The Supreme Court

Green money wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:There's a saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If someone is already absolutely corrupted doesn't it just intensify the corruption? And why cannot the six idiots of the supreme court see that?

why are 6 justices idiots? You don't agree with them since they don't bend over for corrupt Joe?

Zurn wrote:

DWags wrote:


Of the morons on that side, I’d say 40% see it and want it that way 40% are just too stupid to see it and are absorbed by the cult, and 20% are just pure evil racist bigots who hope absolute power in his hands eliminates people of color uppity women and homosexuals

One political mantra that always proves true is that conservatives think liberals are just people with bad ideas but liberals think conservatives are bad people.

Jake from State Farm wrote:According to this latest idiotic ruling from the corrupt six, Trump would theoretically be able to give away or sell all our national secrets, such as where and how many nukes there are and there's nothing that could be done about it, as long as he said he had good intentions. Right?

Jake from State Farm wrote:According to this latest idiotic ruling from the corrupt six, Trump would theoretically be able to give away or sell all our national secrets, such as where and how many nukes there are and there's nothing that could be done about it, as long as he said he had good intentions. Right?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:According to this latest idiotic ruling from the corrupt six, Trump would theoretically be able to give away or sell all our national secrets, such as where and how many nukes there are and there's nothing that could be done about it, as long as he said he had good intentions. Right?

If I understand their ruling, and I'm sure I don't, completely...

Anything the President does which the Constitution defines as his duties cannot be questioned as to legality.

Anything the President does as part of his official duties, meaning laws Congress has pasted tasking him to do, cannot have their legality questioned and are presumed to be legal.  A prosecutor would have to go to court, and all communications the President had which might be possibly construed as official are off limits as evidence.  The President is assumed to not to have broken the law.

Anything the President does which are not official duties can be charged, however, anything he said in conversation which possibly can be seen as within the outer limits of official duties cannot be used as evidence, and again, it is assumed that if the President does it, it is legal.

Effectively the ruling puts an almost infinite barrier for any investing prosecutor to meet in order to being a case.

The 6 Trump cock sucking Justices also directly stating that certain evidence already being used in the January 6th case was "out of bounds" and cannot be used.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

If I understand their ruling, and I'm sure I don't, completely...

Anything the President does which the Constitution defines as his duties cannot be questioned as to legality.

Anything the President does as part of his official duties, meaning laws Congress has pasted tasking him to do, cannot have their legality questioned and are presumed to be legal.  A prosecutor would have to go to court, and all communications the President had which might be possibly construed as official are off limits as evidence.  The President is assumed to not to have broken the law.

Anything the President does which are not official duties can be charged, however, anything he said in conversation which possibly can be seen as within the outer limits of official duties cannot be used as evidence, and again, it is assumed that if the President does it, it is legal.

Effectively the ruling puts an almost infinite barrier for any investing prosecutor to meet in order to being a case.

The 6 Trump cock sucking Justices also directly stating that certain evidence already being used in the January 6th case was "out of bounds" and cannot be used.

Mostly, except this part. “Official duties” was left undefined, except that Roberts said that talking to the Vice President is certainly an official duty. 

So for example, if the president said to the Vice President “take this gun and shoot greenway in the face with it” that would be an unprosecutable official act. But since it’s ill defined, official act can be whatever the Supreme Court wants it to be, depending on who the President is

This was all in the reading I posted in the other thread please do your homework (/s for the sake of it I didn’t expect any of you to listen)

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Mostly, except this part. “Official duties” was left undefined, except that Roberts said that talking to the Vice President is certainly an official duty. 

So for example, if the president said to the Vice President “take this gun and shoot greenway in the face with it” that would be an unprosecutable official act. But since it’s ill defined, official act can be whatever the Supreme Court wants it to be, depending on who the President is

This was all in the reading I posted in the other thread please do your homework (/s for the sake of it I didn’t expect any of you to listen)

You could have posted the high points from the podcast, after all some of us are old and don't understand how to use podcasts.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You could have posted the high points from the podcast, after all some of us are old and don't understand how to use podcasts.

