romad1 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 and it appears SCOTUS is going to sit on Immunity case until never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 in addition to allowing bribery so long as you get paid after, 6-3 court just got rid of SEC in-house actions, bouncing them to over burdened fed courts. considering that prosecutors don't go after white collar crime generally, this means more and more securities fraudsters will go unpunished. truly awful decision. Corruption, corruption, corruption 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 14 minutes ago, romad1 said: and it appears SCOTUS is going to sit on Immunity case until never. Roberts knows debate is tonight so he was not releasing it today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 28 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said: Roberts knows debate is tonight so he was not releasing it today which is a good indicator of what the decision is. Can't make the boss mad before he goes live in front of the spotlight with no script. But... I guess being entirely objective, even if they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt as they have no credibiliy, in a vaccum I think waiting is the right call. If you have a major candidate for POTUS with a pending decision that affects them, then don't unnecessarily influence the political process by releasing a decision right before the debate. Of course, they could have released this months ago and it's not an issue, different subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 i do think that Roberts is trying to get Alito and Thomas on board so it is 9-0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 27 Author Share Posted June 27 27 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said: i do think that Roberts is trying to get Alito and Thomas on board so it is 9-0. do you mean like, they're still not solidified on the vote and everything subsequent to that is not done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 12 minutes ago, pfife said: do you mean like, they're still not solidified on the vote and everything subsequent to that is not done? It's 7-2 or 8-1 and Roberts wants it 9-0. The opinion is written, they just have to "fill in the commas and ****" (Get Shorty reference). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 i assume they have 7 votes for democracy; once they have just 5 votes, Roberts could release decision; he wants it unanimous; Alito and Thomas might be getting all they can from this: a delay that is pissing off their critics 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 This court is sooo compromised. If you have a decision, the debate being tonight shouldn’t have any sway as to releasing it. Utter cowardice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 And remember, under the 2025 Plan, tips are tax free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 There have been some encouraging signs from Kavanaugh and ABJ, fwiw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklahoma-schools-bible-curriculum/index.html Imagine you are an Indian immigrant to Tulsa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 27 Author Share Posted June 27 1 hour ago, Edman85 said: There have been some encouraging signs from Kavanaugh and ABJ, fwiw. ABJ? Do you mean Coney Barret? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 30 minutes ago, pfife said: ABJ? Do you mean Coney Barret? Whoops, yeah. ACB. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 I’ve been thinking a bit about the Supreme Court of late, and it occurs to me that the Court has done more in the last 25 years to make life for the average person far worse on an everyday basis than any other institution in America, bar none, and it’s not particularly close. Worse than the executive branch, worse than Congress, worse than government bureaucracy, worse than the media, arguably worse than the mammoth corporate class, even worse than religion. The Court is the undisputed champ of the last quarter century of making Americans’ lives miserable, and it’s been their worst quarter century ever, and that’s saying a lot, because they’ve had some doozies in their time like Dred Scott and Plessy and Korematsu and, of course, Marbury. I have five examples to back this up, in reverse chronological order: Dobbs. This was the decision that ended federal protection for choice and sent it back unprotected to the states to do what they wanted with it. They took this right away from individuals and they gave it to the state. They subsumed already-existing individual rights to state power. If that’s not fascism, nothing is. Murphy. A lot of people don’t know this one by name, but this was the ruling that overturned the federal ban on gambling, and opened up a freewheeling gambling mega-industry in which casinos and sportsbooks and online companies spends billions of dollars chasing people around trying to get them to bet bet bet bet. Here’s fifty free dollars for your first bet, guaranteed winner, do it right on your phone 24/7/365, and so on and so on. This ruling is certain to lead to one of the worst health crises in the history of the United States within the next ten years. Citizens United: now corporations and insanely wealthy individuals can give all the money they want to politicians, and can do it in all kinds of clandestine and even anonymous ways where we the people don’t know who they are. But the politicians know, and the politicians end up beholden to those who give them all the money, instead of working on behalf of us the people, and we end up abandoned especially when we need protections from the abuses of the very people who give them the money. Heller. This is the one that removed the well-regulated militia requirement from owning firearms. You don’t have to belong to a militia of any kind anymore, never mind a well-regulated one. Now anyone can be a lone wolf militia of one if they want, and in fact, we have seen a rise in exactly that kind of activity ever since the ruling. And the granddaddy of them all: Bush v Gore, the one without which none of the other four would even exist, because that guy ended up putting John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the court, which led to a hard right turn that ended up screwing Obama out of his rightful pick and giving Trump the opportunity to put three more hard right-wingers. Without Bush V Gore, we almost certainly don’t get Heller, Citizens United, Murphy, or Dobbs. And now they are angling for a sixth ruling to add to that list at whatever