The Supremes

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

6 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

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

That Gouverneur Morris was full of shit.

[Captainant 27,667]

55 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

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

With no fucking opinion to clarify their reasoning either. The supreme court is wiping its ass with the basic concept of law and jurisprudence. 

[Pods 7,552]

 

This game lends itself to certain abuses. 

 

[hobbes2702 13,033]

Can one of you lawyers explain what the argument would even be for the 4? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,460]

35 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Can one of you lawyers explain what the argument would even be for the 4? 

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

51 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Can one of you lawyers explain what the argument would even be for the 4? 

I’m assuming they’re telling themselves if the Federal government isn’t doing its job protecting a state that state has a right to protect itself with its own dollars/resources.  I think it’s total bullshit but that’s what these clowns are likely saying to themselves as they keep voting for whatever the fuck the far right wants.  

[TwiceHorn 31,470]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Presumably, but not necessarily, agreement with this. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A607/295288/20240109144901203_23A607 Response to Application for Vacatur.pdf

I bet noone here knows that Texas started this by suing the feds for converting (destroying, taking) the state's concertina wire.

Geezus.  This wasn't about sovereignty or the preemption of Texas law by federal immigration law.

It was about barbed wire.

So, further perusal of the case papers reveals that the trial court concluded back in November, against apparently the weight of authority, that the waiver of sovereign immunity in 5 USC 702 does not apply to state law tort claims, so Texas couldn't sue the feds.

The Fifth Circuit apparently disagreed (and agreed with other circuits that state law tort claims are permitted), thus enjoining further destruction of Texas' barbed wire pending appeal.

So, federal supremacy and preemption were collateral issues attempting to justify the destruction of barbed wire.

This case never addressed the broad question of what the State of Texas can do vis a vis the federal government under the guise of immigration enforcement.

It considered whether the feds could steal and destroy Texas' barbed wire, under any theory.

JFC.

Edited January 23 by TwiceHorn

[Aqua Buddha 14,596]

2 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I’m assuming they’re telling themselves if the Federal government isn’t doing its job protecting a state that state has a right to protect itself with its own dollars/resources.  I think it’s total bullshit but that’s what these clowns are likely saying to themselves as they keep voting for whatever the fuck the far right wants.  

What would those same for think if a state, say California, had wide open borders and granted everyone immediate citizenship contrary to what the federal policy was?

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

What would those same for think if a state, say California, had wide open borders and granted everyone immediate citizenship contrary to what the federal policy was?

Why you give all these mass murderers and terrorists citizenship?!  Must protect our country!

[SKJ 1,311]

8 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

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!!?!?!?!"

Yeah,  but the dems should be hammering their heads in the ground since the R's are running their usual play of voting against comprehensive reform then saying "these dems won't do anything to fix the problem!"

Especially since Trump said it all out loud

[CooterBrown 18,012]

10 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

What would those same for think if a state, say California, had wide open borders and granted everyone immediate citizenship contrary to what the federal policy was?

if I'm CA, the citizenship is granted only if they get on a bus to Texas.  

[nbmishoid 949]

20 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Presumably, but not necessarily, agreement with this. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A607/295288/20240109144901203_23A607 Response to Application for Vacatur.pdf

I bet noone here knows that Texas started this by suing the feds for converting (destroying, taking) the state's concertina wire.

Geezus.  This wasn't about sovereignty or the preemption of Texas law by federal immigration law.

It was about barbed wire.

So, further perusal of the case papers reveals that the trial court concluded back in November, against apparently the weight of authority, that the waiver of sovereign immunity in 5 USC 702 does not apply to state law tort claims, so Texas couldn't sue the feds.

The Fifth Circuit apparently disagreed (and agreed with other circuits that state law tort claims are permitted), thus enjoining further destruction of Texas' barbed wire pending appeal.

So, federal supremacy and preemption were collateral issues attempting to justify the destruction of barbed wire.

This case never addressed the broad question of what the State of Texas can do vis a vis the federal government under the guise of immigration enforcement.

It considered whether the feds could steal and destroy Texas' barbed wire, under any theory.

JFC.

Steal?  When Texas installs it on fed controlled land, is that stealing?   I.e in lawful taking?

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,400]

On 1/22/2024 at 2:46 PM, Brisketexan said:

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

The MAGA folks are already out in force. Hilariously, Mike Barrett lives in Metarie, Louisiana, where he's a church deacon.

[sheeeit 129]

On 1/17/2024 at 5:32 PM, 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.