No. You click the link I gave you then play.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:According to this latest idiotic ruling from the corrupt six, Trump would theoretically be able to give away or sell all our national secrets, such as where and how many nukes there are and there's nothing that could be done about it, as long as he said he had good intentions. Right?

partially untrue, I believe he could be impeached. The problem is Republicans would ignore or rationalize it in every way possible so it's just not possible in this extremist tribalistic age

Tressie McMillan Cottom of The New York Times wrote:However poorly Biden performed at that debate (and he was embarrassing), debates are theater. However ill equipped the Democratic Party is to provide an heir apparent — and they are embarrassingly unprepared for this predictable eventuality — their dysfunction is not the clear and present danger. The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity is a harbinger of not just the court’s growing power but of Democrats’ inability to mount a populist defense. This conservative bloc on the court reflects years of undemocratic political maneuvering, from Mitch McConnell stealing a seat to the political activism of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. Their decisions are not only codifying minority interests, they are a show of strength for a Republican Party that has no intention of ever ceding power to majority will again.

Sean Wilentz - The New York Review wrote:The majority opinion in Trump v. United States, the most sweeping judicial reconstruction of the American presidency in history, secures the monumental historic disgrace of the John Roberts Court. Since last winter, the Supreme Court has intervened directly in the 2024 presidential campaign by effectively shielding Donald Trump from being tried on major federal charges before the November election. No previous Supreme Court has protected a political candidate in this way. Far more ominously, in March the Court in Trump v. Anderson openly nullified the section of the Fourteenth Amendment that bars insurrectionists from holding federal or state office, discarding basic lessons about threats to American democracy dating back to the Civil War. Now, in Trump v. United States, handed down on the last day of its 2023–2024 term, the Court has seized the opportunity to invent, with no textual basis, “at least presumptive” and quite possibly “absolute” presidential criminal immunity for official acts, a decision so broad that it essentially places the presidency above the law.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote: partially untrue, I believe he could be impeached.  The problem is Republicans would ignore or rationalize it in every way possible so it's just not possible in this extremist tribalistic age

Impeachment carries about as much weight as a fart in the wind. To the uninformed, unless there's a conviction it's like it never happened.

GRR Spartan wrote:The SCOTUS knows they are safe and all they truly needed was a President who would lend an ear and signify on who The Federalist Society endorsed. Same goes for the dozens of Federal judges Trump has nominated and were approved unanimously by the GOP members of the US Senate.

After Mitch McConnel stonewalled many Federal Judicial nominees including SCOTUS nominee Garland, Trump nominees were approved at light speed.

In Trumps 4 year term he appointed;

3 SCOTUS Justices . current ages Gorsuch 56, Kavanaugh 59, Coney-Barrett 52
54 US Court of Appeals judges (President Obama appointed 55 over 8 years in office)
174 US District Court Judges. (President appointed 268)

No Obama nominees were put up for votes after June 2015.
The last Trump nominees were approved September 2020.

Bottom line is the GOP has essentially captured the SCOTUS and have got the Federal Court of Appeals pretty well loaded too.

Capture the courts and upcoming elections become pro forma.

Zurn wrote:I'm getting onboard with this "expand the court" idea.

Let's say Trump wins and the Republicans win the Senate and the House.

Trump should announce on day 1 that with the support of the Senate and House leadership he will be appointing 4 additional members to the SCOTUS.

The outrage would be louder and funnier than that of election day!

TravelinMan wrote:
Uncle Joe pudding brains remains defiant, and you’re worried about the courts?!? I’d be worried about the house and senate.

kingstonlake wrote:

Zurn wrote:I'm getting onboard with this "expand the court" idea.

Let's say Trump wins and the Republicans win the Senate and the House.

Trump should announce on day 1 that with the support of the Senate and House leadership he will be appointing 4 additional members to the SCOTUS.

The outrage would be louder and funnier than that of election day!

He’ll appoint nothing without 60 votes in the senate.

Zurn wrote:Harry Reid is the one who destroyed the filibuster. And some wise Republican (and there aren't too many of those) said Reid would rue the day that happened.

Hence the Republicans need only 50 votes to confirm a Supreme Court justice these days.

