The Supremes

[jimmyjazz 46124]

Ginni seems pretty dialed into the Q world.

Clarence seems like a cuckold.

What a combo pack for SCOTUS.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Ginny has been susceptible to cultish thinking for many many years. One would think that after she left Lifespring and became aware of the dangers of group-think that she would be rather vigilant regarding her thoughts and beliefs; after all--we're all susceptible to a certain extent to conspiracy theories, misinformation, and other promotions that prey on our emotions--but Ginni has, thanks to power and influence, embraced and spread her anxiety over her own insecurities to a large swath of believers in the GOP. Her parents were members of the John Birch Society so perhaps in her mind there is a commie libtard around every corner waiting to wrest her from her comfortable life she's lived. Who knows? But she's a consistent meddler and behind the scenes lobbyist for her beliefs.

[jimmyjazz 46124]

Ugh.  I didn't realize the John Birch angle.

ncsb/ My mother taught English, mostly secondary, a little college.  At one point she was teaching 8th grade honors English.  She assigned Chaucer's "The Miller's Tale".  A couple of days later she was called to the Principal's office -- little Suzy had been offended by this classic, told her John Birch parents, they freaked out and everyone was off to the races.

Mom refused to cancel the assignment, and eventually was sent before the school board.  She again refused to cancel the reading, and threatened to resign if they demanded otherwise.  They backed down and told Suzy's parents that she would be allowed to pick from a list of alternative assignments that my Mom would provide.

Of course, all the other kids in the class were intrigued by this and totally got into the fact that this story had drunkenness, fart jokes, and naked ass-kissing.  Everyone read it.

Edited December 24, 2023 by jimmyjazz

[tx 3 putt 77397]

The man is a horrible human being …

 

[miguelito 11307]

After that picture was taken, they all went to the Gap.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20486]

[DigglerontheHoof 21226]

['stache 21860]

If the senate republicans had even half of a spine he would have been convicted, removed, and clearly ineligible to run. I can certainly see the argument that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection. Impeachment is equal to indictment, lack of removal es equal to acquittal. I forsee a very short narrow opinion that states only that and nothing more. Id like to see at least one dissent or concurrence point out that the Senate lacked the balls to do what was right. It's just another example of the politics in the country leading us to distruction. The USA will crumble in most of our lifetimes, maybe within a decade. This is not sustainable.

Edited January 8 by 'stache

[nbmishoid 962]

The next election the pubs win will be the last  one resembling fair and free.

[nbmishoid 962]

Nah, Brisket, it’s the ragey emoticon.

[SydneyCarton 48168]

Why is this an interesting bellweather case? It's a slam dunk this court will neuter any regulatory agency further. You think they're going to vote against something Charles Koch has championed? lol. 

[Hal Finney 174]

ChAoS

 

 

[tx 3 putt 77397]

 

[Brisketexan 105319]

4 hours ago, Hal Finney said:

ChAoS

 

 

The irony is, your dumbass doesn't even begin to grasp why stare decisis is a thing, or the fact that "consistency and predictability" is one of the bedrock principles behind the rule of law.  People and businesses build decades-long business plans and life plans based on well-established law.  When the SCOTUS just arbitrarily says "nevermind, we void the past 40+ years of completely consistent law on this point" you just changed the rules of the game in the middle of the fucking game.

Imagine building a football team around the established rules that you can both run and pass the ball.  You invest millions in personnel, including a QB with a great arm and a corps of good WRs.  Then, they change the rules to ban the forward pass.  Your investment just went up in smoke.

Reversing decades of established precedent is reserved for only the most egregious of errors.  This SCOTUS has demonstrated that it has zero regard for stare decisis, and will reverse anything and everything because they now have 5 judges who feel all Koch-y.

[jimmyjazz 46124]

Yay!

[tx 3 putt 77397]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The irony is, your dumbass doesn't even begin to grasp why stare decisis is a thing, or the fact that "consistency and predictability" is one of the bedrock principles behind the rule of law.  People and businesses build decades-long business plans and life plans based on well-established law.  When the SCOTUS just arbitrarily says "nevermind, we void the past 40+ years of completely consistent law on this point" you just changed the rules of the game in the middle of the fucking game.

