|
vyelkin posted:she will accomplish the thing that matters most, writing spicy dissents sounds like progress to me!
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:is she going to use FACTS and LOGIC to convince the heritage foundation gang to not ban affirmative action? Her dissent will be as scathing as it is meaningless
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
the spirit of rbg is alive, well, and still completely ineffectual. so inspiring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Junkozeyne posted:Her dissent will be as scathing as it is meaningless i disagree to the limited extent that the correct strategy in oral arguments (as much if not moreso than decisions) is to disillusion the west wing center left nerd class about the legitimacy of scotus and therefore change it
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Petey posted:i mean we all know that affirmative action is doomed by an illegitimate court, might as well enjoy a few zingers on the way out the door since that's all we'll get In less than a decade Sotomayor will just be blasting airhorns and playing toilet-flush sound effects during oral arguments
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
liberal justices join their fans in just having their job be to say "doggie fresh" and not matter
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
mdemone posted:In less than a decade Sotomayor will just be blasting airhorns and playing toilet-flush sound effects during oral arguments that would offend her close personal friends clarence thomas and brett kavanaugh though
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
Notorious KBJ
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
I think it is a welcome change to have at laest one liberal justice on the court that doesn't seem to give a poo poo about pretending like the instutiton has any legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
she should put that gavel to use ala Deedo Depepe
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Zerg Mans posted:I think it is a welcome change to have at laest one liberal justice on the court that doesn't seem to give a poo poo about pretending like the instutiton has any legitimacy. how is she acting that way at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to put on hold the release of his tax returns by the Internal Revenue Service to a Democratic-led House committee. Trump filed the emergency request on Monday with the high court after a federal appeals court cleared the way last week for the returns to be disclosed to the House Ways and Means Committee in the coming days. The case is the most direct way for the House to obtain Trump’s federal tax returns after pursuing them in different avenues for years. The Trump team wants the Supreme Court to put the release of the tax returns on pause while the justices consider whether to take up a case reviewing the lower court rulings okaying their disclosure. The new filing asks the court to put an administrative hold on the release of the tax returns by Wednesday, as the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling allowing for their disclosure goes into effect on Thursday. “No Congress has ever wielded its legislative powers to demand a President’s tax returns,” Trump argued to the Supreme Court, as he warned of the “far-reaching implications” implications of the DC Circuit’s ruling. He wrote that that the way lower courts approached the House request ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Mazars case, concerning a subpoena that the House issued Trump’s accounting firm for his tax information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
Der Meister posted:how is she acting that way at all When she wears her special illegitimacy brocade, while she is delivering her fieriest dissents or asking her most pointed questions in oral arguments, that brocade indicates that the institution has no legitimacy today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 11:47
|
|
|
It’s funny that liberals use the phrase “I dissent” as like a catchphrase for rbg they like her because she was a loser who lost all of the time
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
Turns out Alito was probably the source of the abortion leak https://twitter.com/jodikantor/status/1593945158634070017 quote:In early June 2014, an Ohio couple who were Mr. Schenck’s star donors shared a meal with Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann. A day later, Gayle Wright, one of the pair, contacted Mr. Schenck, according to an email reviewed by The Times. “Rob, if you want some interesting news please call. No emails,” she wrote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Turns out Alito was probably the source of the abortion leak all I’ve heard from my democrat friends is “they leaked this to blunt the effectiveness of protests!” and it’s going to turn out that there wasn’t any strategy or grand plan at all, just rich assholes talking to other rich assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
the supreme court is the big round red nose on our national clownface
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
The Saucer Hovers posted:the supreme court is the big round red nose on our national clownface 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for a House committee to obtain several years of Donald Trump’s tax returns from the IRS, a significant win for lawmakers that brought to an end a three-year court battle. With no noted dissent, the court upheld the August ruling of an appeals court panel that unanimously cleared the way for the House Ways and Means Committee to obtain the former president’s tax returns. The panel has been seeking Trump’s records since 2019, saying they were essential to potential legislation related to the IRS’ presidential audit program. House Democrats have long been eager for a glimpse at Trump’s financial records, which they say could lay bare extensive conflicts of interest that bore on his decisions as president. Trump argued that the committee’s requests were a pretense for an improper purpose: making his tax returns public to gain a political advantage. Technically, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a temporary one, rejecting an emergency request Trump filed last month. However, the high court’s order Tuesday will likely represent the end of the legal fight, allowing Democrats to gain access to Trump’s returns and possibly to release them before Republicans take control of the House in January. A Treasury spokesman said Tuesday afternoon that “the Treasury Department will comply with the Court of Appeals’ decision,” but gave no timeline. The House demanded Trump’s tax returns in May 2019, several months after winning the majority in the midterm elections following Trump’s inauguration. The Ways and Means Committee requested them from the