The Supreme Court
+18
Rick Saunders
AvgMSUJoe
InTenSity
Rocinante
GRR Spartan
DWags
Motown Spartan
Zurn
TravelinMan
sεяεηιτλ
Robert J Sakimano
steveschneider
This Is The Way
Jake from State Farm
Cameron
Travis of the Cosmos
kingstonlake
Trapper Gus
22 posters
Page 7 of 10
Page 7 of 10 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Re: The Supreme Court
Green money wrote:why are 6 justices idiots? You don't agree with them since they don't bend over for corrupt Joe?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?
The ruling had nothing to do with President Biden and everything to do with the corrupt republican agenda.
Jake from State Farm- Geronte
- Posts : 6375
Join date : 2014-05-12
DWags likes this post
Re: The Supreme Court
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- Geronte
- Posts : 6375
Join date : 2014-05-12
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
A large portion of conservatives are absolutely bad people. Just because you go to church and are decent to your WHITE neighbors, doesn't make you a good person when you're also trying to control female bodies and exclude minorities from...well... Everything. It's a cultural thing, nastiness and evilness engrained in that populace to the core and they don't even realize it. Bad is bad, you can't just define it good in your little messed up world and somehow actually be good. You must be decent to all regardless of sex, skin or nationality, that includes letting people live their lives as they see fit so long as it's within the law.
sεяεηιτλ- Spartiate
- Posts : 2046
Join date : 2014-05-09
DWags likes this post
Re: The Supreme Court
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 ageJake 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?
sεяεηιτλ- Spartiate
- Posts : 2046
Join date : 2014-05-09
Jake from State Farm likes this post
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
Jake from State Farm likes this post
Re: The Supreme Court
Mostly, except this part. “Official duties” was left undefined, except that Roberts said that talking to the Vice President is certainly an official duty.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.
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)
Travis of the Cosmos- Geronte
- Posts : 32898
Join date : 2014-04-15
Age : 40
Location : Please cease horny posting
Re: The Supreme Court
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.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.
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.
Re: The Supreme Court
No. You click the link I gave you then play.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- Geronte
- Posts : 32898
Join date : 2014-04-15
Age : 40
Location : Please cease horny posting
Re: The Supreme Court
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:No. You click the link I gave you then play.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.
My internet security team says I shouldn't click on links I'm unsure of.
Re: The Supreme Court
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 ageJake 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?
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.
Jake from State Farm- Geronte
- Posts : 6375
Join date : 2014-05-12
sεяεηιτλ likes this post
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
Free Link to NYR Essay
Last edited by Trapper Gus on 2024-07-07, 10:00; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Added NYR Essay First Paragraph & Link)
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
agreed. So there is a mechanism but it's ineffective because we will never get 60 votes to convict, ever, because one of the political parties will always accept any action their president takes as being perfectly fine and any opposition to it an unjust political attack. The supreme court operates as if we have a functional congress that isn't blinded by partisanship. Therefore, we are fucked. Really seems like the president can just ignore the judiciary now, as long as they are talking about and planning what they are doing in the light of day as part of their job. time for Biden to pack the court, it's useless now.
sεяεηιτλ- Spartiate
- Posts : 2046
Join date : 2014-05-09
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
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.
GRR Spartan- Geronte
- Posts : 11202
Join date : 2014-04-25
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
Uncle Joe pudding brains remains defiant, and you’re worried about the courts?!? I’d be worried about the house and senate.
TravelinMan- Geronte
- Posts : 2668
Join date : 2014-04-16
Re: The Supreme Court
GRR & TM are both correct, IMO, on the same issue.
Unless the Democratic Party gets a blue wave (a nod to TM) and then prioritizes federal court reform (a nod to GRR) the judges that Trump & Mitch put in place will continue to dismantle the federal government.
While people are freaking out about Biden's age the real news that deserves more of a freak-out are the rulings from the Court on Monday, and no, Presidential Immunity, as partisan a ruling as it was, is not the most consequential ruling.