Imagine building a football team around the established rules that you can both run and pass the ball.  You invest millions in personnel, including a QB with a great arm and a corps of good WRs.  Then, they change the rules to ban the forward pass.  Your investment just went up in smoke.

Reversing decades of established precedent is reserved for only the most egregious of errors.  This SCOTUS has demonstrated that it has zero regard for stare decisis, and will reverse anything and everything because they now have 5 judges who feel all Koch-y.

thomas wants to void everything back to 1789

[Js1 85566]

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

thomas wants to void everything back to 1789

Awkward bc he’s, you know 

[tx 3 putt 77397]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Awkward bc he’s, you know 

ain’t no law while wearing the supreme court justice robe !

Edited January 18 by tx 3 putt

[elfenix 34332]

i'm old enough to remember when oil companies wanted courts to defer to the reasonable interpretation of regulators because courts are full of dumbshit lawyers who don't know shit about fuck whereas regulators tend to have subject matter expertise.

[SubliminalHorn 6811]

So do these Koch conservatives want Congress to pass laws for every possible regulatory scenario? It almost sounds like they just want to completely neuter the government. We just need to go back to the articles of confederation 

[tx 3 putt 77397]

28 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

So do these Koch conservatives want Congress to pass laws for every possible regulatory scenario? It almost sounds like they just want to completely neuter the government. We just need to go back to the articles of confederation 

 

they want the states to decide. big shock here, it's much cheaper to buy off state officials. hell, some states will even let kock consultants / lawyers write the laws for them 

Edited January 18 by tx 3 putt

[Bookman 4640]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Awkward bc he’s, you know 

Not on the inside. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26540]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Reversing decades of established precedent is reserved for only the most egregious of errors.  This SCOTUS has demonstrated that it has zero regard for stare decisis, and will reverse anything and everything because they now have 5 judges who feel all Koch-y.

Remember back on Hornfans when I said Leegin was the first shot of a much broader and more ambitious strategic offensive? Lotta lawyers (ahem @washparkhorn) on there argued with me about that.

They also said the decision itself wasn’t a big deal and wouldn’t lead to retail consolidation or more manufacturer control of price points, and since I was merely managing a multibillion dollar global electronics business line at the time, I couldn’t really be expected to understand why.

Hows all that working out, anyway? 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2682]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Steve Bannon is giddy with anticipation. Assuming he's not passed out in an alleyway 

[tx 3 putt 77397]

[Bateshorn 9937]

16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The irony is, your dumbass doesn't even begin to grasp why stare decisis is a thing, or the fact that "consistency and predictability" is one of the bedrock principles behind the rule of law.  People and businesses build decades-long business plans and life plans based on well-established law.  When the SCOTUS just arbitrarily says "nevermind, we void the past 40+ years of completely consistent law on this point" you just changed the rules of the game in the middle of the fucking game.

Imagine building a football team around the established rules that you can both run and pass the ball.  You invest millions in personnel, including a QB with a great arm and a corps of good WRs.  Then, they change the rules to ban the forward pass.  Your investment just went up in smoke.

Reversing decades of established precedent is reserved for only the most egregious of errors.  This SCOTUS has demonstrated that it has zero regard for stare decisis, and will reverse anything and everything because they now have 5 judges who feel all Koch-y.

If I were industry, if you get past the basic rah-rah "dur....deregulation is good!!!" this is ultimately going to be terribly destructive in that I will never be able to understand the regulatory playing field I'm operating in.  There is never a controlling standard any more, especially at the federal level. How do I allocate capital in the that environment if I'm constantly having courts picking and choosing through technical rule decision making. What's to keep agencies in Democratic administration from constantly testing the court on decisions, attempting to find a definition consistent with the statutory language, forcing me back into to court over and over and over again?  

