SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Hersh]

5 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Mic drop. Who does this upset more? Clarence or Amy?

 

 

 

For all the people giving Biden's first year bad marks, his federal judicial appointments have been as promised. And for all of Biden's ****ups, and there are a few, he will have been the VP of the first black POTUS, will have the first (black) female VP, and will appoint the first black woman to the SCOTUS. 

[tshile]

Just now, Hersh said:

 

For all the people giving Biden's first year bad marks, his federal judicial appointments have been as promised. And for all of Biden's ****ups, and there are a few, he will have been the VP of the first black POTUS, will have the first (black) female VP, and will appoint the first black woman to the SCOTUS. 

I just listened to the npr politics podcast on it, and they said the concern is that the Biden administration’s staffers have little to no experience in this process, and there is concern they are not properly prepared for this. 

they did list 2 different black female judges. One which was just appointed to the appeals court (kinda soon to go straight to scotus isn’t it? Like she was appointed last year…) the other has been on the CA Supreme Court for some time. 
 

both sounded well qualified and highly respected. 
 

but yeah there was a whole thing about there being concern his staff was not going to be able to do the prep properly

 

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer To Retire : The NPR Politics Podcast  - https://www.npr.org/2022/01/26/1075890969/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-to-retire

 

[Hersh]

Just now, tshile said:

I just listened to the npr politics podcast on it, and they said the concern is that the Biden administration’s staffers have little to no experience in this process, and there is concern they are not properly prepared for this. 

they did list 2 different black female judges. One which was just appointed to the appeals court (kinda soon to go straight to scotus isn’t it? Like she was appointed last year…) the other has been on the CA Supreme Court for some time. 
 

both sounded well qualified and highly respected. 
 

but yeah there was a whole thing about there being concern his staff was not going to be able to do the prep properly

 

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer To Retire : The NPR Politics Podcast  - https://www.npr.org/2022/01/26/1075890969/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-to-retire

 

 

Judge Jackson has now been vetted having been recently moved up to US court of appeals for DC. Remember, ABC wasn't even a judge until 2017 and was nominated a few years later. Judge Childs down in south carolina is also a great choice based on what little I know. I'm not particularly worried about this process. It's gonna be fast. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

 

Judge Jackson has now been vetted having been recently moved up to US court of appeals for DC. Remember, ABC wasn't even a judge until 2017 and was nominated a few years later. Judge Childs down in south carolina is also a great choice based on what little I know. I'm not particularly worried about this process. It's gonna be fast. 

Read that a little to fast and thought you meant:

 

 

208D54B5-4820-4788-A7C4-3AEB4155841F.webp

Edited January 28, 2022 by TheGreatBuzz

[China]

It's all becoming clear now...

 

 

[PokerPacker]

20 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

I fully expect there will be some GOP senators who break ranks on the nomination. Maybe I'm hopeful..but I see Murkowski as most likely to vote yes. 

 

That said, the 2 "rogue" Dem Senators have supported Biden's lower court picks. I don't see that changing here.

Does Murkowski ever do anything outside of lock-step with the fascist Republican party other than furrow her brows at varying levels of intensity?

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

Does Murkowski ever do anything outside of lock-step with the fascist Republican party other than furrow her brows at varying levels of intensity?

 

She voted to confirm Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson back in June. Likely a candidate that Biden has in mind now. 

 

I do agree Murkowski is mostly useless though. 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[China]

GOP lawmaker admits that “the whole point of” religious exemptions is to allow discrimination

 

A Republican lawmaker admitted in public that the entire point of his “religious freedom” is to legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people.

 

For years, LGBTQ advocates have argued that religious exemptions – either passed through legislation or created in court decisions – would effectively legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people. Christian conservatives have refused to publicly admit it, claiming that such exemptions would “protect” Christians’ religious freedom without leading to discrimination.

 

But now Virginia State Sen. Mark Peake (R) was caught saying the quiet parts out loud while discussing his proposed S.B. 177, a bill that would create a religious exemption to the state’s ban on discrimination in housing, allowing a “religious corporation, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization” to refuse to provide housing to people who they believe don’t follow their “religious principles.”

