Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

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


Recommended Posts

SCOTUS stayed the order that would have banned easy access to the abortion pill.


Alito wrote a dissent basically saying that no one would suffer harm because the case will be at the 5th Circuit in 25 days. 


He went out of his way to act like this in no way signals his take in the case that will make it to SCOTUS.

  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the right thing to do, would be a ruling that existing law will continue, until the full SCOTUS makes a ruling.  


It has to go to SCOTUS.  We have conflicting rulings, from different judges.  Least as I understand it, that's a pretty much guaranteed way to get a case before SCOTUS.  (Well, more accurately, having conflicting rulings from different appeals courts.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Fergasun said:

SCOTUS stayed the order that would have banned easy access to the abortion pill.


Alito wrote a dissent basically saying that no one would suffer harm because the case will be at the 5th Circuit in 25 days. 


He went out of his way to act like this in no way signals his take in the case that will make it to SCOTUS.

Alito is a piece of **** human. Definitely the guy that leaked the case that overturned Roe. We need term limits for the Court. No more lifetime appointments at any level. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2023 at 1:02 AM, The Evil Genius said:

Why would any drug maker make any drug and submit it through the FDA approval process if a moronic MAGA judge can just override science (and the FDA)? 


This. This here. This right here!!!


I'm trying to write a cogent comment, but just thinking about this makes me so angry it's hard to think straight. My career has been in biotech (compliance) and I've been fortunate enough to be part of 6 successful licensures over those 28 years. It's always a difficult path, and the FDA sets the bar really high. Overruling them would open the door to the kinds of nonsense that ended up getting people killed in the pre-FDA days.


For those interested, here's a decent summary: The History of the FD&C Act and Consumer Protection - MasterControl


For history buffs, here is a more complete series of short articles (from FDA):

Changes in Science, Law and Regulatory Authorities | FDA

Part I: The 1906 Food and Drugs Act and Its Enforcement | FDA

Part II: 1938, Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act | FDA

Part III: Drugs and Foods Under the 1938 Act and Its Amendments | FDA

Part IV: Regulating Cosmetics, Devices, and Veterinary Medicine After 1938 | FDA

Part V: Consumer Protection in the Late-20th Century | FDA

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supreme Court draws fire for ethics inaction


A new statement signed by all nine Supreme Court justices stressing their commitment to ethics principles has come under immediate fire for failing to respond to recent calls for the court to adopt a binding code of conduct.


The statement was attached to a letter from Chief Justice John Roberts to Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., made public Tuesday, in which he declined an invitation to testify at a committee hearing on the Supreme Court's ethics rules.


The statement, which notes that the justices “reaffirm and restate” their commitment to ethical principles, falls short on several fronts, legal ethics experts said. Democratic lawmakers were also quick to criticize it.


Several experts faulted the court for doubling down on its decision not to adopt a formal code of conduct when public trust in the institution has plummeted after high-profile ethical concerns as well as a public backlash to some of its rulings on hot-button issues like abortion and guns. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.


“It’s reflecting kind of a startling level of intransigence given the problems the court’s confronted," said Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, noting that public support for the court had plunged.


Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letter is a joke.  It raises more questions. "Judicial independence" is a joke if nothing happens to CT. 


Oh... sorry thar your preferred party doesn't have the President or Senate... every day he sits on the Court it's a disgrace. The fact he is not resigning is political.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senators unveil bipartisan proposal to require Supreme Court to adopt code of conduct


Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have introduced a bipartisan bill to require the Supreme Court to create a new code of conduct for itself after ProPublica revealed that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose luxury trips he accepted from Texas billionaire Harlan Crow.   

The bill would require the Supreme Court to implement a code of conduct within one year of its enactment into law and publish the new code on its website so it’s available to the public. 


It would further require the court to name an individual to handle any complaints of violations of the code and give the court authority to initiate investigations to determine if justices or staff have engaged in conduct affecting the administration of justice or violating federal laws or codes of conduct.   

It would empower the court to draft its own code of conduct to preserve the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches, thereby deflecting any criticism that members of Congress would be interfering in the court’s affairs.   


“The Supreme Court Code of Conduct Act is a commonsense step to restore and maintain faith in the high court by requiring the creation of consistent, transparent rules like the ones that apply to every other federal judge across our democracy. The other two branches of government already have codes of conduct, it is only reasonable the full Judiciary should as well,” King said in a statement. 


Click on the link for the full article 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

JFC. Are all of the GOP judges corrupt as ****?

I would be cautious about just declaring, without proof, that every single R judge is laundering bribe money through their spouse. 

(Or assuming that only the Rs are doing so.)


But, what we do know?  

Every single R judge, for my entire life?  Got the job specifically because:  


1). He has spent his entire adult life, from college onward, making it known (to the right people) that he has a lifetime commitment to banning abortion. 
2). He has never, from law school onward, expressed this sentiment in writing. 
3). He is perfectly willing, under oath, to swear that he has no opinion on the subject whatsoever. 

And is willing to spend decades of his life, doing these things. If it will get him the job. 

So I guess the answer to your question depends on your definition of "corrupt as ****". 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supreme Court to hear major case on limiting the power of federal government, a long-term goal of legal conservatives


The Supreme Court agreed Monday to reconsider long held precedent and decide whether to significantly scale back on the power of federal agencies in a case that can impact everything from how the government addresses everything from climate change to public health to immigration.


Conservative justices have long sought to rein in regulatory authority, arguing that Washington has too much control over American businesses and individual lives. The justices have been incrementally diminishing federal power but the new case would allow them to take a much broader stride.


The justices announced they would take up an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.


Their action means they will reconsider a 1984 case – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law.


Conservatives on the bench have cast a skeptical eye on the so-called Chevron deference, arguing that agencies are often too insulated from the usual checks and balances essential to the separation of powers.


“The idea that agencies should be allowed to resolve ambiguities in statutes that they enforce has been a central feature of modern administrative law,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.


“If it’s up to courts rather than agencies to resolve ambiguities even in statutes delegating highly technical authority to the executive branch, that will give courts more power – and the executive branch less – on everything from environmental regulation to immigration to public health to meat inspections to telecommunications policy,” Vladeck said. “In that respect, it’s consistent with the current conservative majority’s pattern of weakening the administrative state – in favor of judicial power to answer all of these questions.”


The case will be heard next term, with a ruling likely in 2024.


Click on the link for the full article

  • Thumb down 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...