2022 SCOTUS rulings

[BDKJMU]

If exceptions are allowed for rape, who verify’s that? A woman comes in for an abortion, claiming she was raped. How is the abortion clinic suppose to verify? What if its a he said/she said, no visible physical trauma?

Prosecute it quickly or allow abortions.

Nope. 6-12 months or more to try cases becaause of backlogs.

[kalm]

Prosecute it quickly or allow abortions.

Nope. 6-12 months or more to try cases becaause of backlogs.

How convenient.

[BDKJMU]

Cruz get a 6-3 victory.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... -campaigns

[kalm]

Stolen from a debate on FB:

“I’m kinda ambivalent on the subject of abortion. While I’m all for killing babies, I’m not keen on giving women a choice.”

[houndawg]

What irony? Liberals like Houndy and I and all of the progressive left can’t stand money in politics, consolidation of power, and monopolistic capitalism. YOUR economics on the other hand (shared by the establishment and administrations both Republican and Democratic) has dominated the last 40 years right through the Biden administration. And here we are.

Congrats!

You, Houndie, and the illiberal left are champions of the consolidation of power, in the hands of the federal government.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

As opposed to the hands of a half-dozen trillionaires...bfd

[UNI88]

You, Houndie, and the illiberal left are champions of the consolidation of power, in the hands of the federal government.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

As opposed to the hands of a half-dozen trillionaires...bfd

At least those half-dozen trillionaires have done something productive in their lives.

I'll take Musk and Bezos over Bernie and Warren seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

[AZGrizFan]

You, Houndie, and the illiberal left are champions of the consolidation of power, in the hands of the federal government.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

As opposed to the hands of a half-dozen trillionaires...bfd

Those handful of trillionaires hae hedged their bets and it will be in their hands regardless of how much power the government has. Or thinks it has.

[kalm]

As opposed to the hands of a half-dozen trillionaires...bfd

At least those half-dozen trillionaires have done something productive in their lives.

I'll take Musk and Bezos over Bernie and Warren seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

I led the PNW in Henry-Griffitts sales for a few months in 1999.

I also finished runner up manager of the year for small businesses in the West Plains Chamber of Commerce.

[SDHornet]

As opposed to the hands of a half-dozen trillionaires...bfd

At least those half-dozen trillionaires have done something productive in their lives.

I'll take Musk and Bezos over Bernie and Warren seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

[BDKJMU]

5-4 ruling against an illegal immigrant seeking to avoid deportation.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-cour ... 1bt2,hp1bt

[BDKJMU]

Democrat witness, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas..Talk about batshit crazy..

[kalm]

I think this was brought up in another thread. Seems like a huge issue in the role government fundamentally plays….

There was big news today from a quarter that made it easily overlooked. In a decision about the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission to judge those accused of engaging in securities fraud, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that “Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise the delegated power, in violation of Article I’s vesting of ‘all’ legislative power in Congress….”

Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934, after the Great Crash of 1929 revealed illegal shenanigans on Wall Street. The SEC is supposed to enforce the law against manipulating financial markets. The Fifth Circuit covers Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, and its judges lean to the right. Today’s decision suggests that the leaked draft of the decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade has empowered other judges to challenge other established precedents.

What is at stake with this decision is something called the “nondelegation doctrine,” which says that Congress, which constitutes the legislative branch of the government, cannot delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. Most of the regulatory bodies in our government since the New Deal have been housed in the executive branch. So the nondelegation doctrine would hamstring the modern regulatory state.

According to an article in the Columbia Law Review by Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley, the idea of nondelegation was invented in 1935 to undercut the business regulation of the New Deal. In the first 100 days of his term, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt set out to regulate the economy to combat the Great Depression. Under his leadership, Congress established a number of new agencies to regulate everything from banking to agricultural production.