The ruling that the experts at the government agencies do not have the authority to created regulations to carry out the laws in the Acts which Congress passes and the President signs tears about the system of controlling the country. It makes it impossible for Congress to address any issue such as Global Warming or which fish is too small and must be thrown back in the water.
Unless the Democratic Party gets a blue wave (a nod to TM) and then prioritizes federal court reform (a nod to GRR) the judges that Trump & Mitch put in place will continue to dismantle the federal government.
While people are freaking out about Biden's age the real news that deserves more of a freak-out are the rulings from the Court on Monday, and no, Presidential Immunity, as partisan a ruling as it was, is not the most consequential ruling.
The ruling that the experts at the government agencies do not have the authority to created regulations to carry out the laws in the Acts which Congress passes and the President signs tears about the system of controlling the country. It makes it impossible for Congress to address any issue such as Global Warming or which fish is too small and must be thrown back in the water.
Re: The Supreme Court
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!
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!
Zurn- Spartiate
- Posts : 1053
Join date : 2023-07-26
Location : First to 100 in tSwill 2023 Pickem'
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
kingstonlake- Geronte
- Swill Pick 'em 2022 Extended Season Champion
- Posts : 27969
Join date : 2014-05-15
Age : 60
Re: The Supreme Court
TravelinMan wrote:
Uncle Joe pudding brains remains defiant, and you’re worried about the courts?!? I’d be worried about the house and senate.
The real question is, When a guy with pudding for brains beats trump will the shitheads the R power structure use for votes ("christians"/NRA dolts) STILL bow to trump to push the real "tax cuts for billionaires" agenda?
OR Will they shift to a Paul Ryan type, and we will have to pretend the party isn't a front for a preservation inherited wealth grift on the american people?
AvgMSUJoe- Geronte
- Posts : 11950
Join date : 2014-04-22
Location : As stupid and vicious as men are, this is a lovely day.
Trapper Gus and kingstonlake like this post
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
Well, I guess my opinion about the filibuster remaining in the Senate rules if the Republicans have 50 plus 1 votes in the Senate and the filibuster is blocking what they want to do is that it will be out of the rules faster than a cat on a hot tin roof.
DWags likes this post
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
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.
Zurn- Spartiate
- Posts : 1053
Join date : 2023-07-26
Location : First to 100 in tSwill 2023 Pickem'
Re: The Supreme Court
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
sεяεηιτλ- Spartiate
- Posts : 2046
Join date : 2014-05-09
Re: The Supreme Court
go to CA or NY and try to recognize what a cesspool they are. Illegals everywhere and you're paying for them.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
Green money- Spartiate
- Posts : 202
Join date : 2020-02-13
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
Both parties have carved out exceptions to the filibuster...
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.
However, in recent history it has been the Republican Party that "weaponized" it to stop the Democratic Party from executing regular business, such as conformation od judges and cabinet members and many rather no controversial bills coming to the floor.
It was the Republicans who carved out the exception for Supreme Court Justices which has created the highly partisan court we have today. Oddy though, Justice Thomas was confirmed when it still took 60 votes.
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.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=history+of+exemptions+to+the+filibuster&form=ANNTH1&refig=32a220101dea4551954908dd20475171&pc=U531
Re: The Supreme Court
Would you believe it if I told you that i went to both of those places…. And lived to tell about it???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.sεяεηιτλ wrote:
It would save our country. I don't even recognize our country anymore
Shut up, coward.
Travis of the Cosmos- Geronte
- Posts : 32898
Join date : 2014-04-15
Age : 40
Location : Please cease horny posting
Re: The Supreme Court
liberal loser.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???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.
Shut up, coward.
Green money- Spartiate
- Posts : 202
Join date : 2020-02-13
Re: The Supreme Court
Green money wrote:liberal loser.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.
