The Supremes

[DigglerontheHoof 20,457]

Priests of the Catholic church are loathsome predators.  

[Bozo_Casanova 25,534]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

One of my favorite things right now was finding out that the any person who works in anything in this country with any sort of regulatory oversight, ranging from working at a financial services firm to serving as a volunteer on a municipal arts advisory commission, is legally required to adhere to higher and more rigorous conflict of interest and compliance standards than members of the United States Supreme Court. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[SimonBolivar 10,648]

So its Friday news dump day so we're getting student loan sadness today aren't we.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,280]

26 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

So its Friday news dump day so we're getting student loan sadness today aren't we.

If so, it’s particularly eye rolling that Thomas and Alito will vote against “hand outs” when they themselves need another 90 days to document what friendly financial assistance they’ve received over the last 365 days.

[David Dennison 17,674]

 

[Js1 82,450]

35 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

So its Friday news dump day so we're getting student loan sadness today aren't we.

Honestly, I'm not as pessimistic as I was about Roe. 

But I think it'll be thrown out due to standing and come back up later when the right party actually files suit. 

[JBJ 3,591]

12 hours ago, CTC2 said:

I heard someone say today that for example Harvard is majority minority students. However if you look at economics of those students they come from wealth strata’s significantly greater than the national average.  The point of the commentator was that all schools have to do is focus preference on students with low economic backgrounds and problem solved. I’m not so sure about that but it was something I hadn’t thought of. 
UT does some version of this with its preference for first generation college students. 

This is something UCLA was willing to do, but I don't think it works for Ivy league for the same reason Berkeley has been fighting it.  It is part of their business model to recruit donors via their children.

[Js1 82,450]

The Court holds that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
 

Oh the fake case won. Shocker 

[Gourmand 7,761]

These fuckers are bought and broken

[Js1 82,450]

Predictably 6-3 too

[HRSchenker 2,215]

23 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

Speculation that Gorsuch is the author of the unreleased Colorado gay website opinion 

Hey ohhhhh. 

[Gourmand 7,761]

From the Sotomayor dissent: "Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class."

[Js1 82,450]

Quote

"As surely as Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech," Gorsuch writes, "Colorado seeks to compel speech Ms. Smith does not wish to provide."

Oh yeah I’m sure they’ll stick to this precedent 

[Gourmand 7,761]

How does this Karen have standing?

[DDD Dad 14,060]

1 minute ago, Gourmand said:

How does this Karen have standing?

Because the court said so.

[Js1 82,450]

I’d love to know how much the man was paid to pretend to be gay to get this to SCOTUS and who paid him

[JBJ 3,591]

7 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

From the Sotomayor dissent: "Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class."

Not sure what is satire anymore.

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[Captainant 26,869]

This ruling (and the coach prayer ruling) were based on false premises. The plaintiff example case DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN and has not been able to be corroborated to a real person. 

Question for surlylawyers: at what point can a lower court just ignore the supreme court because the """factual basis""" of the case was fabricated?

edit: citation

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Edited June 30, 2023 by Captainant

[Gourmand 7,761]

[Js1 82,450]

Quote

More from the Gorsuch opinion: A ruling for the state would create an untenable choice for Smith. "If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expresssing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in remedial training, filing periodic compliance reports . . . and paying monetary fines."

[Gourmand 7,761]

Biden absolutely must find his nuts and start preaching about checking the unchecked Supreme Court. 

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

what the everlivin fuck?

[Js1 82,450]

Must be some word counts. NG and SS won’t stop talking 

[Gourmand 7,761]

Under Colorado's logic," Gorsuch continues, "the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic--no matter the underlying message--if the topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait. . . . Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty."

[Gourmand 7,761]

What a terrible writer. 

 

[Captainant 26,869]

2 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Under Colorado's logic," Gorsuch continues, "the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic--no matter the underlying message--if the topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait. . . . Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty."

This is what using a shield as as sword looks like

[Js1 82,450]

30 min on this one case makes me feel like loan debt isn’t going to be controversial?

Unanimous - no standing in DOE v Brown 

[Js1 82,450]

Second case - 6-3 with the usuals. HEROES act does not authorize debt forgiveness 

[The Ace of Aces 4,946]

100 percent businesses will now go full scorched earth and refuse to work with Muslims, Catholics, Jews, etc. Some will refuse Blacks entry and cite that decision. 

[Gourmand 7,761]

This court wants a return to the Lochner era

[wildcat09 28,392]

30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This ruling (and the coach prayer ruling) were based on false premises. The plaintiff example case DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN and has not been able to be corroborated to a real person. 

Question for surlylawyers: at what point can a lower court just ignore the supreme court because the """factual basis""" of the case was fabricated?

edit: citation

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

They can try. The worst thing that will happen to them is that it will get smacked down on appeal.

[Michael Knight 12,664]

Student debt loan forgiveness was struck down

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rule-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-friday-rcna76874

Edited June 30, 2023 by Michael Knight

[Gourmand 7,761]

https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancellation-supreme-court-mohela/

 

Spoiler

That claim has been called into question. In Supreme Court oral arguments, it was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years; MOHELA has also said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future. Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward, because it received additional servicing rights and its liability on certain accounts would be extinguished.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Gourmand

[elfenix 34,001]

So standing is back to not mattering?

[FartingDreamer 138]

Why is there not much of a push to expand the Supreme Court?  This clearly must be done.

[Captainant 26,869]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

So standing is back to not mattering?

[Js1 82,450]

Just now, FartingDreamer said:

Why is there not much of a push to expand the Supreme Court?  This clearly must be done.

