SCOTUS

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I saw a Tweet about it.

[Phoenix520]

I saw some things in a twitter comment I can no longer find but may have been on mikedunfords tl:

Someone who clerked for Thomas a long time ago said he kept a list in his desk drawer of all those who had voted against his confirmation. Another comment said that the list had subsequently been framed and migrated to his office wall.

[pipistrelle]

I suspect this reveals something about Thomas’s judicial thought.

379C3459-F11C-4142-B758-091C02FB1C5D.jpeg (74.46 KiB) Viewed 1493 times

[pipistrelle]

[RTH10260]

Supreme Court Decision Hinders EPA but Leaves Avenues Open for Climate Regulation
The agency can still impose stronger limits on other air pollutants that coal plants produce, which could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions

By Benjamin Storrow, E&E News
on July 1, 2022

CLIMATEWIRE | The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday does not strip EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It is unlikely to change how the Biden administration regulates power plant emissions and will do little to boost the fortunes of a coal industry hamstrung by mounting competition from renewables.

But the court’s 6-3 decision in favor of coal interests in West Virginia v. EPA could cast a long shadow over the administration’s wider attempts to combat climate change.

The reason lies largely with how the court came to its decision rather than with its specific findings in the case, which focus on EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act, experts said.

“What the Supreme Court is saying is we expect anything that has a large impact on the economy and nation to be explicitly authorized by Congress,” said Allison Wood, an attorney at McGuireWoods who has represented utilities in a series of high-profile Clean Air Act cases before the Supreme Court.

The result is a legal twist for American climate policy, one where the ruling has potentially less impact on the issues at stake in West Virginia than on other parts of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda.

At issue in West Virginia was EPA’s ability to craft greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. More specifically, the court said EPA erred when it crafted the Clean Power Plan, former President Barack Obama’s proposed plan for cutting power plant emissions. Instead of adopting its traditional approach of regulating pollution at its source, EPA effectively tried to force a shift in how utilities generate power by mandating they swap coal for gas and renewables. That exceeded the agency’s environmental authority and intervened in electricity markets, the court ruled.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said “there is little reason” to believe Congress implicitly tasked EPA with the authority to regulate “how Americans get their energy.”

Justice Elena Kagan skewered the majority’s logic in the dissent, writing that Congress gives broad delegation to federal agencies “so an agency can respond, appropriately and commensurately, to new and big problems.”

All the legal wrangling is likely to have little impact on Biden’s approach to regulating power plant emissions since he was never likely to follow in his former boss’s footsteps. The Clean Power Plan never went into effect, after the high court’s extraordinary move to stay the rule in 2016. Former President Donald Trump then axed it altogether, eventually replacing it with a watered-down rule of his own.

The court has only grown more conservative in the years since, meaning Biden’s EPA was always more likely to draft a new plant-specific greenhouse gas standard than risk running afoul of the court’s conservative majority (Climatewire, July 23, 2021).

That pathway remains intact after the Supreme Court declined to strip the agency’s broader authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, as some conservatives had hoped and liberals had feared.




https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... egulation/

[mojosapien]

Any possibility that Alito or Thomas would pull off a Charles Evans Hughes and run for the 2024 terrorist nomination??

And what if Congress passed a law prohibiting such a thing...and if its struck down by SCOTUS for <insert Alfred Hitchockisms here> and is revived as a CA.....hmmmmm..

[AndyinPA]

I want them gone the same way I want DFO gone.

[pipistrelle]

I want them gone the same way I want DFO gone.

Yep. The frat boy and the handmaid aren't qualified. I don't know if they even realize that.

[Phoenix520]

I’m not sure the frat boy does, he seems pretty dense. But Handmaid…she’s holier than you, doncha know. She knows.

[busterbunker]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this, it seems kinda fishy.

If these three new SCROTUMS were nominated by a Putin-loving President who is implicated with seditious conspiracy and perhaps treason,

And half of Congress had a hand in this, too,

Could they be perceived as embedded terrorists, with far more dangerous consequence than those Saudi dudes who crashed four planes in one day?

Are they enemy combatants better fit to serve in Guantanamo Bay?

[Ben-Prime]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this, it seems kinda fishy.

If these three new SCROTUMS were nominated by a Putin-loving President who is implicated with seditious conspiracy and perhaps treason,

And half of Congress had a hand in this, too,

Could they be perceived as embedded terrorists, with far more dangerous consequence than those Saudi dudes who crashed four planes in one day?

Are they enemy combatants better fit to serve in Guantanamo Bay?

Some would argue that since the Constitution does not define what “hold their office during good behavior" means explicitly, and simply allows for the impeachment process, and the impeachment process itself a political process, Congress decides what that good behavior is by the impeachment process ... i.e., if someone introduces articles of impeachment which lay out anything remotely resembling an offense (like, oh, say, lying to Congress during your confirmation hearings) and can get enough votes for it, they've proven bad behavior.