While the new rules were hugely popular among ordinary Americans, they infuriated business leaders. The Supreme Court stepped in and, in two decisions, said that Congress could not delegate its authority to administrative agencies. But FDR’s threat of increasing the size of the court and the justices’ recognition that they were on the wrong side of public opinion undercut their opposition to the New Deal. The nondelegation theory was ignored until the 1980s, when conservative lawyers began to look for ways to rein in the federal government.

In 2001, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the argument in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the court must trust Congress to take care of its own power. But after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that he might be open to the argument, conservative scholars began to say that the framers of the Constitution did not want Congress to delegate authority. Mortenson and Bagley say that argument “can’t stand…. It’s just making stuff up and calling it constitutional law.” Nonetheless, Republican appointees on the court have come to embrace the doctrine.

In November 2019, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with Justice Neil Gorsuch-—Trump appointees both—to say the Court should reexamine whether or not Congress can delegate authority to administrative agencies. Along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Thomas, they appear to believe that the Constitution forbids such delegation. If Justice Amy Coney Barrett sides with them, the resurrection of that doctrine will curtail the modern administrative state that since the 1930s has regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and promoted infrastructure.

As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out, the nondelegation doctrine would mean that “most of Government is unconstitutional.”

In today’s decision, it is no accident that Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod's majority opinion recalls what President Ronald Reagan, at a press conference in 1986, called the “nine most terrifying words in the English language”: “I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.” Reagan began the process of dismantling the New Deal government, and its achievement seems now to be at hand.

The decision will almost certainly be appealed.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... jgARrSOt5Y

[HI54UNI]

I think this was brought up in another thread. Seems like a huge issue in the role government fundamentally plays….

There was big news today from a quarter that made it easily overlooked. In a decision about the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission to judge those accused of engaging in securities fraud, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that “Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise the delegated power, in violation of Article I’s vesting of ‘all’ legislative power in Congress….”

Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934, after the Great Crash of 1929 revealed illegal shenanigans on Wall Street. The SEC is supposed to enforce the law against manipulating financial markets. The Fifth Circuit covers Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, and its judges lean to the right. Today’s decision suggests that the leaked draft of the decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade has empowered other judges to challenge other established precedents.

What is at stake with this decision is something called the “nondelegation doctrine,” which says that Congress, which constitutes the legislative branch of the government, cannot delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. Most of the regulatory bodies in our government since the New Deal have been housed in the executive branch. So the nondelegation doctrine would hamstring the modern regulatory state.

According to an article in the Columbia Law Review by Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley, the idea of nondelegation was invented in 1935 to undercut the business regulation of the New Deal. In the first 100 days of his term, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt set out to regulate the economy to combat the Great Depression. Under his leadership, Congress established a number of new agencies to regulate everything from banking to agricultural production.

While the new rules were hugely popular among ordinary Americans, they infuriated business leaders. The Supreme Court stepped in and, in two decisions, said that Congress could not delegate its authority to administrative agencies. But FDR’s threat of increasing the size of the court and the justices’ recognition that they were on the wrong side of public opinion undercut their opposition to the New Deal. The nondelegation theory was ignored until the 1980s, when conservative lawyers began to look for ways to rein in the federal government.

In 2001, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the argument in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the court must trust Congress to take care of its own power. But after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that he might be open to the argument, conservative scholars began to say that the framers of the Constitution did not want Congress to delegate authority. Mortenson and Bagley say that argument “can’t stand…. It’s just making stuff up and calling it constitutional law.” Nonetheless, Republican appointees on the court have come to embrace the doctrine.

In November 2019, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with Justice Neil Gorsuch-—Trump appointees both—to say the Court should reexamine whether or not Congress can delegate authority to administrative agencies. Along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Thomas, they appear to believe that the Constitution forbids such delegation. If Justice Amy Coney Barrett sides with them, the resurrection of that doctrine will curtail the modern administrative state that since the 1930s has regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and promoted infrastructure.

As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out, the nondelegation doctrine would mean that “most of Government is unconstitutional.”

