|
Jaxyon posted:What in the gently caress are you talking about? Those addresses are already public, they don't need to be posted here. Come on, this isn't hard. Public knowledge or not if somebody publishes (and re-publishes and re-publishes) those addresses on our site and something happens (or even threatens to happen but gets stopped) our site will get targeted for investigation because over time publishing someone's home address looks less like "exercising freedoms of speech and information" and more like trying to get someone attacked or killed. So no, if fact, those addresses really, really, really do not need to be posted here.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:00 |
|
Magic Underwear posted:It's against the laws of physics for an institution to decide to reduce its own power. It's like expecting an apple to reattach itself to the tree. But that's what the Court is doing right now. It's reversing the reach of the SCOTUS and returning the power to regulate abortion to the legislativ branch and presumably would continue to do if they go after other SDP uses. Even the legislative map issue is reducing the power of the judiciary.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 08:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, not at all. The predicted basis for striking down Chevron would have nothing to do with whether or not the regulators were elected. The line of discussion is that a democracy doesn’t need to pedestal these oligarchs any more than they already are. Mike Pence is actively targeted by his own party leader, but his address is publicly-available. AOC is routinely targeted with death threats, but there’s nothing illegal about publishing her address. It is absurd to think that Supreme Court members are somehow more deserving of protections that are otherwise considered to violate the First Amendment. Also there is no redefinition required here - the justices are not judges in any meaningful way. They don’t work in a court, they don’t deal with statutory law, and they don’t interact with plaintiffs, defendants, claimants, evidence, or victims. They are politicians that work in a law office, who reinterpret constitutional clauses, and mostly interact with lawyers. The idea that they are uniquely threatened is totally false, and it is alien to our democracy to bestow unelected rulers with layers of unconstitutional protections not afforded to our highest elected officials. GaussianCopula posted:But that's what the Court is doing right now. It's reversing the reach of the SCOTUS and returning the power to regulate abortion to the legislativ branch and presumably would continue to do if they go after other SDP uses. It would probably be more useful to understand that the institution these justices represent and are protecting is the Republican Party. They certainly are not interested in an independent judiciary. Kaal fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 09:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, not at all. The predicted basis for striking down Chevron would have nothing to do with whether or not the regulators were elected. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 11:07
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It would probably be more useful to understand that the institution these justices represent and are protecting is the Republican Party. They certainly are not interested in an independent judiciary. Agreed. It's nonsensical to describe this as reducing their power. They can obviously reverse this decision any time as well
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 12:18
|
|
|
The Iron Law of Institutions isn't "institutions increase their power always" it's "people within institutions want to increase their personal power, even if it weakens the institution." A good example is Nancy Pelosi, she's happy to back anti-choice conservative Democrats, even though this weakens the party's ability to fight for women's rights, because crushing progressive challengers to loyalist conservatives preserves her personal power and the power of her faction over the party. In the case of the courts, this court is happy to strengthen the power of the courts when it makes them more powerful (destroying labor protections, gutting regulatory agencies of their power and effectively transferring it to the courts because congress won't act), but they will also weakens the power of the courts if it increases their personal power (destroying the courts' ability to protect voter rights and democracy from conservative lawmakers means more conservative governments and therfore more conservative judges, increasing the power of the conservative judges over the institution of the courts) E: or Ginsberg, clinging to power on her deathbed like the Emperor in the Dark Crystal even though rolling the dice like that was a huge gamble with the power of the liberal bulwark against conservative activist judges VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
An individual's power is often tied to their institution's power so they will frequently dovetail. But here the scotus does not weaken themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:13
|
|
|
Guess Gorsuch is the Goldwater of the Tribal matters game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:. It’s also incredibly pathetic, because it’s someone saying “someone else should do something drastic and dangerous with this information, but not me, I’m too important to take such risks” making it simultaneously try-hard edginess and also do-nothing weakness
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
