The Supremes

[TwiceHorn 31,450]

7 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There is a compelling federalist case that state and local officials should be allowed to be corrupt. I don’t see how the republic functions without those protections.

Well, there is a pretty good case that the feds should severely ratchet back criminal laws that duplicate state laws and have no particular federal interest, but by Gawd they affect interstate commerce.  This might be ok if restricted to federal officials.  Pretty sure states can handle bribery cases just fine.

[elfenix 34,230]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty sure states can handle bribery cases just fine.

[HenryJames 66,041]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty sure states can handle bribery cases just fine.

 

[safe sex 11,709]

Twice, I think you're great, but literally what?

[WhatTheBuck 28,776]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty sure states can handle bribery cases just fine.

Larry Householder wishes. 

[TwiceHorn 31,450]

51 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Twice, I think you're great, but literally what?

For every single state crime, there is a nearly perfect analogous federal crime, except possibly murder, unless it happens on federal property or an Indian reservation.

Constitutionally, the federal government lacks a general or plenary police power.  Therefore, unless there is a peculiar federal interest at stake, the feds should not have criminal laws on the books or prosecute them.  But, the expansion of the interstate commerce clause has allowed the feds to create an analogous federal crime for every state crime because just about everything "affects interstate commerce" in one way or another.

Great example is drug crimes and why we have this conflict between state legalization and continued federal criminalization.

This really didn't get going until after the Lindbergh kidnapping and the creation/expansion of the FBI.  It has also been a great way for federal politicians to pander by being tough on crime.

The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle.  Really wish we could put it back in.

 

[safe sex 11,709]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring specifically to your statement about states doing just fine re: prosecuting corruption

[TwiceHorn 31,450]

4 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring specifically to your statement about states doing just fine re: prosecuting corruption

They're quite capable of it.  There's no special technology or anything multi-jurisdictional involved.  They just don't because the feds often deal with it.

Now, like civil rights crimes, there may be cases where local authorities are afraid to take on local political figures, so the system is corrupted by the corruption.  That might justify federal prosecution, but in a general case I am not a fan.

Edited June 27 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 105,095]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring specifically to your statement about states doing just fine re: prosecuting corruption

This. Texas will not prosecute ANY corruption case against a Repub politician. Ken Paxton could admit to a crime in open court (which he has actually done), and nothing will happen.
That’s why we need federal laws.
The same reason we needed federal prosecutions during the civil rights era, when white people could murder black people in broad daylight and skate.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring specifically to your statement about states doing just fine re: prosecuting corruption

This. Texas will not prosecute ANY corruption case against a Repub politician. Ken Paxton could admit to a crime in open court (which he has actually done), and nothing will happen.
That’s why we need federal laws.
The same reason we needed federal prosecutions during the civil rights era, when white people could murder black people in broad daylight and skate.

[tx 3 putt 76,905]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This. Texas will not prosecute ANY corruption case against a Repub politician. Ken Paxton could admit to a crime in open court (which he has actually done), and nothing will happen.
That’s why we need federal laws.
The same reason we needed federal prosecutions during the civil rights era, when white people could murder black people in broad daylight and skate.
This. Texas will not prosecute ANY corruption case against a Repub politician. Ken Paxton could admit to a crime in open court (which he has actually done), and nothing will happen.
That’s why we need federal laws.
The same reason we needed federal prosecutions during the civil rights era, when white people could murder black people in broad daylight and skate.

Don’t forget, Patrick took an open $3mil bribe before presiding over Paxton’s senate trial 

[elfenix 34,230]

 

guess the bribes post-decision gratuities are not on their way

 

 

Edited June 27 by elfenix

[Js1 85,310]

 

 

[Chad Fuck 17,670]

[/url]  
guess the bribes post-decision gratuities are not on their way
 
 

Huge win for plaintiffs/creditors. Though it feels weird disagreeing with Sotomayor and Kagan and agreeing with Gorsuch.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,510]

Is SCOTUS purposefully waiting on the debate to occur tonight before they release the Trump immunity case?

[wildcat09 29,349]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Is SCOTUS purposefully waiting on the debate to occur tonight before they release the Trump immunity case?

They're holding it for their last release day because they want to delay the trial as long as they can.

[Chad Fuck 17,670]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They're holding it for their last release day because they want to delay the trial as long as they can.

This.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

50 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They're holding it for their last release day because they want to delay the trial as long as they can.

The “they” in this case may be one or two of the pro-insurrection justices  

__

The Sackler case was correct in the fact that the settlement wiped out victim claims without giving them a chance to challenge the decision. The Sacklers should have been forced into bankruptcy under the deal, imo

[Gap03 3,304]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Is SCOTUS purposefully waiting on the debate to occur tonight before they release the Trump immunity case?

Only makes sense given Biden, the FBI, the CIA, Jason Bourne and the Jackal have been coordinating on a plan to assassinate Trump at the debate.  The court obviously doesn't want Biden to know that he'll be immune if he goes through with that ...