Travis of the Cosmos- Geronte
- Posts : 32898
Join date : 2014-04-15
Age : 40
Location : Please cease horny posting
Jake from State Farm likes this post
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
Just as expected the rouge Supreme Court has created chaos in the real world.
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/09/biden-era-worker-protections-supreme-court
Re: The Supreme Court
I have no words.
The Conservative Justices on this court are grade school level stupid.
https://michiganadvance.com/2024/07/09/a-scotus-ruling-on-laughing-gas-abandons-precedent-for-the-absurd-and-the-partisan/
The Conservative Justices on this court are grade school level stupid.
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.
https://michiganadvance.com/2024/07/09/a-scotus-ruling-on-laughing-gas-abandons-precedent-for-the-absurd-and-the-partisan/
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
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.
DWags- Geronte
- Posts : 52373
Join date : 2014-04-21
Age : 63
Location : Right here
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
We are just seeing the opening shots from this decision.
Without rational regulations with teeth or any kind we are headed back to the days of banks issuing their own bank notes and everyone needing to know the probity of their bankers.
Here is Thom Hartman's take on this. I think he is understating the effects. There are no words to describe how much damage this Court is doing to The United States of Amarica.
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.
https://hartmannreport.com/p/demolishing-chevron-deference-republicans-9b4
Last edited by Trapper Gus on 2024-07-09, 10:43; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : 1 - Added link to Thom Hartman's Take on this)
Re: The Supreme Court
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.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-9-2024
Re: The Supreme Court
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."
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-immunity
Re: The Supreme Court
You can thank Hillary and Bernie for this Supreme Court.Trapper Gus wrote: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."
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-immunity
PennSpartan- Spartiate
- Posts : 3653
Join date : 2021-12-06
Location : At the bottom of a coal mine.
Re: The Supreme Court
PennSpartan wrote:You can thank Hillary and Bernie for this Supreme Court.Trapper Gus wrote:
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-immunity
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.
Re: The Supreme Court
PennSpartan wrote:You can thank Hillary and Bernie for this Supreme Court.Trapper Gus wrote:
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-immunity
You can thank the electoral college and Mitch McConnell for this Supreme Court
Jake from State Farm- Geronte
- Posts : 6375
Join date : 2014-05-12
Re: The Supreme Court
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 createdTrapper 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- Geronte
- Posts : 32898
Join date : 2014-04-15
Age : 40
Location : Please cease horny posting
PennSpartan likes this post
Re: The 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.Jake from State Farm wrote:PennSpartan wrote:
You can thank Hillary and Bernie for this Supreme Court.
You can thank the electoral college and Mitch McConnell for this Supreme Court
PennSpartan- Spartiate
- Posts : 3653
Join date : 2021-12-06
Location : At the bottom of a coal mine.
Re: The Supreme Court
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 createdTrapper 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.
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.
Re: The Supreme Court
PennSpartan wrote: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.Jake from State Farm wrote:
You can thank the electoral college and Mitch McConnell for this Supreme Court
Your blaming Clinton for the Sander's campaign, now?
Not getting that at all, and of course years ago you just blamed Sanders.
Re: The Supreme Court
Trapper Gus and his ilk will say anything to absolve the worst fuck up of a generation instead of confronting it and learning from mistakes which is why we always end up fucking up despite being the more popular party by a fairly wide marginTrapper 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.
Travis of the Cosmos- Geronte
- Posts : 32898
Join date : 2014-04-15
Age : 40
Location : Please cease horny posting
PennSpartan likes this post
Page 7 of 10 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Similar topics
» The Supreme Court
» Supreme Court
» Sounds like it's Gorsuch for Supreme Court
» State Supreme Court has Spoken
» The Goal of the Republican Supreme Court Packing
» Supreme Court
» Sounds like it's Gorsuch for Supreme Court
» State Supreme Court has Spoken
» The Goal of the Republican Supreme Court Packing
Page 7 of 10
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum