Fogbow

Supreme court declines to take up case alleging voter discrimination in Georgia
Public service commission, which establishes regulation and sets rates for utilities, accused of disenfranchising Black voters

George Chidi in Atlanta
Tue 25 Jun 2024 12.00 CEST

Georgia has not held an election for its powerful public service commission for more than two years while a lawsuit alleging that the way commissioners are elected disenfranchises Black voters plays out.

On Monday, the US supreme court declined to hear the case, leaving an appeals court ruling in place and putting an end to further delays.

The secretary of state put a hold on elections for the commission in 2022 while civil rights groups argued in court that the statewide elections disenfranchise Black voters.

The commission has five members, each elected to represent one of five districts in Georgia. But elections for each seat are decided in a statewide vote; though the commissioners must live in the district they represent, a voter in Savannah or Augusta has as much say over the commissioner representing Atlanta as a voter who lives there.

By saying it would not consider the plaintiffs’ appeal, the supreme court let stand an appellate court decision that said Georgia’s statewide elections for local districts on the rate-setting body is constitutional.

“Given other rulings on race and voting rights, the court is sending a clear signal that they’re not going to protect Black voters,” said Brionté McCorkle, executive director of Georgia Conservation Voters and a plaintiff in the case.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art ... commission?

The Tennessee Holler @TheTNHoller wrote: UPDATE: With the 6-3 Snyder decision the *Conservatives* on the Supreme Court just essentially legalized bribery — calling it a “gratuity” if it comes after the fact.

Justices Jackson in her dissent says it “threatens the integrity of our institutions”
https://levernews.com/the-supreme-court ... e-bribery/

The Supreme Court appears poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday, citing a document that was inadvertently posted on the court’s website in an astonishing breach of protocol.

The opinion showed that a majority of the court agreed to dismiss the appeal, according to Bloomberg, which reported that it reviewed a copy of the opinion.

The release was a stunning development at the Supreme Court, which usually safeguards the release of its opinions. The abortion case was considered among the most significant of the current term that is winding down ahead of the July 4 holiday.

The release of the opinion marks the second time in two years that a major decision dealing with an abortion case has been prematurely released by the court. Two years ago, Politico obtained a draft of the high court’s opinion overturning Roe v. Wade – a document that was substantially the same as the final opinion the court released weeks later.

At issue is Idaho’s strict abortion ban, which provides an exception for the life of the pregnant woman. The Biden administration argued that a federal law also required hospitals to perform abortions in cases where the health of the pregnant woman is at stake.

[In March], the Supreme Court held oral arguments in one of these Fifth Circuit cases, known as Murthy v. Missouri, where the lower court handed down a sweeping injunction forbidding much of the federal government from having any communications at all with social media companies. A majority of the justices appeared very unlikely to sustain that injunction on Monday, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly noting that the Fifth Circuit’s approach would prevent the most routine interactions between government officials and the media.

No, MAGA judges don’t get to decide what the Biden administration is allowed to say.

The Supreme Court handed down a stern rebuke to some of the most right-wing judges in the country on Wednesday, holding that no, judges do not get to micromanage how the Biden administration speaks to social media companies.

The vote in Murthy v. Missouri was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joining the Court’s three Democratic appointees in the majority. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

As Barrett’s majority opinion lays out, this lawsuit never should have been filed in the first place, and no federal court should have entertained it. Her opinion holds that the Murthy plaintiffs,* who raised vague allegations that the government tried to censor them, could not even show that the government did anything to harm them in the first place.

Murthy involves a wide range of communications among the White House, various federal agencies, and major social media platforms like Facebook and X (the website formerly known as Twitter). Some of these communications urged platforms to remove content, such as speech seeking to recruit terrorists, to spread election disinformation, or to promote false and potentially harmful medical advice — including false claims about Covid-19 and vaccines.

SCOTUS wrote:Next, in April 2023, Facebook gave [plaintiff Jill] Hines a warning after she reposted content from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Two years earlier, White House officials had pushed Facebook to remove the accounts of the “disinformation dozen,” 12 people (including Kennedy) supposedly responsible for a majority of COVID–19-related misinformation.

SCOTUS wrote:Since the events of this suit, Twitter has merged into X Corp. and is now known as X. Facebook is now known as Meta Platforms.
For the sake of clarity, we will refer to these platforms as Twitter and Facebook, as they were known during the vast majority of the events underlying this suit.

SCOTUS wrote:The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 2:35 pm What's the word for unbelievable when you've already exhausted your allocated "unbelievables" for the year?

Suranis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:12 am

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 2:35 pm What's the word for unbelievable when you've already exhausted your allocated "unbelievables" for the year?

Incomprehensible!

INCONCEIVABLE!

Suranis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:12 am

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 2:35 pm What's the word for unbelievable when you've already exhausted your allocated "unbelievables" for the year?

Incomprehensible!

INCONCEIVABLE!

The Daily Show @TheDailyShow wrote: Breaking News: The Supreme Court thinks we're idiots

All In with Chris Hayes @allinwithchris wrote: "According to Brett Kavanaugh and the conservatives, it’s only bribery if it comes from the bribérie region of France. Everything else is just sparkling corruption," says @ElieNYC on the Supreme Court ruling that a $13k gift is not a bribe.

Mueller, She Wrote @MuellerSheWrote wrote: Justice Roberts did not announce that tomorrow is the final day of decisions. That means we will have more decision next week. Just like I thought they would, they’re going to put off the immunity decision as long as they can.

Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 wrote: In a 6-3 decision, the conservative Supreme Court just stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission of a critical enforcement tool in fighting fraud cases.

This decision — part of business-backed efforts to curb the power of federal agencies — will likely have far-reaching effects on how the SEC and other regulatory agencies take action against wrongdoing.

Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 wrote: In a 5-4 decision, five conservatives on the Supreme Court just blocked enforcement of the EPA's plan to limit downwind pollution from power plants — known as the 'good neighbor' rule.

Barrett joins the three liberal justices in dissent.

Brett Edkins @Brettkins wrote: Justice Alito admits in his dissent that the Court is avoiding a ruling in the Idaho abortion case to avoid a political issue in an election year.

They are politicians in black robes. #ReformSCOTUS

Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 wrote: Justice Jackson in the Idaho abortion decision: "To be clear: Today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay. While this Court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price. Because we owe them—and the Nation—an answer to the straightforward pre-emption question presented in these cases, I respectfully dissent."

Elizabeth Warren @SenWarren wrote: The Supreme Court is giving big corporations and billionaires free rein to rip off American workers and families.

This decision will gut our ability to enforce the law, stripping away the tools we need to go after corporate crime and making enforcement time-consuming and costly.

The Associated Press @AP wrote: BREAKING: The Supreme Court strips the Securities and Exchange Commission of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 68896362bb

Sean Donahue @seantankerous wrote: There are far more serious problems with today's decision in the Ohio v. EPA staying EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, but ...

Justice Gorsuch's opinion refers five times to "nitrous oxide" (aka laughing gas) rather than the entirely different chemical compound -- smog-causing "nitrogen oxides" -- actually at issue in the case.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 7:22 pm I'M NOT LAUGHING. Good thing SCOTUS is a fucking expert on this stuff though. Morans.
https://x.com/seantankerous/status/1806398026904461502

Sean Donahue @seantankerous wrote: There are far more serious problems with today's decision in the Ohio v. EPA staying EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, but ...

Justice Gorsuch's opinion refers five times to "nitrous oxide" (aka laughing gas) rather than the entirely different chemical compound -- smog-causing "nitrogen oxides" -- actually at issue in the case.

katiephang
1ma few seconds ago
Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Chevron is overruled.