point they can figure out a way to give Trump unlimited immunity as president while not giving anywhere close to the same immunity to anyone else. And this doesn't even contemplate the dozens of smaller rulings, like those that came down today listed on this very page, that erode out country slowly but surely, like a frog slowly boiling in a pot of water. The Supreme Court is the most powerful, least accountable, most corrupt institution in this country, and the problem is, I have no idea how they could be stopped, short of impeachment and removal, which, according to Dershowitz, even if successfully voted upon, could probably be overturned by that very same court! tl;dr: The Supreme Court is now a monster. Full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 (edited) 30 minutes ago, chasfh said: I have no idea how they could be stopped, short of impeachment and removal, which, according to Dershowitz, even if successfully voted upon, could probably be overturned by that very same court! Dershowitz is a putz who fails to see the obvious. To paraphrase Stalin, "How many divisions does the SCOTUS have?" The executive still controls the LEO resources needed to evict them from the building if they they were so brazen as to overturn their own impeachment. End of story. Edited June 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 I get the point in the Justices, starting with Bush v Gore. But it’s worth considering what would have happened had it went the other way. Would the matter have been resolved in time ? Would the result have changed? What kind of crisis would have resulted and how do the politics of that play out. Gore did the country a great service, one that deserved some kind of award when he graciously gritted his teeth and went along with it. And you can’t assume that Gore would have had two picks. First he would have needed to be re-elected. Second, that means just one pick, Rehnquist’s replacement. O’Conner wanted to retire and was distraught that it looked like Gore might win, she wouldn’t have done that then. And she purposefully waited until his re-election to announce he retirement as she didn’t want to appear like she voted the way she did to get a favorable outcome for her preference on a successor. If Gore won a second term she wouldn’t have retired. And add to that if you have a Gore presidency then it’s likely things swing back to a GOP presidency in 2009. Basically my point is you can’t assume the resignations happen the way they do. Maybe an Obama presidency doesn’t happen until 2016 election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 4 minutes ago, oblong said: I get the point in the Justices, starting with Bush v Gore. But it’s worth considering what would have happened had it went the other way. Would the matter have been resolved in time ? Would the result have changed? What kind of crisis would have resulted and how do the politics of that play out. Gore did the country a great service, one that deserved some kind of award when he graciously gritted his teeth and went along with it. And you can’t assume that Gore would have had two picks. First he would have needed to be re-elected. Second, that means just one pick, Rehnquist’s replacement. O’Conner wanted to retire and was distraught that it looked like Gore might win, she wouldn’t have done that then. And she purposefully waited until his re-election to announce he retirement as she didn’t want to appear like she voted the way she did to get a favorable outcome for her preference on a successor. If Gore won a second term she wouldn’t have retired. And add to that if you have a Gore presidency then it’s likely things swing back to a GOP presidency in 2009. Basically my point is you can’t assume the resignations happen the way they do. Maybe an Obama presidency doesn’t happen until 2016 election. All good points, although but I'm focusing on what happened, not what might have happened if. Just because Gore might have gutted out and won a challenge, but didn't, does not mitigate the abject awfulness of the Supreme Court of the last 25 years. Bush v Gore was the catalyst to make it all happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 On 1/18/2024 at 9:34 PM, pfife said: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/we-are-witnessing-the-biggest-judicial-power-grab-since-1803/?utm_campaign=SproutSocial&utm_content=The+Nation+Magazine,thenation&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook,twitter We Are Witnessing the Biggest Judicial Power Grab Since 1803 During a major hearing this week, the conservative justices made clear they’re about to gut the federal government’s power to regulate—and take that power for themselves. He was right. Someone here laughed at it. Foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Meanwhile it appears we will wait until Monday on the Trump Immunity case. The check is on the RV and taking the scenic route to DC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 it's difficult to wrap ones head around just how bad these decisions are today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Bernie Sanders press secretary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 I haven't followed this obstruction issue much, but it does strike me that maybe that by leveraging Sarbanes-Oxley which was designed to deal with the likes of Enron/WorldCom to apply it to folks that broke into the Capital, maybe the Justice department went to far. The news is making it sound like all of these 1/6 folks will go free and the ones still being found/prosecuted are off the hook. You mean there isn't anything else you can charge them on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 6 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I haven't followed this obstruction issue much, but it does strike me that maybe that by leveraging Sarbanes-Oxley which was designed to deal with the likes of Enron/WorldCom to apply it to folks that broke into the Capital, maybe the Justice department went to far. The news is making it sound like all of these 1/6 folks will go free and the ones still being found/prosecuted are off the hook. You mean there isn't anything else you can charge them on? I don't think it was really that many charges against that many people but I think some of Jack Smith's charges against Trump in the case in front of Chutkan may be subject to this ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerbomb13 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 This court ****ing sucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.