In today’s decision, it is no accident that Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod's majority opinion recalls what President Ronald Reagan, at a press conference in 1986, called the “nine most terrifying words in the English language”: “I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.” Reagan began the process of dismantling the New Deal government, and its achievement seems now to be at hand.

The decision will almost certainly be appealed.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... jgARrSOt5Y

Wouldn't that be wonderful!

[GannonFan]

I think this was brought up in another thread. Seems like a huge issue in the role government fundamentally plays….

There was big news today from a quarter that made it easily overlooked. In a decision about the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission to judge those accused of engaging in securities fraud, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that “Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise the delegated power, in violation of Article I’s vesting of ‘all’ legislative power in Congress….”

Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934, after the Great Crash of 1929 revealed illegal shenanigans on Wall Street. The SEC is supposed to enforce the law against manipulating financial markets. The Fifth Circuit covers Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, and its judges lean to the right. Today’s decision suggests that the leaked draft of the decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade has empowered other judges to challenge other established precedents.

What is at stake with this decision is something called the “nondelegation doctrine,” which says that Congress, which constitutes the legislative branch of the government, cannot delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. Most of the regulatory bodies in our government since the New Deal have been housed in the executive branch. So the nondelegation doctrine would hamstring the modern regulatory state.

According to an article in the Columbia Law Review by Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley, the idea of nondelegation was invented in 1935 to undercut the business regulation of the New Deal. In the first 100 days of his term, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt set out to regulate the economy to combat the Great Depression. Under his leadership, Congress established a number of new agencies to regulate everything from banking to agricultural production.

While the new rules were hugely popular among ordinary Americans, they infuriated business leaders. The Supreme Court stepped in and, in two decisions, said that Congress could not delegate its authority to administrative agencies. But FDR’s threat of increasing the size of the court and the justices’ recognition that they were on the wrong side of public opinion undercut their opposition to the New Deal. The nondelegation theory was ignored until the 1980s, when conservative lawyers began to look for ways to rein in the federal government.

In 2001, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the argument in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the court must trust Congress to take care of its own power. But after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that he might be open to the argument, conservative scholars began to say that the framers of the Constitution did not want Congress to delegate authority. Mortenson and Bagley say that argument “can’t stand…. It’s just making stuff up and calling it constitutional law.” Nonetheless, Republican appointees on the court have come to embrace the doctrine.

In November 2019, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with Justice Neil Gorsuch-—Trump appointees both—to say the Court should reexamine whether or not Congress can delegate authority to administrative agencies. Along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Thomas, they appear to believe that the Constitution forbids such delegation. If Justice Amy Coney Barrett sides with them, the resurrection of that doctrine will curtail the modern administrative state that since the 1930s has regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and promoted infrastructure.

As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out, the nondelegation doctrine would mean that “most of Government is unconstitutional.”

In today’s decision, it is no accident that Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod's majority opinion recalls what President Ronald Reagan, at a press conference in 1986, called the “nine most terrifying words in the English language”: “I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.” Reagan began the process of dismantling the New Deal government, and its achievement seems now to be at hand.

The decision will almost certainly be appealed.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... jgARrSOt5Y

I think this is a bit on the hyperbole side of things. There has been, even through the years since the New Deal (and remember, a lot of the more "progressive" part of the New Deal was still shut down in the late 30's and wasn't terribly effective anyway of getting us out of the Depression) there has always been a reasonable approach that Congress, if they are delegating something, needs to be somewhat specific in what they are delegating, to whom they are delegating it, and the purpose/scope for the delegation. I don't think there's any appetite whatsoever to say that they can't delegate anything, even if that's what Thomas and Gorsuch truly mean (and Thomas might mean it, he's a bit on the crazy side, but even in this Court he's still on his own island). When delegated powers stay delegated over long periods of time, it does beg the question if they are still meeting the criteria of how and why Congress set out the delegation to begin with. And that's it.

[houndawg]

As opposed to the hands of a half-dozen trillionaires...bfd

At least those half-dozen trillionaires have done something productive in their lives.