I should point out that your second remark about SCOTUS judges being judges is not at all true. You don't need to have any formally acknowledged (or modern) legal qualifications to serve as a judge on the SCOTUS. You just need to have received some form of training even if it's biased, was done under mentorship instead of accredited training, or was just the equivalent of an old timey apprenticeship before you were From the SCOTUS webpage posted:The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country. Also we call them judges but since you don't need to have an accredited (or just unbiased) background in law or a history of having served as a judge at a lower level to be a SCOTUS judge there's an actual debate to be had there, though it may not fit this thread. The larger problem is that it's just been assumed up until recently that our highest judiciary appointment would be comprised of actual former judges and lawyers acting in good faith since that was the expectation of what would happen since most people are in favor of the country working at that level, barring dangerous malcontents like anti-statists and supremacists who obviously think differently. Normally this hasn't been that much of an issue. However as the current SCOTUS demonstrates this is a massive loophole (amongst others, like the lack of course correction available short of impeachment* for an obviously bigoted and/or malicious SCOTUS appointee trying to crush political opposition and destroy the lives and safety of minorities in defiance of science and even the most basic rudimentary aspects of human decency**) that can be exploited by bad faith actors that want to undermine civil rights, the safety of Americans, and democracy in general as the decisions on voting maps has shown. Basically, our system of appointing SCOTUS judges was based off of a constitution that was supposed to be improved upon over time. So it's still very much ad hoc and lacks a gently caress ton of work that should have already been done to make standards more rigorous so as to avoid bad actors getting in place. Never mind that people without a good standing as far as their legal background or (in the case of Amy Barrett) obviously harboring malicious intentions given the extremist groups they belong to behind closed doors can get the job so long as the political party in question doesn't care about things like ethics or standards of the position. * Obviously while impeachment is a thing it isn't practically feasible. The last time it was attempted back in 1805 was a miserable failure and it lead to it being essentially being implicitly written off as a viable method from that point onwards. The Democratic party could obviously change this by saying that the times and standards have changed but the decrepit nature of the establishment wing of the party means this is unlikely. As a result (and you can probe me for speaking the truth here if you want too but it is the reality of the situation despite what the mods in question seem to be believe), violence is going to be what people default to in the face of a lack of achievable justice. The fact that things like doxing are occurring are a pressure valve to avoid that, letting people feel like they're doing something productive by the means of that approach instead of...Y'know, actually gunning down bad actors within the state, which so far has been relegated to only one crazy person. Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that it's functionally impossible to dox a sitting SCOTUS appointee in terms of their place of residence since the addresses of every sitting SCOTUS appointee are a matter of public record. I should also point out the hypocrisy here. Obviously intention has to be considered when doxing, and while I don't support the idea of violence myself despite being a potentially affected minority of their depraved cruelty I can't really bring myself to care if a flagrantly malicious actor like Clarence Thomas or Barrett are made mildly uncomfortable by people knowing where they live. If they have their way and roll back civil rights a lot of bigots are going to use their own very real and very dangerous doxing attempts on private individuals to at worst destroy their lives or outright kill them. Someone knowing what a matter of public record is doesn't really count as doxing in the traditional sense. It's like someone posting the address of the white house, which is literally a giant building that is right loving there for anyone to find with even the most bare minimum of effort. Wagging your finger over doxing in this case also plays directly into the efforts of Republicans and especially extremists to paint their opposition as the ones being unreasonable and uncivilized despite the fact that the Republican and extremists are explicitly the aggressors towards those more vulnerable to them in direct contradiction of irrefutable scientific evidence and even the basic standards of how we consider a person's rights. **To this, I will point out that a number of Clarence Thomas's past remarks should have had him barred from holding any sort of political office. Since the guy has gone on record saying that he wants decades of abuse towards liberals for what even he admits are nonsensical grievances that basically boil down to "the Republican base is full of loving lunatics, some of which who want to destroy or murder minorities so I need something to get them on my side.". Again, course correction under the current system for a flagrantly corrupt SCOTUS appointee isn't feasible. So it's not really unexpected that people will resort