The Supremes

[Satchel 6,935]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cheer up, man....it's going to get much, much, much worse.

People need to learn the lesson of the loaves. Hillary doesn’t look that bad today.

['stache 21,801]

5 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

[BamaATL 16,593]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

People need to learn the lesson of the loaves. Hillary doesn’t look that bad today.

If we lose this one, there is a strong possibility we lose Sotomayor as well, she's 70; so if you think 6-3 is bad just wait for 7-2.  

I was actually thinking about this and found myself sort of stunned.  In my estimation Clarence Thomas is the most brazenly corrupt justice at least in our lifetime, and I'd venture a guess in history.  Despite that, the possibility exists that he isn't the worst on this court, and to make matters worse many of them appear healthy and relatively speaking young.  Alito is giving Thomas a run for his money, and just wait til the others start having shit come out.  

I'm normally pretty positive, but right now, you'll need to excuse me while I go huff some paint.  

[HenryJames 66,038]

Look, I really just liked the cut of Gary Johnson's jib.

15 minutes ago, Satchel said:

People need to learn the lesson of the loaves. Hillary doesn’t look that bad today.

Trump may have been the guy to destroy our democratic institutions and usher in fascism, but Hillary was a woman.

[Satchel 6,935]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

If we lose this one, there is a strong possibility we lose Sotomayor as well, she's 70; so if you think 6-3 is bad just wait for 7-2.  

I was actually thinking about this and found myself sort of stunned.  In my estimation Clarence Thomas is the most brazenly corrupt justice at least in our lifetime, and I'd venture a guess in history.  Despite that, the possibility exists that he isn't the worst on this court, and to make matters worse many of them appear healthy and relatively speaking young.  Alito is giving Thomas a run for his money, and just wait til the others start having shit come out.  

I'm normally pretty positive, but right now, you'll need to excuse me while I go huff some paint.  

I’m right there with you, although I still think Democrats will prevail in November. 
I will say if there was any doubt that the SC majority is being cynically, brazenly and intentionally political, consider how they’ve decided to release their decision on the immunity case.

Thirteen justices for thirteen circuits. Make it happen.

[TwiceHorn 31,443]

35 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I’m sorry. Were y’all really expecting the Court to not hand Trump an assist by delaying the immunity decision as long as necessary?

On the 1/6 cases, how many of the defendants are solely charged with the obstruction statute SCOTUS dealt with? In this case, I believe it was only 1 of 7 charges. The others they did not discuss. Hardly a resounding win for that defendant. 

Very few I think.  Most were charged with either all misdemeanors or a combination of misdemeanors and felonies that included the obstruction charge.  I saw several reportages of decisions that said the sentence is the same with or without the obstruction felony.

[BamaATL 16,593]

6 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I’m right there with you, although I still think Democrats will prevail in November. 
I will say if there was any doubt that the SC majority is being cynically, brazenly and intentionally political, consider how they’ve decided to release their decision on the immunity case.

Thirteen justices for thirteen circuits. Make it happen.

I hope you are in fact correct about November, despite last night I still like our chances, but I could have done without that.  

I do, however, disagree with packing the courts, because where does it stop?  I'd find it far more preferable to term limits on Justices, because a few years of this sort of stuff is survivable, 30 to 40 years of it is a disaster.  10 years seems reasonable, combined with blind trust requirements and significant salary increases (of course that is an absolute pipe dream).  

[Js1 85,300]

9 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I hope you are in fact correct about November, despite last night I still like our chances, but I could have done without that.  

I do, however, disagree with packing the courts, because where does it stop?  I'd find it far more preferable to term limits on Justices, because a few years of this sort of stuff is survivable, 30 to 40 years of it is a disaster.  10 years seems reasonable, combined with blind trust requirements and significant salary increases (of course that is an absolute pipe dream).  

The historical precedent of expanding to 13 to match the circuit courts is probably the easiest to swallow. 

[Satchel 6,935]

6 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I hope you are in fact correct about November, despite last night I still like our chances, but I could have done without that.  

I do, however, disagree with packing the courts, because where does it stop?  I'd find it far more preferable to term limits on Justices, because a few years of this sort of stuff is survivable, 30 to 40 years of it is a disaster.  10 years seems reasonable, combined with blind trust requirements and significant salary increases (of course that is an absolute pipe dream).  