I'll take Musk and Bezos over Bernie and Warren seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

thats telling them by gosh!

[houndawg]

I think this was brought up in another thread. Seems like a huge issue in the role government fundamentally plays….



https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... jgARrSOt5Y

I think this is a bit on the hyperbole side of things. There has been, even through the years since the New Deal (and remember, a lot of the more "progressive" part of the New Deal was still shut down in the late 30's and wasn't terribly effective anyway of getting us out of the Depression) there has always been a reasonable approach that Congress, if they are delegating something, needs to be somewhat specific in what they are delegating, to whom they are delegating it, and the purpose/scope for the delegation. I don't think there's any appetite whatsoever to say that they can't delegate anything, even if that's what Thomas and Gorsuch truly mean (and Thomas might mean it, he's a bit on the crazy side, but even in this Court he's still on his own island). When delegated powers stay delegated over long periods of time, it does beg the question if they are still meeting the criteria of how and why Congress set out the delegation to begin with. And that's it.

Dude has barely spoken in 30 years on the court and all of a sudden he's everywhere with guns blazing

[UNI88]

I think this is a bit on the hyperbole side of things. There has been, even through the years since the New Deal (and remember, a lot of the more "progressive" part of the New Deal was still shut down in the late 30's and wasn't terribly effective anyway of getting us out of the Depression) there has always been a reasonable approach that Congress, if they are delegating something, needs to be somewhat specific in what they are delegating, to whom they are delegating it, and the purpose/scope for the delegation. I don't think there's any appetite whatsoever to say that they can't delegate anything, even if that's what Thomas and Gorsuch truly mean (and Thomas might mean it, he's a bit on the crazy side, but even in this Court he's still on his own island). When delegated powers stay delegated over long periods of time, it does beg the question if they are still meeting the criteria of how and why Congress set out the delegation to begin with. And that's it.

Dude has barely spoken in 30 years on the court and all of a sudden he's everywhere with guns blazing

Kind of like Bernie as a Senator then Presidential candidate.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Again…speaking the quiet parts out loud.

As conservatives across the country wage war on reproductive rights, demanding by law that women be forced to carry any pregnancy to term, regardless of the circumstances, they frequently (slash always) like to forget that they do absolutely nothing to support these people during said pregnancies or after. Mississippi, for example, where abortion will immediately become illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned, has the highest rate of child poverty in the country and recently rejected a bid to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage. And in Louisiana, which has a similar trigger law that will go into effect upon Roe being reversed, maternal mortality rates are among the worst in the nation. But according to GOP senator Bill Cassidy, the rate at which women die during pregnancy or shortly after is not as bad as it seems—if you subtract the deaths of Black women, which apparently don’t count.

In an interview with Politico, the following words came out of Cassidy’s mouth: “About a third of our population is African American; African Americans have a higher incidence of maternal mortality. So, if you correct our population for race, we’re not as much of an outlier as it’d otherwise appear. Now, I say that not to minimize the issue but to focus the issue as to where it would be. For whatever reason, people of color have a higher incidence of maternal mortality.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... lity-rates

[houndawg]

Dude has barely spoken in 30 years on the court and all of a sudden he's everywhere with guns blazing

Kind of like Bernie as a Senator then Presidential candidate.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

No, Bernie was drafted because no Democrat was willing to waste their time in a primary with Hillary when it was "her turn" so he was brought in to as window dressing to give the appearance of choice and it almost got away from them. I called it here when I told youns that the donks fucked up and were going to be as surprised as everybody else by his performance.

[houndawg]

Again…speaking the quiet parts out loud.

