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

[China]

Justice Samuel Alito Is Just Begging for Regulations on the Supreme Court

 

On April 25, all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court signed a Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices, which they submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

“In regard to recusal,” the justices unanimously declared that they “follow the same general principles and statutory standards as other federal judges.”

 

It took Justice Samuel Alito less than five months to renege on his written commitment to his colleagues and the public. In a four-page statement issued on Sept. 8, Alito declined to recuse himself from a major tax case, without a single citation, reference, or acknowledgement of either the federal recusal statute or the “general principles” that he had so recently agreed to follow.

 

Instead of applying statutory law or Supreme Court precedents, Alito invented an entirely new rule, never before invoked by any justice. Claiming that recusal is simply the “personal decision of each justice,” Alito announced that he would recuse himself only on the basis of a so-called “sound reason”—an undefined, and previously unknown, rationale that has no inherent meaning.

 

Both the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the late Justice Antonin Scalia published opinions explaining their non-recusals. Each justice premised his decision on the federal recusal statute, quoting the provision that a justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

 

Click on the link for more

[China]

A Supreme Court case about hotel websites could blow up much of US civil rights law

 

Deborah Laufer has filed more than 600 different lawsuits — many of which, according to a federal court in Maryland, appear to follow the same pattern. The defendants are typically small hotels, and Laufer accuses them of failing to comply with a federal regulation requiring that they disclose on their websites whether their rooms are accessible to people with disabilities.

 

She also has a remarkable penchant for hiring ethically challenged lawyers. One, Tristan Gillespie, was suspended from the bar of that same Maryland court, in large part because of a scheme where he would use Laufer’s cases to squeeze money out of these hotels for work that he never did. Another, Thomas Bacon, was, according to the court, Gillespie’s “boss” and the mastermind of a “scheme that raises serious ethical concerns.” Another former lawyer, Daniel Ruggiero, was recently forbidden from practicing law for a year due to an unrelated scheme targeting homeowners with unpaid mortgage bills.

 

Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, one of Laufer’s many cases, is now before the Supreme Court. (The case will be argued on October 4.) It reads like the sort of horror story that business lobbyists tell lawmakers in order to sell them on tort reform. It involves a perennial plaintiff and lawyers who appear to have profited from a scheme to shake down small business owners — at least one of whom, Gillespie, is the subject of a blistering federal court opinion disciplining him for unethical behavior.

 

But behind the absurd facts underlying the case are fairly high stakes. They involve “testers,” civil rights plaintiffs who volunteer to face discrimination so that someone may challenge a discriminatory business’s behavior in court. There are very good reasons why Laufer — whose many lawsuits more than push the limits of the federal courts’ jurisdiction — should not be allowed to file these suits. But, in the worst-case scenario for civil rights advocates, a Supreme Court dominated by conservative Republicans may not only shut down Laufer’s vast array of lawsuits. They may also do considerable harm to civil rights writ large.

 

It’s hard to assess how likely this outcome is, beyond the fact that the current crop of justices frequently changes the law to benefit conservative causes. But there is, at least, a real risk that a majority of the justices are so angered by Laufer’s blizzard of lawsuits, and by the behavior of some of her lawyers, that they hand down a far-too-sweeping decision cutting off many meritorious challenges to discrimination.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The Evil Genius]

 

[China]

At this point they could have Alito and Thomas on video accepting cash bribes of a million dollars and they wouldn't recuse, wouldn't resign, and Republicans would say that there was nothing wrong with their actions and should be left alone.

 

Not sure what can be done to get accountability and ethics into the Supreme Court.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Larry]

On 9/26/2023 at 4:34 PM, China said:

Not sure what can be done to get accountability and ethics into the Supreme Court.

 

Vote Dem.  

 

[samy316]

12 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Vote Dem.  

 

 

That wouldn't do anything.  All of the SC Judges that are right wing are set in their ways as far as staying in their seats until death.  Clarence Thomas is 75, Sam Alito is 73.  Other than that, all the other RW SC Judges are 68 or younger.  They'll be on the bench for a LONG time.  It wouldn't matter to vote Dem or not, because seats won't open up for years, possibly decades and Congress is NEVER going to allow a vote on term limits to the SC or expanding the number of seats in the SC to 13 or more.  Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson are going to be the last justices sworn in to the SC for a LONG time.