Don't know how legislation to expand the court would work.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Zurn wrote:Harry Reid is the one who destroyed the filibuster. And some wise Republican (and there aren't too many of those) said Reid would rue the day that happened.

Hence the Republicans need only 50 votes to confirm a Supreme Court justice these days.

Don't know how legislation to expand the court would work.

It would save our country. I don't even recognize our country anymore

Zurn wrote:Harry Reid is the one who destroyed the filibuster. And some wise Republican (and there aren't too many of those) said Reid would rue the day that happened.

Hence the Republicans need only 50 votes to confirm a Supreme Court justice these days.

Don't know how legislation to expand the court would work.

What’s the history of the filibuster and its supermajority requirement?
Under original Senate rules, cutting off debate required a motion that passed with a simple majority. But in 1806, after Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the rule was redundant, the Senate stopped using the motion.

This change inadvertently gave senators the right to unlimited debate, meaning that they could indefinitely delay a bill without supermajority support from ever getting to a vote. This tactic is what we now know as a filibuster.

In 1917, the Senate passed Rule XXII, or the cloture rule, which made it possible to break a filibuster with a two-thirds majority. In 1975, the Senate reduced the requirement to 60 votes, which has effectively become the minimum needed to pass a law.

There are, however, exceptions to the filibuster rule. Perhaps the most notable recent example pertains to presidential appointments. In 2013, Democrats changed the Senate rules to enable the confirmation of executive branch positions — including the cabinet — and of non–Supreme Court judicial nominees with a simple majority. Four years later, Senate Republicans expanded the change to include Supreme Court appointments. Both changes invoked what is known as the nuclear option, or an override of a rule to overcome obstruction by the minority.

At times, the Senate has also exempted certain types of legislation from the cloture rule. For example, Congress’s annual budget reconciliation process requires only a simple majority vote and cannot be filibustered. Likewise, trade agreements that are negotiated using fast-track rules cannot be filibustered. Other exemptions apply to measures that involve, for example, military base closures or arms sales. In total, 161 exceptions to the filibuster’s supermajority requirement have been created between 1969 and 2014, according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution’s Molly Reynolds.

How has the filibuster changed over time?
The use of the filibuster, once reserved for only the most controversial issues, has increased dramatically in recent years alongside growing polarization in Washington. There have been more than 2,000 filibusters since 1917; about half have been in just the last 12 years. Critics argue that this increased use has slowed business in the Senate to a halt, often entangling the chamber in procedural maneuvering instead of substantive debate and, ultimately, lawmaking.

Green money wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

It would save our country.  I don't even recognize our country anymore

go to CA or NY and try to recognize what a cesspool they are.  Illegals everywhere and you're paying for them.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Green money wrote:
go to CA or NY and try to recognize what a cesspool they are.  Illegals everywhere and you're paying for them.

Would you believe it if I told you that i went to both of those places…. And lived to tell about it???

Shut up, coward.

Green money wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Would you believe it if I told you that i went to both of those places…. And lived to tell about it???

Shut up, coward.

liberal loser.  

The big picture: Employers are confused, says Muccifori. Some of his clients, uncertain about the future of noncompetes, are already looking at alternative options like nondisclosure agreements.

Meanwhile, some states are moving to ban noncompetes altogether — and their ability to do so hasn't been challenged.
The bottom line: It'll take a long time for these cases to wind their way through the courts, but the Supreme Court's ruling is already shaking up the work world.

Let’s discuss nitrous oxide. You’ve likely heard of it. It’s what dentists give patients to relax them before needles and drills are used to bludgeon their mouths. It’s laughing gas. It’s fun. And it should never be confused with nitrogen oxides, which is what the Environmental Protection Agency regulates to control pollution.

Justice Neil Gorsuch famously mistook one for the other, five times, in his Ohio v. EPA ruling on Thursday. Then on Friday, SCOTUS ruled that courts are better positioned to do what regulatory experts have broadly done since 1984. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, the supremes ruled that courts are more suited to decide anything and everything, scientific and complicated, than actual experts. Experts like those who know the difference between pollutants and laughing gas.