to other means of pressure after a flagrantly malicious ruling wherein the fine print infers if not outright states that they're going to take away all the rights of other minorities. Whether that's right or wrong is a whole other bag of worms and would veer off towards the topic of ethics and what is acceptable in politics however instead of just being a "criticism bad, must probe people" thing. Archonex fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:An individual's power is often tied to their institution's power so they will frequently dovetail. But here the scotus does not weaken themselves. Often but not always, my point is that even when the majority is refusing to use the power of the court to say block gerrymandering or voter suppression, that preserves their personal power since it preserves the conservative majority that makes them so powerful. But yeah arguably none of this even weakens SCOTUS since they retain the power to do what they want anyway. "Courts have no say over gerrymandering" weakens lower courts for sure but it doesn't even reduce SCOTUS' power since nothing stops them from having a say over it tomorrow if they decide they want to
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Iron Law of Institutions isn't "institutions increase their power always" it's "people within institutions want to increase their personal power, even if it weakens the institution." Two things: 1) This might be a rewording of point but I heard the law of institutions or system is that the system exists to protect itself. So if something new or unknown is thrown at the system its reaction is to be against it and this is true of ANY system. 2) Nancy Pelosi passed abortion protections to codify Roe and "leftists" also backed anti-choice candidates as well as a means to power. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
I am seeing a lot of conflicting information on the potential EPA ruling. Does anyone know what the likely impact on the USDA/OSHA/FDA/EPA ongoing day to day operations would look like if there was one? Opinions seem split between that they lose all power instantly, that they just lose the ability to change anything without congress or that this only affects the EPA in one specific circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:But that's what the Court is doing right now. It's reversing the reach of the SCOTUS and returning the power to regulate abortion to the legislativ branch and presumably would continue to do if they go after other SDP uses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
West Virginia vs EPA out, 6-3 decision. Yuck edit: EPA can't regulate carbon Dioxide. Also as I read it, it seems that Chevron deference is dead too. I'm not a lawyer so I might be wrong on that part. edit2: More i read it, the more it looks like they gave Chevron a good punch in the guts, but they didn't pull a knife and rip the guts out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Yeah it looks like they just killed the planet, not the concept of congressional delegation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah it looks like they just killed the planet, not the concept of congressional delegation. So it looks more SCOTUS said 'Congress needs to write better, clearer laws that are not broad enough to drive a truck through.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So it looks more SCOTUS said 'Congress needs to write better, clearer laws that are not broad enough to drive a truck through.' they know exactly what they are asking with this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Biden v Texas is also out. Biden is allowed to end the Remain In Mexico policy. 5-4 with Kavanaugh and Roberts joining the liberals. There are a lot of people saying emotional goodbyes on the scotusblog live feed, is something happening to that site I don't know about? Cimber posted:So it looks more SCOTUS said 'Congress needs to write better, clearer laws that are not broad enough to drive a truck through.' These are the words they use but scotus is very obviously operating under the assumption that Congress is incapable of fixing their laws
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So it looks more SCOTUS said 'Congress needs to write better, clearer laws that are not broad enough to drive a truck through.' I mean, Congress could written the tightest law ever and the Supreme Court would of come to the same conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
haveblue posted:
No, its just going away for the summer as the term is over, and people are uhh...going to miss their legal nerdery?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So it looks more SCOTUS said 'Congress needs to write better, clearer laws that are not broad enough to drive a truck through.' This Court will always decide the law just somehow isn't clear enough yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah it looks like they just killed the planet, not the concept of congressional delegation. Who said the SCOTUS is ending abortion? They've ruled in favor of aborting the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
