The Supremes

[Captainant 27638]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I’m fine with this. Embrace the nihilism.

tastes like microplastics and PFAS

[wildcat09 29347]

Sweet fucking jesus they just kneecapped the 1/6 prosecutions. 

[Captainant 27638]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Sweet fucking jesus they just kneecapped the 1/6 prosecutions. 

Well it's a good thing they took their fucking time to start doing fucking ANYTHING about those crimes, then. I wonder what all the self-righteous surly law dawgs are gonna do when the legal system completely falls apart under their feet as the supremes continue to chip away at the foundation

[Bateshorn 9927]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

If I'm being 100% nihilistic, it's good for me as well:  Next time I have to deal with some entrenched agency career official who is screwing a client, I can pretty much point to this decision and say "You got some specific statutory language on which you are relying, chief? Cause I don't think the courts are going to buy your "Because I said so" defense." 

Edited June 28 by Bateshorn

[hobbes2702 13029]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Sweet fucking jesus they just kneecapped the 1/6 prosecutions. 

What they do

[wildcat09 29347]

Brief explainer: 

 

[hobbes2702 13029]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Brief explainer: 

 

How does invading the Capitol to stop a federal proceeding and destroying the building not meet that criteria?

[Brisketexan 105079]

Brief explainer: 
 

It’s not as disastrous as it looks on its face. But yeah, it’s overreach and a nonsensical read. If the defendants at issue were BLM rioters, it absolutely would have been a different result.
There is a systematic approach to empowering and protecting white paramilitary/terrorist activity. This is a small piece of it. But it is indeed a piece.

Shit is going to get more violent and bloody, enabled by our SCOTUS and our next president.

[Gap03 3304]

nm

Edited June 28 by Gap03

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

41 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

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

This isn’t the MAGA wing. This is the culmination of a 3 decade project to reorient the state.
I remember when Leegin happened and all the lawyers on Hornfans told me I was overreacting. 

Edited June 28 by Bozo_Casanova

[Jerry Callo 8699]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There is a systematic approach to empowering and protecting white paramilitary/terrorist activity. This is a small piece of it. But it is indeed a piece.

I've always felt that Ketanji Brown Jackson was a champion of the white paramilitary/terrorists.

[wildcat09 29347]

On the plus side, Kagan expressly called out the Roberts two-step in her dissent in the case overruling Chevron. I think she's been reading my posts. 

Edited June 28 by wildcat09

[softlynow 1813]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Brief explainer: 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s not as disastrous as it looks on its face. But yeah, it’s overreach and a nonsensical read. If the defendants at issue were BLM rioters, it absolutely would have been a different result.
There is a systematic approach to empowering and protecting white paramilitary/terrorist activity. This is a small piece of it. But it is indeed a piece.

Shit is going to get more violent and bloody, enabled by our SCOTUS and our next president.

Tap the brakes. Jackson concurred with the majority. I skimmed the majority and the concurrence, and, while I didn't see enough to analyze the opinion itself, that quick read does tell me this will have a very limited impact on 1/6 prosecutions. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

The Fishhook theory is much closer to reality than the Horseshoe theory. 

Centrist mollification of the far right has the unintended consequence of entrenching the radical right. Centrist mollification of the far right entrenches the radical right by legitimizing extremist views, shifts the Overton Window, demoralizes those opposed to the radical right, encourages further radicalization, undermines democratic norms, fragments political coalitions, and enacts policy shifts that reinforce far-right priorities. This dynamic creates a political environment where radical right ideologies gain a stronger foothold and exert greater influence over the broader political landscape. We reap what we sow. 

[HenryJames 66038]

['stache 21798]

11 minutes ago, softlynow said:

 

Tap the brakes. Jackson concurred with the majority. I skimmed the majority and the concurrence, and, while I didn't see enough to analyze the opinion itself, that quick read does tell me this will have a very limited impact on 1/6 prosecutions. 