[BamaATL 16,593]

So someone help me understand why the SEC is going to exist at this point after today's ruling.  Essentially, my understanding is that they gutted their internal ability to police in favor of the court system.  So now, basically, it's in big business's best interest to just conduct fraud, get sued, wait years for anything to go to trial, let alone appeals and in the mean time the SEC can do little more than sue like any aggrieved customer?  The SEC was pretty toothless even prior to this, and now it seems it almost seems no purpose to me.  

Do I have this right?  

['stache 21,802]

I'm also curious that if the SEC cannot have internal courts, do immigration courts go away also? They are set up within the Department of Justice as Article 1 courts (Executive). There is a movement to place them under Article 2 (legislature), or a new branch of the judiciary (Article 3). 

Edited June 27 by 'stache

[pacman 7,355]

sotomayor et all need to keep throwing haymakers.

I do enjoy how the conservatives assume liberals will always be too principled or incompetent to pull this same shit in the future

 

Edited June 27 by pacman

[BamaATL 16,593]

13 minutes ago, pacman said:

sotomayor et all need to keep throwing haymakers.

I do enjoy how the conservatives assume liberals will always be too principled or incompetent to pull this same shit in the future

 

Our (liberal/progressive/whatever) biggest downfall has been the assumption that Republicans would act as if they are concerned what we might do if we regain power.  They don't, nor will they ever, until we start taking their playbook and throwing it right back in their faces.  When they get their boot on our collective throats, they stomp, whereas we try to play nice with some imaginary thought that there is a certain decorum to all this.  There isn't.  I despise conservatives and Republicans, but begrudgingly I have to give them that when they have the opportunity they stomp and we don't.  

[TwiceHorn 31,450]

51 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm also curious that if the SEC cannot have internal courts, do immigration courts go away also? They are set up within the Department of Justice as Article 1 courts (Executive). There is a movement to place them under Article 2 (legislature), or a new branch of the judiciary (Article 3). 

Seems the gist of it is that SEC fraud claims too much resemble common-law fraud claims and thus must be heard by Article III courts.

Immigration, patent appeals, patent inter partes review, etc., the truly specialized stuff, are highly statutory and no common-law alternatives exist/ed, so administrative/Article I judges are fine.  Same type of thing has been tried with the patent courts, but failed for this reason.

Also Article II governs the executive, II the lege, and III the judiciary.

[YGIFS 19,450]

Don't be too hard on yourselves.  Your party is trying to navigate its way through a contemporary/current Trump era with new players and new rules.  But yeah, time is of the essence, so I sure wish they'd figure it the fuck out already.  I can empathize a tiny bit, given that on occasion, I try to think rationally and kindly.  Not often, but I've been down that fork in the road.  

The bench will ebb and flow as it has always done.  It has been activist, constructionist, and corruptionalist over the course of 235 years.  The justices have taken bribes, been selfish with their power, turned against the Presidents and Senators that put them in that robe.  They have lied, cheated, stolen, misinterpreted, twisted, recoiled, over-extended, abandoned, and embraced.  But almost to a person, they had one thing in common over the myriad parties and decades.  They knew what Article III truly meant.  They may have used it for personal agendas, but they all knew the vested authority placed on that bench.  The last vestige to protect the world's first Federalist Democratic Republic.  And even if they didn't give fuck one about the people involved in the cases they heard, they wanted their legacies to shine to their legal colleagues in a time they knew they would never see.  

235 years of rulings you may not have liked, but were at least based in some modicum of scholarly thought, legal reasoning, and caretaking of the Nation.  

That era and mindset have come to an end.  It's not Steve Bannon, or Miller, or the Evangelicals, or Putin pulling the strings for Trump to return to Office.  It's the U.S. Supreme Court.  Abandon all hope, ye who enter here should be etched at 1 First Street in D.C.  They know Trump is a brazen moron incapable of even reading a case brief or a single page of a horn book.  They will be the ones returning him to power, or at least his likely successor.  They have a deep agenda and years to go before they sleep.  Years to go...before they sleep.

[Nivek 16,923]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seems the gist of it is that SEC fraud claims too much resemble common-law fraud claims and thus must be heard by Article III courts.

Immigration, patent appeals, patent inter partes review, etc., the truly specialized stuff, are highly statutory and no common-law alternatives exist/ed, so administrative/Article I judges are fine.  Same type of thing has been tried with the patent courts, but failed for this reason.

Also Article II governs the executive, II the lege, and III the judiciary.

So wouldn't that mean that military courts are also going to be wrecked?

[RomaVicta 29,905]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

 

This is the shit making a lot of other shit moot. I'm guessing the top 1% own the high ground near fresh water. They don't give a shit about any others.

 

 

Thanks, holy capitalism. Thanks, idiots who think that's what this republic is basically about. Thanks for making a profoundly powerful argument for socialism that most everyone will ignore. I don't know if AOC is a socialist, but whatever she is, I'm aboard.

Sorry, Greta. You're trying to appeal to a selfish, greedy audience that evidently doesn't give a fuck about your generation's world.