More long term, the court is putting itself at extreme risk in the case of a major politically shift, of finding itself on the end of Congresses gun and having it's jurisdictions and funding dramatically regulated. Since every decision seems to say "The executive branch is too powerful, Congress must decide!" What happens when Congress writes a law and removes the Supreme Courts jurisdiction? Robert's and the conservatives are betting the current political dynamic will continue unabated, but as Stalin quipped about the Pope "How many armored divisions does he have?"  That is also true of the judiciary. 

[wildcat09 29379]

7 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

If I were industry, if you get past the basic rah-rah "dur....deregulation is good!!!" this is ultimately going to be terribly destructive in that I will never be able to understand the regulatory playing field I'm operating in.  There is never a controlling standard any more, especially at the federal level. How do I allocate capital in the that environment if I'm constantly having courts picking and choosing through technical rule decision making. What's to keep agencies in Democratic administration from constantly testing the court on decisions, attempting to find a definition consistent with the statutory language, forcing me back into to court over and over and over again?  

More long term, the court is putting itself at extreme risk in the case of a major politically shift, of finding itself on the end of Congresses gun and having it's jurisdictions and funding dramatically regulated. Since every decision seems to say "The executive branch is too powerful, Congress must decide!" What happens when Congress writes a law and removes the Supreme Courts jurisdiction? Robert's and the conservatives are betting the current political dynamic will continue unabated, but as Stalin quipped about the Pope "How many armored divisions does he have?"  That is also true of the judiciary. 

Yup. They all think this will just mean no federal regulations, because they're stupid. It won't mean no federal regulations, they'll still be on the books. What this actually means is that the actual scope and applicability of every single regulation in the fucking CFR will be subject to the whims of federal judges who don't know shit about the subject matter, and very likely in many cases whatever some loon who got himself booked on Fox News says when a judge happens to be watching.  

And SCOTUS, which is already doing less and less work each year, will be fucking inundated with appeals for regulatory shit. Hey, if John Roberts wants SCOTUS to oversee every single federal regulation, I don't see any way that will be possible unless Joe Biden massively expands SCOTUS. Maybe adding 100 new justices will help.

[Chad Fuck 17758]

20 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

If I were industry, if you get past the basic rah-rah "dur....deregulation is good!!!" this is ultimately going to be terribly destructive in that I will never be able to understand the regulatory playing field I'm operating in.  There is never a controlling standard any more, especially at the federal level. How do I allocate capital in the that environment if I'm constantly having courts picking and choosing through technical rule decision making. What's to keep agencies in Democratic administration from constantly testing the court on decisions, attempting to find a definition consistent with the statutory language, forcing me back into to court over and over and over again?  

More long term, the court is putting itself at extreme risk in the case of a major politically shift, of finding itself on the end of Congresses gun and having it's jurisdictions and funding dramatically regulated. Since every decision seems to say "The executive branch is too powerful, Congress must decide!" What happens when Congress writes a law and removes the Supreme Courts jurisdiction? Robert's and the conservatives are betting the current political dynamic will continue unabated, but as Stalin quipped about the Pope "How many armored divisions does he have?"  That is also true of the judiciary. 

[BamaATL 16593]

If you thought the phrase "let the buyer beware" didn't mean much now, just wait.  Consumer protection is about to be in the fucking toilet.  @Brisketexan got any good snake oil ideas, because here soon you can fucking sell anything making any claim that you want with no fear at all.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

27 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

...will be subject to the whims of federal judges who don't know shit about the subject matter...

Huh, how about that. Kinda like a buncha 60+ year old white guys telling a woman how her ectopic pregnancy is no big deal or if she clinches her thighs together she can repress her menstrual blood and other nonsense they haven't the slightest clue upon.

[Chad Fuck 17758]

13 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Huh, how about that. Kinda like a buncha 60+ year old white guys telling a woman how her ectopic pregnancy is no big deal or if she clinches her thighs together she can repress her menstrual blood and other nonsense they haven't the slightest clue upon.