I just skimmed the Law 360 article and it still isn't all that clear to me other than they say the court rules between the arguments from either side. The government argued that any obstruction whatsoever fell within the statute and the defendant argued that he had to have been charged with crimes involving documents. It sounds like it can be more than documents, but less than any type of obstruction of a proceeding. I'd say that storming the capital and shitting on lawmakers' desks specifically to stop Congress from certifying an election involves more than merely obstructing a proceeding. There was certainly specific intent to stop Congress from completing its proceeding that day. I haven't really followed the specifics so this is just my off the cuff thought.

['stache 21798]

Again, a bit off the cuff because I don't do enough administrative law to know how losing Chevron will work in the real world, but there is some logic to it. The legislature enacts he laws, the executive executes the laws, and the judiciary interprets the law. If the executive issues regulations that are arguably not authorized by the legislature, there is logic that the judiciary gets to decide what the law actually means. I wholeheartedly disagree, however, with the idea that the executive agencies aren't "expert" enough to interpret the laws when enacting regulations. As for practical effect, in my limited administrative law experience, Chevron deference always felt like something that is written but that never actually limited the judiciary. "Under Chevron we are to defer to the executives interpretation, but we hold that the interpretation is incorrect as a matter of law." If one side argues its ambiguous and deference should prevail, the court simply say its not ambiguous and the executive is wrong.

[BamaATL 16593]

1 hour ago, Mo Horn said:

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

Well, if they don't pay we can ruin their credit.  

[YGIFS 19449]

Well, I don't have the agency-oriented legal prowess of some of you; but we've done some decent-sized mineral/royalties deals and interact with the Railroad Commission and EPA on a regular basis.  

And I can tell you this, when I think of subsurface hydrocarbon expertise, I think of Brett Kavanaugh doing a keg stand.  

[BamaATL 16593]

So basically, the Supreme Court in the last few days has more or less legalized fraud and bribery, and even if it is still illegal, there will be no one who can enforce anything.  So that's just fucking swell.  

Let the buyer beware has never been more accurate.  If any of you are putting together a snake oil business and need an investor, I'm interested.  

[HenryJames 66038]

Yeah we're going full Gilded Age.

[wildcat09 29347]

7 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So basically, the Supreme Court in the last few days has more or less legalized fraud and bribery, and even if it is still illegal, there will be no one who can enforce anything.  So that's just fucking swell.  

Let the buyer beware has never been more accurate.  If any of you are putting together a snake oil business and need an investor, I'm interested.  

It's just a total coincidence that they've also now arrogated all federal regulatory authority to themselves.

[UpperWestside 6161]

There are six justices that need to be dropped off for a vacation on Snake Island. One of them I’m cool with giving a low earth orbit trip on an ICBM. These people are ghouls. Just absolutely atrocious human beings who run in circles with like-minded people that deserve the same fate.

[wildcat09 29347]

1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

Yeah we're going full Gilded Age.

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

[Js1 85291]

1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

Yeah we're going full Gilded Age.

Rampant economic growth

Rampant corruption in government

Most elections were high turnout and hinged on culture war bullshit (prohibition, education, race/class, immigration)

GOP wanted high tariffs; Dems wanted free trade

[SubliminalHorn 6786]

So Monday is the day

[tx 3 putt 76874]

[BamaATL 16593]

12 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

So Monday is the day

I'm half encouraged it isn't a Friday news dump, but my hopes are pretty low to be honest.  

[SubliminalHorn 6786]

3 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I'm half encouraged it isn't a Friday news dump, but my hopes are pretty low to be honest.  