 

“You are correct, what you said is correct,” Peake said in a committee hearing. “They would be allowed to discriminate against people that they do not feel follow their religious beliefs.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Meanwhile, we have this:

 

Leondra Kruger, potential Biden Supreme Court nominee, stunned justices with position on religious liberty

 

One of the women on President Biden's short list to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer once startled the court's justices with her aggressive position against the plaintiff in a religious liberty case. 

 

Leondra Kruger, now a justice on California's highest court, argued on behalf of the Obama administration in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, which involved whether religious organizations had to abide by anti-discrimination laws when choosing religious leaders. 

 

"The position that Kruger staked out as a litigant in Hosanna-Tabor against the ministerial exception — one that even Justice Kagan described as ‘amazing' during oral argument — suggests that she could be hostile to religious liberty if she were appointed," Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino told Fox News Digital in a Monday statement.

 

"Given that Hosanna-Tabor was unanimously decided, such a position would shift the Court's liberal wing even further to the left, which of course is the desire of the liberal dark money groups who spent $1.5 billion in 2020 to help elect President Biden and Senate Democrats," she continued.

 

Kruger broadly argued against a doctrine known as the "ministerial exception," which generally bars the government from intruding into how religious organizations choose their leaders. 

The ministerial exception is what protects religious groups' "freedom to make employment decisions based on their beliefs, including their beliefs on marriage and human sexuality," for ministerial positions, notes the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

[China]

 

 

Ted Cruz wants Candace Owens to be next SCOTUS pick

[China]

 

[China]

Well there's a surprise, he had no consequences from his first incident so he did it again.   The same thing that will happen with Trump and his loony, seditionist, rioting supporters if we let it.

 

Man parks outside Supreme Court months after arrest for the same thing, police say

 

A man who was arrested after parking his SUV in front of the Supreme Court last year returned on Thursday, prompting a closure of the area and some nearby streets, officials said.

 

Dale Paul Melvin, who had “illegally parked” his vehicle outside the building in October, parked his Chevy Tahoe in front of the Court again, U.S. Capitol police said in a tweet before 10 a.m.

 

In October, Capitol police officers had to use a flash-bang device to force Melvin, of Kimball, Michigan, out of his car after he refused to speak with officers and negotiators. He was arrested on charges of failure to obey and assault on a police officer.

 

On Thursday morning, following his arrival, police said First Street between Constitution Avenue Northeast and Independence Avenue Southwest as well as East Capitol Street between First Street and Second Street were briefly blocked.

 

Authorities said last year that Melvin had gone to to the Capitol Complex in August and “made concerning statements.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Supreme Court to decide whether some businesses can refuse to serve gay customers

 

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether certain businesses with religious objections can refuse to offer their services for same-sex weddings, a question it has consistently ducked since its landmark gay marriage ruling in 2015.

 

The case involves a Colorado website designer, Lorie Smith, who planned to expand her business to serve couples getting married. Because of her religious convictions, she wanted to post a statement on her site to say that she would not offer her services for same-sex weddings.

 

But a federal appeals court ruled that her refusal and her proposed statement would violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.  

 

In a brief order, the Supreme Court said it would take up the case to consider “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” 

 

The court will hear the case in its next term, which begins in October.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

Well, they've been working towards it for decades. By encouraging people with the notion of "if you want to discriminate, just (falsely) claim it's your religion". 

[China]

The absurd Supreme Court case that could gut the EPA

 

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency is a case about an environmental regulation that no longer exists, that never took effect, and that would not have accomplished very much if it had taken effect. If the plaintiffs prevail in their case, they will be in the exact same position they are in right now. It is a case about nothing.

 

Yet West Virginia could also be the most consequential environmental case to reach the Supreme Court in a very long time. The plaintiffs in this case, and in three other consolidated cases, seek an opinion from the Supreme Court that would do considerable violence to the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to, well, protect the environment. And if the Court indulges them, the fallout from this decision could wreak havoc throughout the federal government.

 

The cases involve the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era effort to fight climate change. When this plan was announced in 2015, it was widely touted as President Barack Obama’s most ambitious climate policy initiative. Obama’s EPA predicted that, by 2030, the Clean Power Plan would lower carbon emissions from power plants by about a third below where they stood in 2005.