I mean, if you have to ask, you’re not paying attention. 

[Dahobbs 17,098]

13 minutes ago, The Ace of Aces said:

100 percent businesses will now go full scorched earth and refuse to work with Muslims, Catholics, Jews, etc. Some will refuse Blacks entry and cite that decision. 

The only underlying commonality in the opinions of this court is that white men have rights to guns, religion, and speech, and no one else has any rights. Freedom of religion (to be a bigot) and the right to own guns (for white males) are sacrosanct. All other rights must bend to them. Equal protection? No longer valid if providing equal protection would violate someone's religion. This is a terrible week for this country and history will judge us for it. 

[JBJ 3,591]

43 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This ruling (and the coach prayer ruling) were based on false premises. The plaintiff example case DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN and has not been able to be corroborated to a real person. 

Question for surlylawyers: at what point can a lower court just ignore the supreme court because the """factual basis""" of the case was fabricated?

edit: citation

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

Appellate courts can't determine facts at all, so never.  Manufactured cases are actually quite common and aren't illegal or even really considered deceptive in the court.  The most famous example is probably the Montogmery bus case (Rosa Parks).  It took several runs with several people to create different situations until lawyers decided to proceed with the Rosa Parks instance.

Edited June 30, 2023 by JBJ

[Gourmand 7,761]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The only underlying commonality in the opinions of this court is that white men have rights to guns, religion, and speech, and no one else has any rights. Freedom of religion (to be a bigot) and the right to own guns (for white males) are sacrosanct. All other rights must bend to them. Equal protection? No longer valid if providing equal protection would violate someone's religion. This is a terrible week for this country and history will judge us for it. 

Currently reading this and today's decisions just fan my righteous fury

 

[C-Man 26,543]

11 hours ago, Cacti said:

Depends on one's point of view. If Hillary would have defeated Trump in 2016, she in all likelihood would have been elected again in 2020. While that would have eventually bent SOTUS to the left (a positive from the perspective of liberals), it would also mean that she would have had to deal with the Russian aggression toward Ukraine.

Hillary was no friend of Russia, and undoubtedly would have supported Ukraine, but I have doubts if anyone could have handled the situation as skillfully as has Biden. Joe is the right person, at the right place and at the right time.

So, in that sense, I feel that we are better off --- as opposed to the uncertainty of 'what if'.

Sorry to distract from the actual point of the thread but nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, was worth the one-term Trump presidency and all the ruin and rot it brought to the surface in this country. And that fucker could potentially win another term in 2024. 

[JBJ 3,591]

I read that backwards.  Lower courts decide what the facts of the case are, so they CAN dismiss a case if they think the facts and law don't line up.  The Appellate courts can't really change the factual findings from the lower court.  But the fact that a case is manufactured is not a reason to dismiss it.

[Gourmand 7,761]

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sorry to distract from the actual point of the thread but nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, was worth the one-term Trump presidency and all the ruin and rot it brought to the surface in this country. And that fucker could potentially win another term in 2024. 

As a general rule I don't typically wish death on individuals, but I can be persuaded to make an exception here. 

[SimonBolivar 10,648]

from NYT:

Quote

 

Michael D. Shear
June 30, 2023, 10:59 a.m. ET10 minutes ago
10 minutes ago
Michael D. Shear

White House officials say President Biden will denounce the court ruling in remarks later today and will “announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers.” It is unclear what those new actions will be, but there are some other — more limited — programs that could help some borrowers.

 

Quote

Michael D. Shear
June 30, 2023, 11:00 a.m. ET9 minutes ago
9 minutes ago
Michael D. Shear
The White House will also “be making it crystal clear to borrowers and their families that Republicans are responsible for denying them the relief that President Biden has been fighting to get to them,” according to White House officials.

 

[BrickHorn 17,995]

31 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Second case - 6-3 with the usuals. HEROES act does not authorize debt forgiveness 

I haven’t followed this closely but, at a high level, I’m kind of okay with the message that the President can’t forgive federal loan debt without authorization from Congress. Modern presidents have too much unilateral authority as it is. 

I’m in favor of student loan forgiveness (and generally more fully subsidizing higher education). So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

[Brisketexan 103,193]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

Congress.

Actually governing.

And then, actually governing with the best interests of the people in mind.

 

That will never, ever, ever, ever happen again.  Not as long as the GQP exists.

[Dahobbs 17,098]

A major business should implement a policy that it will no longer provide services to white men based upon religious belief. Americans need to see the disastrous consequences of this Court's rulings. And this Court needs to be held accountable for its shoddy reasoning. Packing the Court should be job #1, #2, and #3 for Democrats. 

[Gourmand 7,761]

3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

from NYT:

 

is that NYTimes pitchbot?

[SimonBolivar 10,648]

Quote

Chief Justice Roberts put an addendum on his majority opinion telling the public not to interpret Justice Kagan’s dissent as a sign of discord at the Supreme Court. “It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” he wrote, adding that reasonable minds could disagree about the majority’s reasoning but that “we do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.”

Fucking lulz John

[SubliminalHorn 6,333]

3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I haven’t followed this closely but, at a high level, I’m kind of okay with the message that the President can’t forgive federal loan debt without authorization from Congress. Modern presidents have too much unilateral authority as it is. 

I’m in favor of student loan forgiveness (and generally more fully subsidizing higher education). So let’s lobby Congress to pass a law to that effect.  

You mean the Congress where one body is controlled by right wing insurrectionists? LOL

[Dahobbs 17,098]

Also, I'm just flummoxed how this Court continually just blows by the usual analysis applied when restricting rights in other contexts. Compelling government interest anyone?