and are there parts of it that need expanding or removing?

[NobodyHere]

John Roberts came in like a wrecking ball
John Roberts never hit so hard in love
All John Roberts wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me

Is this right?

[Drake]

As someone who works tangentially with college admissions, I have a strong feeling that this case won't be as impactful as people fear it will be. We have targets for minority admissions (define "minority" as nebulously as you want here) based on what the university perceives to be educationally valuable in terms of diversity.

We'll continue to hit those diversity targets. We'll just make the process for how we hit them more opaque it already is.

The basic truth is that we're already drowning in qualified applicants. When you get to the "inclusion" part of the barrel, it's really more about justifiying marginally qualified in-state kids so we can maintain the illusion that we're a state university. It would be so much more financially healthy for us if we ditched a bunch of those kids and admitted the hundreds (maybe thousands?) of over-qualified international kids who are going to be billed at 3x the standard rate instead. But we're committed to "diversity" starting with kids from our own state.

NB: I don't work for admissions, so nothing I say should be construed as the official policy of my university. I just talk to the data people who are rewriting their scripts to generate candidate lists.

Edit: When I say "drowning", what I mean is that our primary constraint is dorm rooms, since we require all first year students to live on campus. That's a hard cap on how many we can admit, with the exception of kids within a 25-mile radius of campus (who aren't required to live in the dorms.) Without that constraint, we could easily double our annual freshman class on qualified applicants alone.

[CrimsonFox]

see Drake, That's where I was thinking...like...in this day and age is there ever a shortage of talented worthy minority candidates from in state/in country?

The dorm thing is on the money which I forgot about.

But the thing is...was affirmative action used to admit candidates that have crappy grades and wouldn't ordinarily be considered? Maybe it was. But with the way the population as well as opportunities grew, one would think that isn't as true anymore. But I really don't know.

oh yeah and they really should stop even bringing in out of country students (except canada/Mexico) in place of US students unless they have a shortage of applicants or are a private school.

[Edward64]

re: the (supposed) non-existent subject of the lawsuit.

Apologies if I'm not using the right terminology but how is it possible neither the prosecuting/defense counsel did not verify, vet, validate etc. all the "key" parties involve? Is this normal?

MSN (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-cited-in-supreme-court-lgbtq-rights-case-says-he-was-never-involved/ar-AA1dj67w)
Stewart was working on his couch in his Portland, Ore., home last week when he received a text from a New Republic reporter that left him “flabbergasted.”

A request he appeared to have made in 2016 to a Colorado artist to create designs and possibly a website for his same-sex wedding was now part of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the reporter told him.

Except Stewart — who didn’t want his full name used out of fear of being harassed — is not gay. In fact, he has been married to a woman for 15 years, and he’s a web designer himself.

[cuervo72]

Edit: When I say "drowning", what I mean is that our primary constraint is dorm rooms, since we require all first year students to live on campus. That's a hard cap on how many we can admit, with the exception of kids within a 25-mile radius of campus (who aren't required to live in the dorms.) Without that constraint, we could easily double our annual freshman class on qualified applicants alone.

Yeah, there's probably a reason they've been building like mad up in W. Lafayette.

(Also probably a reason they initially didn't offer any aid to my out-of-state Boiler.)

[CrimsonFox]

actually my last post was probably naive since some colleges would probably refuse people BECAUSE of their race regardless of qualifications and thus the AA law was born.

[RainMaker]

I seriously don't think most of the justices believe one bit anything they are saying as reasons. Their one and only reason is "God told me to"

Is God the guy paying them tons of money and flying them around on private jets?

[CrimsonFox]

Is God the guy paying them tons of money and flying them around on private jets?

lol touche

[miked]

Sotomayor allegedly turned down free bagels because she felt it was a gift. WTF are Thomas and Alito doing and why is there no federal oversight on the judiciary? Can they be compelled to testify in front of congress?

[Ghost Econ]

I see this thread title and all I can think about is Sam Alito swinging around on a wrecking ball in tighty whites and and a white tank top with his man boobs flopping around.

[RainMaker]

Sotomayor allegedly turned down free bagels because she felt it was a gift. WTF are Thomas and Alito doing and why is there no federal oversight on the judiciary? Can they be compelled to testify in front of congress?

Don't forget that a mysterious benefactor paid off all of Kavanaugh's old debts. He owed a few hundred thousand if I remember correct.

[CrimsonFox]

I see this thread title and all I can think about is Sam Alito swinging around on a wrecking ball in tighty whites and and a white tank top with his man boobs flopping around.

Hawt

[molson]

Sotomayor allegedly turned down free bagels because she felt it was a gift.

This reminds me of a friend I have who was a judge - she went to jiffy lube, and the guy working on her car was someone she sentenced to probation a few years earlier. He said he was doing well, was off drugs and everything. He punched in the best coupon code they had available, which must have been $10 or $15 off. On her way home, she basically panicked, went back, and insisted she had to pay the discount back.

[flere-imsaho]

Millions of Americans work in industries where there are strong anti-corruption regulations and doing even a fraction of what Thomas & Alito have done would not only be grounds for immediate dismissal, criminal charges might also follow.

But somehow it's OK for them. Unreal.

[CrimsonFox]

Not Supreme court but....wrecking ball indeed

Here in ohio republicans have decided to say "fuck you people, you don't get to a say in the state constitution".

Volunteers worked tirelessly to get enough signatures to put something on the ballot in november to amend the constitution to do something favorable for abortion availibility. I don't know all the details.

But BECAUSE OF THIS... old republicans and their petty bullshit have created a SPECIAL BALLOT IN AUGUST that if passed will cause this change: All amewndments must pass with 60% favor instead of just majority. So it would mean that the movember ballot thing for abortion will be toast because it apparently is possible with the current state senate makeup.

typical republican petty bullshit yes. I expect more of this shit everywhere really.

[NobodyHere]

Not Supreme court but....wrecking ball indeed

Here in ohio republicans have decided to say "fuck you people, you don't get to a say in the state constitution".

Volunteers worked tirelessly to get enough signatures to put something on the ballot in november to amend the constitution to do something favorable for abortion availibility. I don't know all the details.

But BECAUSE OF THIS... old republicans and their petty bullshit have created a SPECIAL BALLOT IN AUGUST that if passed will cause this change: All amewndments must pass with 60% favor instead of just majority. So it would mean that the movember ballot thing for abortion will be toast because it apparently is possible with the current state senate makeup.

typical republican petty bullshit yes. I expect more of this shit everywhere really.

I'll be voting against the proposed amendment.

Not really because of the 60% rule, I think changing a constitution should have more than 50% of the population buying into the change. 50% is a whim and attitudes could change the very next day.

But I think they're changing the ballot collection requirement so that you have to get x number of signatures in every county in Ohio. So in theory one county could block any amendment. I think that swings the difficulty pendulum way too far in the other direction.

[Brian Swartz]

Yeah, as described, that's not at all saying people don't get a say. The idea that a bare majority can amend the constitution is I think a bad one.

Obviously 'we don't like this proposed amendment so we're going to make it harder to pass' is not a good reason for this and pretty transparent political maneuvering, but as a general matter of policy/governmental structure I would personally favor a change like that in Ohio (sans NobodyHere's concerns) and my main question would be whether 60% is high enough.

[CrimsonFox]

Oh that's right. It requires 100% of counties signaturewise

[QuikSand]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">To the extent Brett Kavanaugh's colleagues think about him at all, they seem to view him as a fixer who can cobble together five votes for a diaphanous majority opinion that decides almost nothing.<br><br>On the Supreme Court's clear intellectual lightweight: <a href="https://t.co/AK8cIdQ73O">https://t.co/AK8cIdQ73O</a> <a href="https://t.co/uNSM221DR6">pic.twitter.com/uNSM221DR6</a></p>&mdash; Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) <a href="https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1681671339336167426?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 19, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

emerging consensus that Kavanaugh is just a dope

[Atocep]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">To the extent Brett Kavanaugh's colleagues think about him at all, they seem to view him as a fixer who can cobble together five votes for a diaphanous majority opinion that decides almost nothing.<br><br>On the Supreme Court's clear intellectual lightweight: <a href="https://t.co/AK8cIdQ73O">https://t.co/AK8cIdQ73O</a> <a href="https://t.co/uNSM221DR6">pic.twitter.com/uNSM221DR6</a></p>&mdash; Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) <a href="https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1681671339336167426?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 19, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

emerging consensus that Kavanaugh is just a dope

Never would have guessed based on his testimony in front of senate.

This is the way Trump's people want the federal government to work though. Hire under qualified political extremists that aren't exactly intelligent and make them feel they owe you.

Their plans to reshape the executive branch if Trump wins in 2024 is downright frightening. Bannon hinted at it after the 2020 election, but more details have started leaking. Pull federal agencies directly under the president, fire people that aren't seen as "team players", and have 1000 federal workers ready to be hired on day 1 based solely on their political affiliation and willingness to be a team player. Bannon complained that too many federal agencies had people that used silly things like regulations, laws, ect to prevent the first Trump administration from fully achieving their goals.

[CrimsonFox]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">To the extent Brett Kavanaugh's colleagues think about him at all, they seem to view him as a fixer who can cobble together five votes for a diaphanous majority opinion that decides almost nothing.<br><br>On the Supreme Court's clear intellectual lightweight: <a href="https://t.co/AK8cIdQ73O">https://t.co/AK8cIdQ73O</a> <a href="https://t.co/uNSM221DR6">pic.twitter.com/uNSM221DR6</a></p>&mdash; Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) <a href="https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1681671339336167426?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 19, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

emerging consensus that Kavanaugh is just a dope

he like beer

[CrimsonFox]

So here are the specific things that signatures are being gathered for this year in Ohio for the november ballot:


Type Title Subject Description
CICA Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative Abortion Provides that each individual has the right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, and that the state of Ohio may regulate abortion after fetal viability unless if it is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient
CISS Marijuana Legalization Initiative Marijuana Legalizes the recreational use of marijuana for adults 21 years of age or older


THAT is why they rushed the "emergency August 8" measure. This is the way they can ensure or try to ensure both initiatives fail. Let us not pretend that this is about anything but abortion really because that's what it is about. It isn't about careful scrutiny of the constitution. The current way things are done are to get things on the ballot. The signature rule alone would pretty much prevent that as any one district can kill any initiative they want. And with all the gerrymandering done republicans have a very easy time getting 60% of anything. Actually even if the 60% thing fails, I don't see how the abortion thing really has a chance in ohio seeing how many rep congressmen there are.

[flere-imsaho]

emerging consensus that Kavanaugh is just a dope

I mean, I'm shocked.

[NobodyHere]

I'll be voting against the proposed amendment.

Not really because of the 60% rule, I think changing a constitution should have more than 50% of the population buying into the change. 50% is a whim and attitudes could change the very next day.

But I think they're changing the ballot collection requirement so that you have to get x number of signatures in every county in Ohio. So in theory one county could block any amendment. I think that swings the difficulty pendulum way too far in the other direction.

Well my mind hasn't changed since this post so I voted no today.

[GrantDawg]

Well my mind hasn't changed since this post so I voted no today.
And you are right. 50% vote is a crazy low to alter a state constitution. There should e a bit of a higher bar. But the GOP got greedy with the signature requirement.

[JPhillips]

I get this, but everybody knows this is about abortion, so the real contest here is does %50+1 of the highly gerrymandered legislature get to ban abortion or does %50 +1 of the voting public get to keep it legal.

Of course the Ohio GOP is already looking at ways to ignore a referendum call or successful vote.

[GrantDawg]

Looks like "No" is going to win by a landslide.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

OSU campus voted 98% for "No".

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

I get this, but everybody knows this is about abortion, so the real contest here is does %50+1 of the highly gerrymandered legislature get to ban abortion or does %50 +1 of the voting public get to keep it legal.

Of course the Ohio GOP is already looking at ways to ignore a referendum call or successful vote.

Honestly though I think that saying this is about abortion is rather short sighted.

[CrimsonFox]

I voted a big FUCK YOU NO!

[CrimsonFox]

OSU campus voted 98% for "No".

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

i wonder if that 2% is getting the shit kicked out of them at the moment

[Toddzilla]

I voted a big FUCK YOU NO!
no Trout option I take it...

[bronconick]

Honestly though I think that saying this is about abortion is rather short sighted.

LaRose shouldn't have taken a break from running for Senate, er being Secretary of State to say that then.

[Brian Swartz]

I think the point is that a change of this magnitude would have impacts long beyond the immediate motivation for doing it.

I.e., it can be and in this case I would say it is true that:

- Abortion is a primary motivator for those trying to make this happen, and
- If it was enacted many more issues would be affected in the future beyond abortion. As in, anything you want to change the constitution for, including changing this requirement.

One of them being true and important and relevant doesn't mean the other isn't also true and important and relevant.

[CrimsonFox]

I get this, but everybody knows this is about abortion, so the real contest here is does %50+1 of the highly gerrymandered legislature get to ban abortion or does %50 +1 of the voting public get to keep it legal.

Of course the Ohio GOP is already looking at ways to ignore a referendum call or successful vote.

word. i mean I'm not sure why anyone here is arguing about this issue as if it were in a vacuum but perhaps they're just not up to speed. This and other state issues like this are an extension of mitch mcconnell politics. To shut down the normal avenues of sense and rig things however they can to push through things. GOP actually banned new inituitives in august because of low voter turnout but then suddenly allow this one and this one was thrown together so fast JUST because the abortion rights initiative got enough signatures. also note on this ballot it would have prevented any grace period for getting signatures.


but yeah ohio has been supergerrymandered for awhile. :( but also been superfoxnewsed. they lost some big businesses like ncr and others. I think the GOP capitalized on that stuff and convinced the blue collar it was dems fault...and also doubled down with the religious right who have things like lightning touchdown jesus along 75.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/6/16/1276680110544/The-King-of-Kings-statue--005.jpg?width=465&dpr=1&s=none

[CrimsonFox]

no Trout option I take it...

it was TROUT YOU!

[SirFozzie]

"We need to make sure that abortion does not become legal in our state, but 58% of the state thinks it should be legal."

"Well, that's simple, we just make it that they need 60%. Easy"

(58% of the state votes against the change)

(shocked pikachu face)

[CrimsonFox]

still have half of cleveland and a third of toledo to count still.

[CrimsonFox]

so I did not know this so did some digging...here are the other states' numbers:

https://scontent.fluk1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/366068382_10232357425543571_7012896638505136071_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=ktNMc8hsnxoAX-SHOK_&_nc_ht=scontent.fluk1-1.fna&oh=00_AfCwIDxNg0S28GCx0KDj4Hu-Mr4iIGujbC_tQ0O5UOd8nw&oe=64D848E0

[GrantDawg]

Measure won by nearly 58%, but Kari Lake is already beating the "frard" drum. Republicans never lose elections, they either win or won and was cheated.

[Lathum]

Someone should fire that woman into the sun

[CrimsonFox]

jesus. the ohio secretary of state is complaining that "dark money" has "flooded into the state" to spread disinformation about issue 1 and that's why it was defeated. These people have no reality.

uggggggggggh

he's doing the trump thing since money from GOP superpacs flooded in here. franted there may have been some aclu or prochoice ads playing i dunno. but as usual any ads about that were giving the facts. That the gop hastily threw this together to stop the abortion ballot and that's all this is about. While the GOP ads were dressed up like "Evil people are here to destroy the constitution". oh yeah? this has been the case for years and it hasn't been destroyed already?
he's saying the constitution is for sale now. um....well...dude that's indeed what lobbyists do.

[CrimsonFox]

Someone should fire that woman into the sun

nice leela reference

https://y.yarn.co/ade91e02-7b4c-45ef-9ff2-0bc2e39a6502_screenshot.jpg

[Lathum]

No idea what that means.

[Toddzilla]

If they didn't like losing the referendum by 20-points, they're gonna really hate the results of the abortion amendment this fall

[Edward64]

Good move by SCOTUS.

Supreme Court blocks $6 billion opioid settlement that would have given the Sackler family immunity | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/politics/supreme-court-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement/index.html)
The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked Purdue Pharma from going forward with bankruptcy proceedings, which the Biden administration has called an “unprecedented” arrangement that would ultimately offer the Sackler family broad protection from opioid-related civil claims.

In agreeing to pause the settlement, the court also said it would take up the case and hear arguments this December.

The case arose after the reorganization in bankruptcy of OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma – stemming from litigation arising from claims over its role in fueling the opioid addiction crisis.
I watched Billy McBride in Goliath. I know he could have gotten at least $15B

The family has now agreed to contribute up to $6 billion to Purdue’s reorganization fund on the condition that the Sacklers receive a release from civil liability.
I don't really know who owned or managed or directed whatever. But glad SCOTUS is taking another look at this.

“The plan’s release ‘absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, fully, finally, forever and permanently releases’ the Sacklers from every conceivable type of opioid-related civil claim – even claims based on fraud and other forms of willful misconduct that could not be discharged if the Sacklers filed for bankruptcy in their individual capacities,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in court papers.

Prelogar said that the release of the Sacklers is not authorized by the bankruptcy code and constitutes an “abuse of the bankruptcy system.”

[RainMaker]

Still wild that the Sacklers aren't on death row right now.

[CrimsonFox]

No idea what that means.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KdtJvVgIG9Y" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[RainMaker]

Not the Supreme Court but another Judge bought and paid for.

Trump Judge’s Anti-Abortion Ruling Followed Payments From Group Leading Case (https://www.levernews.com/trump-judges-anti-abortion-ruling-followed-payments-from-group-leading-case/)

[Ghost Econ]

You would think filing lawsuits by creating fake companies with fake grievances in order to set precedences would be highly illegal... but I guess the truth really ain't important in a Conservatives view of American justice.

The Supreme Court’s fake praying coach case just got faker. (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/09/supreme-court-praying-coach-joe-kennedy-fake.html)

[Thomkal]

You would think filing lawsuits by creating fake companies with fake grievances in order to set precedences would be highly illegal... but I guess the truth really ain't important in a Conservatives view of American justice.

The Supreme Court’s fake praying coach case just got faker. (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/09/supreme-court-praying-coach-joe-kennedy-fake.html)


Not surprised he ended up in Florida or if he takes a coaching job there when his time in the limelight comes to an end. Or that the Supreme Court won't vacate the verdict now that its been exposed it was a fake from the Christian right. I hope reporters/investigators keep digging and find that it was fake all along.

[Atocep]

You would think filing lawsuits by creating fake companies with fake grievances in order to set precedences would be highly illegal... but I guess the truth really ain't important in a Conservatives view of American justice.

The Supreme Court’s fake praying coach case just got faker. (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/09/supreme-court-praying-coach-joe-kennedy-fake.html)


I mentioned this in the Biden thread a few days ago. He's a local coach here so my wife and I had some discussions about it and didn't really see eye to eye, but one thing I was adamant about was he was doing this for money and attention. He was asked to stop, stooped for a while, "prayed about it", decided to keep doing it, was fired, and quickly found himself on right wing and other TV platforms, doing speaking engagements, and interviews. Getting fired was the best thing that ever happened to him financially and taking the job as an assistant high school football coach was a huge paycut from the right wing grift.

[RainMaker]

Not a legal expert but can you just lie in filings like that?

[Flasch186]

You can because lying is not a sin anymore to Christian&rsquo;s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Is it considered perjury? Or an ethical violation? Like can I just make up a story and sue anyone with no repurcussions?

[flere-imsaho]

There's a certain horrendous asymmetry here where a progressive service nonprofit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now) is forced to shut down when a right-wing activist creates doctored videos of its activities, but when right-wing groups now do exactly what that progressive organization was accused of doing (and far worse), they get SCOTUS decisions in their favor.

[flere-imsaho]

Is it considered perjury? Or an ethical violation? Like can I just make up a story and sue anyone with no repurcussions?

It's super clear. If you're championing a right-wing cause, or have bought the SCOTUS Justice in question, then you have standing by default (and likely a judgment in your favor). Everyone else only has standing if Gorsuch, Roberts, and Kavanaugh decide it would be a bit much, even for them, to deny it.

It's a lot simpler than having to remember everything about constitutional law (https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barrett-forgets-right-to-protest-is-a-first-amendment-freedom/?sh=2521d78612ed).

[Vegas Vic]

Looks like the MAGATs are livid at Barrett and Roberts for siding with the Biden administration on removing the physical barriers that Texas put up on the border.

Amy Coney Barrett Under Fire for Siding With Biden on the Border (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/amy-coney-barrett-under-fire-for-siding-with-biden-on-the-border/ar-BB1h68l8)

[RainMaker]

Looks like the MAGATs are livid at Barrett and Roberts for siding with the Biden administration on removing the physical barriers that Texas put up on the border.

Amy Coney Barrett Under Fire for Siding With Biden on the Border (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/amy-coney-barrett-under-fire-for-siding-with-biden-on-the-border/ar-BB1h68l8)

When will those 4 judges get around to reading the Supremacy Clause? Like I know not to take the courts seriously, but even Scalia would have put together some bullshit dissent instead of just ignoring the actual Constitution.

[JPhillips]

TX National Guard is still refusing access and putting up more razor wire.

[RainMaker]

TX National Guard is still refusing access and putting up more razor wire.


Biden should take federal control over the Texas National Guard. Problem solved.

[Ghost Econ]

Alabama Supreme Court, but there's not really a catch all "dumb things conservatives do."

Frozen embryos are now people. Time to start arresting people for disposing of frozen babies.

Alabama frozen embryos ruling: What it means for fertility treatments | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/alabama-supreme-court-from-embryos-161390f0758b04a7638e2ddea20df7ca)

[GrantDawg]

To follow that, the state legislature is working to pass a law that would ban many birth-control drugs and devices. Need those women poor and pregnant.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Oh, also to form a registry of women that have had abortions.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[CrimsonFox]

Mandatory Red dresses and bonnets too?

[Kodos]

Why on earth would any female want to live in Alabama?

[GrantDawg]

White women vote for the party that sees them as breeding mares at around a 57% clip. They are the ones sowing the red cloaks and hoods.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

This decision is like extremely bad. Further, the Chief Justice says no law that the legislature could pass can change it, because any law would be unconstitutional.
<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Alabama Supreme Court ruling that embryos are legally children is worse than a lot of coverage implies. The majority and the chief justice suggest that EVEN IF the Alabama legislature attempts to re-legalize IVF, the state constitution will forbid it. <a href="https://t.co/OftImMpUHN">https://t.co/OftImMpUHN</a> <a href="https://t.co/er5d4QEfg5">pic.twitter.com/er5d4QEfg5</a></p>&mdash; Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) <a href="https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1760350551680647670?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

[cuervo72]

How is a state constitution based on the Bible even constitutional in the first place?

[HerRealName]

"Moderate" Nikki Haley agrees with the ruling because she thinks embryos are babies. They are all insane.

[miked]

If I did IVF in Alabama and had 10 frozen embryos, I may claim them all as dependents.

[RainMaker]

If I did IVF in Alabama and had 10 frozen embryos, I may claim them all as dependents.


Isn't there someone in Texas suing over being allowed to use the carpool lane while pregnant?

[Lathum]

Isn't there someone in Texas suing over being allowed to use the carpool lane while pregnant?

I recall someone did that in Washington State when I lived there and lost.

[Mota]

Isn't there someone in Texas suing over being allowed to use the carpool lane while pregnant?

I guess if the state legally considers it a human being, then you should be able to drive in the carpool lane.

[flere-imsaho]

If you're expecting logical consistency out of the Republican Party I have some really bad news for you.

[RainMaker]

Not that it should be surprising but the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is a hardcore religious nut and a massive racist history.

[Edward64]

"Moderate" Nikki Haley agrees with the ruling because she thinks embryos are babies. They are all insane.

Sounds like she is trying to do damage control. Article is from Thu (I think before Trump being for IVF).

Nikki Haley says she believes embryos are children but disagrees with Alabama Supreme Court ruling | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/22/politics/nikki-haley-alabama-ivf-ruling/index.html)
Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Thursday that while she personally believes a frozen embryo is a baby, she disagreed with the Alabama Supreme Court’s in vitro fertilization ruling last week and felt it may be time for the state to “go back and look at the law.”

In an interview on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” Haley sought to clarify her initial responses to the ruling, which found that frozen embryos are children in the eyes of the law and those who destroy them can be held to blame for wrongful death.

[Atocep]

Tuberville was asked about IVF facilities shutting down because of the Alabama ruling and he stated that he agrees with the ruling because we need more kids.

[Atocep]

Sounds like she is trying to do damage control. Article is from Thu (I think before Trump being for IVF).

Nikki Haley says she believes embryos are children but disagrees with Alabama Supreme Court ruling | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/22/politics/nikki-haley-alabama-ivf-ruling/index.html)

Trying to straddle the line here makes her sound even dumber. Pick a side. Her stance is that embryos are babies. That means 8-10 "babies" are killed, on average, for each person getting IVF treatment.

I'm not sure she even knows what her stance is on issues because she dances around every topic trying to appease the GOP base and moderates at the same time.

[Edward64]

I agree.

I'd like to see the Dems play this out more through Nov. Abortion rights plus IVF inconsistency/hypocrisy is a good rallying issue. I'd like a campaign along the lines of "re-elect Joe to prevent SCOTUS from getting even more extreme, or this stuff will get worse".

[RainMaker]

Trying to straddle the line here makes her sound even dumber. Pick a side. Her stance is that embryos are babies. That means 8-10 "babies" are killed, on average, for each person getting IVF treatment.

I'm not sure she even knows what her stance is on issues because she dances around every topic trying to appease the GOP base and moderates at the same time.

They all supported Dobbs which this Alabama decision is based on. They can dance around individual rulings but it all stems from that.

[Atocep]

The Supreme Court rules 7-2 in favor of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I don't think it's a coincidence, that after all the scrutiny on Thomas, that he split with Alito and not only went with the majority but wrote the opinion.

[GrantDawg]

Every once in a while, this nutbag court has a sane, lucid moment.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html

[flere-imsaho]

I kind of want to see everyone's faces from the Justices' conference when Thomas (who would have talked last as the most senior Justice) said he'd be siding with the CFPB.

Alito & Gorsuch were completely predictable on this ruling.

[RainMaker]

We have a new contender for craziest spouse on SCOTUS


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/us/justice-alito-neighbors-stop-steal-flag.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[cuervo72]

Not SCOTUS, but still courts:

A grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fearless-fund-dei-backlash-dab43ae98158a0bd6175fa64fa79bcfd)

Black women not allowed to help other black women, basically.

[Mota]

Not SCOTUS, but still courts:

A grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fearless-fund-dei-backlash-dab43ae98158a0bd6175fa64fa79bcfd)

Black women not allowed to help other black women, basically.

That is ridiculous. What's next, a school lunch program is discriminatory against hungry adults?

[NobodyHere]

Not SCOTUS, but still courts:

A grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fearless-fund-dei-backlash-dab43ae98158a0bd6175fa64fa79bcfd)

Black women not allowed to help other black women, basically.

Would you be fine with a program ran by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender?

[cuervo72]

Would you be fine with a program ran by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender?

Sigh. The point, I think, is to give aid to those who need it and are unlikely to get it elsewhere. Like, I wouldn't run a charitable organization to help billionaires. Yes, that is an extreme example, but illustrates the basic premise; as far as startup money goes, white men have a decided advantage as opposed to black women. Apparently a goal of rectifying that -- if only a little -- is no good?

What's next? The United Negro College Fund?

(I mean, I guess the argument is that these are "contracts", which strikes me as a load of bull. I don't see how this is really all that different from me getting a bit of scholarship money from an Italian-American group in college because I happen to have an Italian last name. I also wonder about things like in-group loans, etc. Don't the Mormons have some system set up where they fund other Mormon projects? Bet something like that will never be challenged. But oh, Black women, can't assist them!)

[cuervo72]

Also, "program ran [sic] by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender" is, essentially, the whole current status quo.

[cuervo72]

"The world will not be fair until black women show more support to me, a white man."

This is what I'm hearing, basically.

(Lemme guess, initiatives like girls/women in STEM are probably wrongheaded too?)

[Lathum]

Not SCOTUS, but still courts:

A grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/fearless-fund-dei-backlash-dab43ae98158a0bd6175fa64fa79bcfd)

Black women not allowed to help other black women, basically.

Cue Byron Donalds saying this is a good thing because black women were better off when they just couldn't own businesses.

[Lathum]

Would you be fine with a program ran by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender?

This is such a ridiculous simplified argument made by uneducated knuckle draggers who lack the ability to critically think.

It is the equivalent of

"why isn't there white history month?"
"why isn't there straight month?"

etc....you're better than that

[RainMaker]

Would you be fine with a program ran by white men that intentionally discriminated based on race and gender?

That's like most of this country's history.

But to answer your question, if white men were enslaved for generations, freed without reparations for the damage inflicted on them, thrown into a segregated system where they did not have access to education, money, or power for over a hundred years, and then finally given more freedom just 60 years ago where they still see their political power gerrymandered away and receive harsher treatment by politicians and our justice system, my answer is yes.

If your country has put a particular group at a massive disadvantage for countless generations, it seems only fair to help level that playing ground. That is if you believe we should be a meritocracy instead of an aristocracy.

[thesloppy]

For anybody who thinks these programs are no longer necessary, can you point out to me when sysystemic racism ended? Should be pretty easy to do, for such a significant change.

[NobodyHere]

It seems most of you here are calling for more systemic racism if you want to allow companies to racially discriminate.

[thesloppy]

Sure, you got me. Direct hit. Now can you tell me when sytemic racism ended?

[NobodyHere]

Sure, you got me. Direct hit. Now can you tell me when sytemic racism ended?

Never as long as racists like you are around.

[GrantDawg]

It seems most of you here are calling for more systemic racism if you want to allow companies to racially discriminate.
Do you know what "grant" means? This is not a business, but a charity of the organization helping minority business owners.


Edit: Fixed it

[thesloppy]

Never as long as racists like you are around.

Fresh and funny stuff. When do you think systemic racism ended?

[Atocep]

It seems most of you here are calling for more systemic racism if you want to allow companies to racially discriminate.

The problem is due to systematic racism there's a monumental gap that exists and barriers for black entrepreneurs and business owners. Black entrepreneurs get less than 1% of venture capital funding. Black people make up 16% of the population but hold only 3% of the wealth. From '09 to '17 black women led startups pulled 0.0006% of venture capital funding.

Whether we like it or not there are cultural differences between black and white communities and with the vast majority of investors being white, it's more difficult for black men and women to get meetings and secure funding. I don't think it's always systematic racism either. A lot of these investors want to make money regardless of who's helping them make it, but they don't know black culture and black communities so it can be more difficult for them to identify potentially successful startups and promising entrepreneurs.

So the question for you is, if we don't have programs like the one the Supreme Court ruled on then what's the solution to this problem?

[RainMaker]

It seems most of you here are calling for more systemic racism if you want to allow companies to racially discriminate.

This is repayment to those affected by centuries of systemic racism. The state should do its best to right the wrongs of its past and ensure an equal playing ground for its citizens. Would you consider the redress movement racist?

[Edward64]

Never as long as racists like you are around.

Systemic racism has existed and continues to exist. The question is how much is still out there.

Using a very generalized 80-20, I’m personally on the 20 whereas some others here are more on the 80.

[NobodyHere]

This is repayment to those affected by centuries of systemic racism. The state should do its best to right the wrongs of its past and ensure an equal playing ground for its citizens. Would you consider the redress movement racist?

If the redress movement is for discriminating based on race then yes.

I'm not sure the answer to racism is more racism.

[mtolson]

If the redress movement is for discriminating based on race then yes.

I'm not sure the answer to racism is more racism.

Thats really stretching the defintion of racism. Maybe you mean reverse descrimination How else would you suggest we achieve a just and inclusive society?

[JonInMiddleGA]

How else would you suggest we achieve a just and inclusive society?

"Just" is the very last thing those backing the affirmative action*garbage want.

*used as a catch all to cover all the insane horseshit discussed over the last few pages of this thread, which was all I could stomach

[thesloppy]

You guys seem very passionate about this. I'd love to hear your personal stories about how this discrimination and injustice has affected your lives.

[Edward64]

FWIW here's how CA did the calculations for reparations. There are nice details & graphics in the article.

I doubt it'll happen (or at least not at $1.2M per person).

Just a moment... (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/17/black-reparations-price-tag-california-00110137)
The group considered factors beyond slavery, including housing discrimination, health harms, mass incarceration and excessive policing.
Based on the annual amounts recommended by the report’s authors, a person could receive reparations of more than $1.2 million.

[flere-imsaho]

You guys seem very passionate about this. I'd love to hear your personal stories about how this discrimination and injustice has affected your lives.

:+1:

[Atocep]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html

The only way we're going to get supreme court ethics reform is if the liberal justices start taking gifts like Thomas.

[RainMaker]

If the redress movement is for discriminating based on race then yes.

I'm not sure the answer to racism is more racism.

That's a unique definition of racism. I consider it repayment for the past wrongs. No different than when we compensate someone who was wrongfully imprisoned or unjustly killed by the state.

[Edward64]

Article has SCOTUS disclosures.

I really don't begrudge them of "trinkets" just as long as there is full disclosure, conform to the rules (which previously seemed prone to ones own definition), and they recuse themselves when needed. I assume there is more rigor & clear "definitions" nowadays to ensure complete transparency,

Regardless, we are cheap ass country to just pay SCOTUS below for a lifetime assignment. I don't know what total compensation/benefits are but we can easily afford $1-2M each a year.

reuters.com (https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-justices-disclose-bali-hotel-stay-beyonc-tickets-book-deals-2024-06-07/)
The publishing proceeds supplement the justices' salaries. This year the eight associate justices will receive $298,500, with Chief Justice John Roberts getting $312,200.