Edited September 28, 2023 by samy316

[The Sisko]

25 minutes ago, samy316 said:

 

That wouldn't do anything.  All of the SC Judges that are right wing are set in their ways as far as staying in their seats until death.  Clarence Thomas is 75, Sam Alito is 73.  Other than that, all the other RW SC Judges are 68 or younger.  They'll be on the bench for a LONG time.  It wouldn't matter to vote Dem or not, because seats won't open up for years, possibly decades and Congress is NEVER going to allow a vote on term limits to the SC or expanding the number of seats in the SC to 13 or more.  Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson are going to be the last justices sworn in to the SC for a LONG time.

At some point, Dems will have control of Congress and the WH. Whenever it happens, they'd damn well better make their move on a lot of key issues. There will be fillibusters, but I'm hoping that for once, the Dems have the cojones to change the rules to restore the talking fillibuster.

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, samy316 said:

That wouldn't do anything.  All of the SC Judges that are right wing are set in their ways as far as staying in their seats until death.

🤔

[samy316]

44 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

At some point, Dems will have control of Congress and the WH. Whenever it happens, they'd damn well better make their move on a lot of key issues. There will be fillibusters, but I'm hoping that for once, the Dems have the cojones to change the rules to restore the talking fillibuster.

 

That's unlikely to happen.  The Dems quite frankly are too weak and meek to even try to bring this topic up, and that was with them having a slim majority in 2021 and 22.  Nothing's changed since then, and Dems don't want to rock the boat like that, because if you expand the court to 13 or 16, or more, where will it stop?  The Repubs will just change everything back as soon as they retake power, and then you'll have a back and forth affair.  You can forget about term/age limits too.  If you argue that you need an age limit in the SC, you will open up a can of worms on whether or not that should also apply to Congress.  We'll see how well that goes over, since the average age of Congress now is approaching 65.

 

This goes back to the 2016 election.  That election might end up being the most consequential election of our lifetimes, because it set in motion a right wing takeover of the SC for the next several decades, and the repealing of Roe Vs. Wade, Affirmative Action and future major civil rights decisions as we move forward here over the next couple of years.  The Dems have no one to blame but themselves for what happened.  They ran a poor candidate, AND that forced enough people to stay at home, so that an urchin like Trump seized power.  The Dems dropped the ball in 2016, and we might not recover from that in our lifetime because of it.  Obama and RBG are not blameless for the result of 2016.  Obama had 8 years to try to convince RBG to retire, so that the Dems could put a younger SC justice in, but Obama didn't try hard enough, and RBG was too stubborn to retire.  That was a costly mistake that unfortunately will have grave consequences moving forward.

Edited September 28, 2023 by samy316

[The Evil Genius]

Respectfully, morons who voted Trump and didn't vote for an extremely quailified and capable HRC in 2016 are to blame for this. 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[samy316]

8 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Respectfully, morons who voted Trump and didn't vote for HRC in 2016 are to blame for this. 

 

 

 

 

Whose fault is that though?  Hilary and the DNC underestimated the affect of Trump, and the danger he posed.  She didn't even bother campaigning in the states that were vital to her winning the election.  If she had just simply tried to campaign in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.  She and the Dems took those states for granted, and it cost them dearly.  Every vote counts.  She ended up losing those three states by a combined 80K votes.  She was one of the worst candidates I've seen in quite sometime.  The DNC was salivating at the thought of going up against Trump in 2016, because they underestimated how the RW voters were swayed by what he had to say, and about the appeal of an outsider running against an unpopular opponent.

 

As for the morons who voted for Trump, there's nothing anyone can really do about that.  Politics is as tribal today as it's ever been, so of course RW voters will vote for anyone with an R next to their name.  They don't matter.  Dem voters don't ultimately matter either.  Independents are the ones who win or lose elections.  Enough of them stayed home on Election Day 2016, and that shifted the election to Trump.  The DNC is partly responsible for what happened.  They were too unaware and too ****y to ever realize the clear and present danger that Trump presented.

Edited September 28, 2023 by samy316

[The Sisko]

14 minutes ago, samy316 said:

 

Whose fault is that though?  Hilary and the DNC underestimated the affect of Trump, and the danger he posed.  She didn't even bother campaigning in the states that were vital to her winning the election.  If she had just simply tried to campaign in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.  She and the Dems took those states for granted, and it cost them dearly.  Every vote counts.  She ended up losing those three states by a combined 80K votes.  She was one of the worst candidates I've seen in quite sometime.  The DNC was salivating at the thought of going up against Trump in 2016, because they underestimated how the RW voters were swayed by what he had to say, and about the appeal of an outsider running against an unpopular opponent.