C'mon.  Bruen put everyone on notice that the right leaning SCOTUS justices are clearly and decisively ready to substitute their opinions as subject matter experts on whatever subject pleases them.  In Bruen they made themselves into inept historians.  Now they'll just extend that to...well, everything.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

C'mon.  Bruen put everyone on notice that the right leaning SCOTUS justices are clearly and decisively ready to substitute their opinions as subject matter experts on whatever subject pleases them.  In Bruen they made themselves into inept historians.  Now they'll just extend that to...well, everything.  

Amy Coney Barrett is 51 years old and Brett and Neil not much older. So much fun to come let me tell you.

[Chad Fuck 17758]

6 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Amy Coney Barrett is 51 years old and Brett and Neil not much older. So much fun to come let me tell you.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4977]

Every election cycle, the executive branch assumes more and more power through the expansion of the Chevron doctrine, yet we have a bunch of cheer leaders in here acting like it doesn't enable the kind of authoritarianism we saw under the past administration. It clearly needs to be curtailed. Let's hope that's all they do. Worst case, mass chaos, but with the silver lining that the pubs won't be able to pull as much shuts off. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

On 1/18/2024 at 12:41 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Amy Coney Barrett is 51 years old and Brett and Neil not much older. So much fun to come let me tell you.

They have 4 years until the judicial branch is terminated 

 

[SKJ 1311]

11 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Every election cycle, the executive branch assumes more and more power through the expansion of the Chevron doctrine, yet we have a bunch of cheer leaders in here acting like it doesn't enable the kind of authoritarianism we saw under the past administration. It clearly needs to be curtailed. Let's hope that's all they do. Worst case, mass chaos, but with the silver lining that the pubs won't be able to pull as much shuts off. 

In not completely sure that's how this works...

I AM pretty sure that the Supreme Court would love a chance to vest more power in the judiciary,  however,  and 6 of 9 justices are now dreaming of how they're going to lord over the other two branches with this new interpretation they have probably already decided upon. 

Let's all get ready to welcome our new overlords,  the unelected textualists who can't wait to turn back the clock on any government regulation, and our society to a new theocracy. 

Here's a piece by Robert Reich on the issue:

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/whats-the-chevron-doctrine-and-why

Edited January 20 by SKJ
Speeling ees haard

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

12 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

They have 4 years until the judicial branch is terminated 

 

Explain what you mean, please?

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I did a cursory search but the engine didn't come up with anything--has anyone been following the Texas case that's been before the court: Devillier v Texas? Short note is that it involves ~70 petitioners whose property was flooded when some construction amendments were done on I-10, ironically, to mitigate flooding. State says, so what, and plaintiffs are arguing that it is (if I understand correctly) an uncompensated 'taking' or some such and that the State's defense were it to prevail would allow states to take private property with no restitution. Seems kinda noteworthy but I'm no legal person so maybe not?

Here's some links if anyone is interested:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-913.html

Here is a bit from the petition; it goes on from this, but this gives a general idea:

Quote

This case arises out of a series of inverse-condemnation cases filed in Texas state courts, all alleging that a Texas highway project had caused widespread flooding. App. 4a–5a. The flooding was no accident: In an effort to make sure that the eastbound lanes of Interstate Highway 10 (“IH-10”) would be available as an evacuation route in the event of a flood, the Texas Department of Transportation raised the highway’s elevation, added two additional lanes, and installed a nearly three-foot “impenetrable, solid concrete traffic barrier on the highway’s centerline.” The median barrier worked as intended, creating a weir that barricaded rainfall on the northside: Water that would otherwise have flowed south into the Gulf of Mexico stopped dead at Highway 10. Texas’s plan worked, at least in that it ensured that part of the road remained navigable even in flood conditions. But it was not without cost. Keeping the south side of IH-10 dry meant keeping the north side of IH-10 wet and, in times of heavy rainfall, flooded entirely.