Let’s try to leave all politics out of it, and just debate the law. But isn’t what you seem to be lamenting above with your football team analogy kind of exactly what is happening now?  If you own a fishing company like the one the case is based on or an energy company or a technology company or just about anything and you base your business model and your research and development and the hundreds of billions of dollars that go into that based on a set of rules under a Democrat administration, and then those regulations can change dramatically in four years under a Republican administration you can potentially be screwed just like you are worrying about above.  Take the EPA as an example. I think everyone would agree that the mandate given to the EPA under a John Kerry administration would be wildly different than under a Ted Cruz administration.   
 

So isn’t what the courts are potentially saying is the state of Oregon can regulate the fishing industry in Oregon  whatever way the Oregon legislature sees fit.   It seems to me that everyone here is saying this is going to give judges more power, but I think it is really just trying to restore power to state legislatures.  
 

from a purely theoretical standpoint I’m not sure I would disagree with that.  

[Brisketexan 105,139]

4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

So isn’t what the courts are potentially saying is the state of Oregon can regulate the fishing industry in Oregon  whatever way the Oregon legislature sees fit.   It seems to me that everyone here is saying this is going to give judges more power, but I think it is really just trying to restore power to state legislatures.  

So....yeah....that's not what this case or the Chevron doctrine is about.  There would be some function of there being a hodgepodge of regulations when the vast majority of federal regulations are voided.  So, for example, Texas will allow you to manufacture product X, spewing whatever you want into the water and air, saving money and having manufacturers flock there to save 2% on production costs.  Whereas a state that maybe gives a shit about its population will prohibit poisoning the water and air.  And then....how do you deal with the fact that River X runs through Texas and some other state?  How about the fact that Texas's massive air pollution will make it to another state?  This "fuck the federal government, let's run everything like each state is a separate country answerable to nobody" is insanity.  Seriously, it defeats the very things that helped build this nation to be the powerhouse that it is.  50 fiefdoms, each saying "fuck all the rest of you" as loudly as possible is brutal idiocy.  But truly, that's not the real risk/problem here. 

The real risk/problem is the unpredictability of regulations.  Because yes, while regulations do vary SOME when a new admin comes into power, you actually might be surprised by how little they actually end up varying.  Because it takes time and work to undo/rewrite regulations.  So, no, lack of predictability generally is not a problem for regulated industries.  There are exceptions of course, but generally....we have predictability.

But not when the SCOTUS just says "naah, federal regulations are illegal" - or rather "any number of federal courts can declare any number of federal regulations on a whim, just as soon as someone challenges them" -- which is where they are headed.

[sheeeit 129]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So....yeah....that's not what this case or the Chevron doctrine is about.  There would be some function of there being a hodgepodge of regulations when the vast majority of federal regulations are voided.  So, for example, Texas will allow you to manufacture product X, spewing whatever you want into the water and air, saving money and having manufacturers flock there to save 2% on production costs.  Whereas a state that maybe gives a shit about its population will prohibit poisoning the water and air.  And then....how do you deal with the fact that River X runs through Texas and some other state?  How about the fact that Texas's massive air pollution will make it to another state?  This "fuck the federal government, let's run everything like each state is a separate country answerable to nobody" is insanity.  Seriously, it defeats the very things that helped build this nation to be the powerhouse that it is.  50 fiefdoms, each saying "fuck all the rest of you" as loudly as possible is brutal idiocy.  But truly, that's not the real risk/problem here. 

The real risk/problem is the unpredictability of regulations.  Because yes, while regulations do vary SOME when a new admin comes into power, you actually might be surprised by how little they actually end up varying.  Because it takes time and work to undo/rewrite regulations.  So, no, lack of predictability generally is not a problem for regulated industries.  There are exceptions of course, but generally....we have predictability.

But not when the SCOTUS just says "naah, federal regulations are illegal" - or rather "any number of federal courts can declare any number of federal regulations on a whim, just as soon as someone challenges them" -- which is where they are headed.

When you say that the regulations usually don’t amount to anything, you may be correct, but it does not appear so in the case that was brought.   
 

As I read the case, there was a mandate some 40 years ago by a federal agency to force certain fishing vessels to keep federal watchdogs on their ships to make sure that they were observing safe fishing practices.  Congress was mindful at the time that this would put a large financial burden on the fishing companies and capped the amount they would have to pay for the federal monitors at 2% to 3% of their daily haul.   However, now the federal agency is mandating that the amount the fishing vessels must pay for their federal oversight is 20% of their daily haul.  Obviously, that is a massive increase.  These fishing companies have sunk lots and lots of money and time into their equipment, and now suddenly face the prospect of not being able to make a profit. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that international fishing companies that fish in the same waters are not subject to these costs, which allow them to sell their fish at a lower cost.  This would seem to be unsustainable for the US fishing vessels.
 

