2024 SCOTUS Rulings Thread

[kalm]

BDK’s bolded part illustrates why this is purely political/financial. Environmental standards should be agreed upon by the people with expert input[_\b].

And unelected govt bureaucrats have no business setting those standards.

So a PhD in various environmental studies from biology to engineering should be required of all judges and elected officials?

I’m down with that.

[BDKJMU]

And unelected govt bureaucrats have no business setting those standards.

So a PhD in various environmental studies from biology to engineering should be required of all judges and elected officials?

I’m down with that.

If you required it of all govt bureaucrats also. After all, what percentage of govt bureaucrats have PhDs?

[kalm]

So a PhD in various environmental studies from biology to engineering should be required of all judges and elected officials?

I’m down with that.

If you required it of all govt bureaucrats also. After all, what percentage of govt bureaucrats have PhDs?

Or we could continue to rely on credentialed experts in their fields to make inform the government and help make important decisions. Courts rely upon expert testimony all of the time.

This is a terrible rollback to deregulate and profit further from. Paid for by private interests. Plain and simple.

[UNI88]

You don't know anything about what S6 would do or not do.

you're just worried that Biden will do first what you want trump to do

Lol I know a lot more about what they would do than you do.

How?

[houndawg]

You don't know anything about what S6 would do or not do.

you're just worried that Biden will do first what you want trump to do

Lol I know a lot more about what they would do than you do.

...what you know is the verbal equivalent of multiplying by zero.

[houndawg]

So a PhD in various environmental studies from biology to engineering should be required of all judges and elected officials?

I’m down with that.

If you required it of all govt bureaucrats also. After all, what percentage of govt bureaucrats have PhDs?

Quite a few unless what you mean by "government bureaucrats" only applies to agency heads

[houndawg]

Lol I know a lot more about what they would do than you do.

How?

BD? You still here?

[kalm]

[UNI88]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett says presidential immunity doesn't apply to Trump's fake electors scheme

Writing specifically about Trump's fake-elector scheme: "In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States. And while Congress has a limited role in that process, the President has none.”

I think it's important for courts to be clear that acts made as a Presidential candidate are not the official acts.

Did trump speak to the crowd on J6 as President or as a candidate for President? Did he call state officials to ask them to "find" votes or not certify results as as President or as a candidate for President? The fact that he only called officials in states that he lost makes it pretty clear that he was calling as a candidate. As an "official act", the President should be concerned with vote counts in all states that were close.

[GannonFan]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett says presidential immunity doesn't apply to Trump's fake electors scheme

Writing specifically about Trump's fake-elector scheme: "In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States. And while Congress has a limited role in that process, the President has none.”

I think it's important for courts to be clear that acts made as a Presidential candidate are not the official acts.

Did trump speak to the crowd on J6 as President or as a candidate for President? Did he call state officials to ask them to "find" votes or not certify results as as President or as a candidate for President? The fact that he only called officials in states that he lost makes it pretty clear that he was calling as a candidate. As an "official act", the President should be concerned with vote counts in all states that were close.

The easiest one has always been the J6 stuff - a campaign speech followed by prodding and inciting a mob to do violence. All the effort should've been put into this singular incident. We should've done that in the months right after he left office. That was the prudent and just way forward and should've been the main focus. Heck, by summer or fall of 2021 we could've had this case and a judgement.

Instead, we had a game of politics and delays, first to make sure of maximum impact right before the midterm elections, and then again to make sure the cases come up in the prelude to this year's election. And just to make sure we added a lot of lesser, and in some cases unjustified, cases to muddy the waters even more. In some cases the label of lawfare sticks much too well and we've taken the focus away from what should've been an easy, unifying prosecution of J6.

Now, the charade of Biden's ability to properly fill the role of President has started to fall apart - I think he was capable of being President back in 2021, but somewhere between there and here he just got old. He should've walked away himself or someone should've pulled the 25th ammendment trigger a year or two ago. He was borderline too old four years ago and the years haven't been good to him since, and he's clearly not up for another four years. And we've wasted the chance to properly prosecute Trump for his behavior and lack of decency over J6. I'm sure to the Democrats angst, seeing the polls swing widly to Trump since the disastrous debate must be excruciating. Tangled webs and deceit indeed, unfortunately this is the result of playing political games rather than actually governing. History won't be kind when looking back to these years.

[UNI88]

Is the President above the law?

“No man is above the law,” Neil Gorsuch told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) during his confirmation hearing in 2017.
...
Similarly, Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate that “no one is above the law” during his 2018 confirmation hearing, according to CNN.
...
In Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearing he told the senate that “no president, Democratic or Republican, no president is above the law, as neither are you, nor I, nor anyone in this room.”