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

[tx 3 putt 76874]

4 minutes 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

the federalist society knew what they were doing when they told Trump who to place on the SC

If Trump gets to replace Thomas and Alieto, things will be fuuuuucked for a long while. The federalist society will know they can go extreme Right. we know cannon is a lock, I’ll guess that whacko judge from Amarillo is high on the list too. (Kacsmaryk)

I'm curious how much Roberts will be offered to stepped down to see up this whole deal 

[SubliminalHorn 6786]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

the federalist society knew what they were doing when they told Trump who to place on the SC

If Trump gets to replace Thomas and Alieto, things will be fuuuuucked for a long while. The federalist society will know they can go extreme Right. we know cannon is a lock, I’ll guess that whacko judge from Amarillo is high on the list too. (Kacsmaryk)

I'm curious how much Roberts will be offered to stepped down to see up this whole deal 

I think that scenario would truly lead to civil war. California would secede. I’m afraid everything is already set in motion. I don’t have much hope anymore

[tx 3 putt 76874]

They’re being very open about project 2025 and the plans to tear this country apart. They have extreme confidence the current court will back them 

[Dahobbs 17527]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Again, a bit off the cuff because I don't do enough administrative law to know how losing Chevron will work in the real world, but there is some logic to it. The legislature enacts he laws, the executive executes the laws, and the judiciary interprets the law. If the executive issues regulations that are arguably not authorized by the legislature, there is logic that the judiciary gets to decide what the law actually means. I wholeheartedly disagree, however, with the idea that the executive agencies aren't "expert" enough to interpret the laws when enacting regulations. As for practical effect, in my limited administrative law experience, Chevron deference always felt like something that is written but that never actually limited the judiciary. "Under Chevron we are to defer to the executives interpretation, but we hold that the interpretation is incorrect as a matter of law." If one side argues its ambiguous and deference should prevail, the court simply say its not ambiguous and the executive is wrong.

Related, losing Chevron deference should generally help injured plaintiffs. Implied preemption arguments took a serious hit today. 

[tx 3 putt 76874]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Related, losing Chevron deference should generally help injured plaintiffs. Implied preemption arguments took a serious hit today. 

won’t all case be tied up for years now ?

the courts seems over loaded as is 

[BamaATL 16593]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

won’t all case be tied up for years now ?

the courts seems over loaded as is 

That's precisely the point.  

[Dahobbs 17527]

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

won’t all case be tied up for years now ?

the courts seems over loaded as is 

If you're arguing against implied preemption, your case is already complicated enough to be stuck in the courts for years anyway. 

[tx 3 putt 76874]

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

On the plus side, Kagan expressly called out the Roberts two-step in her dissent in the case overruling Chevron. I think she's been reading my posts. 

That’ll show him.

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

1 hour ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I think that scenario would truly lead to civil war. California would secede. I’m afraid everything is already set in motion. I don’t have much hope anymore

90% of America has no clue any of this is happening.  Civil War, pffffffft.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

3 hours ago, softlynow said:

 

Tap the brakes. Jackson concurred with the majority. I skimmed the majority and the concurrence, and, while I didn't see enough to analyze the opinion itself, that quick read does tell me this will have a very limited impact on 1/6 prosecutions. 

Eh, I don't know about that.  This was predictable even before the Court did its recent heel turn.  They have been cutting back on expansive readings of criminal statutes for a good long while, in a more or less bipartisan way.    Given Jackson's criminal law experience on the defense side, her joining in is unsurprising.

I have expressed my dislike for the gross expansion of federal criminal law since the 60s or 70s, but I'm not quite sure the Supremes are where it should be reversed.

That said, because of the electoral votes aspect of the obstruction, this may still fly with Trump.

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

Edited June 28 by TwiceHorn

[956 Worldwide 34704]

The Chevron case is the big one and you can see my post in the debate thread about institutions. They’re broken and done. The project of having a democratic government that tries to make things better is over. 

[HenryJames 66038]

Spoiler

Supreme Court Corrects EPA Opinion After Gorsuch Confuses Laughing Gas With Air Pollutant

Alison DurkeeJun 28, 2024,

Topline

The Supreme Court issued a corrected version of its opinion in an environmental case Thursday after Justice Neil Gorsuch, who penned the court’s opinion, confused the air pollutant at issue with nitrous oxide—also known as “laughing gas.”