I don't explicitly argue that, but I understand the argument and do not oppose it.

[busterbunker]

Like if I had to try a case and I was given choice of venue: this so-called Supreme Court or the Taliban...

I might have better odds with the Taliban.

That's kinda weird.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Impeachment is a viable option.
https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s- ... -impeached

Has a U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ever Been Impeached?
A lifetime appointment comes with some caveats.

Supreme Court justices serve for life, unless they resign or are impeached and removed from office. The reason for their lifetime tenure is ostensibly to enable them to make decisions free from any pressure by the executive or legislative branches of government. Since the Supreme Court first convened in 1790, there have been more than one hundred justices—and only one has ever been impeached.

In 1804, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Associate Justice Samuel Chase. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, Chase was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Washington in 1796. A Federalist, Chase irked Thomas Jefferson and his Republican allies in Congress, and was impeached on politically motivated charges of acting in a partisan manner during several trials. However, in 1805 Chase was acquitted by the Senate. He served on the court until his death in 1811.

In 1969, Abe Fortas became the first—and, to date, only—Supreme Court justice to resign under the threat of impeachment. Named to the court by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, Fortas was forced to step down due to financial improprieties that involved him agreeing to act as a paid consultant to the family foundation of a man under investigation for securities fraud.

In addition to Samuel Chase, 14 federal judges (who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate) have been impeached over the course of American history, on charges ranging from drunkenness on the bench to accepting bribes. The first impeachment was in 1803 and the most recent was in 2010. Eight of the jurists were convicted by the Senate and removed from office, while three were acquitted and three resigned.

[MN-Skeptic]

Impeachment is a viable option.
https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s- ... -impeached

Not with this Congress.

[Volkonski]

[AndyinPA]

Impeachment is a viable option.
https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s- ... -impeached

Not with this Congress.

A Democratic House might impeach; the Senate would never convict. See: DFO.

[pipistrelle]

When MAGA stops threatening Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, and key people get convicted for threatening (specifically) to hang Pence (specifically), the protests might stop.

Normally I don't approve of this but it is what it is.

[keith]

Impeachment is a viable option.
https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s- ... -impeached

I dunno about that. Back when I was just a little whippersnapper, there were "Impeach Earl Warren" signs all over the country.

To this day I don't know for sure what he was 'accused' of, but I don't think anything 'viable' ever came from it.

But this Court is going to try to reverse 90% of the Warren Court's decisions.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperi ... il-rights/

Mr. Civil Rights
Before Brown v. Board of Education, there was Briggs v. Elliot—the case that launched Thurgood Marshall’s fight to end segregation in America’s schools.

In May 1950, lawyer Thurgood Marshall faced a question that confronts so many activists in pursuit of a goal: Should they continue to play the long game, pressing for incremental social change, or has the time come to attempt a big leap forward, despite the risks? For Marshall, the goal was equal opportunity for Black students in America’s schools. How to arrive at that end was the question that, as head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, he needed to answer.

In the 1930s, Marshall’s legal mentor and NAACP colleague Charles Hamilton Houston had warned the association against overreach, saying, “Don’t shout too soon.” Under Houston’s steady leadership, the NAACP enacted a careful case-by-case, year-over-year strategy to undermine the doctrine of separate but equal established by the Supreme Court’s 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Under this gradualist approach, the NAACP pursued litigation that could clearly demonstrate that separate educational resources for Black students were unequal to those of whites. Houston’s blueprint had pushed at Plessy’s edges rather than trying to overturn it, however. Association attorneys argued for equal resources rather than attempt to abolish segregation outright.

Now Houston was gone, felled by a heart attack a month earlier, in April. Other NAACP leaders felt a more aggressive approach was required, and Marshall had to decide how to proceed.

At the height of summer, he convened a meeting at the association’s headquarters in New York City. Fifty-seven members—43 attorneys from the Legal Defense Fund and National Legal Committee and 14 branch and regional leaders—resolved “to end segregation once and for all.” They inaugurated a new era of NAACP litigation. There would be no more nudging against Plessy and other segregationist statutes; the time had come to try to topple them completely. It was an exceedingly ambitious goal given the state of American race relations at the halfway mark of the century. And Marshall still needed a strategy for achieving it.

[Patagoniagirl]

Oh my gawd! I've been staring at your post and rattling it around in my head. You're right. It's like the fucking Hokey Pokey.

[raison de arizona]

Moar:

► Show Spoiler

Yeah, "the right to congregate and eat dinner" my ass. No such thing. Screw that dude.

[pipistrelle]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[raison de arizona]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Saw some speculation that Morton's response may be used in future public relations courses as a What Not To Do. Seems likely.

Also, Morton's, where you can go to get a well-done steak served with ketchup. The Applebee's of the elite, have you.

[neeneko]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[pipistrelle]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.