[thesloppy]

Regardless, we are cheap ass country to just pay SCOTUS below for a lifetime assignment. I don't know what total compensation/benefits are but we can easily afford $1-2M each a year.

reuters.com (https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-justices-disclose-bali-hotel-stay-beyonc-tickets-book-deals-2024-06-07/)


The real money's in the endorsement deals.

[CrimsonFox]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html

The only way we're going to get supreme court ethics reform is if the liberal justices start taking gifts like Thomas.

What would happen is that every republican would blow the whistle on them and immediately try to impeach and every democrat would demand they resign and the democrat would resign while nothing would happen any of the republican. That's what always happens and will continue to happen

[flere-imsaho]

FWIW, SCOTUS' health plans (which cover them until they die) are top-notch and worth a lot. Perhaps not to make it up to $1-2M/year, but close when we consider the expense of end-of-life care.

Disclosure rules for justices (and most everyone in an elected position at the federal level for that matter) are a complete joke compared to those most working Americans are required to follow. They absolutely need to be toughened up, but asking someone to police themselves never works.

[Atocep]

Alito admits how he really feels and that he can't effectively do his job in a recording where he thought he was talking to a religious fundamental ally.

Deconstructed: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Caught on Secret Audio (https://theintercept.com/2024/06/10/deconstructed-supreme-court-samuel-alito-secret-audio/)

[GrantDawg]

Court related but not Supreme Court related (though it might be that later). Brian Steele, the attorney defending Young Thug in the racketeering case in Fulton County, Georgia has just been arrested for contempt. He called for a mistrial because the judge had met with the DA and a witness Ex-parte. Instead of denying it, the judged demanded Steele tell him who informed him of that and threw him jail when he refused.

[albionmoonlight]

The Young Thug trial proves that every court proceeding should be televised.

[RainMaker]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-gun-owners-jan-6-rioters-tough-crime-justice-alito-displays-empa-rcna151242

[Atocep]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-gun-owners-jan-6-rioters-tough-crime-justice-alito-displays-empa-rcna151242

Thomas, deservedly, is getting a ton of heat but Alito is worse. Thomas is fairly consistent in his rulings and how he reaches them. Alito moves the goalposts to find the justification to fit his decision.

[Edward64]

CNN is playing up Barrett's disagreement with Thomas. Don't know how significant (or has this happen before) but I like the hint (?) towards more flexibility & moderation.

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/19/politics/amy-coney-barrett-clarence-thomas-originalism/index.html)
When the Supreme Court last week rejected a lawyer’s bid to trademark the phrase “Trump Too Small,” all nine justices agreed on the outcome, but strong disagreements arose over the majority’s decision to invoke the nation’s “history and tradition” to rebuff the trademark.

Barrett, who endorsed the court’s conclusion that a provision of federal trademark law barring the registration of an individual’s name without that person’s consent is constitutional, wrote separately to express her displeasure with the reasoning of Thomas’ decision to rely on “history and tradition.”

That route, Barrett argued in a 15-page concurrence, “is wrong twice over.” The court’s three liberals signed on to parts of Barrett’s opinion.

Though Barrett acknowledged in her opinion that “tradition has a legitimate role to play in constitutional adjudication,” the Trump nominee said that “the court’s laser-like focus on the history of this single restriction misses the forest for the trees” and sought to poke holes in the history and tradition-first route taken by Thomas and the other conservative justices who agreed with his legal rationale.

Thomas & Alito are the oldest at 75 & 74. Fair chance next President will nominate another 1-2 justices. Joe needs to play that up more.

[JPhillips]

The only thing SCOTUS conservatives love as much as diluting minority voting power is making bribery legal.

[larrymcg421]

Jackson's dissent is absolutely fire there. What a great SCOTUS pick and people are still going to try to fall all over themselves to claim Biden and Trump are the same.

I'll give Barrett credit for a pretty good opinion in the social media case. She burns Alito's ridiculous dissenting opinion, although saves some of the strongest criticisms for the footnotes.

[Atocep]

The SC should start billing the 5th circuit for doing their legal research for them. This conservative SC still sits far to the left of that court and has to fix their mistakes. Barrett even called them out for misrepresenting facts in a case.

[larrymcg421]

Chevron down. Homeless people told to fuck themselves. A lifeline given to Jan 6 defendants. What a day for SCOTUS.

[Atocep]

Chevron down. Homeless people told to fuck themselves. A lifeline given to Jan 6 defendants. What a day for SCOTUS.

Explain to me again why Biden is even an issue when this is what really matters.

[JPhillips]

And no guidelines on Chevron, so that MAGA judge in TX now gets to decide whether or not every regulation is constitutional.

[Ksyrup]

In addition to weakening the J6 argument against a Trump presidency, the other thing the SC's J6 decision did - in practical terms, not legal - is give Trump cover to pardon every single person convicted of a J6-related offense. He's already talked about doing it, and now he has a blanket rationale to apply to every one of them once he's elected.

[CrimsonFox]

If you like those decisions you're gonna love when they completely make Trump immune to everything.

[Ksyrup]

And no guidelines on Chevron, so that MAGA judge in TX now gets to decide whether or not every regulation is constitutional.

I found this comment (in a lawyer forum, of course) to be the best example of trying to find a silver lining:

Not sure this is completely bad news. Shredding the administrative state is going to take hundreds of thousands of billable hours.

[GrantDawg]

I found this comment (in a lawyer forum, of course) to be the best example of trying to find a silver lining:
It was my immediate thought when I saw the decisions. Lawyers everywhere must be salivating.

[Saul Goode]

Explain to me again why Biden is even an issue when this is what really matters.

You see the liberal media is out to get Donald Trump. Wait, that can't be right. The media is not owned by a few extremely wealthy people that want all regulation and democracy destroyed and will use trump as a pawn and/or puppet to accomplish that? I think that could be it.

[Saul Goode]

And no guidelines on Chevron, so that MAGA judge in TX now gets to decide whether or not every regulation is constitutional.

Just like gerrymandering, which was dominated by conservative states in the 10's, they don't want a democracy. They want a rigged system where the rules are set by people they can give brib....gratuities to. If you like Russia, you're in for a treat.

[JPhillips]

I found this comment (in a lawyer forum, of course) to be the best example of trying to find a silver lining:

Lawyers to set up a shell company. (Wouldn't want the public knowing that MegaCorp is going to start pumping chemicals into the water supply.)

Lawyers to file for an injunction.

Lawyers file for delay after delay after the injunction.

Lawyers to eventually try a case.

Lawyers to appeal.

Lawyers to start the whole process over again to gut banking regulations.

[GrantDawg]

The Presidential Immunity case decision will be announced today. Predictions?


My guess: They will grant partial immunity with some kind of litmus test that will have lots of room for judges discretion and kick it back to the presiding judge for a new hearing. They will create an avenue that delays any kind of trial of criminal acts dealing with President for years and numerous appeals all at the discretion of the court.

[BYU 14]

Not sure how it may go, but I promise Clarence Thomas will rule in Trumps favor. He doesn't even try and disguise his political bias behind law anymore.

Quite honestly Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett have both been pleasant surprises at times, putting politics aside, as Brown-Jackson has on the liberal side. Gonna be a lot of pressure to tow the political line on this one though, so we will see.

[Edward64]

CNBC says the ruling has been released. We'll know soon enough. Exciting times ...

[Jas_lov]

Looked like they said 6-3 that he's immune from official acts but not unofficial. Didn't we already know that? Now it will go back to the lower court who will rule J6 was an unofficial act and it'll get appealed back up and delayed for years.

[Lathum]

Right wing media going to scream he’s immune when he isn’t. This court is so crooked.

[Saul Goode]

Looked like they said 6-3 that he's immune from official acts but not unofficial. Didn't we already know that? Now it will go back to the lower court who will rule J6 was an unofficial act and it'll get appealed back up and delayed for years.

Isn't an official act writing a presidential order to lock up your rivals?

[cuervo72]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.&quot;<br><br>Richard Nixon, 1974<br><br>Affirmed, US Supreme Court, 2024</p>&mdash; John W. Dean (@JohnWDean) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnWDean/status/1807796806937375198?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 1, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[larrymcg421]

Not just immune from core constitutional power actions, but given a presumption of immunity for actions that fall within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.

