SCOTUS and whatnot

[RatkoVarda]

5 minutes ago, romad1 said:

My father is 96 but his dad arrived in the United States from the UK in 1901 and may not have received US citizenship (he was a US Army veteran of WW1).  So, Dad now 96 years old may have to go to South Sudan or El Salvador until his vague US Citizenship status (he was an USAF officer during the Korean War).  Damn shame these cheaters, cheating the system.  

not sure if they have co-ed prisons, but maybe he gets on the same chain gang as Nikki Haley and Usha Vance? that could be exciting!

Edited June 27, 2025 by RatkoVarda

[CMRivdogs]

Today's JVL on the SC edict turining us into a Kleptrocacy 

Quote

I’ll leave it to others to give you chapter and verse on the novelty of the majority’s argument. Suffice it so say that this idea that “universal stays” are unnecessary and, in any event, people can just file class-action suits, is brand new.

Instead, let’s focus on the real-world implications, starting with birthright citizenship.

Let’s say two immigrants have a baby in Montana and no court in Montana has issued a stay against Trump’s EO. Does that baby have U.S. citizenship?

No one knows.

Let’s say that Trump issues an executive order saying that registered Democrats cannot own firearms and that the government must merge the lists of party registration and firearms sales and confiscate guns owned by Democrats.

If a Massachusetts court issues a stay against this order, then a Democrat in Massachusetts will not have his gun taken from him. But if a court in, say, Idaho declines to issue a stay against it, then the policy can be put into place in Idaho up and until the Supreme Court finally rules against it.

The harms which can—which will—take place under this new legal regime are serious and the ability to remediate them will vary greatly.

But the biggest harm is that the Supreme Court has made it even more important where you live. Because to live as a political minority is now to have your rights and liberties no longer safe-guarded by the Constitution, but hostage to the most hostile reading of the law by the biggest hack judge in the neighborhood.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-supreme-court-just-made-america

[CMRivdogs]

It will turn into another Citizens United type boondoggle..

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

They're overturning marriage equality now. I can't see this radically right wing court protecting marriage rights for LGBTQIA persons and couples. 

 

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

They're overturning marriage equality now. I can't see this radically right wing court protecting marriage rights for LGBTQIA persons and couples. 

 

What are they going to do with same-sex marriages already on the books?

[Mr.TaterSalad]

50 minutes ago, chasfh said:

What are they going to do with same-sex marriages already on the books?

Unless a state has protections for same-sex marriages already in place in their laws and/or enshrined in their state constitution they'll probably invalidate the marriages. I worry if they make a worse ruling that somehow (not sure how) Trumps state laws and precedence and invalidates same-sex marriages in states that do have laws and constitutional protections on the books. Now that might sound preposterous, but we've been seeing federalism in reverse under this current Supreme Court. A system setup by the court where the federal government dictates and mandates on down to the states anything and everything.

Furthermore, given that religious, right wing fanatics like Alito, Coney-Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Thomas think that LGBTQIA people are going to burn in hell anyways for a life of sin, I don't think this court much cares that they are overturning same-sex marriages. In-fact, these religious fanatics probably think they're saving people from sin and doing them a favor.

Edited August 12, 2025 by Mr.TaterSalad

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

They're overturning marriage equality now. I can't see this radically right wing court protecting marriage rights for LGBTQIA persons and couples. 

 

Thrice-divorced woman "found god" to try to outrun her sketchy past. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Thrice-divorced woman "found god" to try to outrun her sketchy past. 

Don't forget, she also committed the sins of adultery and having a child out of wedlock. I believe she cheated on one husband with another and got knocked up by the one she was cheating with.

[CMRivdogs]

I think this nails it....The Supreme Court is allowing Trump and company to play CalvinBall.

 

[chasfh]

20 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

I think this nails it....The Supreme Court is allowing Trump and company to play CalvinBall.

 

She is so gonna be arrested and frog-marched.

[CMRivdogs]

 

[Tigeraholic1]

Crazy she actually said that…

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/justice-jacksons-remarks-minority-voters-161844595.html

 

[VegasTiger]

No, she didn't.

