|
If Thomas was required to report those “gifts” then yeah, that’s real bad. However, SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that just having a “rich friend that gives you stuff” isn’t bribery or illegal.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
Murgos posted:If Thomas was required to report those “gifts” then yeah, that’s real bad. However, SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that just having a “rich friend that gives you stuff” isn’t bribery or illegal. He was required to report them. He unambiguously broke the law, it just doesn't matter because nobody is going to do anything about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 02:53
|
|
|
Your rich friend paying for your vacation that costs twice your annual salary being something you don't have to disclose would be very funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
As with all corruption, it will be ignored within a week. Powerful people have “win at anything” cards. Also, with the SC refusing to allow the ban to take place, it is weird that the Biden administration on the same day gives a go ahead to ban trans athletes from competitions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/04/06/trans-athletes-school-sports-title-ix/
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 03:37
|
|
|
It IS weird! And that's because its a bad faith reading of what's happening. The new rules are more or less written to stand up to extreme legal scrutiny but be impossible to actually prove harm. Basically a mirror of lovely anti abortion laws that carve out a bare fig leaf that they aren't total bans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
It literally lists several right wing “harm” arguments without pushback (notably “taking away scholarships” and “physical injury”) and goes on to say that it anticipates that bans in competitive sports at the high school level will satisfy the requirements. It also lists examples of potentially “acceptable” gender gatekeeping requirements, which include legal documentation and treatment which are now [i]either not legally obtainable or illegal[i] to obtain in many states where blanket bans were a concern. No, this is not 10-dimensional chess. It’s capitulation and a roadmap for “acceptable” discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 04:21
|
|
|
Yes, it lists several things that are impossible to prove and asks that someone prove them before a ban is put in place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 05:12
|
|
|
Just depressing https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1643973544857178114
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 10:40
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Yes, it lists several things that are impossible to prove and asks that someone prove them before a ban is put in place. Does this work to halt or roll back discrimination in practice? If so I can see why you would do it rather than nothing, but has this kind of thing been tested before, or would it survive in the new era of right wing judicial impunity any better than other things you could try?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 11:25
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Yes, it lists several things that are impossible to prove and asks that someone prove them before a ban is put in place. Show me one trans legal group that says that the administration worked with them on this strategy and trust the administration to not do what the letter of the document says they will. In the meantime I’ll trust the ones that feel blindsided and betrayed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 13:09
|
|
|
This was probably the most insane bit to me - there's no non-corrupt reason to be flown out so some billionaire's private library to be sworn in it's so loving brazen. There isn't in a fig leaf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 13:13
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:This was probably the most insane bit to me - there's no non-corrupt reason to be flown out so some billionaire's private library to be sworn in it's so loving brazen. There isn't in a fig leaf. You'd find his reason is "gently caress you, I'll do what I want and you can't stop me"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 13:50
|
|
|
Sanctioned under, "Rules for thee, not for me," clause of billionaire privileges and immunities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 13:59
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Show me one trans legal group that says that the administration worked with them on this strategy and trust the administration to not do what the letter of the document says they will. In the meantime I’ll trust the ones that feel blindsided and betrayed. Ok. https://twitter.com/HRC/status/1644115270175191040 https://twitter.com/LambdaLegal/status/1644093409441767424 Yes, the second link also has some concerns whether it's enough, but that's a far cry from "blindsided and betrayed".