DWags wrote:From Dan Price: ( let me just add that I don’t get our right wingers here seeing the chevron decision as in someway helping them out.  They’ve been brainwashed)

Boeing 737 Max crashes killed 346 people and the company just pleaded guilty to a felony for conspiring to defraud the federal government.

Its punishment:
*0 people go to jail
*Company fined $487 million - 0.6% of its annual revenue

Victims' families summed it up: The plea deal "unfairly makes concessions to Boeing that other criminal defendants would never receive and fails to hold Boeing accountable for the deaths of 346 persons."


Now with Chevron, I don’t think Boeing even pays a fine.

Now, fewer than two weeks ago, the six Republicans on the Supreme Court began that process by kneecapping the ability of regulatory agencies to protect the American people from out-of-control polluters, rip-off banks and insurance companies, Big Pharma, and hundreds of other industries and massive corporations that put profits above humans.

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON wrote:As media attention remains focused on Biden, a Supreme Court decision from last week that upends the modern American state and another that overturns the central concept of our democracy have disappeared from public discussion. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the court overruled the longstanding legal precedent establishing that courts should defer to a government agency’s reasonable interpretation of a law. Instead, it said, judges themselves will decide on the legality of an agency’s actions.

In Public Notice, Lisa Needham noted that right-wing judges have already blocked Biden administration rules that protect overtime pay for workers, prohibit noncompete clauses for truckers, and prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. As right-wing plaintiffs launch suits challenging rules they dislike, she notes, we should expect to see many more federal judges “deploying junk science and personal opinions to get to their preferred conclusion while ignoring the expertise of agency employees.”

Loper Bright was a slashing blow at the federal regulations that make up the framework of today’s government, but it paled in comparison to the Supreme Court’s decision in Donald J. Trump v. United States. In that stunning decision, the six right-wing justices—three of whom Trump himself appointed—declared that a president is immune from prosecution for crimes committed as part of his “official duties.”

This astonishing decision overturned the bedrock principle of the United States of America: that no one is above the law. But to be clear, the court did not give this power to Biden. Because it is not clear what official acts are—since no one has ever before made this distinction—it claimed for itself the right to decide what illegal behaviors are official acts and which are not. Since at least one of the justices (Samuel Alito) has flown flags demonstrating support for overthrowing Biden’s government and putting Trump back into office, and the wife of another (Clarence Thomas) worked with those trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, it seems likely that their decisions will reinforce Trump’s immunity alone.

An extraordinary effort to use the courts to set up a Trump dictatorship appears largely to have been hidden under the horse race.

President Biden slammed the Supreme Court's immunity ruling as a "terrible decision" Monday following Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to dismiss former President Trump's federal classified documents case.

Why it matters: Biden has become increasingly critical of the highest court and its conservative majority.

Driving the news: Biden told NBC's Lester Holt in an interview broadcast that he believed the justices former President Trump "appointed have in fact been the most conservative."

He added, "They seem out of touch with what the founders intended."

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-immunity

You can thank Hillary and Bernie for this Supreme Court.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-immunity

You can thank Hillary and Bernie for this Supreme Court.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
You can thank Hillary and Bernie for this Supreme Court.

I'm thinking it was your lack of on the ground GOTV in PA that did it.

That and Moscow Mitch with his use of the filibuster.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I'm thinking it was your lack of on the ground GOTV in PA that did it.

That and Moscow Mitch with his use of the filibuster.

No it was 100% Hillary’s fault stop sending blame for things down and hold your leaders to account for their fuck ups that will help build a stronger party instead of the Charmin soft one we’ve created

PennSpartan wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:

You can thank the electoral college and Mitch McConnell for this Supreme Court

You can also thank RBG. She refused to step down during Obama’s terms. But Hillary and Bernie fighting like two cops over a donut while the cashier is being robbed sealed the deal.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
No it was 100% Hillary’s fault stop sending blame for things down and hold your leaders to account for their fuck ups that will help build a stronger party instead of the Charmin soft one we’ve created

The Republicans have been working to put judges on the federal courts who will do their bidding for over 40 years.   If you simpletons are really blaming one election, you are the reason they succeeded.