[Atocep]

This likely doesn't change either case against him. Definitely not the documents case. The issue is the delays for this helped him immensely.

[RainMaker]

Isn't an official act writing a presidential order to lock up your rivals?

Depends. If he uses his own private goons to lock up his rivals, it would not be an officiial act. If he uses law enforcement, it's an official act.

[Toddzilla]

Biden needs to start getting into some shit ASAP

[Toddzilla]

Say, as a matter of national security, he rounds up and jails the 6 conservative supreme court justices. it's legal now, right?

[RainMaker]

What is stopping him from paying off every single federal student loan?

[Thomkal]

So here's a legal look at what's available in the jan 6 and false electors cases now that the Supreme Court has ruled. it's in flow charts for 'easy' understanding:


x.com (https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/1807862611167293554)

[Thomkal]

Say, as a matter of national security, he rounds up and jails the 6 conservative supreme court justices. it's legal now, right?


Yeah he can just march right up to the Supreme Court and citizen arrest on all 6. They are clearly treasonous now right? :) It's the President's duty to protect the Constitution right?

[Toddzilla]

If it's the realm of official conduct - as protecting national security is - presumptive immunity means he could basically execute all of them and not have to worry about anything.

That's part of what makes this decision so mind-blowing and counter to basically everything the founding fathers put in place from step one. SCOTUS didn't define what "official conduct" is and leaves it wide open for a president to do whatever the are inclined to do in the name of "official conduct".

That's why Biden needs to really fuck shit up from now until January, show everyone what the decision really means.

[Thomkal]

See lots of people posting on twitter that as an 'official act" President Biden can now announce an executive order that no convicted felons can become President. There the Trump problem handled nicely by the Supreme Court

[Ksyrup]

I'm not sure I'm understanding all these examples people keep throwing out. The case was about immunity from prosecution, not legality of action. If the President acts unlawfully in his official capacity, the act will likely not stand. He just can't be prosecuted for taking the action.

[RainMaker]

If you can't be prosecuted for something, how is it illegal?

[Brian Swartz]

Yep. I'm with RainMaker on this one. The idea of Biden just going nuts is destructive, it's kind of like hitting the accelerator when you are heading towards a cliff. But it's now officially the law of the land that the person responsible for enforcing the law (among many other things) is above the law.

It's banana-republic territory. 100% in 'makes me ashamed to be an American' zone.

[Ksyrup]

If you can't be prosecuted for something, how is it illegal?

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.

[GrantDawg]

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.
Adding on to that, wouldn't an illegal command, while not allowing the President to be legally liable, open up anyone following it to possible persecution?

[cuervo72]

Prosecuted by an executive-led DOJ? Of someone I assume the president could pardon?

[JPhillips]

That Trump two days ago posted that Liz Cheney should be arrested and face a military tribunal and yesterday SCOTUS said it was totally cool for a President to tell the AG who to investigate and prosecute should be getting more coverage.

All of the legal framework is there and this time Trump will appoint the right people to make shit happen.

[Saul Goode]

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.

Trump is a monster. He would have unfettered power. The way cops love authoritarian monsters, he 100% would find some that would do his bidding. Why do you think when Hitler gained a little bit of power, he just wanted control of the police and military?

[Saul Goode]

That Trump two days ago posted that Liz Cheney should be arrested and face a military tribunal and yesterday SCOTUS said it was totally cool for a President to tell the AG who to investigate and prosecute should be getting more coverage.

All of the legal framework is there and this time Trump will appoint the right people to make shit happen.

You should believe the fascists when they tell you who they actually are.

[larrymcg421]

The majority focuses so much on Federalist 70 where Hamilton talks about an "energetic executive" like they're an AP Gov student who crammed before the exam and learned the bare minimum about each document.

However, Sotomayor rightly points out this excerpt from Federalist 69...

"The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."

This decision is worse and worse than the more you look at it.

[JPhillips]

Just reading how this decision will almost certainly toss out the NY convictions. Some of the evidence came from Trump's time as President and that's now been determined to be unusable. Since there's no way to know what evidence the jury relied upon the convictions probably get tossed. NY could try again, but not before the election.

[cuervo72]

The majority focuses so much on Federalist 70 where Hamilton talks about an "energetic executive" like they're an AP Gov student who crammed before the exam and learned the bare minimum about each document.

However, Sotomayor rightly points out this excerpt from Federalist 69...

"The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."

This decision is worse and worse than the more you look at it.
Of course he wasn't convicted and wasn't removed from office due to the impeachment. (I mean, I get it, but at the same time, that's going to come up as an argument.)

[Lathum]

Trump sentencing postponed in NY because of the immunity ruling. What an absolute disaster our courts have become.

[Ksyrup]

That's because the SC ruling might invalidate the conviction. As I understand it, some of the evidence used at trial involved acts taken while he was President. As ridiculous as it is, now everything becomes a question of official or not.

[RainMaker]

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.

Why not? The President is Commander in Chief and commands the military. Why would he not be able to hold Fauci in a military prison indefinitely? Someone would have to defy his orders as Commander in Chief to release Fauci.

[Lathum]

Why not? The President is Commander in Chief and commands the military. Why would he not be able to hold Fauci in a military prison indefinitely? Someone would have to defy his orders as Commander in Chief to release Fauci.

Exactly. People need to stop acting like there is any semblance of normalcy with Trump and his sycophants.

I have heard a lot of "he can't or won't do that" being said about this when Trump has shown us over and over he is more than willing to defy what the office should entail.

[JPhillips]

There will be legal opinions from Trump folks that say it's legal.

[RainMaker]

There will be legal opinions from Trump folks that say it's legal.

But they don't need to make it legal. If you can't be prosecuted or held accountable for committing a crime, it's legal. There is nothing that can stop you.

[JPhillips]

The opinions will get the feet on the ground to do the dirty work. Just like with the Abu-Ghraib torture.

[cartman]

so basically the Supreme Court turned the presidency into the one ring, but there is no Mount Doom to drop it into. So the choice comes down to picking who will do the least damage holding it.

[RainMaker]

I know this goes back a ways but I think the al-Awlaki killing will be a flashpoint for what happens in the future. It was an extreme example, but once you allow for a President to commit extrajudicial killings of American citizens, it's tough to go back.

[PilotMan]

Don't worry guys. The blacks and browns will still go to jail. Nothing to worry about. /s

[Ksyrup]

I'm not sure I'm understanding all these examples people keep throwing out. The case was about immunity from prosecution, not legality of action. If the President acts unlawfully in his official capacity, the act will likely not stand. He just can't be prosecuted for taking the action.

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.


Adding on to that, wouldn't an illegal command, while not allowing the President to be legally liable, open up anyone following it to possible persecution?


This article mines some of the territory I was trying to get at. It doesn't mean we're in a good place, of course, and the SC could absolutely affirm or deny conduct on a purely political basis, but there's definitely something to the idea that this doesn't just allow the underlying action to be considered legal (although, again, a death is a death and can't be undone).

Just a moment... (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/02/trump-immunity-murder-navy-sotomayor-00166385?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email)

Richard Fallon, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, argued the ruling does not leave presidential power completely unchecked. Lawless presidential conduct can still be prevented or unraveled by other parts of the Constitution — for instance, if a president illegally imprisoned a political enemy, that person would be entitled to a court order to go free.

President Joe Biden “is fettered in just the way the presidents were fettered the day before yesterday,” he said.

But the extraordinary scenario of an assassination ordered by the president would be different, Fallon acknowledged. It couldn’t be undone after the fact.

“The only thing that the law can do is impose criminal punishment,” he said — but the president would be immune.

The biggest challenge for a president ordering an assassination would be finding military personnel willing to carry out the order, legal experts explained. While the president himself would have the protection of immunity, others involved would remain vulnerable to prosecution because the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t make the underlying act legal.

“If they are given an illegal order by the president or by someone who is directly answering the president, they may be in a position that they are subject to court martial in either direction,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania.

A lawless president, however, could get around that problem by promising to pardon anyone who carried out his orders.

Finkelstein, who submitted an amicus brief in Trump’s case alongside 14 other national security professionals, warned that such a Catch-22 would create dangerous confusion within the military’s chain of command, undermining its necessary discipline and order.

Current and former military officials appeared to agree.

“Every situation has to be assessed on its own merit,” Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said. “If you are a military leader, you are going to have the benefit of consulting counsel or policy makers in terms of whether an order or decision is legal, ethical or moral. That won’t change.”

A former senior Department of Defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said the military won’t obey illegal orders. “It doesn’t matter where it comes from.”