As conservatives across the country wage war on reproductive rights, demanding by law that women be forced to carry any pregnancy to term, regardless of the circumstances, they frequently (slash always) like to forget that they do absolutely nothing to support these people during said pregnancies or after. Mississippi, for example, where abortion will immediately become illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned, has the highest rate of child poverty in the country and recently rejected a bid to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage. And in Louisiana, which has a similar trigger law that will go into effect upon Roe being reversed, maternal mortality rates are among the worst in the nation. But according to GOP senator Bill Cassidy, the rate at which women die during pregnancy or shortly after is not as bad as it seems—if you subtract the deaths of Black women, which apparently don’t count.

In an interview with Politico, the following words came out of Cassidy’s mouth: “About a third of our population is African American; African Americans have a higher incidence of maternal mortality. So, if you correct our population for race, we’re not as much of an outlier as it’d otherwise appear. Now, I say that not to minimize the issue but to focus the issue as to where it would be. For whatever reason, people of color have a higher incidence of maternal mortality.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... lity-rates

Gosh I wonder whatever that reason could possibly be...


And I wonder what it looks like if you "correct" all 50 States in the same manner..?

[kalm]

[houndawg]

What irony? Liberals like Houndy and I and all of the progressive left can’t stand money in politics, consolidation of power, and monopolistic capitalism. YOUR economics on the other hand (shared by the establishment and administrations both Republican and Democratic) has dominated the last 40 years right through the Biden administration. And here we are.

Congrats!

And yet you bow to their every demand and champion and cheer the proletariat’s dependency on them for survival.

And we’re not here because of my economics. We’re here because of a government-produced fake pandemic that consolidated MORE power into the hands of your beloved politicians.

Yes. Yes we are.

[UNI88]

Kind of like Bernie as a Senator then Presidential candidate.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

No, Bernie was drafted because no Democrat was willing to waste their time in a primary with Hillary when it was "her turn" so he was brought in to as window dressing to give the appearance of choice and it almost got away from them. I called it here when I told youns that the donks fucked up and were going to be as surprised as everybody else by his performance.

Bernie was nobody who had accomplished almost nothing in how many years in Congress before "all of a sudden he's everywhere with guns blazing"?

[kalm]

No, Bernie was drafted because no Democrat was willing to waste their time in a primary with Hillary when it was "her turn" so he was brought in to as window dressing to give the appearance of choice and it almost got away from them. I called it here when I told youns that the donks fucked up and were going to be as surprised as everybody else by his performance.

Bernie was nobody who had accomplished almost nothing in how many years in Congress before "all of a sudden he's everywhere with guns blazing"?

Crisis periods bring out new/old ideas as the culture searches for solutions. Many recognize the inevitability of change while some cling dearly to a culture and power structure that is going away.

Thus the ascension of radicalism and divisiveness.

[Winterborn]

Again…speaking the quiet parts out loud.

As conservatives across the country wage war on reproductive rights, demanding by law that women be forced to carry any pregnancy to term, regardless of the circumstances, they frequently (slash always) like to forget that they do absolutely nothing to support these people during said pregnancies or after. Mississippi, for example, where abortion will immediately become illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned, has the highest rate of child poverty in the country and recently rejected a bid to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage. And in Louisiana, which has a similar trigger law that will go into effect upon Roe being reversed, maternal mortality rates are among the worst in the nation. But according to GOP senator Bill Cassidy, the rate at which women die during pregnancy or shortly after is not as bad as it seems—if you subtract the deaths of Black women, which apparently don’t count.

In an interview with Politico, the following words came out of Cassidy’s mouth: “About a third of our population is African American; African Americans have a higher incidence of maternal mortality. So, if you correct our population for race, we’re not as much of an outlier as it’d otherwise appear. Now, I say that not to minimize the issue but to focus the issue as to where it would be. For whatever reason, people of color have a higher incidence of maternal mortality.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05 ... lity-rates

I quit right there as it is obvious that the author has never looked into the data on how much funding by religious institutions go into pregnancy centers and helping people through that particular period in their life.

When an author is not willing to at least acknowledge the other side of their argument but instead resorts to pushing a factitious, made-up narrative, why should I then trust anything else they state in the article?