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
I'll add that it's administrative rulemaking. The administration is not going to say they were working with groups from one side of an issue to craft the rule (and they really shouldn't have been), and they are going to discuss all the general forms of input they got in the development of the rule. After the comment period the next published version is going to have to address every single substantive, on-topic comment they receive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
I think it's also worth noting that the most widely shared excerpt from the WaPo article has since been removed. No one from the administration has said anything about this being a compromise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1644361060151881731?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Ignorance of the law is no defense
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Extra rich coming from the Justice that professes that it doesn't matter what decisions others have made, he should make his own determination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 18:30
|
|
|
Shazback posted:Extra rich coming from the Justice that professes that it doesn't matter what decisions others have made, he should make his own determination. And he has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
If Thomas starts defending himself that means he did a bad thing and might actually be worried.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Scipiotik posted:If Thomas starts defending himself that means he did a bad thing and might actually be worried. The Supremes are very worried that in this political environment (where Congress is non-functional and they often serve as the legislative branch) they will lose institutional power, and always react sharply to this threat. There has been a years-long charm offensive by the Court because their collective image as high priests of Democracy is in tatters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
I've thought about this for at least 10 minutes now and I think I know how to save our democracy. Amend the constitution to ban anyone (including corporations) who is in the top 1% of wealth in the country from participating in politics in any way. They can't buy ads, they can't donate, they can't offer services, they can't offer hospitality, they can't have their lawyers write amicus briefs, they can't serve in a public position, they can't run for office, they can't be elected. Nothing. You can have all the money or you can participate in the government. Pick one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You can have all the money or you can participate in the government. Pick one. They pick both and also your share of picking also because f you, ya pleb
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
Scipiotik posted:If Thomas starts defending himself that means he did a bad thing and might actually be worried. Doubtful. Nothing meaningful is expected to happen. This is simply the notes for the usual fascist media circles to build off of. If the Dems had any interest in a functioning democracy, they would expel the supreme court or treat it with the power the constitution explicitly gives it: none.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
Asking the question here as well. 1) The texas judge banned the FDA from approving mifepristone. 2) Just moments after, another judge blocked the FDA from taking it off the market. See https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1644474146716352512?t=HDbjV3GuXIFl3c0QLCu0Rw&s=19 3) These two judges are in conflict, so this needs to get sorted out by a higher level court. However, these courts are in two different appellate districts. Does this mean the case gets automatically sent to the SC?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Asking the question here as well. Not automatically, but FDA can ask SCOTUS for an emergency stay (and they’re likely to both do so and receive one to preserve the status quo during appeal.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:If the Dems had any interest in a functioning democracy, they would expel the supreme court or treat it with the power the constitution explicitly gives it: none. This is just completely and verifiably wrong. The Constitution explicitly vests the "[t]he judicial Power of the United States...in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That power "extend[s] to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The idea that the judiciary has no power it didn't improperly seize for itself, or that "Dems" (whatever the hell that means) have some non-illegal mechanism to "expel" (whatever the hell that means) the Supreme Court is derived from neither facts nor history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:This is just completely and verifiably wrong. The Constitution explicitly vests the "[t]he judicial Power of the United States...in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That power "extend[s] to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." Perhaps Op was referring to some beliefs about Madison V Marbury, where the chief justice 'granted' the power of judicial review to the courts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Perhaps Op was referring to some beliefs about Madison V Marbury, where the chief justice 'granted' the power of judicial review to the courts? Except that Marbury wasn’t even close to the first time judicial review was used, and the understanding of the judicial power in the early republic absolutely included a concept of judicial review.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
There is a bit of awkwardness that the Constitution doesn't actually define what judicial power *is* (and a bunch of other things, like say, habeas corpus --- it just says you can't deny writ of it!), but that's because they assumed the terminology used pre-revolution in the colonies and in England....
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:There is a bit of awkwardness that the Constitution doesn't actually define what judicial power This. The constitution grants no explicit power to the Supreme Court. If the founding father’s felt the Supreme Court should have any power they would have granted it via the constitution or an amendment like they did with freedom of the press and the right to bear arms. Judicial Review is fantasy logic that has no basis then and certainly is less relevant now. The only thing “judicial review” grants is for the judge to rule based on their political beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:This. The constitution grants no explicit power to the Supreme Court. If the founding father’s felt the Supreme Court should have any power they would have granted it via the constitution or an amendment like they did with freedom of the press and the right to bear arms. or they could have let a major ruling establishing judicial review in the body of law stand when they controlled the government instead of using their power to reverse it. that also probably would have granted it