[cuervo72]

Right Mr. former DoD official. Never mind that Trump has specifically said he wants "his Generals" in place. Wonder why that is...

[Ksyrup]

Yep, that's definitely a further guardrail down if they put enough "true believers" in key places.

Hopefully these people begin to pay attention to how many people doing Trump's bidding go down, while he stands tall. Of course, in this case, it may be people willing to be martyrs for the cause and it won't make a difference to them. A new kind of kamikaze or terrorist.

[Ghost Econ]

But if anything the President does while acting as President is legal, then any act requested by the President would have to be considered legal... so there is no act they're prevented from carrying out.

[Atocep]

But if anything the President does while acting as President is legal, then any act requested by the President would have to be considered legal... so there is no act they're prevented from carrying out.

It creates an issue for commanders. UCMJ still prohibits murder and it would be seen as an unlawful order by anyone other than the absolute Trumpiest of the Trumpers.

Trump would require punishment to through congress but a military officer would still be court martialed if it is determined it was an unlawful order.

[Ksyrup]

But if anything the President does while acting as President is legal, then any act requested by the President would have to be considered legal... so there is no act they're prevented from carrying out.

That's what I'm talking about - that's not what the court held. There's a difference between immunity from prosecution and whether the act is legal or illegal. His being immune does not make the act legal.

[GrantDawg]

It creates an issue for commanders. UCMJ still prohibits murder and it would be seen as an unlawful order by anyone other than the absolute Trumpiest of the Trumpers.

Trump would require punishment to through congress but a military officer would still be court martialed if it is determined it was an unlawful order.
And then there are also state and local laws that a Presidential pardon would not cover.

[JPhillips]

How do you determine whether or not an act is illegal if motive and evidence from the President or advisers is not permitted to be brought to trial? Not that I'm worried this will happen a lot, but couldn't the President say national security, classified, and be done with it?

And I'm not sure that prohibition on evidence won't end up covering those acting on orders of the President. I can definitely see this SCOTUS making that decision.

[PilotMan]

I read a right leaning article this morning that took the immunity opinion that Roberts wrote and used it to deflower the Mueller investigation. The final point being that the opinion basically proved that everything the dems were doing was just an attack on trump because they didn't like him, because the entire opinion basically legalized every single thing that trump did that got him impeached the first time, and further, would have nullified almost all of the points that Mueller made in the furtherance of the investigation.


So there's one totally expected outcome of the decision. That sort of presidential blackmail will now be full legal, and totally beyond investigation. It also basically nailed down that barring something incredible, there's almost no way for a future president to be impeached.

[GrantDawg]

I read a right leaning article this morning that took the immunity opinion that Roberts wrote and used it to deflower the Mueller investigation. The final point being that the opinion basically proved that everything the dems were doing was just an attack on trump because they didn't like him, because the entire opinion basically legalized every single thing that trump did that got him impeached the first time, and further, would have nullified almost all of the points that Mueller made in the furtherance of the investigation.


So there's one totally expected outcome of the decision. That sort of presidential blackmail will now be full legal, and totally beyond investigation. It also basically nailed down that barring something incredible, there's almost no way for a future president to be impeached.
Yes, but no. Yes, any impeachment investigation or trial is going to use the decision as justification to say basically that a President is above the law. But no, because Congress decides what are "crimes and misdemeanors" in regards to impeachment, not the courts. Impeachment is a political act, not a judicial act. The Supreme Court has no power to overturn an impeachment, though they can road-block the congress from being able to investigate. That is an interesting legal question to me. Congress by the Constitution has an over-sight power. Does the decision saying anything a President says to another federal officer in his official capacity is unusable in court mean that is also beyond a congressional committee can ask? Is the Supreme Court completely neutering the Congress in their oversight capacity?

[Brian Swartz]

That question seems fairly clear to me, unless there's something I'm not informed about.

A legal prosecution is one thing. An impeachment is another thing. I don't see this as stopping Congressional authority to impeach.

[PilotMan]

There won't be anything to impeach for because there's nothing to investigate.

[Brian Swartz]

?? what?

[PilotMan]

Sorry, tense.....there would never be an impeachment because there would never be anything that could be investigated, because it's all under the scope of the immunity. I didn't think it was that difficult in all honesty.



Sure, I suppose that congress could still walk through the motions, but there are so many exit ramps for a president to get off, that his partisans could simply talk it away and it wouldn't go anywhere. Imagine just how far it would have to get now for a successful impeachment?

[Brian Swartz]

I think we're clearly understanding the distinction differently.

The immunity covers legal prosecution, it doesn't cover impeachment - again, unless there's something I don't understand. But those are two entirely different things. You don't have to be prosecuted for something to be impeached for it, and vice-versa.

That means none of the impeachment process is under the scope of the immunity. Congress can still investigate as much as it wants, censure, impeach, whatever. Prosecution after a government official is removed from office is just an entirely different thing.

[GrantDawg]

I think we're clearly understanding the distinction differently.

The immunity covers legal prosecution, it doesn't cover impeachment - again, unless there's something I don't understand. But those are two entirely different things. You don't have to be prosecuted for something to be impeached for it, and vice-versa.

That means none of the impeachment process is under the scope of the immunity. Congress can still investigate as much as it wants, censure, impeach, whatever. Prosecution after a government official is removed from office is just an entirely different thing.


Where the two are very different, where they come together is the investigation. Most impeachment evidence generally comes from a Special Prosecutor that is selected by the Attorney General. They generally compel testimony under oath through Grand Juries. This is what I was questioning. Now that the President is immune from criminal prosecution, then will the courts even allow Grand Juries on Presidential actions? What information from the President are they going to allow put into evidence?

Impeachment is the purview of the Congress, but most of the investigation is the purview of the Justice department and the Courts. The question is if that is true now, and if it is how?

[NobodyHere]

Big decision out of my state of Ohio

Chicken wings advertised as &#x27;boneless&#x27; can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides | AP News (https://apnews.com/article/boneless-chicken-wings-lawsuit-ohio-supreme-court-231002ea50d8157aeadf093223d539f8)

They got this one wrong. IF A WING HAS BONES THEN IT IS NOT A BONELESS WING.

Also just be a man and order the wings bone-in.

People who eat boneless wings should be thrown in a pit with people like their steak well done and then buried alive.

[GrantDawg]

To me, boneless wings just don't taste as good.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

People who eat boneless wings should be thrown in a pit with people like their steak well done and then buried alive.

Subtle.

[flere-imsaho]

Boneless wings are nuggets. Just get nuggets.

Nothing wrong with nuggets, though. I certainly wouldn't condemn nugget-eaters to the same circle of hell as steak-well-doners.

[Atocep]

Bone in wings are vastly superior but there are times when I'm not dealing with the mess that comes with eating them.

[dubb93]

He really said that a patron at the restaurant reading “boneless wings” would no more expect to be eating boneless chicken than a patron eating chicken fingers would be expecting to eat actual fingers.

A lot to unpack there. Wonder how much of a kickback these guys got? I mean if I order wings and you ask me bone in or boneless I expect there to be a difference between the two and it isn’t the sauce.

[dubb93]

DOLA:

This is great.

The dissenting justices called Deters’ reasoning “utter jabberwocky,”

[Mota]

I make chicken fingers at home, and my son always hated them. Then we took them and tossed them in wing sauce after cooking them, and called them boneless wings, and he loves them.
He's 20.

[Brian Swartz]

Am I missing something? Wouldn't Biden's proposed Supreme Court reforms require a constitutional amendment?

[GrantDawg]

The Constitution does say that the court is organized as Congress ordained. It basically says there is one, that there is a Chief Justice that would oversee an Impeachment trial, and spells out its jurisdiction. It also says the President has the power to pick justices with the advice and consent of the Senate, but it doesn't set a term beyond "as long as in good Behaviour". That has always been interpreted as "for life." The question is going to be if Congress can set a term shorter than that.

Edot: Chief Justice John Robert's has given support for 15 year term limits before, so did former Justice Breyer. So there has at least been some on the court that suggests it is possible.

[CrimsonFox]

iT'S ALL ABOUT THE SAUCE

[Brian Swartz]

I just don't see how term limits are in any way constitutional. Obviously what's constitutional is whatever the Court is willing to say is constitutional, but in terms of what the document actually says, I can't read that in any way that supports it.