IRS under a federal law that provides for congressional investigators with broad access to tax return information. But Trump’s Treasury and Justice Departments rejected the effort, contending the request lacked a legitimate legislative purpose and could be denied. The House, on the other hand, said the law left the IRS no discretion in terms of whether to comply with the committee’s request. The committee reissued its demand after Trump left office in January 2021, contending that Trump’s effort to block it was even weaker as an ex-president. Lower courts agreed, ruling at every turn in favor of the Ways and Means Committee. Some committee members called on Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass) to get his hands on the returns without delay. “It has been 1,329 days since our committee sought Donald Trump’s tax returns — almost as long as the American Civil War,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), long one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the effort, in a statement. "... At long last the charade should today be over and we should get these documents transmitted to the desk of our committee chairman as soon as possible.” Neal vowed that the committee “will now conduct the oversight that we’ve sought for the last three and a half years.” But he didn’t give any indication of when he might get the information. “We knew the strength of our case, we stayed the course, followed the advice of counsel, and finally, our case has been affirmed by the highest court in the land,” he said in a statement. “Since the Magna Carta, the principle of oversight has been upheld, and today is no different.” The D.C. Circuit Court of appeals gave a strong indication this summer of where the issue was headed. “While it is possible that Congress may attempt to threaten the sitting President with an invasive request after leaving office, every President takes office knowing that he will be subject to the same laws as all other citizens upon leaving office,” a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August. “This is a feature of our democratic republic, not a bug,” Judge David Sentelle, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the panel’s opinion. After President Joe Biden took office last year, the Justice Department reversed position in the dispute and backed the House’s request. Trump’s effort to block the House panel’s demand relied largely on a Supreme Court ruling in a separate congressional effort to obtain his financial records — the House Oversight Committee’s long-running attempt to subpoena them from Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has broad and extensive power of inquiry but that such inquiry — particularly when aimed at a sitting president — is subject to certain limits. One appeals court judge who upheld the Ways and Means Committee’s effort to obtain Trump’s records raised a similar concern, warning that a committee’s effort to obtain an ex-president’s records could be used to shape that president’s conduct while in office. “Although we cannot know the extent to which the requests and investigations influenced — or were intended to influence — President Trump’s conduct while in office, it is not far-fetched to believe that such intrusive inquiries could have a chilling effect on a President’s ability to fulfill his obligations under the Constitution and effectively manage the Executive Branch,” Judge Karen Henderson wrote in a concurring opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for a House committee to obtain several years of Donald Trump’s tax returns from the IRS, a significant win for lawmakers that brought to an end a three-year court battle. what is supposed to happen once the house gets his tax returns?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
bedpan posted:what is supposed to happen once the house gets his tax returns? Million dollar fine
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
bedpan posted:what is supposed to happen once the house gets his tax returns? Fortnite dancing
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
bedpan posted:what is supposed to happen once the house gets his tax returns? GOT EM
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 01:29
|
|
|
really though, what is supposed to be in the tax returns that isn't already known? how will the tax returns get trump any closer to indictment and jail?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
bedpan posted:what is supposed to happen once the house gets his tax returns? I think a lot of people believe there is going to be a ‘Money from Putin’ line item.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
bedpan posted:really though, what is supposed to be in the tax returns that isn't already known? how will the tax returns get trump any closer to indictment and jail? house reps will start insinuating in interviews that trump is nearly broke even if it's not actually true, just to twist his nipples
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
bedpan posted:what is supposed to happen once the house gets his tax returns? somebody leaks them and the Republican majority impeaches Biden for it
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 03:01
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:somebody leaks them and the Republican majority impeaches Biden for it then it'll turn out to have come from a desantis aligned republican who is on the committee lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
The dems tell everyone that they were just about to Lock! Him! Up! but they had to go on christmas vacation and then after the republicans took over they wouldn't let them do anything with the tax returns so now you have to donate
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
they'll get the returns as soon as the house gop leadership takes the gavel
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 03:11
|
|
|
bedpan posted:what is supposed to happen once the house gets his tax returns? scoffing that he doesn’t have as much money as cool guys Michael Bloomberg and Jeff Bezos
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
