SCOTUS news and opinions

18 year term limits with one new justice every 2 years sounds like a good idea.
Do Congress too :)
Would you prefer the person remodeling your house, delivering your baby, engineering your local bridge, or performing heart surgery on you to have 20 years experience or 2?
 
proposing a law to overrule or limit Marbury vs Madison - which would crush the Supreme Court's power so the Supreme Court might be forced to back down
I would very much like for this to happen, because as is, the Constitution doesn't exactly say what the scope of the USSC should be.
It's just sort-of assumed by the esteemed US legal profession that they can overturn laws because, well, because they can...
 
That same pity would let DC be their own state.

But seriously, they've been calling them Ore(gon)Ida(ho) fries my whole life... it was already exactly as you say the whole time... right under our noses... literally deliciously, deliciously under our noses. :yumyum:
Nah, one is gamesmanship for senators for the wealthiest and most powerful Americans, a Democrat priority.

The other is making sure that there are people to over vote for electoral votes they don't want, a Democrat priority.

The actual comparison would be letting them vote with Virginia or wherever they've already mostly screwed up. Oh, I mean, blessed with thier regression. That'd defeat the point tho. Gross, rite?

This whole antidemocracy line only works on people too naive to realize it's been them for lifetimes. Whatever. When I say that it's time for a "both sides are bad so you've picked one" rhetorical circling of wagons.
 
Last edited:
Nah, one is gamesmanship for senators for the wealthiest and most powerful Americans, a Democrat priority.

The District of Columbia has the 14th-highest poverty rate in the country (2023 numbers), 13.3%, higher than the national average of 11.5%.
 
No you see, anybody who lives in a place with a population over 10,000 is a sneering big city elitist!
 
The District of Columbia has the 14th-highest poverty rate in the country (2023 numbers), 13.3%, higher than the national average of 11.5%.
I said median and I meant median.

That the district does this to its least fortunate is not surprising.


No you see, anybody who lives in a place with a population over 10,000 is a sneering big city elitist!

But yeah, yell at the rube or something. He has hate in his heart. Must be where he comes from, disregard math.
 
I said median and I meant median.

In what I quoted, you didn't use the word "median." You said "Senators for the wealthiest and most powerful Americans."

But yeah, yell at the rube or something. He has hate in his heart. Must be where he comes from, disregard math.

People are responding to what you, yourself, choose to post on this website, while you declare that whole classes of Americans are not entitled to representation in Congress based on where they come from.
 
Nah, one is gamesmanship for senators for the wealthiest and most powerful Americans, a Democrat priority.

The other is making sure that there are people to over vote for electoral votes they don't want, a Democrat priority.

The actual comparison would be letting them vote with Virginia or wherever they've already mostly screwed up. Oh, I mean, blessed with thier regression. That'd defeat the point tho. Gross, rite?

This whole antidemocracy line only works on people too naive to realize it's been them for lifetimes. Whatever. When I say that it's time for a "both sides are bad so you've picked one" rhetorical circling of wagons.
But what about the fries tho?:confused: WHAT ABOUT THE FRIES?!? :lol:

Its a catch 22. East Oregon Republican voters get washed out regardless. If they vote with Oregon, its still a blue state, if they vote with Idaho, its still a red state. Similar situation would be true for the folks in DC, whether they vote in Maryland or Virginia, its a blue state regardless. The difference is that as it currently stands, regardless of where they live/vote, the folks in Oregon and Idaho actually have Senators and House Reps voting in Congress to represent them. The DC citizens don't. So if we're handing out pity to the East Oregon Republicans who would rather use their vote to make Idaho pointlessly more red than to make Oregon pointlessly less blue, surely we can spare some pity for the DC folks who don't even get a useless vote to waste.;)
 
Who am I kidding? It's the taxes. Plus, if they don't govern enough Republicans to tell what to do for them the entire Democrat platform becomes vaporware.

But again and again, sure. Let them vote with Virginia or Maryland or whatever.

But that'll never be good enough. The most powerful need more. And more. Of course.

2 new senators? Give them to Puerto Rico.
 
Like you said before (not to me, but still...) this is an old conversation between us and I don't even think we even disagreed about most of it. Obviously they're aren't going to be any East Oregons, or East Californias or anything like that, ostensibly for similar reasons that they're isn't going to be DC statehood, or Los Angeles statehood or NYC statehood. Its not politically viable to add Senators who will vote against what you want. That's why Puerto Rico remains disenfranchised, along with American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands. Again, one important difference is that the folks in Idaho and Oregon have their representative voting on their behalf in Congress.