Hope the 15 minutes of fame and the pat on the head will suffice in the place of nobody listening to simple truth.

YEEEEEEE! HAWWWWW!

 

I'll bring some Bulleit rye and Fever Tree gingerale, @Brisketexan.

[TwiceHorn 31,450]

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

So wouldn't that mean that military courts are also going to be wrecked?

Nah, military stuff is also generally regarded as special and something the courts don't usually interfere with.

[Satchel 6,938]

Wonder why conservatives no longer complain about activist judges and courts?

[TwiceHorn 31,450]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

Wonder why conservatives no longer complain about activist judges and courts?

Ain't that the damn truth.

[Paper_jam 831]

In 2016, Obama should have made a recess appointment or whatever to put Garland on the bench.  I would have declared that the Senate was afforded an ample opportunity to "advise and consent" on Garland, and abdicated that responsibility. Should have used US Army or National Guard troops to escort Garland up the steps if you had to.

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45,898]

4 minutes ago, Paper_jam said:

In 2016, Obama should have made a recess appointment or whatever to put Garland on the bench.  I would have declared that the Senate was afforded an ample opportunity to "advise and consent" on Garland, and abdicated that responsibility. Should have used US Army or National Guard troops to escort Garland up the steps if you had to.

I liked and respected Obama, but he fucked up bigly on the judicial appointment front.

[Biff Tannen 45,673]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I liked and respected Obama, but he fucked up bigly on the judicial appointment front.

I also don’t think it was understood how the GOP was about to completely rat fuck the process. 

[jimmyjazz 45,898]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

I also don’t think it was understood how the GOP was about to completely rat fuck the process. 

No doubt, but he left a bunch of bench seats open, regardless.  Just fill them.

[Satchel 6,938]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

No doubt, but he left a bunch of bench seats open, regardless.  Just fill them.

Obama couldn’t get his appointments through until Harry Reid changed the cloture rule.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,510]

11 hours ago, Paper_jam said:

In 2016, Obama should have made a recess appointment or whatever to put Garland on the bench.  I would have declared that the Senate was afforded an ample opportunity to "advise and consent" on Garland, and abdicated that responsibility. Should have used US Army or National Guard troops to escort Garland up the steps if you had to.

 

 

In hindsight your action would have been the right one even if it was somehow later overturned. Looking back the flaw of the Left was planning that Trump would soon lose and even McConnell would relent when Hillary won. What a mistake.

And the poor handling/planning of RGB retiring will be felt for decades or longer.

[Mo Horn 8,832]

I'm fully prepared for Dotard to get immunity when decisions are released today. Nothing will stop the total implosion that is coming. 

[BamaATL 16,593]

1 minute ago, Mo Horn said:

I'm fully prepared for Dotard to get immunity when decisions are released today. Nothing will stop the total implosion that is coming. 

In which case I know what Biden's first order should be.  

[Brisketexan 105,095]

In which case I know what Biden's first order should be.  

Order 66?

[YGIFS 19,450]

42 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I'm fully prepared for Dotard to get immunity when decisions are released today. Nothing will stop the total implosion that is coming. 

What time is that ruling expected?  Or, more accurately---what time is a law clerk in heels expected to run down the steps and wave some stuff around above her head?  

40 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

In which case I know what Biden's first order should be.  

He won't do shit.  the DNC will probably send a congratulatory edible arrangement to Trump after he's off the hook.  The only guy with any balls left in this fight is Jack Smith and he's being neutered at every turn and shown no support whatsoever because "that wouldn't indicate impartiality."  

[Mo Horn 8,832]

Give tickets to homeless people. That's the answer. No doubt the fines they will pay will save our economy. 

[wildcat09 29,349]

And there it is.

[hobbes2702 13,032]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

And there it is.

Explain to the dumbs like me

[Gap03 3,304]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

And there it is.

Apparently, the MAGA wing of the court doesn't believe in stare decisis after all ...  

Edited June 28 by Gap03

[Jive Turkey 12,594]

 

[Jive Turkey 12,594]

dp

Edited June 28 by Jive Turkey

[jimmyjazz 45,898]

Quote

Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.

Only in situations where the ambiguity is legal, not fact.  What a ridiculous thing to say.

[Gap03 3,304]

1 minute ago, Jive Turkey said:

Yeah, I look forward to the exhibitions of "special competence" by Judges Cannon and Kacsmaryk ...

[Captainant 27,653]

7 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

So now that bribery is legal, the judiciary is now solely responsible for regulatory oversight.

 

Is this where all the lawyers come and tell me I'm overreacting and that this is how a healthy system actually looks?

Edited June 28 by Captainant

[Brisketexan 105,095]

100% expected. For those of us who litigate agency actions in court, we just got more business. So, yay for me.
In terms of having regulatory certainty, and having regulations actually advance the public good, not great.

But in this new era of “fuck you, I got mine,” I’m fine with this. Embrace the nihilism.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Radical Supreme Court: confirmed.