What we are experiencing now won’t stop until we make significant structural changes to the  imbalance of power in our country. We can’t win playing by a set of rules and norms that nobody cares about but us.

[BamaATL 16,593]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

What we are experiencing now won’t stop until we make significant structural changes to the  imbalance of power in our country. We can’t win playing by a set of rules and norms that nobody cares about but us.

Believe me, I am 100% on board with that, and its one of my biggest criticisms of the Democratic party.  

[atomheartbevo 89,634]

41 minutes ago, 'stache said:

[wildcat09 29,348]

99 justices. Anyone who will settle for fewer is a coward.

[Lazarus Bocanegra 304]

On 6/14/2024 at 11:47 AM, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Did people own the ICBMs of the day: could an ordinary citizen have his own 80 cannon ship?

ask the East India Company 

[Satchel 6,935]

6 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Believe me, I am 100% on board with that, and it’s one of my biggest criticisms of the Democratic party.  

The founding fathers went to great lengths to ensure representation for the minority that included reasons that were both honorable and dishonorable. Today, it is reasonable to question if those protections don’t work to the express disadvantage of the majority. There’s a reason Republicans in Texas want to make it harder for popular ideas among its citizenry to flourish. They, along with the SC’s majority don’t give a rats ass about how their power grabs look to those who oppose them. It’s important to note that this POV seems to be working for them.

[bolverk 29,659]

If anyone wants a real nightmare scenario, consider Trump winning in November and expanding the court to 13 justices so he could pick an additional four, including any replacements for those who might retire.

[dcbc 14,467]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

We've been there for awhile already. We're going somewhere much worse now. 

Detroit?

[dcbc 14,467]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Where the hell is the immunity decision?  Is this the end of the term?

I thought they announced they were extending the releases into July.

[BamaATL 16,593]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

I thought they announced they were extending the releases into July.

Word is it will be out Monday.  

[dcbc 14,467]

3 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Word is it will be out Monday.  

Just the tip of July. 

Edited June 28 by dcbc

[Satchel 6,935]

9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

If anyone wants a real nightmare scenario, consider Trump winning in November and expanding the court to 13 justices so he could pick an additional four, including any replacements for those who might retire.

That’s what Leonard Leo wants you to focus on and be frozen by fear of what your opponents may do in response to your being active. Leo will only need to replace Sotomayor, Alieto and Thomas and the cons will be set for the next 25 years. 

[Satchel 6,935]

If we don’t do something, it will only get worse:

 

At the Texas GOP,party convention, the state party changed its platform to call for a new requirement that candidates for statewide office must also win a majority of votes in a majority of Texas’ 254 counties to win office, a model similar to that of the U.S. Electoral College.

Under the proposal, the 4.7 million residents of Harris County would have the same voting power as the 64 residents of Loving County.

 

 

[BamaATL 16,593]

10 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Just the tip of July. 

Oh I think we might be getting the full shaft.  

[Chad Fuck 17,664]

If we don’t do something, it will only get worse:
 

At the Texas GOP,party convention, the state party changed its platform to call for a new requirement that candidates for statewide office must also win a majority of votes in a majority of Texas’ 254 counties to win office, a model similar to that of the U.S. Electoral College.

Under the proposal, the 4.7 million residents of Harris County would have the same voting power as the 64 residents of Loving County.

 
 

Sweet merciful Jeebus save us.

[HenryJames 66,038]

[tx 3 putt 76,881]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

Sweet merciful Jeebus save us.

‘similar’

they forget about the electoral votes being divided between states based on population 

[tx 3 putt 76,881]

 

[Captainant 27,644]

14 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

ATF just had a whoooooole bunch of rules go away too

[chainsaw 9,861]

SCOTUS drank White Claws. As a result, ain't no laws.

[Sawbonz 27,544]

10 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Oh I fully expect it to go trumps way because that’s just how it’s going to be. We’re fucked

If it does and Biden doesn’t immediately jail Trump and 4 justices anything that follows is his fucking fault

[hobbes2702 13,031]

7 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

99 justices. Anyone who will settle for fewer is a coward.

[TDunk 590]

8 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

99 justices. Anyone who will settle for fewer is a coward.

And a bitch aint one.

[tx 3 putt 76,881]

The crazy judge in Amarillo is about to be busy ….

 

[SubliminalHorn 6,786]

Congress could fix the chevron mess right? Pass a law about deferring to federal agencies yadda yadda yadda? 