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:This. The constitution grants no explicit power to the Supreme Court. If the founding father’s felt the Supreme Court should have any power they would have granted it via the constitution or an amendment like they did with freedom of the press and the right to bear arms. All of the above has been debunked, literally on this page. Why are you continuing to repeat something you know not to be true?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:All of the above has been debunked, literally on this page. Why are you continuing to repeat something you know not to be true? Point to location in the constitution or and amendment that grants specific and explicit powers to the Supreme Court? Even in the most basic fundamental understanding of government, the judiciary has zero power without compliance by the executory wing of the government. The Supreme Court has no control of a massive police force or military. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Apr 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Point to location in the constitution or and amendment that grants specific and explicit powers to the Supreme Court? I quoted Article III literally on this page, but here it is again: tagesschau posted:The Constitution explicitly vests the "[t]he judicial Power of the United States...in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That power "extend[s] to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The idea that nobody could know what "the judicial power" encompassed is simply ahistorical. Surprising as you may find it, the United Kingdom, and England before it, had already had courts of law for centuries prior to 1787. virtualboyCOLOR posted:Even in the most basic fundamental understanding of government, the judiciary has zero power without compliance by the executory wing of the government. The Supreme Court has no control of massive police force or military. The most basic fundamental understanding of government includes understanding that any branch exceeding its constitutional authority, and refusing, perhaps by force, to be reined in, is a constitutional crisis. There's a time and a place for the executive to pointedly defy opinions of the Supreme Court that are clearly unjust and that tell us to ignore binding precedent (and indeed, the text of the law) in favor of shoddy logic tracing backward from the conclusion to try to make it fit the facts of the case. However, the idea that the executive is always correct when it disagrees with the judiciary is not how the country is set up, not how the country was supposed to be set up, and directly enables fascism and other authoritarian nonsense. No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 06:22
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:I quoted Article III literally on this page, but here it is again: Maybe actually read the constitution instead of saying a bunch of literal nonsense: the actual constitution posted:The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Judicial power is not expanded on nor given any power to enact rulings. It literally gives the Supreme Court only the power to make a judgement call. quote:There's a time and a place for the executive to pointedly defy opinions of the Supreme Court that are clearly unjust and that tell us to ignore binding precedent (and indeed, the text of the law) in favor of shoddy logic tracing backward from the conclusion to try to make it fit the facts of the case. However, the idea that the executive is always correct when it disagrees with the judiciary is not how the country is set up, not how the country was supposed to be set up, and directly enables fascism and other authoritarian nonsense. No thanks. I didn’t say the executive branch is always correct but, like the constitution, maybe you are having trouble reading text. I state that fundamentally the courts have no power to enact their rulings, as the constitution clearly lays out by not granting any power to the Supreme Court to enact any judgements it provides. This is a basic fundamental fact. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 07:02
|
|
|
I feel like someone is just trolling with an exaggerated Left wing Scalia position that involves being deliberately blind to history and the meaning of terms in favour of a textualist view that lets them get the policy outcome they want. It's ridiculous to assume that there drafters if the US Constitution didn't think judicial power included actually making rulings on legal questions or that they somehow intended for a truly sovereign executive by dint of not including any means or body that actually has the power to say no to acts that go against the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Maybe actually read the constitution instead of saying a bunch of literal nonsense: Maybe actually read my post where I quote the part of the Constitution you're trying to quote back at me instead of lying about what I wrote. virtualboyCOLOR posted:Judicial power is not expanded on nor given any power to enact rulings. It literally gives the Supreme Court only the power to make a judgement call. Were court rulings in the United Kingdom and its colonies considered not to be binding on the Crown if it didn't feel like adhering to them? No? Then what on earth makes you think "the judicial power" suddenly meant something different? The framers' intent is not less clear just because of your amateurish quibbling two centuries later. virtualboyCOLOR posted:I state that fundamentally the courts have no power to enact their rulings, as the constitution clearly lays out by not granting any power to the Supreme Court to enact any judgements it provides. This is just a nothingburger of an argument; the fact that the court system does not have a standing army does not grant the president or Congress any sort of authority under the Constitution to outright ignore rulings it doesn't like, dissolve the Supreme Court, or do pretty much anything you've insisted is perfectly legal. The judicial power of the Crown had, up to that point, been both knowable and known, and this power in the federal context was explicitly transferred to the judiciary of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. If you want to keep insisting that the judicial power adopted by reference was changed in any way at the time of its adoption, you should probably provide some evidence for that if you don't want to keep getting dunked on. (Maybe you don't realize that you're just embarrassing yourself here. That's not my problem.) virtualboyCOLOR posted:This is a basic fundamental fact. It is very clearly not. You should probably stop trying to lecture the rest of this thread on a topic you so proudly fail to understand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Maybe actually read the constitution instead of saying a bunch of literal nonsense: Are you trolling here? Judicial power has no power except to enact rulings, which are literally the judgements it makes. Your argument contradicts itself in the space of two sentences. An establishment of power, like the creation of the Supreme Court itself, is inherently an expansion of a power. That is, by establishing federal courts, the power of the judiciary was included at the federal level, as opposed to remaining an institution of the various states. Power in this case includes the ability to try and review cases as well as review the legality of a law or action. Enforcing it is also a power, the ability to do so has waxed and waned. quote:I didn’t say the executive branch is always correct but, like the constitution, maybe you are having trouble reading text. I state that fundamentally the courts have no power to enact their rulings, as the constitution clearly lays out by not granting any power to the Supreme Court to enact any judgements it provides. This is a basic fundamental fact. Could you offer some support for this fundamental fact? Who agrees with you? What is the basis for your argument? What does power mean and what kinds of power are there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 14:15
|
|