haveblue posted:There are a lot of people saying emotional goodbyes on the scotusblog live feed, is something happening to that site I don't know about?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So it looks more SCOTUS said 'Congress needs to write better, clearer laws that are not broad enough to drive a truck through.' Just like they said it's only about praying privately in the Kennedy decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah it looks like they just killed the planet, not the concept of congressional delegation. Nah, the planet will be fine. It has a self-regulating mechanism to deal with creatures that cause environmental imbalance by allowing that imbalance to exterminate those creatures. The planet will be better than ever once us pesky humans kill ourselves off. So... bright side?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Everyone posted:Nah, the planet will be fine. It has a self-regulating mechanism to deal with creatures that cause environmental imbalance by allowing that imbalance to exterminate those creatures. The planet will be better than ever once us pesky humans kill ourselves off. So... bright side? We're on track to take about a third of extant species with us, but what's a few tens of millions of years spent recovering biodiversity one way or another?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Kagan's dissent going directly at the conservatives for making poo poo up as they go was "fun" to read. Sigh. It really feels like they want to toss Chevron but that Roberts et. al. figured out that it would be better to keep it and use this "eye of the beholder" test so they could keep conservative regulations they like and toss others that they don't like. I'm honestly not sure if that's worse than just getting rid of Chevron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
Rectal Death Adept posted:I am seeing a lot of conflicting information on the potential EPA ruling. On the face of it this ruling is narrow and doesn't say the EPA can't regulate emissions from power plants, they just need to get approval from congress for those regulations. But from a practical perspective the EPA has just been neutered. There is zero chance of congress approving of any further environmental regulation unless its controlled by a Democratic supermajority which is also extremely unlikely to happen. This court is fully revanchist (They want revenge against every liberal reform of the last 50 or so years be it environmental, civil, or cultural) so there is no reason to think they won't rule against any regulation that is challenged in their court. Next week I expect a flood of such challenges to be filed. The United States has been Couped.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Everyone posted:Nah, the planet will be fine. It has a self-regulating mechanism to deal with creatures that cause environmental imbalance by allowing that imbalance to exterminate those creatures. The planet will be better than ever once us pesky humans kill ourselves off. So... bright side? On a long enough timeline the sun will swallow the Earth, but there's a tremendous amount of preventable suffering and cruelty that should be prevented in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
I guess it's really just Calvinball but who the gently caress decides if a regulation is "transformational?" It's a clear pretext to undermine any regulation that makes an industry or business sector actually...do something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Well this is not good. http://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1542521353344913417 Edit: I do not know why the tweet is not embedded but the SC has taken up a North Carolina case over the “independent state legislature” theory where states can gently caress around with federal election rules no matter what. Bizarro Kanyon fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
lmao https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1542521701761634305?s=20&t=fFHIw5jJ2f4K3k62y1fVrg
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I mean, Congress could written the tightest law ever and the Supreme Court would of come to the same conclusion. If this were true then the Clean Air Act would already be gone, so no not necessarily. This is a bad court decision but stop making fanciful excuses for congressional inaction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
Super awesome that the ear of a scotus justice that’s currently in the majority is completely bent toward whatever insane right wing conspiracy theories his wife reads on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Well this is not good. I feel like the idea that "voting is the key to legitimacy, not power, but necessary to avoid revolution" has reached the point where the Republicans are realizing that they don't actually need legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
gregday posted:Super awesome that the ear of a scotus justice that’s currently in the majority is completely bent toward whatever insane right wing conspiracy theories his wife reads on Facebook. Gonna be citing Q drops next session.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Well this is not good. Yeah this is the ultimate goal and it's been obvious since Bush v Gore in 2000 and the off cycle Texas redistricting in 2004 but really kicked into gear with REDMAP Any time a state legislature falls to Republicans they immediately gerrymander themselves into permanent control, now that they've got the courts too they can strip away any kind of oversight and let their gerrymandered legislatures put a thumb on the scale of every election. And also return presidential elector selection to state legislatures instead of statewide popular vote (oops never amended the US constitution to fix that, people voting for their state's electors was all just tradition oh well!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Can’t wait for the major questions doctrine to be applied in CryptoBros v. SEC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:39
|
|
