SCOTUS

[raison de arizona]

Who should interpret what constitutes spoiled food or dangerous particulate? The Supreme Court has picked an answer.

[raison de arizona]

They're NOT gifts, they're gratuities!

Make no mistake — Clarence Thomas SOLD his vote on the Chevron doctrine

He was strongly in favor of it, even authoring a decision reinforcing it in 2005

Then he got $4 million in gifts from corporate interests who wanted Chevron gone

And now Thomas did a 180 to kill Chevron

[raison de arizona]

Dogs and cats, living together, fire and brimstone...

Nobody is prepared for this jolt to the legal system. The Supreme Court has shifted an unfathomable amount of power from Congress and the executive brach toward unelected, unaccountable federal judges. This will fundamentally alter how government works. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... aster.html

https://x.com/mjs_DC/status/1806733800904311180

[bob]

Denying power to Congress was the point.

Not like anything substantive was going to come out of this House session.

[pipistrelle]

Denying power to Congress was the point.

Not like anything substantive was going to come out of this House session.

Co-equal, eh?

[raison de arizona]

Denying power to Congress was the point.

Not like anything substantive was going to come out of this House session.

Co-equal, eh?

Some animals are more equal than others.

[bob]

Denying power to Congress was the point.

Not like anything substantive was going to come out of this House session.

Co-equal, eh?

In the long arc, the Framers considered the courts to be the least powerful branch. The courts have incrementally being taking power since.

This ruling is breathtaking because it really giving power to corporate interests, as they will take advantage of the glacial pace of overworked courts.

[raison de arizona]

https://x.com/JenaFriedman/status/1806746881378140233

So just to be clear, the Supreme Court wants nothing to be regulated except women’s bodies?

[raison de arizona]

Elections have consequences?
https://x.com/X_BryanH/status/1806702961499795813

The Supreme Court has:

-Overturned Roe v. Wade (50+ years of precedent)

-Overturned Chevron (40 years of precedent)

-Overturned affirmative action (60+ years of precedent)

-Allowed cities to criminalize homelessness

And this is all because 1 man became president in 2016.

And he didn't even mention the 100 year old NY gun laws SCOTUS upended.

[raison de arizona]

Interesting days ahead, my friends. And by "interesting," I mean totally FUBAR. Totally FUBAR days ahead.
https://x.com/the_transit_guy/status/18 ... 4573887777

With Chevron gone, ask your local congress representative what their stance on a railroads’ use of bearing defect detection systems is and their thoughts on DOT-111 tank cars.

It's a major cause of the East Palestine derailment, FYI.

So now when you grill the USDOT about why they didn’t prevent another derailment in the future, they will literally turn to you and say “why didn’t you think of it?”

lol was working on a report with regulatory recommendations, now super glad someone will be able to potentially sue it all into oblivion unless Congress (yes, that Congress!) specifically sets platform heights and power system specs, which they're obviously expert at. good stuff.

[raison de arizona]

The normally pretty bright Robert Reich struggles with the concept of gratuities. It's not compromised buddy, it's functioning as they've designed. They've changed the rules up on us.
https://x.com/RBReich/status/1806720499881238633

Clarence Thomas reversed his position on the Chevron doctrine after receiving gifts from billionaires with ties to orgs who wanted it overturned.

His wife's nonprofit also received cash from a conservative group pushing for the change.

Our highest court is beyond compromised.

[raison de arizona]

Elie Mystal weighs in on Chevron.

We Just Witnessed the Biggest Supreme Court Power Grab Since 1803
The court has given itself nearly unlimited power over the administrative state, putting everything from environmental protections to workers’ rights at risk.

In the biggest judicial power grab since 1803, the Supreme Court today overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 case that instructed the judiciary to defer to the president and the president’s experts in executive agencies when determining how best to enforce laws passed by Congress. In so doing, the court gave itself nearly unlimited power over the administrative state and its regulatory agencies.

The thing is: The US Constitution, flawed though it is, has already answered the question of who gets to decide how to enforce our laws. The Constitution says, quite clearly, that Congress passes laws and the president enforces them. The Supreme Court, constitutionally speaking, has no role in determining whether Congress was right to pass the law, or if the executive branch is right to enforce it, or how presidents should use the authority granted to them by Congress. So, for instance, if Congress passes a Clean Air Act (which it did in in 1963) and the president creates an executive agency to enforce it (which President Richard Nixon did in 1970), then it’s really not up to the Supreme Court to say, “Well, actually, ‘clean air’ doesn’t mean what the EPA thinks it means.”

For an unelected panel of judges to come in, above the agencies, and tell them how the president is allowed to enforce laws is a perversion of the constitutional order and separation of powers—and a repudiation of democracy itself.

Even if you do think, somehow, that judges are best positioned to determine how to enforce the laws passed by Congress, who in the hell gave them the power to do so? Not the Constitution. When Congress and the president talk about how to do the work of the people, and the Supreme Court butts in, the official constitutional response to the court is, “I don’t remember asking you a goddamn thing.”

