Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

SCOTUS

User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#26

Post by raison de arizona »

Just a reminder that the Supreme Court @Scotus made everyone involved in the Hearing on mask/vaccine mandates take a PCR test in advance, guaranteeing a level of protection that is now out of reach for every worker affected by this decision.
Having read some of this, it doesn't seem as bleak as is being made out. The way I read it, they are ruling against a blanket mandate, but remained open to something narrower. Like, a mandate for manufacturing or close quarters office workers. But maybe not for roofers who are outside and a dozen feet from each other.

:shrug:
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 11589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:06 am
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired mechanical engineer
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#27

Post by Volkonski »

Gorsuch balks at rejection of religious tax exemption case
The Trump appointee suggests in a dissent that the government intruded impermissibly into the rules of the Presbyterian church while trying to assess whether it had to pay taxes on the home inhabited by a youth minister couple.


https://www.courthousenews.com/gorsuch- ... tion-case/
A church fighting the city of Fredericksburg, Virginia, for a property tax exemption was denied a Supreme Court audience but found a receptive audience Monday in a dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Saying he would have reversed for the New Life in Christ Church, Gorsuch was emphatic that “bureaucratic efforts to ‘subject’ religious beliefs to ‘verification’ have no place in a free country.”

“The Framers of our Constitution were acutely aware how governments in Europe had sought to control and manipulate religious practices and churches,” Gorsuch said. “They resolved that America would be different. In this country, we would not subscribe to the ‘arrogant pretension’ that secular officials may serve as ‘competent Judge of Religious truth.’”

Represented by the Gibson Dunn attorney Allyson Ho, the church had asked the court to intervene after the city of Fredericksburg denied property tax exemptions for a home owned by the church and inhabited by two youth ministers, Josh and Anacari Storms, conduct spiritual outreach and host Bible studies for college students in the area.
“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#28

Post by raison de arizona »

Don Moynihan @donmoyn wrote: Confirmation: Gorsuch refused to mask up when asked to by Chief Justice Roberts, even though he sits beside Sotomayor who is especially vulnerable to Covid risks. So she no longer participates in person. https://npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/s ... ers-either
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6691
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: SCOTUS

#29

Post by pipistrelle »

I can never decide which I despise most but Gorsuch actually seems dim.

From that article:
Gorsuch, from the beginning of his tenure, has proved a prickly justice, not exactly beloved even by his conservative soulmates on the court.

At his first sitting in 2017, he sought to dominate the argument and repeatedly suggested that a complex case, involving conflicting provisions, was really very simple.

"Wouldn't it be easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?" he asked over and over. "What am I missing?"

A lot, said his colleagues, both liberal and conservative.

"This is unbelievably complicated," lamented conservative Justice Samuel Alito. Whoever wrote the statute must be "somebody who takes pleasure tearing the wings off flies," he said, provoking loud snickers on the bench.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#30

Post by AndyinPA »

Entitled, selfish SOB.

:explode:
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:11 am

Re: SCOTUS

#31

Post by Patagoniagirl »

Volkonski wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:31 pm Gorsuch balks at rejection of religious tax exemption case
The Trump appointee suggests in a dissent that the government intruded impermissibly into the rules of the Presbyterian church while trying to assess whether it had to pay taxes on the home inhabited by a youth minister couple.


https://www.courthousenews.com/gorsuch- ... tion-case/
A church fighting the city of Fredericksburg, Virginia, for a property tax exemption was denied a Supreme Court audience but found a receptive audience Monday in a dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Saying he would have reversed for the New Life in Christ Church, Gorsuch was emphatic that “bureaucratic efforts to ‘subject’ religious beliefs to ‘verification’ have no place in a free country.”

“The Framers of our Constitution were acutely aware how governments in Europe had sought to control and manipulate religious practices and churches,” Gorsuch said. “They resolved that America would be different. In this country, we would not subscribe to the ‘arrogant pretension’ that secular officials may serve as ‘competent Judge of Religious truth.’”