 

Supreme Court Justice (then nominee) Neil Gorsuch [+] Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

Key Facts

The court revised its opinion in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, a 5-4 ruling released Thursday in which the court temporarily blocked an EPA policy requiring “upwind” states to reduce air pollution that travels down to “downwind” states and affects the air quality there.

Gorsuch—and his clerks, who would have helped prepare the opinion—referred five times in his opinion to “nitrous oxide,” which is a greenhouse gas that’s more commonly known as an anesthetic and referred to as “laughing gas.”

The opinion actually meant to refer to “nitrogen oxide,” an air pollutant that the EPA’s policy at issue was aimed at reducing.

The court issued a corrected opinion that fixed the error throughout the ruling, after the mistake gained traction on social media.

The mistake was seized on by critics of the court’s conservative majority, with writer Elie Mystal noting on X, “Remember folks, Neil Gorsuch thinks that he should have the final say on environmental regulations, not the experts at the EPA.”

Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here.

What To Watch For

The court will continue issuing opinions on Friday and Monday before its term wraps up for the summer, with rulings still to come in cases on social media “censorship” laws, the power of federal agencies and whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal charges, among other cases. It’s still unclear if Monday will be the final day the court issues opinions, or if additional days will be scheduled.

Surprising Fact

Gorsuch’s mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, previously led the EPA during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. She ultimately resigned from the position after a controversial two-year tenure that included massive budget cuts, slashing regulations and a scandal over the Superfund hazardous waste removal program that led to her being held in contempt of Congress.

Tangent

The court has issued multiple other revised opinions to correct errors this term, including on two other opinions that came out on Thursday alone. An opinion on Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement was edited to fix a typo in the name of the Sackler family, for instance, and an updated ruling on administrative law judges similarly revised multiple typos, including Gorsuch referring to the Securities and Exchange Commission as the Security and Exchange Commission.

Key Background

Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh in his opinion Thursday against the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” policy, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices in dissenting. The EPA established its “Good Neighbor” policy as a way to improve air quality in downwind states, and while states were first able to submit their own policies to comply with the plan, the agency ruled in 2023 that 23 states’ plans were not adequate. The EPA thus imposed its own federal plan on those states to ensure they met the standards, leading states to go to court. The Supreme Court’s ruling blocks that federal plan from taking effect, meaning states don’t have to comply with the policy—but only while litigation over whether or not it’s lawful continues to play out, meaning it could still be implemented in the future. Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority they were blocking the plan because they believed the states challenging it are likely to prevail in court—which Barrett disagreed with in her dissent, arguing the court’s argument for blocking the policy is “based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits.” If the “Good Neighbor” plan is allowed to take effect, the EPA projected it would prevent approximately 1,300 premature deaths in 2026 alone and cut emissions from power plants by 50% by 2027, compared with 2021 levels.

Further Reading

ForbesSupreme Court Temporarily Blocks EPA's Air Pollution Rule - What To KnowBy Alison Durkee Follow me on Twitter. Send me a secure tip.

 

Alison Durkee is a senior reporter covering breaking news, with a focus on legal

 

[jimmyjazz 45893]

Jesus Christ.

[softlynow 1813]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh, I don't know about that.  This was predictable even before the Court did its recent heel turn.  They have been cutting back on expansive readings of criminal statutes for a good long while, in a more or less bipartisan way.    Given Jackson's criminal law experience on the defense side, her joining in is unsurprising.

I have expressed my dislike for the gross expansion of federal criminal law since the 60s or 70s, but I'm not quite sure the Supremes are where it should be reversed.

That said, because of the electoral votes aspect of the obstruction, this may still fly with Trump.

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

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. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663]

19 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Supreme Court Corrects EPA Opinion After Gorsuch Confuses Laughing Gas With Air Pollutant

Alison DurkeeJun 28, 2024,

Topline

The Supreme Court issued a corrected version of its opinion in an environmental case Thursday after Justice Neil Gorsuch, who penned the court’s opinion, confused the air pollutant at issue with nitrous oxide—also known as “laughing gas.”