Alleging that this flooding of their land worked a taking under the constitutions of both the United States and Texas, a group of local landowners filed an
inverse-condemnation suit against the State of Texas in state district court, directly invoking both the Texas and United States Constitutions. Texas promptly removed the case to federal court. Other state-court lawsuits followed based on the same basic claim that the weir in the middle of IH-10 had also flooded other land. Texas removed those, too. The cases were then consolidated into a single action comprising some 77 distinct property-owner plaintiffs.

Having removed the cases to its preferred forum, Texas moved to dismiss, arguing (in relevant part) that the property owners could not bring their
inverse-condemnation claims directly under the Fifth Amendment.  Takings claims, said Texas, could be brought only under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and since Texas, which is not a “person,” cannot be sued under that statute, they could not be brought at all. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation advised that the motion, in relevantpart, should be denied for three reasons.  First, the magistrate observed that Texas’s position would allow states to take private property
and leave aggrieved property owners without any federal constitutional remedy at all. This “eviscerates hundreds of years of Constitutional
law in one fell swoop."

Thoughts?

 

*I admit, there could be some other details that I wonder may have occurred prior to this case, i.e. when Houston suffered the devastating effects of Harvey, there were homeowners in certain subdivisions where flooding was extreme and trying to assess accountability for that may have led to various remedies/fingerpointing by victims of water damage to their homes. Just wonder how this is all going to shake out, really.

Edited January 20 by Mrs Whiggins
*Addition

[Gap03 3315]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Explain what you mean, please?

I think he is implying that Trump is going to go Black Bush on the USSC at some point ...

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Ah, I see. Thanks.

[wildcat09 29379]

14 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Every election cycle, the executive branch assumes more and more power through the expansion of the Chevron doctrine, yet we have a bunch of cheer leaders in here acting like it doesn't enable the kind of authoritarianism we saw under the past administration. It clearly needs to be curtailed. Let's hope that's all they do. Worst case, mass chaos, but with the silver lining that the pubs won't be able to pull as much shuts off. 

It doesn't, because they rule on every admin law case based on what party is in the White House not on the merits of any legal arguments made.

[scottsins 1969]

If you thought the phrase "let the buyer beware" didn't mean much now, just wait.  Consumer protection is about to be in the fucking toilet.  [mention=593]Brisketexan[/mention] got any good snake oil ideas, because here soon you can fucking sell anything making any claim that you want with no fear at all.  

Worse than that…courts actually WILL intervene to ban/get rid of products they deem unsafe that have been approved by regulatory agencies. See, for example, the federal courts overturning/fucking with the FDA approval of the “abortion pill”.

The revocation of the approval was overturned by the 5th Circuit. It seems like this expected SCOTIS ruling might give the 5th the precedent they need to revisit that issue and rule differently.

[wildcat09 29379]

 

4 dissents here despite the clear irreparable harm of children dying if they didn't vacate the injunction sure does tell you what they think about the basic humanity of migrants. 

[tx 3 putt 77397]

Thomas needs to hurry and pass on to hell 

[Gap03 3315]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

4 dissents here despite the clear irreparable harm of children dying if they didn't vacate the injunction sure does tell you what they think about the basic humanity of migrants. 

And, consistent with our full-on Calvinball regime, no fucking opinions ...

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

34 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

4 dissents here despite the clear irreparable harm of children dying if they didn't vacate the injunction sure does tell you what they think about the basic humanity of migrants. 

Trump will soon be posting that he's disappointed in Barrett.

[Brisketexan 105319]

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Trump will soon be posting that he's disappointed in Barrett.

And the volume of death threats against her for "poisoning the blood of our country" will skyrocket.

[SimonBolivar 10959]

While it's a good ruling, the cynical part of me is this was a calculated move that gives the Rs more fuel for their "IMMIGRATION!!!" fire come November. 

 

"FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD: We are in a crisis and BRANDON removed the wire to make it worse!!?!?!?!"

[HenryJames 66169]

Four votes for states having jurisdiction over immigration policy. Normal stuff.

[wildcat09 29379]

2 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Four votes for states having jurisdiction over immigration policy. Normal stuff.

There's a few posters here to seem to seriously think their votes will be consistent regardless of the party in the White House.