[larrymcg421]

The Constitution does say that the court is organized as Congress ordained. It basically says there is one, that there is a Chief Justice that would oversee an Impeachment trial, and spells out its jurisdiction. It also says the President has the power to pick justices with the advice and consent of the Senate, but it doesn't set a term beyond "as long as in good Behaviour". That has always been interpreted as "for life." The question is going to be if Congress can set a term shorter than that.

Edot: Chief Justice John Robert's has given support for 15 year term limits before, so did former Justice Breyer. So there has at least been some on the court that suggests it is possible.

Breyer and Roberts suggested support for 15 to 18 yr term limits, but they never said that Congress could implement such a plan. It would take a Constitutional Amendment.

Hamilton talks about what Good Behaviour means in the Federalist papers, and why it was necessary for the Judiciary to be composed that way. There's no rational debate about that that term means in the Constitution.

Term limits definitely require an Amendment. An ethics code would require an Amendment if it has any punishment that removes/suspends a judge from power or financially punishes them.

[Brian Swartz]

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Passacaglia]

I haven't read all the details, but one 18 year term just makes sense. You've got nine justices, replace one every two years. All this "for life" stuff is just morbid.

[PilotMan]

All good until the Senate refuses to have a hearing on an appointee from the opposing party.

[Atocep]

I haven't read all the details, but one 18 year term just makes sense. You've got nine justices, replace one every two years. All this "for life" stuff is just morbid.

For life makes zero sense as a federal employee. Clarence Thomas complains about SCOTUS pay but if he retired from the court after 18 years he could have coasted on speaking engagements, "gifts" from "friends", and political/court commentary while getting free Healthcare and a pension.

[Atocep]

All good until the Senate refuses to have a hearing on an appointee from the opposing party.

Simple, add that if the Senate fails to have a hearing within 90 days of nomination then the President is free to directly appoint.

Even without reform Obama could have likely made the argument that by failing to have a hearing on Garland senate waived its right to do so. No one thought Trump was going to win so they didn't push back at all. Handling of the courts was the biggest mistake of the Obama administration.

[GrantDawg]

Simple, add that if the Senate fails to have a hearing within 90 days of nomination then the President is free to directly appoint.

Even without reform Obama could have likely made the argument that by failing to have a hearing on Garland senate waived its right to do so. No one thought Trump was going to win so they didn't push back at all. Handling of the courts was the biggest mistake of the Obama administration.


Really should be a Senate rule that a vote is required on at least certain level Judges and confirmable positions (say Appellate and Secretary level) by a certain time, or they are automatically confirmed.

[Lathum]

Thomas and Alito truly are out of fucks and have zero intention of even trying to be unbiased anymore.

[cuervo72]

Wonder if this is Melvin ApprovedTM.

https://newrepublic.com/post/184799/air-force-supreme-court-chevron-arizona-water

In May, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered the Air Force and National Guard to develop a plan to address the pollution, which would cost them an estimated $25 million—just 0.1 percent of the Air Force’s budget. The Air Force refused, stating that “the EPA’s order can not withstand review” and therefore it wouldn’t be beholden to it, according to The Guardian.

[JPhillips]

They found a Trump judge who just put a national stay on the no-compete rules.

[flere-imsaho]

That judge should be canned and forced to sign a non-compete.

[dubb93]

Does anyone have any idea how the ruling in Arizona is going to effect the race there? How many voters just got ruled ineligible with the ruling?

[cartman]

Does anyone have any idea how the ruling in Arizona is going to effect the race there? How many voters just got ruled ineligible with the ruling?

From what I understand, there were around 41,000 people on the list they were trying to exclude. Apparently everyone on the list is allowed to vote in federal elections, but may be ineligible for state and local elections. It is still kind of a cluster.

[GrantDawg]

My understanding is it only says they can require people registering to vote to prove citizenship if they use the state registration form. They can still register for federal elections using the federal firm without that proof. It doesn't affect anyone currently registered.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Vegas Vic]

Thomas and Alito truly are out of fucks and have zero intention of even trying to be unbiased anymore.

No question about it. At least Barrett has dissented with the conservative majority on several key rulings.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court upheld parts of a lawsuit brought by Republicans, which will require voters to register with an ID.<a href="https://t.co/gwL8aatbyy">https://t.co/gwL8aatbyy</a></p>&mdash; The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) <a href="https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1826728914883916240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 22, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Vegas Vic]

MAGA is livid.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What the hell is wrong with Amy Coney Barrett? She voted with the liberals on the court to block a requirement for proof of citizenship in AZ to vote!<br><br>She's a disaster! <a href="https://t.co/7AaYh44jWi">pic.twitter.com/7AaYh44jWi</a></p>&mdash; Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) <a href="https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1826727334038437980?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 22, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[RainMaker]

lol


<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" class="" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 507px; height: 623px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="X Post" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1879600825594720560&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com%2Ffofc%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D98957&sessionId=6e3cafc7f5ff1f702eaa344a45ea6856ba500a83&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px" data-tweet-id="1879600825594720560"></iframe>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp><iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2f70fb173b9000da126c79afe2098f02.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe>

[Atocep]

lol


<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" class="" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 507px; height: 623px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="X Post" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1879600825594720560&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com%2Ffofc%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D98957&sessionId=6e3cafc7f5ff1f702eaa344a45ea6856ba500a83&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px" data-tweet-id="1879600825594720560"></iframe>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp><iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2f70fb173b9000da126c79afe2098f02.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe>

People in their 60s and 70s shouldn't be making tech decisions for the country. These are people that generally can't use a smart phone and can usually barely stream a movie or TV show without help. It's really easy to fearmonger people that don't understand technology.

[JPhillips]

SCOTUS is taking a case regarding states directly establishing and funding religious schools. That would be bad for the state and bad for the church, but I fully expect it to get the green light.

[flere-imsaho]

Who cares about the Establishment Clause anyway?

[RainMaker]

SCOTUS is taking a case regarding states directly establishing and funding religious schools. That would be bad for the state and bad for the church, but I fully expect it to get the green light.

More welfare for churches

[GrantDawg]

Reading about this case, and it is insane. Just check the headline:


Just a moment... (https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2025/02/from-the-files-of-just-when-you-thought-youd-seen-it-all-comes-the-opinion-of-the-supreme-court-of-new-mexico-in-state-v-len.html)

[jcard]

Reading about this case, and it is insane. Just check the headline:


Just a moment... (https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2025/02/from-the-files-of-just-when-you-thought-youd-seen-it-all-comes-the-opinion-of-the-supreme-court-of-new-mexico-in-state-v-len.html)

“Law & Order: Santa Fe” might have something potential…

[GrantDawg]

This a close win that shouldn't be. The Constitution clearly gives the power of the purse to Congress, and allowing the Executive branch just ignore the law is throwing that out the window. This 5-4 win was a little too close. I don't think this is completely confirmation there are 4 Justices willing to make Trump king, but it is a clear 3. I think they got Kavanuagh to vote no with their dissenting argument that the remedy was court overreach. He might have been yes on a lessor order.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf

[Ghost Econ]

Guess don't ask don't tell and the banning of women is on the horizon. All this hate because 7 people tried to have a job or 1 person finished 4th in a swim meet once.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trump-implement-transgender-military-ban-rcna204135

[GrantDawg]

Well there goes independent, bipartisan boards.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf

[RainMaker]

lol they made a special exemption for the Fed in it for "reasons". The whole thing is kind of silly at this point but it is fun to see the mental gymnastics they have to do to come to some of these conclusions since none of it is based in the constitution or existing law.

[NobodyHere]

Nice to see that Supreme Court is at least consistent on this issue.

Supreme Court lets California use new congressional map favoring Democrats (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-lets-california-use-new-congressional-map-favoring-democrats/ar-AA1VFydP?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=6983a9653a7245efb9a92ad53ac424a3&ei=19)

[GrantDawg]

Nice to see that Supreme Court is at least consistent on this issue.

Supreme Court lets California use new congressional map favoring Democrats (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-lets-california-use-new-congressional-map-favoring-democrats/ar-AA1VFydP?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=6983a9653a7245efb9a92ad53ac424a3&ei=19)
It was really quite surprising.

[CrimsonFox]

Clarence Thomas still doesn't own a mirror.

[NobodyHere]

Nice for the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution and leave birthright citizenship in place.

[Atocep]

Nice for the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution and leave birthright citizenship in place.

Barely

Which is crazy considering how clear the constitution is on this. Of course Clarence Thomas wrote a 91 page dissent.

And of course Trump thinks Congress can just pass a law undoing the 14th amendment.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, the general consensus I've read is that it's not a great moment when the only judges who have looked at this issue and didn't outright call it blatantly unconstitutional are 3 SC justices.