[TwiceHorn 31,443]

2 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Congress could fix the chevron mess right? Pass a law about deferring to federal agencies yadda yadda yadda? 

Probably not.  However, it can fix it by passing operative legislation for agencies that is less ambiguous and gives them less discretion.  Fat chance.

[tx 3 putt 76,881]

 

[BamaATL 16,593]

Well on a positive note, we might get a new Clarence Earl Gideon of drug convictions, and a decent movie out of it.  

[TwiceHorn 31,443]

9 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

The crazy judge in Amarillo is about to be busy ….

 

Chevron applies or applied mostly to agencies' statutory interpretations, and rulemaking pursuant to those interpretations, not to all agency actions.

The FDA enabling statute is this:

No person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to subsection (b) or (j) is effective with respect to such drug.

The mifepristone litigation sought to reexamine the factual findings of the FDA, not its statutory authority to regulate, which is pretty broad, as shown above.

[Brisketexan 105,089]

Chevron applies or applied mostly to agencies' statutory interpretations, and rulemaking pursuant to those interpretations, not to all agency actions.
The FDA enabling statute is this:

No person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to subsection (b) or (j) is effective with respect to such drug.

The mifepristone litigation sought to reexamine the factual findings of the FDA, not its statutory authority to regulate, which is pretty broad, as shown above.

You’re 100% correct.

Do you think Amarillo boy will apply your thinking? Of course not.

[TwiceHorn 31,443]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You’re 100% correct.

Do you think Amarillo boy will apply your thinking? Of course not.

Oh fuck no.

[Underdog 28,589]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Incredible. 

[Satchel 6,935]

19 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Sweet merciful Jeebus save us.

No other help is coming.

[Brisketexan 105,089]

No other help is coming.

Correct. None. Not even a little bit.

1) figure out how you can play the chaos to profit as much as you can.

2) buy plenty of ammo.

[MrX 728]

Always thought Chevron was wrongly decided. The “expert” issue is a red herring - special interest groups with as much expertise as you or me can poison the well at the regulatory level as much as at the judiciary level. There’s no real workable solution unless Congress gets its shit together which of course it won’t. 
 

Clarence Thomas is certainly in the running for worst judge of all time and he may have taken the lead by now. What a fucking evil man he is. 

[Satchel 6,935]

38 minutes ago, MrX said:

Always thought Chevron was wrongly decided. The “expert” issue is a red herring - special interest groups with as much expertise as you or me can poison the well at the regulatory level as much as at the judiciary level. There’s no real workable solution unless Congress gets its shit together which of course it won’t. 
 

Clarence Thomas is certainly in the running for worst judge of all time and he may have taken the lead by now. What a fucking evil man he is. 

And for the record, Anita Hill was telling the truth.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct. None. Not even a little bit.

1) figure out how you can play the chaos to profit as much as you can.

2) buy plenty of ammo.

I’m getting the special popcorn when Trump wins and appoints 2 more Supremes even crazier than Uncle Thomas

its going to get a lot worse 

[WhatTheBuck 28,776]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

And for the record, Anita Hill was telling the truth.

I never doubted her. 

[tx 3 putt 76,881]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Chevron applies or applied mostly to agencies' statutory interpretations, and rulemaking pursuant to those interpretations, not to all agency actions.

The FDA enabling statute is this:

No person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to subsection (b) or (j) is effective with respect to such drug.

The mifepristone litigation sought to reexamine the factual findings of the FDA, not its statutory authority to regulate, which is pretty broad, as shown above.

 

[HenryJames 66,038]

https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supreme-court/

[TwiceHorn 31,443]

40 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supreme-court/

Lemley is a gem.  He taught at UT for several years on the way up.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,440]

8 hours ago, MrX said:

Always thought Chevron was wrongly decided. The “expert” issue is a red herring - special interest groups with as much expertise as you or me can poison the well at the regulatory level as much as at the judiciary level. There’s no real workable solution unless Congress gets its shit together which of course it won’t. 

That’s so ridiculous I don’t know where to began. Asserting that congress can “get its shit together” to produce workable prescriptive legislation in areas of specialized expertise is as silly and fantastical as the idea that judges are in a better position to interpret legislation than actual experts appointed to regulatory posts.
OF COURSE expertise than be applied in all kinds of ways. That’s what the checks and balances around appointment and agency oversight are for. Good grief.

Edited June 30 by Bozo_Casanova