My understanding of what has happened to date is that the various courts have determined that the Chevron guideline is in play and as a result, the federal agency has complete authority to impose the higher fees.

In reading the responses on here, from most of the posters, it seems that the argument is that the regulatory agencies should have more control than the courts in these matters as the regulatory agencies have industry specific knowledge that the courts would not. However, simply imposing a higher fee has nothing to do with anything industry specific in this case.  
 

We eat lots of fish in the US, and our domestic fishing operations are pretty critical to our food supply.  It seems in this case that the funding for the federal agency was drawing up and as a result, the agency just arbitrarily pushed those costs onto the businesses. I know everybody on here likes to make fun of people that complain about federal overreach, but this certainly seems like a good example of it. I can see why this particular case made its way to the Supreme Court.

[wildcat09 29,354]

Brisket, I swear to god if you start engaging with this troll on legal arguments I will pull this car over.

[Js1 85,336]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Brisket, I swear to god if you start engaging with this troll on legal arguments I will pull this car over.

[HenryJames 66,052]

[gmr548 16,580]

12 hours ago, HenryJames said:

The only surprise there is that there might have been one who had a moment of humanity.

[jimmyjazz 45,952]

6 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

The only surprise there is that there might have been one who had a moment of humanity.

More than likely one of them just didn't understand how terrifying it would be to die from suffocation in an oxygen-free environment.  They just didn't think it was cruel enough.

[kevwun 15,788]

Or they own stock in private prisons there and didn't want to get rid of a customer.

[Dutchrudder 11,139]

14 hours ago, HenryJames said:

"He needed killing."

- Alabama 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,870]

good fucking god
 

Quote

Smith appeared conscious for “several minutes into the execution,” and for two minutes after that, he “shook and writhed on a gurney,” according to the media witness report. That was followed by several minutes of deep breathing before his breath began slowing “until it was no longer perceptible for media witnesses.”

When asked at the news conference about Smith shaking during the start of the execution, Hamm said Smith appeared to be holding his breath “for as long as he could” and may have also “struggled against his restraints.”

“There was some involuntary movement and some agonal breathing, so that was all expected and is in the side effects that we’ve seen and researched on nitrogen hypoxia,” Hamm added. “So nothing was out of the ordinary of what we were expecting.” Agonal breathing is usually described as a kind of gasping seen in people who are dying.

Another witness, Smith’s spiritual adviser who’d previously expressed concern that the method could be inhumane, described the death in more graphic terms, saying it was “the most horrible thing I’ve ever seen.”

Smith, wearing a mask through which the nitrogen was administered, convulsed when the gas was turned on, “popped up on the gurney” repeatedly, and gasped and heaved, the Rev. Jeff Hood said.

“An unbelievable evil was unleashed tonight,” Hood said.

 

[chainsaw 9,868]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

good fucking god
 

 

That's pretty messed up. Can a medical expert chime in on how this is a different death experience from being hanged?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,870]

how is it that we can put dogs and cats down in matter of seconds but we can't do the same for ourselves? don't take this as advocating for the death penalty, because I am not. but if I can't change it being used, at least make it quick. unbelievable. 

Edited January 26 by Longhorn_Fan68

[chainsaw 9,868]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how is it that we can put dogs and cats down in matter of seconds but we can't do the same for ourselves? don't take this as advocating for the death penalty, because I am not. but if I can't change it being used, at least make it quick. unbelievable. 

maybe one of those libertarian submarines would be the most humane. place the prisoner under anesthesia then send them to the bottom of the ocean until the vessel is crushed by the immense pressure. death in a matter of milliseconds.

[Js1 85,336]

11 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Smith appeared conscious for “several minutes into the execution,” and for two minutes after that, he “shook and writhed on a gurney,” according to the media witness report. That was followed by several minutes of deep breathing before his breath began slowing “until it was no longer perceptible for media witnesses.”

Isn't there something in the Constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment?"

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,870]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Isn't there something in the Constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment?"

yeah, I definitely see some lawsuits stemming from this one. possible even from witnesses

[wildcat09 29,354]

The death penalty is the one area where the Catholics on the Court don't let their religion influence their decision-making. I wonder why that is.

[Red Five 40,858]

"Thou shalt not kill. Unless you really want to, I guess. Then it's totally cool."

Common theme is me wondering how religious people reconcile their beliefs that completely contradict their real life beliefs.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The death penalty is the one area where the Catholics on the Court don't let their religion influence their decision-making. I wonder why that is.