[pfife]

LOL

https://thehill.com/homenews/5561016-federal-courts-shutdown-impact/

Supreme Court to run out of funding due to shutdown

[Tigeraholic1]

[pfife]

Another lie from the pro pedo crew

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, VegasTiger said:

No, she didn't.

Isn’t the Babylon Bee a joke site openly trading in farce?

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Isn’t the Babylon Bee a joke site openly trading in farce?

I believe their motto is "Fake News You Can Trust" 

Epimenides would be proud.

Edited October 18, 2025 by gehringer_2

[CMRivdogs]

The majority will find a way to pretzel logic tariffs ok for Trump to impose

 

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

The majority will find a way to pretzel logic tariffs ok for Trump to impose

 

I'll be impressed when they rule against Trump's constant usurpation of the power of the purse for Congress. If Trump had tried this same thing during the 2019-2021 Congress, it might have already come up and the Court might already have ruled against him.

[CMRivdogs]

Not surprising, the appeal was assigned to Alito. The whole thing is rigged. Let all 50 states gerrymander in this case

 

 

[chasfh]

The Supreme Court sure is acting as though they don't expect anyone else to be president throughout 2029 and beyond. 

 

[chasfh]

From the Department of No S***, Sherlock.

 

Here's a bit of detail:

In the 1950s, justices appointed by both parties sided with wealthy interests about 45% of the time. By 2022, Republican appointees voted for the wealthier party 70% of the time.

Democratic appointees? 35%.

....

The researchers argue this isn't about isolated cases or shifting legal doctrine. They say it's more a systemic matter, meaning a pattern that plays out fairly predictably across disputes that involve workers versus management, consumers versus corporations, and regulators versus industry.

The study arrives as public trust in the court hits multidecade lows and scrutiny intensifies over decisions that have weakened unions, expanded the role of money in politics, and narrowed or limited federal regulatory power.

Supporters say the research confirms what many have long suspected — that the legal system favors those with greater economic power, or “big guys” over “little guys,” colloquially speaking. Critics, for their part, counter that defining "rich" versus "poor" involves making subjective judgments, and the data may merely reflect a more consistently conservative court rather than an explicit pro-wealth bias.

For corporations and large businesses, the benefits are straightforward. In a scenario in which a majority-conservative court can be reliably expected to side with wealthy interests—that is, the current scenario, which will only be changed by justices’ deaths or retirements — legal costs can be modeled more reliably, and outcomes predicted with greater confidence.

....

 

[gehringer_2]

57 minutes ago, chasfh said:

From the Department of No S***, Sherlock.

 

Here's a bit of detail:

In the 1950s, justices appointed by both parties sided with wealthy interests about 45% of the time. By 2022, Republican appointees voted for the wealthier party 70% of the time.

Democratic appointees? 35%.

....

The researchers argue this isn't about isolated cases or shifting legal doctrine. They say it's more a systemic matter, meaning a pattern that plays out fairly predictably across disputes that involve workers versus management, consumers versus corporations, and regulators versus industry.

The study arrives as public trust in the court hits multidecade lows and scrutiny intensifies over decisions that have weakened unions, expanded the role of money in politics, and narrowed or limited federal regulatory power.

Supporters say the research confirms what many have long suspected — that the legal system favors those with greater economic power, or “big guys” over “little guys,” colloquially speaking. Critics, for their part, counter that defining "rich" versus "poor" involves making subjective judgments, and the data may merely reflect a more consistently conservative court rather than an explicit pro-wealth bias.

For corporations and large businesses, the benefits are straightforward. In a scenario in which a majority-conservative court can be reliably expected to side with wealthy interests—that is, the current scenario, which will only be changed by justices’ deaths or retirements — legal costs can be modeled more reliably, and outcomes predicted with greater confidence.

....

 

More evidence of how little these Bible thumpers like Alito - and Esp Scalia in his day, actually pay attention to what it says:

Quote

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.  -Lev19:15 - KJV

 

[CMRivdogs]

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

 

More evidence of how little these Bible thumpers like Alito - and Esp Scalia in his day, actually pay attention to what it says:

  Quote

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.  -Lev19:15 - KJV

and just a few verses later

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.