 

As for the morons who voted for Trump, there's nothing anyone can really do about that.  Politics is as tribal today as it's ever been, so of course RW voters will vote for anyone with an R next to their name.  They don't matter.  Dem voters don't ultimately matter either.  Independents are the ones who win or lose elections.  Enough of them stayed home on Election Day 2016, and that shifted the election to Trump.  The DNC is partly responsible for what happened.  They were too unaware and too ****y to ever realize the clear and present danger that Trump presented.

In the 2016 primaries, the Dems were dealing with a Kobayashi Maru. The US was/is a center/far-right country, and Bernie Sanders was a disaster waiting to happen. So, they ran the only candidate they had with a chance to win a national election. Aside from the moronic US voters, I blame Sanders for his tepid support and especially Jill Stein, who took away enough votes in some of the swing states to give Tя☭mp the win. I agree that Hillary ran a poor campaign. However, she should have beaten a loser like Tя☭mp in spite of that. In the end, I don't think any candidate could have overcome all the things working against her.

As for SCOTUS, one of the best and fairest ideas I've heard is term limits. TLDR: SCOTUS appointments would be for 18-year terms, after which they'd rotate back into a lower court position. It would negate the Grand Oligarch's Party's strategy of appointing 12-year-olds to lifetime positions and would give every POTUS an equal number of appointments.

[samy316]

Just now, The Sisko said:

In the 2016 primaries, the Dems were dealing with a Kobayashi Maru. The US was/is a center/far-right country, and Bernie Sanders was a disaster waiting to happen. So, they ran the only candidate they had with a chance to win a national election. Aside from the moronic US voters, I blame Sanders for his tepid support and especially Jill Stein, who took away enough votes in some of the swing states to give Tя☭mp the win. I agree that Hillary ran a poor campaign. However, she should have beaten a loser like Tя☭mp in spite of that. In the end, I don't think any candidate could have overcome all the things working against her.

As for SCOTUS, one of the best and fairest ideas I've heard is term limits. TLDR: SCOTUS appointments would be for 18-year terms, after which they'd rotate back into a lower court position. It would negate the Grand Oligarch's Party's strategy of appointing 12-year-olds to lifetime positions and would give every POTUS an equal number of appointments.

 

I admit that she had a lot going against her, but at the end of the day, her mistakes were simple and ended up being costly.  She should've been trying to appeal to those blue collar workers in PA, MI and WI.  If she had tried to appeal to that voter base in those purple states, she would've been President.  The DNC and her campaign advisors are at fault here too.  They ran a terrible campaign.   

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, samy316 said:

 

Whose fault is that though?  Hilary and the DNC underestimated the affect of Trump, and the danger he posed.  She didn't even bother campaigning in the states that were vital to her winning the election.  If she had just simply tried to campaign in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.  She and the Dems took those states for granted, and it cost them dearly.  Every vote counts.  She ended up losing those three states by a combined 80K votes.  She was one of the worst candidates I've seen in quite https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-pennsylvania-michigan-wisconsin-what-happened-2017-9

 

sometime.  The DNC was salivating at the thought of going up against Trump in 2016, because they underestimated how the RW voters were swayed by what he had to say, and about the appeal of an outsider running against an unpopular opponent.

 

As for the morons who voted for Trump, there's nothing anyone can really do about that.  Politics is as tribal today as it's ever been, so of course RW voters will vote for anyone with an R next to their name.  They don't matter.  Dem voters don't ultimately matter either.  Independents are the ones who win or lose elections.  Enough of them stayed home on Election Day 2016, and that shifted the election to Trump.  The DNC is partly responsible for what happened.  They were too unaware and too ****y to ever realize the clear and present danger that Trump presented.

 

I just want top point out there isn't much here that's actually true.

 

Did you read the link you posted?

 

She put more resources into PA and MI than Obama did.

[samy316]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I just want top point out there isn't much here that's actually true.

 

Did you read the link you posted?

 

She put more resources into PA and MI than Obama did.

That was the wrong link.  Look at these two:

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
 

That doesn’t match your claims that the Clinton campaign noticed or paid attention to those states.  She’s still befuddled by her losses in those stages to this very day.

[skinsmarydu]

I DON'T WANT TO REVISIT THAT HISTORY. 