DING DING DING.  "But mah religion!" is just an excuse for them to do what they WANT TO, politically.  It is never, ever, ever, a reason for them to do something that might disagree with the beliefs of their political party/masters.  

TLDR: Religion in US politics is 100% a sword to hurt others, 0% a shield to protect others.

[jimmyjazz 45,952]

Nobody can say with certainty what would be the most "humane"way to execute someone.  No living human has died.  (Let's leave reincarnation out of this.)  Medical experts probably have more insight than most, and most of them seem to think the quickest way is the most humane way (bullet to the head, decapitation, etc.).

Here's the problem:  death penalty advocates have no concern for a humane execution.  In fact, most are interested in the LEAST humane methods.  It's bloodlust, pure and simple, and it is a huge stain on our collective "humanity".  

[DigglerontheHoof 21,199]

Seems as though I've read/seen where one of the most painful ways to die is suffocation and/or drowning.  Sounds like an agonizing way to die. 

[Stilicho 1,397]

18 minutes ago, Red Five said:

"Thou shalt not kill. Unless you really want to, I guess. Then it's totally cool."

Common theme is me wondering how religious people reconcile their beliefs that completely contradict their real life beliefs.

They’re not really religious. Just cover for their utter lack of empathy and/or humanity. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,793]

38 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That's pretty messed up. Can a medical expert chime in on how this is a different death experience from being hanged?

Believe they measure the rope and weight to snap the neck in a hanging, not leave them dangling kicking around 

[jimmyjazz 45,952]

7 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Seems as though I've read/seen where one of the most painful ways to die is suffocation and/or drowning.  Sounds like an agonizing way to die. 

A couple of months ago I accidentally inhaled a gulp of water instead of swallowing it.  I am not exaggerating -- it was scary as hell.  You feel as if you'll never get a breath again.  Now I understand why waterboarding is so awful.

[Js1 85,336]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

A couple of months ago I accidentally inhaled a gulp of water instead of swallowing it.  I am not exaggerating -- it was scary as hell.  You feel as if you'll never get a breath again.  Now I understand why waterboarding is so awful.

Some CIA agent monitoring this site just got an erection

[jimmyjazz 45,952]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Some CIA agent monitoring this site just got an erection

Like that's anything new.

[RomaVicta 29,907]

38 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Isn't there something in the Constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment?"

Yes. It appears that the Founders were all for it.

[chainsaw 9,868]

31 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Believe they measure the rope and weight to snap the neck in a hanging, not leave them dangling kicking around 

I have to think the dangling, kicking outcome happened a few times though.

[tx 3 putt 76,957]

Why wasn’t he put under ?

 

[Dnaguy 11,964]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Isn't there something in the Constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment?"

It’s cruel AND unusual.

Both condition must be true.

Maybe it is a little cruel but then again, we don’t find it that unusual really… historically speaking.

Or maybe it is a little unusual to do this. But we think it’s really not all that cruel as compared to historical tortures / death sentence means.

So the court HAS to rule this is to proceed. We really are handcuffed by the constitution on this one.

/originalists on the bench

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,870]

6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why wasn’t he put under ?

 

my gf, who consumes true crime shit like it was crack, is going to investigate this very question and I'll report back when she's done her sleuthing. unless someone beats me to it.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,460]

How would the framers feel about dropping heavy objects on them or use some kind of smushing machine? Surely there’s a 16th century case  Gorsuch or one of the other originalist scholars can cite where someone committed trespass vi et armis against the King’s Peace and, being penitent, was granted the mercy of being “hastily press’d flat betwixt the stoans.”

[Dnaguy 11,964]

7 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why wasn’t he put under ?

 

He is now?

[HenryJames 66,052]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

How would the framers feel about dropping heavy objects on them or use some kind of smushing machine? Surely there’s a 16th century case  Gorsuch or one of the other originalist scholars can cite where someone committed trespass vi et armis against the King’s Peace and, being penitent, was granted the mercy of being “hastily press’d flat betwixt the stoans.”

I don’t know anything about the framers other than that they’d be really cool with a group of unelected Catholics running shit.

[Satchel 6,938]

2 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

"He needed killing."

- Alabama 

This might be a good time to note the the decedent was originally sentenced to life without parole by a jury of his peers but the judge overruled the jury and decided he needed killing.

[Keef 764]

45 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I have to think the dangling, kicking outcome happened a few times though.

Yep.  Decapitations happened fairly frequently as well if the measurements were done wrong.

[Horn Dog 9,855]

30 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why wasn’t he put under ?

 

Well how are you gonna see him suffer if you do that??