Back in the 80s and 90s and 00s when there was at least a chance for the Republicans to win Maryland and Virginia, there was no chance of Republicans allowing the DC voters getting sent into the Maryland and Virginia voting pools, because it it would have turned both states from red/purple to solid blue. Now, since both states are blue there's less political incentive for Democrats to support it, the way they best benefit politically is by getting the additional Senators via DC statehood.

So, acknowledging that there is political incentives at play for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress ... the fact remains that the DC (as well as Puerto Rico, Samoa and Virgin Islands) citizens are disenfranchised. The Democrats want to give them the franchise. The Republicans in Congress don't. You can say unclean-hands, political-motives all around, but the bottom line is that if what is right (giving DC citizens the franchise) also benefits the Democrats, that doesn't change that its the right thing. Wanting to do what's right, for selfish reasons, doesn't change that the goal is the right thing to do. Keeping the DC citizens disenfranchised is wrong and harmful and Congressional Republicans can't hide that behind their grasping for political advantage by claiming that Democrats are seeking political advantage too.
 
Not a single part was understood, but I think you're playing stupid on purpose.

If you're going realpolitik, few things better deserve contempt than realpolitik.
 
I'm too drunk to fight with you. We can PM later.

Off back to the music thread!
 
But yeah, yell at the rube or something. He has hate in his heart. Must be where he comes from, disregard math.
Bubbah, I was born, raised, and lived all my life south of the Mason-Dixon line. You are the Yankee here. :p
 
U.S. Supreme Court gains power with recent decision

One effect of a partisan Supreme Court is that any criticism will inevitably seem partisan. Fellow partisans will eagerly rush to the court’s defense.

That was true in the 1960s, and it’s true today.
At the end of June and early July, the United States Supreme Court issued three decisions that together alter the structure of the federal government. The decisions can be validly understood in purely political terms, as the triumph of the right wing of the Republican Party. The changes to the structure of government go much deeper than the immediate politics. Each of the opinions is lengthy. Very lengthy.

Together they total nearly 300 pages. Long passages read as though churned out by artificial intelligence, with familiar sounding phrases strung together to little apparent purpose. I found myself wondering if the padding was strategic, a way of “flooding the zone” to make life difficult for beat reporters on deadline. The true import of the cases might be conveyed with a metaphor: The justices placed demolition charges around key structures of the federal government that have existed since President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched his New Deal in 1933. Over the next few years, lower court judges around the country will press the plungers. Lawyers engaging with the cases will have to read every line of the opinions and treat them seriously.

Pity them. The opinions aren’t primarily legal documents at all. Many years ago, the brilliant, idiosyncratic Republican federal judge Richard Posner wrote in an op-ed: “The Supreme Court is not an ordinary court but a political court, or more precisely a politicized court, which is to say a court strongly influenced in making its decisions by the political beliefs of the judges.” The three opinions, political documents all, illustrate what he meant.

One, Loper Bright got some press ink, though not nearly as much as it deserved. Most articles discussed the case in terms of “Chevron deference,” referring to a 1984 case involving the petrochemical giant. When the Chevron case was initially heard in the lower courts, before it reached the Supreme Court, one of the names on the caption was “Gorsuch” because the suit was brought against Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mom in her capacity as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The lawsuit, by an environmentalist group, challenged an industryfriendly regulation enacted by the Reagan Administration. The Supreme Court cited and relied on an unbroken line of cases dating back to 1944 that held federal courts should not interfere with the political decisions of federal agencies. The agencies are answerable to the president. The president’s appointees are endowed with authority to make policy choices and set enforcement priorities, formalized as rules and regulations.
This common-sense understanding of the different roles of the judicial and executive branches became misleadingly known as “Chevron deference.” The moniker was a political slogan, not an honest description, because the only deference paid was to the constitutional order.




On June 28 , in the Loper Bright case, the Supreme Court overturned that longtime understanding. From now on, any random federal judge has veto power over the most consequential category of executive branch policy decisions. The case nicely illustrates two very different meanings of “conservative” in contemporary American usage. One strand of conservatism respects the wisdom of the past and acknowledges the importance of stable institutions. The other wants to tear the whole thing down. It’s the second strand that gives credence to to the horseshoe theory of politics, that far right and far left end up close to each other. The court gave teeth to the Loper Bright decision with a second case called Corner Post, which basically holds there is no statute of limitations on challenges to agency actions. Courts today can hear challenges to agency decisions made generations ago. (That rumbling sound you hear is the avalanche starting.)