 

When the Clean Power Plan was announced, the coal industry and many red states treated it like the apocalypse, warning that the plan would cause “tens of millions of tons of lost coal production, thousands of lost jobs in the mining industry, and rippling unemployment effects for those dependent on the coal industry.” Four days before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death temporarily deprived Republicans of a majority on the Supreme Court, the Court voted along party lines to suspend the plan.

 

Nevertheless, a small army of litigants are now in the Supreme Court asking the justices to strike down the Clean Power Plan — which, again, is not in effect right now, which never really took effect, and which President Joe Biden’s administration does not plan to reinstate.

 

But while it’s not at all clear that the Supreme Court has any business hearing this case — federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits where there is no live dispute between the two parties — the stakes in this case are still quite high. The plaintiffs challenging the nonexistent Clean Power Plan rely on arguments that, if taken seriously by the Supreme Court, could permanently strip federal agencies like the EPA of much of their authority to regulate.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

Solid pick.

[LD0506]

RBG smiles

[The Evil Genius]

 

[LD0506]

[China]

Prominent conservative judge who advised Pence on the 2020 election endorses Biden's Supreme Court nominee

 

The Biden White House is getting a major endorsement for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson from a prominent conservative.

 

In a statement obtained exclusively by CNN, retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, considered a luminary in conservative legal circles, enthusiastically endorsed Jackson, describing her as a candidate who is "eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States."

"Indeed, she is as highly credentialed and experienced in the law as any nominee in history, having graduated from the Harvard Law School with honors, clerked at the Supreme Court, and served as a Federal Judge for almost a decade." Luttig added.

 

Luttig played a critical role in the heated fight over the certification of the 2020 presidential election. In a series of tweets, he provided legal ammunition to help former Vice President Mike Pence defy then-President Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the election.

In his statement of support for Jackson, Luttig called for bipartisan support, writing that, "Republicans and Democrats alike should give their studied advice -- and then their consent -- to the President's nomination of Judge Jackson."

"Republicans, in particular," wrote Luttig, "should vote to confirm Judge Jackson."

 

Click on the link for the full article

[LD0506]

9 hours ago, China said:

"Republicans, in particular," wrote Luttig, "should vote to confirm Judge Jackson."

 

[China]

The Supreme Court could make it very easy for federal law enforcement to violate the Constitution

 

Robert Boule owns a bed and breakfast along the border between Washington State and Canada, which is cheekily named the “Smuggler’s Inn.” It’s a business that has a fairly shady reputation.

 

Boule admits that some of his guests used his property to illegally cross the border into Canada. In 2018, Canada charged Boule with multiple criminal violations “for his alleged involvement in helping foreign nationals enter Canada illegally between April 2016 and September 2017.”

 

Those charges were later dismissed by a Canadian court on constitutional grounds. But now, Boule’s somewhat sketchy inn is the subject of a Supreme Court case that could grant federal law enforcement officers sweeping immunity from lawsuits alleging that they violated the Constitution — even when those officers target people who are entirely innocent.

 

Egbert v. Boule could radically expand federal officers’ legal immunity
In March of 2014 Boule welcomed a guest who had recently arrived in the United States from Turkey. Although the guest was lawfully present in the United States, federal border patrol agent Erik Egbert decided to confront this guest when he arrived at Boule’s inn.

 

When the guest arrived, Egbert drove onto Boule’s property and approached the car containing the guest. After Boule asked Egbert to leave, and Egbert refused, Boule stepped between the border patrol agent and his guest. Egbert then allegedly shoved Boule against the car, grabbed him, and pushed him to the ground.

 

Then, after Boule complained to Egbert’s supervisor about this treatment, Egbert allegedly retaliated against him by contacting the Internal Revenue Service and asking that agency to investigate Boule’s tax statute.

 

Boule, in other words, alleges that Agent Egbert violated his constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and if Egbert did, indeed, assault Boule, that could form the basis for a valid Fourth Amendment lawsuit. Boule also claims he had a First Amendment right to complain to Egbert’s supervisor without facing retaliation.

 

And yet, in Egbert v. Boule, a case being argued in front of the Supreme Court this Wednesday, the Court is likely to cut off Boule’s lawsuit against Egbert before it even gets off the ground. In the process, the Court could gut a seminal precedent from the early 1970s establishing that federal law enforcement officers can be held personally responsible when they violate the Constitution.

 

Click on the link for the full article