Represented by the Gibson Dunn attorney Allyson Ho, the church had asked the court to intervene after the city of Fredericksburg denied property tax exemptions for a home owned by the church and inhabited by two youth ministers, Josh and Anacari Storms, conduct spiritual outreach and host Bible studies for college students in the area.



I see a "Church of the Fogbow". We have rules. We have services every Tuesday evenings, and random conferences at various times all across the US. We have donations and provide services to those in need.
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:11 am

Re: SCOTUS

#32

Post by Patagoniagirl »

I have no idea what I did above! Never mind.
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3000
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: SCOTUS

#33

Post by MN-Skeptic »

I'd like to know why, when Gorsuch said he would not mask up, did John Roberts then not tell Gorsuch to access the court remotely because Sotomayor would be attending in person, masked up like all the responsible adults present.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#34

Post by bob »

MN-Skeptic wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:29 pm I'd like to know why, when Gorsuch said he would not mask up, did John Roberts then not tell Gorsuch to access the court remotely because Sotomayor would be attending in person, masked up like all the responsible adults present.
Because, contrary to "Chief" being in the title, Roberts has very little authority over Gorsuch.

And Gorsuch has four allies who would back him in any conference-room battle.

Even Roberts can count to five.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#35

Post by Kriselda Gray »

p0rtia wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:40 pm And I'll just state the obvious and note that if he actually said "hundreds, thousands" there was no reason to say "hundreds, thousands" because the point he was trying to make was that COVID was just like the flu.

So SCOTUS appears to be editing transcripts to protect its members from looking like idiots.

No biggie.
Not necessarily - I think the point he was making is that the flu, like COVID, kills "hundreds, thousands" every year, yet we don't mandate that people get a flu shot. If that's the case, he could be saying that the flu kills "hundreds, thousands" every year as a way to emphasize that the impact of COVID isn't that much different, so why should it be treated differently in terms of vaccines?
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#36

Post by raison de arizona »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:31 pm
p0rtia wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:40 pm And I'll just state the obvious and note that if he actually said "hundreds, thousands" there was no reason to say "hundreds, thousands" because the point he was trying to make was that COVID was just like the flu.

So SCOTUS appears to be editing transcripts to protect its members from looking like idiots.

No biggie.
aaaa
Not necessarily - I think the point he was making is that the flu, like COVID, kills "hundreds, thousands" every year, yet we don't mandate that people get a flu shot. If that's the case, he could be saying that the flu kills "hundreds, thousands" every year as a way to emphasize that the impact of COVID isn't that much different, so why should it be treated differently in terms of vaccines?
That would be pretty disingenuous given the differing impact on the health care system. But consider the source, I suppose.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: SCOTUS

#37

Post by p0rtia »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:31 pm
p0rtia wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:40 pm And I'll just state the obvious and note that if he actually said "hundreds, thousands" there was no reason to say "hundreds, thousands" because the point he was trying to make was that COVID was just like the flu.

So SCOTUS appears to be editing transcripts to protect its members from looking like idiots.

No biggie.
Not necessarily - I think the point he was making is that the flu, like COVID, kills "hundreds, thousands" every year, yet we don't mandate that people get a flu shot. If that's the case, he could be saying that the flu kills "hundreds, thousands" every year as a way to emphasize that the impact of COVID isn't that much different, so why should it be treated differently in terms of vaccines?


I hear "hundreds of thousands". You can make a case for "hundreds, thousands," but IMO the cadence does not support that."

Snopes hears it as "hundreds, thousands." I think they're wrong.
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS

#38

Post by Kriselda Gray »

raison de arizona wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:32 pm
Kriselda Gray wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:31 pm
p0rtia wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:40 pm And I'll just state the obvious and note that if he actually said "hundreds, thousands" there was no reason to say "hundreds, thousands" because the point he was trying to make was that COVID was just like the flu.

So SCOTUS appears to be editing transcripts to protect its members from looking like idiots.