The third case, known as Jarkesy, largely strips federal administrative agencies of the power to enforce their own regulations. Instead, impactful enforcement actions must be heard in federal court. I hope you’ve noticed the common thread. In all three cases, the court transferred political power from the elected executive branch to the unelected judiciary. Federal judges get to decide whether, and how, the president’s agenda is implemented. This transfer of power, and not just its immediate political ramifications, should command our attention.

Joel Jacobsen is an author who in 2015 retired from a 29-year legal career.
 

Clarence Thomas Took More Trips On GOP Donor's Jet He Didn't Disclose, Senator Says​

The conservative Supreme Court justice went on an international round-trip in 2010 with his billionaire benefactor Harlan Crow, according to Sen. Ron Wyden.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden revealed on Monday that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose even more flights aboard a private jet owned by Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow than were previously known.
In a letter to an attorney representing Crow, the Oregon Democrat also demanded travel and financial records related to Crow’s superyacht, the Michaela Rose, and the relationship between the justice and his billionaire benefactor. Crow’s legal team has repeatedly avoided providing such records, but Wyden said they could help determine whether the real estate mogul claimed business deductions on personal trips aboard luxury craft ― including those with Thomas ― to evade taxes.

“On several occasions, I have asked directly how many times Justice Thomas traveled aboard the Michaela Rose and private jets paid for by Mr. Crow, and whether Mr. Crow deducted the costs of these particular trips on tax filings. These should not be difficult questions to answer,” Wyden wrote to the attorney. “The possibility that Mr. Crow may have lavished secret gifts on a sitting Supreme Court justice and then impermissibly reduced his taxable income by millions of dollars with impunity requires legislative scrutiny.” A spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment. A spokesperson for Crow told The New York Times that Wyden’s inquiries have “no legal basis” and that the real estate mogul has “always followed applicable tax law.”

Wyden’s committee has opened an inquiry into Crow and Thomas’ financial relationship as top Democrats work to bring major ethics reform to the Supreme Court. Reports that multiple justices failed to disclose luxury gifts and travel from ultrarich benefactors have led Democrats, including President Joe Biden, to call for term limits and a code of conduct that is enforceable.

A ProPublica investigation last year showed that Thomas accepted at least two luxury trips in 2019 from Crow that were not included in financial disclosure forms. The veteran conservative justice claimed he did not know he had to disclose gifts of personal “hospitality” from friends who did not have cases before the high court, but he amended his forms to confirm those two trips in his annual financial disclosure in June. But just a week after that annual disclosure’s release, the Senate Judiciary Committee found that Thomas failed to disclose at least three additional trips on Crow’s private jet from 2017 to 2021. That information was provided to the committee by Crow himself in response to a subpoena.

And in Monday’s letter, Wyden said his committee found yet another undisclosed trip funded by the political mega-donor. According to international flight records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Thomas took a round trip from Hawaii to New Zealand aboard Crow’s private jet with his wife, Ginni Thomas, who is a conservative activist, and Crow himself. The three first flew on Nov. 19, 2010, and returned on Nov. 27.

Despite Thomas having amended past records to disclose the luxury travel that Crow provided, the justice never revised his 2010 form to include the international private jet trips he took that year.
In addition to the New Zealand flights, Wyden’s letter included reports that Thomas joined Crow on trips to Greece, Russia and the Baltics via private jet. None of those trips is in Thomas’ financial disclosure forms.



[IMG alt="Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), shown here at a May 2 Senate Energy Committee hearing, is asking billionaire Harlan Crow more questions about luxury travel provided for Justice Clarence Thomas."]https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asse...e=X2rtxFYmdA&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale[/IMG]

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), shown here at a May 2 Senate Energy Committee hearing, is asking billionaire Harlan Crow more questions about luxury travel provided for Justice Clarence Thomas.
MARIAM ZUHAIB/ASSOCIATED PRESS


“The fact a Supreme Court justice accepted free travel to Russia paid for by a billionaire and failed to disclose the trip as required by law is undoubtedly concerning and merits continued investigation,” Wyden wrote. “Other government officials have been charged for making false statements on financial disclosures for less serious violations than the evidence suggests Justice Thomas committed.”
Thomas has accepted at least $4 million in gifts since becoming a Supreme Court justice three decades ago, according to Fix the Court, a judicial reform nonprofit. That number is nearly 10 times the combined value of all gifts received by his colleagues during the same period.

“Supreme Court justices should not be accepting gifts, let alone the hundreds of freebies worth millions of dollars they’ve received over the years,” Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, said in a June 6 statement.
“The ethics crisis at the Court won’t begin to abate until justices adopt stricter gift acceptance rules,” Roth said.

 
Corrupt McCorruptFace did a Corrupt thing, news at eleven
 
Top Bottom