Chief Justice John Roberts concurred, citing Youngstown as binding the president to the law. “Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the president,” he said in his 2005 confirmation hearing. “The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution and statutes.

[kalm]

Is the President above the law?

“No man is above the law,” Neil Gorsuch told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) during his confirmation hearing in 2017.
...
Similarly, Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate that “no one is above the law” during his 2018 confirmation hearing, according to CNN.
...
In Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearing he told the senate that “no president, Democratic or Republican, no president is above the law, as neither are you, nor I, nor anyone in this room.”

Chief Justice John Roberts concurred, citing Youngstown as binding the president to the law. “Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the president,” he said in his 2005 confirmation hearing. “The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution and statutes.

They are unprincipled, lying, unelected politicians who deserve zero respect. There is no defense of their actions/inactions to delay this ruling nor the end decision. They simply do not care about the constitution, law, or history.

Indefensible.

[houndawg]

Is the President above the law?

They are unprincipled, lying, unelected politicians who deserve zero respect. There is no defense of their actions/inactions to delay this ruling nor the end decision. They simply do not care about the constitution, law, or history.

Indefensible.

The Harlan Crow Supreme Court

[kalm]

So immunity protects him from crimes committed after his term because evidence of the crimes committed while in office can’t be used?

[kalm]

A Justice Thomas investigation is being referred to the DOJ.

[UNI88]

A Justice Thomas investigation is being referred to the DOJ.

I don't disagree. My problem is that to paraphrase "The American people deserve a comprehensive investigation into the potential violations of ethics and tax laws of Joe Biden". Did Wyden and Whitehorse speak up about that need?

The hypocrisy of both sides in vigorously pursuing ethical lapses by the other side while turning a blind eye to ethical lapses by their own side is astounding.

[houndawg]

A Justice Thomas investigation is being referred to the DOJ.

I don't disagree. My problem is that to paraphrase "The American people deserve a comprehensive investigation into the potential violations of ethics and tax laws of Joe Biden". Did Wyden and Whitehorse speak up about that need?

The hypocrisy of both sides in vigorously pursuing ethical lapses by the other side while turning a blind eye to ethical lapses by their own side is astounding.

It isn't astounding at all, its been business as usual for 250 years

[kalm]

A Justice Thomas investigation is being referred to the DOJ.

I don't disagree. My problem is that to paraphrase "The American people deserve a comprehensive investigation into the potential violations of ethics and tax laws of Joe Biden". Did Wyden and Whitehorse speak up about that need?

The hypocrisy of both sides in vigorously pursuing ethical lapses by the other side while turning a blind eye to ethical lapses by their own side is astounding.

What’s keeping the R’s from making a referral?

[UNI88]

I don't disagree. My problem is that to paraphrase "The American people deserve a comprehensive investigation into the potential violations of ethics and tax laws of Joe Biden". Did Wyden and Whitehorse speak up about that need?

The hypocrisy of both sides in vigorously pursuing ethical lapses by the other side while turning a blind eye to ethical lapses by their own side is astounding.

What’s keeping the R’s from making a referral?

Nothing. Do you think the D's wouldn't oppose it?

I'm tired of both sides holding the other to higher standard than they hold themselves. It's a race to the ethical bottom and they're both complicit.

[kalm]

.

[kalm]

Nothing. Do you think the D's wouldn't oppose it?

I'm tired of both sides holding the other to higher standard than they hold themselves. It's a race to the ethical bottom and they're both complicit.

They would if there was anything of substance. It’s not as if they didn’t try.

And SCOTUS is a bit of a different animal.

But I totally hear you on the ethics and hypocrisy. It’s a broken system, including the court. However we should appreciate when justice is being pursued.

[Caribbean Hen]

Exactly

Joey Adolph Rotten ignored the Supreme Court and said I’m paying off these losers loans anyway..

Not to mention his executive dictatorship on opening the border

He’s been a disaster

[kalm]

Exactly

Joey Adolph Rotten ignored the Supreme Court and said I’m paying off these losers loans anyway..

Not to mention his executive dictatorship on opening the border

He’s been a disaster

Bhwahahahaha!

[UNI88]

Reagan-appointed judge uses footnote to ding the Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling

Young described the outcome of that case as a “six-member majority, eschewing historical analysis,” that “sought fundamentally to redesign the relationship between the sovereign people and the first citizen of the Republic.”

[BDKJMU]