No biggie.
Not necessarily - I think the point he was making is that the flu, like COVID, kills "hundreds, thousands" every year, yet we don't mandate that people get a flu shot. If that's the case, he could be saying that the flu kills "hundreds, thousands" every year as a way to emphasize that the impact of COVID isn't that much different, so why should it be treated differently in terms of vaccines?
That would be pretty disingenuous given the differing impact on the health care system. But consider the source, I suppose.
True, but as you say, consider the source :)
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6691
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: SCOTUS

#39

Post by pipistrelle »

“Hundreds, thousands.” I blasted it into my ear and didn’t pick up “of.” He may have realized “hundreds” is ridiculous.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: SCOTUS

#40

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AASVIcV
U.S. Supreme Court weighs Senator Cruz's campaign finance challenge

The latest conservative attack on a major campaign finance law goes before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday in Senator Ted Cruz's bid to undo a provision limiting the amount of money candidates can be reimbursed for personal loans to their own campaigns - a cap proponents call an anti-corruption measure.

Cruz, backed by fellow Republicans, has argued that the $250,000 loan repayment cap violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech by unjustifiably burdening political expression.

The provision is part of a bipartisan 2002 law that already has been chipped away at by the Supreme Court including in a landmark 2010 ruling https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SK20100121 that allowed unlimited independent spending by corporations and unions during elections as constitutionally protected free speech. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#41

Post by raison de arizona »

Robert Barnes @scotusreporter wrote: Just in: Statement by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Gorsuch:

Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.
FWIW people (the infamous "some people say") are parsing the statement and pointing out that the original report was NOT that Sotomayor had asked Gorsuch to wear a mask, but that Roberts had asked everyone to. So :shrug: Dunno if someone is playing word games or what.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#42

Post by bob »

raison de arizona wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:52 amFWIW people (the infamous "some people say") are parsing the statement and pointing out that the original report was NOT that Sotomayor had asked Gorsuch to wear a mask, but that Roberts had asked everyone to. So :shrug: Dunno if someone is playing word games or what.
People are; the questions are who (and why).

If, as the original story went, Roberts asked Gorsuch, people are "surprised" that Gorsuch said no; people are further surprised that the Chief can't just give orders to other justices. Now: Is this about masks, or who's the jurisprudential captain of the ship? Because more than one courtwatcher believes Roberts is CINO (Chief in name only).

And Sotomayor could have something a bit more meaningful than "Gorsuch is my friend."
Image ImageImage
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: SCOTUS

#43

Post by raison de arizona »

mtg weighs in on why Sotomayor should step down, part 678.
Marjorie Taylor Greene ✔ wrote: If Justice Sotomayor is too “at risk” to be around Justice Gorsuch without his mask on, then Sotomayer is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court and should step down.

Stop punishing healthy people with masking and vaccine mandates.

It’s time to either trust your vaccines and boosters and leave the rest of us alone OR shelter in place to protect your fragile health until you feel safe enough to come back out into a fully functioning normal society.

Unvaccinated and unmasked people are NOT responsible for the state of others health.
t.me/RealMarjorieGreene/1506
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#44

Post by AndyinPA »

:eek:

She's just downright stupid and cruel.




Okay, that's not news.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: SCOTUS

#45

Post by bob »


I think this story is chasing its own tail at this point; basically the Chief disputes NPR's unnamed source.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: SCOTUS

#46

Post by RTH10260 »

How long until a member of the covid virus meets MTG :?:
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#47

Post by AndyinPA »

Too long.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
Dave from down under
Posts: 3908
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Re: SCOTUS

#48

Post by Dave from down under »

RTH10260 wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:15 pm How long until a member of the covid virus meets MTG :?:
They have met...

and agreed on how they would ensure the destruction of humanity..
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 11589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:06 am
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired mechanical engineer
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#49

Post by Volkonski »

“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: SCOTUS

#50

Post by AndyinPA »

This has been going on since he got on the court. He has never recused himself when a case she was involved in came before the court. They should both be in jail.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”