The Supreme Court on Thursday delayed its decision on President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, leaving it blocked until justices hear the case early next year. The delay is the latest in the uphill battle for student loan forgiveness, a program that would have given thousands of dollars in relief to more than 40 million borrowers. Last month, a federal judge in North Texas ruled that the forgiveness program was “unlawful” because Biden did not follow federal procedures to allow for public comment prior to the policy’s announcement. In the order, the court said it would hear full arguments in February. Data from the office of Federal Student Aid shows that Texas has 3.3 million residents with student loan debt for a total of $110.7 billion. Texas has the second-highest amount of borrowers and debt, behind California, in which students owe $133.5 billion. Biden announced the plan in August. People who earn over $125,000 a year are ineligible for the forgiveness program, and the amount for applicants is limited to $10,000. However, recipients of Pell Grants, which are intended for low-income students, are eligible for up to $20,000 in relief. Texas has more than 2.3 million Pell Grant recipients. Borrowers were able to start applying for the program in October. The program was immediately met with multiple lawsuits, including one led by leaders from six GOP-led states and one filed in a North Texas court by the Job Creators Network Foundation on behalf of two borrowers who don’t qualify for all of the program’s benefits. Those borrowers disagreed with the program’s eligibility criteria, and the lawsuit alleged that they could not voice their disagreement. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then temporarily halted the program that same month. By then, more than 16 million people had already been approved for the relief by the U.S. Education Department. In November, the agency emailed updates to approved applicants stating, “A number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the program, which have blocked our ability to discharge your debt at present.” According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, in 2021, 56% of students who graduated from four-year public universities had approximately $25,000 in student loan debt. Biden extended the pause on student debt payments, which was set to expire on Jan. 1, but if the plan is not implemented or the lawsuit is unresolved, payments will begin again after June 30. The court is setting arguments for late February or early March.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 10:41
|
|
|
that poo poo is dead in the water RIP
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
smdh at this blatant cynicism regarding the intentions of joseph robinette biden jr the most progressive president this country has had since fdr now to take a nice big sip of coffee before clicking on the succ zone to see whats been prompting all the new posts there lately
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Der Meister posted:that poo poo is dead in the water RIP The funny thing is that this pauses repayments through the middle of next year and for anyone like me with a lot of grad school debt that probably amounts to much more material gain than $10k in cancellation (I’m just running out the clock on the 20 years anyway, I’ve never touched my loan’s principal)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
The Supreme Court is hearing the case Monday of a Christian graphic artist who objects to designing wedding websites for gay couples, a dispute that's the latest clash of religion and gay rights to land at the highest court. The designer and her supporters say that ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their faith. Her opponents, meanwhile, say that if she wins, a range of businesses will be able to discriminate, refusing to serve Black customers, Jewish or Muslim people, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants, among others. The case comes at a time when the court is dominated 6-3 by conservatives and following a series of cases in which the justices have sided with religious plaintiffs. It also comes as, across the street from the court, lawmakers in Congress are finalizing a landmark bill protecting same-sex marriage. The bill, which also protects interracial marriage, steadily gained momentum following the high court's decision earlier this year to end constitutional protections for abortion. That decision to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade case prompted questions about whether the court — now that it is more conservative — might also overturn its 2015 decision declaring a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly said that decision should also be reconsidered. The case being argued before the high court Monday involves Lorie Smith, a graphic artist and website designer in Colorado who wants to begin offering wedding websites. Smith says her Christian faith prevents her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. But that could get her in trouble with state law. Colorado, like most other states, has what's called a public accommodation law that says if Smith offers wedding websites to the public, she must provide them to all customers. Businesses that violate the law can be fined, among other things. Five years ago, the Supreme Court heard a different challenge involving Colorado's law and a baker, Jack Phillips, who objected to designing a wedding cake for a gay couple. That case ended with a limited decision, however, and set up a return of the issue to the high court. Phillips' lawyer, Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom, is now representing Smith. Like Phillips, Smith says her objection is not to working with gay people. She says she'd work with a gay client who needed help with graphics for an animal rescue shelter, for example, or to promote an organization serving children with disabilities. But she objects to creating messages supporting same-sex marriage, she says, just as she won't take jobs that would require her to create content promoting atheism or gambling or supporting abortion. Smith says Colorado’s law violates her free speech rights. Her opponents, including the Biden administration and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, disagree. Twenty mostly liberal states, including California and New York, are supporting Colorado while another 20 mostly Republican states, including Arizona, Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee, are supporting Smith. The case is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Her opponents, meanwhile, say that if she wins, a range of businesses will be able to discriminate, refusing to serve Black customers, Jewish or Muslim people, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants, among others. seems bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:The Supreme Court is hearing the case Monday of a Christian graphic artist who objects to designing wedding websites for gay couples, a dispute that's the latest clash of religion and gay rights to land at the highest court. I await their reasoned decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Cloks posted:seems bad I thought the free market means whoever does serve them gets the money and therefore has more money than their rival and win-wins?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Which brave goon graphic designer is going to fulfill the hypothetical and refuse to do design work for straight couples getting married.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 18:00
|
|