It led to some seriously terrible things in my life.  I need some good things now. 

Let's get Biden re-elected. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, samy316 said:

That was the wrong link.  Look at these two:

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
 

That doesn’t match your claims that the Clinton campaign noticed or paid attention to those states.  She’s still befuddled by her losses in those stages to this very day.

 

How was the first link wrong?  Please point to the specific number in the first link that is wrong and give a source that explains why it is wrong.

 

The numbers don't lie.  She spent more money in PA and MI than Obama.  She did visit PA and MI.  The differences in votes in those states between her and Obama were small. 

 

These two links are all anecdotal stories, and there's no evidence that any of those things actually mattered.   If anything, the numbers support that things like signs in front of homes don't matter (assuming they weren't actually handing out signs in front of homes).

 

We know what the numbers were.  In PA and MI, Trump drove out a group of voters that didn't normally vote at numbers that were unusual.  And a normal Presidential year turnout by Democrats wasn't enough to over come it.  

 

WI is a little different.  The Democratic turnout there was lower than you'd expect given, but I suspect your first link is right and studies back up the idea the reason for the difference in her vote totals and Obama's vote totals in WI were likely due to voter ID law there that suppressed the vote.

 

https://harvardpolitics.com/wisconsin-voter-suppression/

 

She actually seems to have a good handle on why she lost based on the actual numbers/data and not anecdotal stories that can't actually be backed up by numbers.

 

*EDIT*

Just to be clear, Hillary wasn't a great candidate.  She didn't excite people like Obama in 2008 or Trump in 2016.  But she was a completely competent candidate that got a completely reasonable number of votes that would have generally won the Democrats the President. To call her a bad candidate just isn't true when you look at the data.

 

And there's no data that supports her going to more events in MI, WI, or PA would have mattered.  When anybody or any thing ever loses, you can always makeup a 1000 reasons why that happened, but that doesn't mean they are right or are actually supported by data.

 

If you want more on why her allocation of her resources didn't actually cost her the election try this:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-ground-game-didnt-cost-her-the-election/

 

And if you want the best answer why she lost, it is probably the Comey letter.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Edited September 28, 2023 by PeterMP

[tshile]

It cracks me up democrats still hold onto the narrative of how awesome a candidate Hillary Clinton was. 
 

 

[samy316]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

It cracks me up democrats still hold onto the narrative of how awesome a candidate Hillary Clinton was. 
 

 

 

I know, right?  They can't be serious with that.  Dems made a big mistake running Hilary in 2016.  Joe Biden should've ran.  He would've easily defeated Trump, and prevented the madness that was to come afterwards.  Joe not running in 2016 was a terrible blow.  He would've gotten Independents out to vote.  Hilary's unlikability numbers were off the charts, even before Trump decided to run.

 

She literally lost to the dumbest, and the worst presidential candidate OF ALL TIME.  How do you lose to a psychopath like Trump?  It defies logic and understanding, yet Dems STILL defend her candidacy and her campaign strategy.  It's unbelievable.

Edited September 28, 2023 by samy316

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, samy316 said:

They can't be serious with that

Oh no, they’re very serious. 

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

It cracks me up democrats still hold onto the narrative of how awesome a candidate Hillary Clinton was. 
 

 

 

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Oh no, they’re very serious. 

 

Except I literally said she wasn't a great candidate.

 

"Just to be clear, Hillary wasn't a great candidate."  And described her as competent.

 

Unless you live in a world where competent = awesome and not great.

[samy316]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Except I literally said she wasn't a great candidate.

 

"Just to be clear, Hillary wasn't a great candidate."  And described her as competent.

 

Unless you live in a world where competent = awesome and not great.

 

I don't mean you specifically, just the Dems I see online (mostly Twitter) that still take up for Hilary.  Some of them are blind as to why she was such an unlikeable, underwhelming candidate.

Edited September 28, 2023 by samy316

[Larry]

Just pointing out - Hillary is not on the Supreme Court.  

 

 

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Except I literally said she wasn't a great candidate.

 

"Just to be clear, Hillary wasn't a great candidate."  And described her as competent.

 

Unless you live in a world where competent = awesome and not great.

I don’t consider you a democrat - you may identify that way, but you’ve never come across that way to me. You’ve always come across as someone that’s flat out just interested in the facts and enjoys conversations that have a solid baseline of intellect involved… not someone that has a specific ideology they cling to 
 

I honestly wasn’t referring to you. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by tshile