To call ourselves a “democracy” after today is a sick joke. We are not a democracy. We are a nation that is allowed to make suggestions to our nine rulers on the Supreme Court, but those rulers are the ones who get to decide which suggestions they accept and which ones they ignore. It is the opposite of the structure outlined in the Constitution—the one where the people, through their elected representatives, make the rules while the unelected court merely addresses conflicts between the two elected branches or between the elected federal officials and elected state officials.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... ower-grab/

[Dr. Ken]

And again because of the emails a whole generation and a half is fucked

[raison de arizona]

Just sayin'. This whole arresting people for not having a private bed for their head thing isn't very Christian of them.

If this happened now, the Supreme Court said it would be ok to arrest them because they had to sleep outside.

[pipistrelle]

Remember the days when folks talked about how Roberts maybe didn't want his court going down as one of the worst ever?

They was wrong.

[RTH10260]

opinion piece

Most Americans have no idea how anti-worker the US supreme court has become
The court’s current justices are some of the most hostile to labor rights in modern US history

Steven Greenhouse
Fri 28 Jun 2024 12.00 CEST

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the supreme court has been supremely pro-corporate – one study even called the Roberts court “the most pro-business court in history”. Not only have many justices been groomed and vetted by the business-backed Federalist Society, but Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have taken lavish favors from billionaire corporate titans. Thomas has even spoken at two Koch network fundraising “donor summits”, gatherings of rightwing, ultra-wealthy business barons.

While the court is decidedly pro-corporate, most Americans probably don’t know just how anti-worker and anti-union it really is. The justices have often shown a stunning callousness toward workers, and that means a callousness toward average Americans. One of the most egregious examples was a 2014 ruling – with an opinion written by Thomas – that held that Amazon, which holds workers up to 25 minutes after the ends of their shifts waiting to be screened to ensure they didn’t steal anything, doesn’t have to pay them for that time.

Or take this month’s decision in which the court ruled in favor of Starbucks by making it harder for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to win rapid reinstatement of workers who are illegally fired for supporting a union. In that case, Starbucks fired five of the six baristas who were heading an effort to unionize a Memphis Starbucks. After NLRB officials found that the workers had been fired unlawfully for backing a union, a federal judge agreed to the NLRB’s request to issue an injunction to quickly reinstate them. Many labor relations experts say it’s important for the NLRB to be able to win quick reinstatement after companies fire workers who lead unionization drives, as Starbucks has repeatedly done, because those firings often terrify co-workers and cause union drives to collapse.

They seem to view workers and unions as unwelcome nuisances that are seeking to make life difficult for corporations
Writing the court’s majority opinion, Thomas ignored all that, oblivious to the injustices and suffering that many workers face when they exercise their right to form a union. Thomas said that federal judges, when issuing such injunctions, should follow a more exacting four-part test, rather than the worker-friendly two-part test the NLRB favored. Thomas’s opinion also ignored some glaring facts: the union has accused Starbucks of firing 150 pro-union baristas, and the NLRB has accused Starbucks of an astoundingly high number of violations of the law – 436 – in its efforts to block unionization.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ions-cases

[raison de arizona]

Remember the days when folks talked about how Roberts maybe didn't want his court going down as one of the worst ever?

They was wrong.

Roberts face should be plastered on every billboard and wall now that he is the leader of our overlords. He should be harassed and harangued at every place he dares to show his stupid face. We're way past civility. Fucker.

Why should we care about the Supreme Court killing the Chevron doctrine?

When the next pandemic comes, and the FDA approves a lifesaving vaccine — ANTI-VAXX MAGA JUDGES will be able to overrule the FDA’s doctors and scientists.

That’s why.

[raison de arizona]

That's a lot of stuff upended. Now do all the cases that cite those thousands of cases.

Number of case citations to Chevron, according to the Westlaw ALLFEDS database:

7,659.

[raison de arizona]

The proverbial broken clock.
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1806706862726824282

Justice Barrett dissenting in the Jan. 6 obstruction case:

"The Court does not dispute that Congress's joint session qualifies as an 'official proceeding'; that rioters delayed the proceeding; or even that Fischer's alleged conduct (which includes trespassing and a physical confrontation with law enforcement) was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results. Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for 'obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding' seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?"

I think we all can answer that. Of course.

[New Turtle]

That's a lot of stuff upended. Now do all the cases that cite those thousands of cases.

Number of case citations to Chevron, according to the Westlaw ALLFEDS database:

7,659.

This is kinda how google started, before it was called google.

[Foggy]

Our Supreme Court has been taken over by dirty crooks.

And I can't even say I didn't see it coming.

[Dr. Ken]

Well it follows in line when you elect a dirty crook as president

[raison de arizona]

If these power crazy maniacs decide that tfg should have immunity, Biden should lock up each and every one of them and throw away the key. He'll be immune too. Start over. Appoint new justices, don't bother with senate confirmation, and move on from this horrible chapter in history.

Because with such a decision, nothing will matter anymore.

[raison de arizona]

Have I mentioned fuck SCOTUS lately?

The Supreme Court chooses the cases it hears:

They chose a case to make it harder to prosecute Jan. 6 insurrectionists.

They chose a case to delay Trump's trial.

They chose a case to undermine expertise in government.

They didn't choose any cases to protect democracy.

[pipistrelle]

Have any lawyers here or on twitter read the opinions? Are they able to justify any of these decisions with, you know, law, precedent, the Constitution? Vs, the highest bidder?