 

Supreme Court Justice (then nominee) Neil Gorsuch [+] Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

Key Facts

The court revised its opinion in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, a 5-4 ruling released Thursday in which the court temporarily blocked an EPA policy requiring “upwind” states to reduce air pollution that travels down to “downwind” states and affects the air quality there.

Gorsuch—and his clerks, who would have helped prepare the opinion—referred five times in his opinion to “nitrous oxide,” which is a greenhouse gas that’s more commonly known as an anesthetic and referred to as “laughing gas.”

The opinion actually meant to refer to “nitrogen oxide,” an air pollutant that the EPA’s policy at issue was aimed at reducing.

The court issued a corrected opinion that fixed the error throughout the ruling, after the mistake gained traction on social media.

The mistake was seized on by critics of the court’s conservative majority, with writer Elie Mystal noting on X, “Remember folks, Neil Gorsuch thinks that he should have the final say on environmental regulations, not the experts at the EPA.”

Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here.

What To Watch For

The court will continue issuing opinions on Friday and Monday before its term wraps up for the summer, with rulings still to come in cases on social media “censorship” laws, the power of federal agencies and whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal charges, among other cases. It’s still unclear if Monday will be the final day the court issues opinions, or if additional days will be scheduled.

Surprising Fact

Gorsuch’s mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, previously led the EPA during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. She ultimately resigned from the position after a controversial two-year tenure that included massive budget cuts, slashing regulations and a scandal over the Superfund hazardous waste removal program that led to her being held in contempt of Congress.

Tangent

The court has issued multiple other revised opinions to correct errors this term, including on two other opinions that came out on Thursday alone. An opinion on Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement was edited to fix a typo in the name of the Sackler family, for instance, and an updated ruling on administrative law judges similarly revised multiple typos, including Gorsuch referring to the Securities and Exchange Commission as the Security and Exchange Commission.

Key Background

Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh in his opinion Thursday against the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” policy, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices in dissenting. The EPA established its “Good Neighbor” policy as a way to improve air quality in downwind states, and while states were first able to submit their own policies to comply with the plan, the agency ruled in 2023 that 23 states’ plans were not adequate. The EPA thus imposed its own federal plan on those states to ensure they met the standards, leading states to go to court. The Supreme Court’s ruling blocks that federal plan from taking effect, meaning states don’t have to comply with the policy—but only while litigation over whether or not it’s lawful continues to play out, meaning it could still be implemented in the future. Gorsuch wrote for the court’s majority they were blocking the plan because they believed the states challenging it are likely to prevail in court—which Barrett disagreed with in her dissent, arguing the court’s argument for blocking the policy is “based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits.” If the “Good Neighbor” plan is allowed to take effect, the EPA projected it would prevent approximately 1,300 premature deaths in 2026 alone and cut emissions from power plants by 50% by 2027, compared with 2021 levels.

Further Reading

ForbesSupreme Court Temporarily Blocks EPA's Air Pollution Rule - What To KnowBy Alison Durkee Follow me on Twitter. Send me a secure tip.

 

Alison Durkee is a senior reporter covering breaking news, with a focus on legal

 

Never forget -- the least legitimate member of the court in terms of how he came to the position.

[wildcat09 29347]

10 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. 

I think a majority of the people who've already been prosecuted were only hit with the obstruction charge. If it does nothing else, this will impair the DOJ's ability to focus on other shit while they've gotta deal with a few hundred different appeals that arise out of this now. 

[Satchel 6934]

Had Hillary won, the SC would be 7-2 or 6-3 Democratic appointees. None of what we see happening now would  be possible.

[Brisketexan 105079]

Just now, Satchel said:

Had Hillary won, the SC would be 7-2 or 6-3 Democratic appointees. None of what we see happening now would  be possible.

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

[tx ind 7008]

[HenryJames 66038]