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

[gbear]

I wouldn't be surprised if they remand the decision back to the D.C. court with instructions.  Then after a ruling in the D.C. court, Trump can appeal back to the Supreme Court.  I think that would maximize the delay.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, gbear said:

I wouldn't be surprised if they remand the decision back to the D.C. court with instructions.  Then after a ruling in the D.C. court, Trump can appeal back to the Supreme Court.  I think that would maximize the delay.

 

That's pretty much my bet. Delay is the ultimate goal. But IF he doesn't win the election, then you'll see them start letting stuff proceed.

[youngestson]

4 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

That's pretty much my bet. Delay is the ultimate goal. But IF he doesn't win the election, then you'll see them start letting stuff proceed.

I suspect 6 justices have already rough-drafted their argument aginst Presidential immunity in the case Biden wins. If Trump wins, the case goes away when he takes office or pardons himself, and their problem will be solved. 

[China]

7 hours ago, youngestson said:

I suspect 6 justices have already rough-drafted their argument aginst Presidential immunity in the case Biden wins. If Trump wins, the case goes away when he takes office or pardons himself, and their problem will be solved. 

 

Will be decided before the election.

[youngestson]

8 hours ago, China said:

 

Will be decided before the election.

I'm betting against that, but I've certainly been wrong before.

[tshile]

The “stacked conservative court” deals another blow to the *checks notes* republicans… ?

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html
 

 

Quote

CNN — 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government views as misinformation, handing the Biden administration a technical if important election-year victory.

 

 

Quote

“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think,” Alito wrote. “That is regrettable.”

 

He called the conduct of the officials sued in the case “unconstitutional,” “coercive” and “dangerous.”

 

“It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,” Alito wrote.

lol alito mad 

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

The grift behind american conservatism is very real. 

Edited June 26 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

24 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

The grift behind american conservatism is very real. 

The ruling doesn’t say it’s legal. 
 

it says the states and localities need to be the ones dealing with this specific type of case. That the federal law doesn’t cover it. 
 

that doesn’t mean it’s legal to bribe people. 

you all complain about how idiotic the right is, yet you do the same nonsense they do. 

 

[The Evil Genius]

55 minutes ago, tshile said:

The ruling doesn’t say it’s legal. 
 

it says the states and localities need to be the ones dealing with this specific type of case. That the federal law doesn’t cover it. 
 

that doesn’t mean it’s legal to bribe people. 

you all complain about how idiotic the right is, yet you do the same nonsense they do. 

 

 

I thought that SCOTUS ruled that the Republican former mayor was cleared since he took the bribes ahem gratuities after tha fact. And that US code 18 statute 666 didn't cover both briberies and gratuities.

 

Fwiw this SCOTUS does have a troubling pattern of weakening the ability of the federal.government to prosecute public corruption cases (e.g Bob McDonnell). So I still stand by my argument that American conservatism is a grift. 🙂

 

Fwiw, the conservative SCOTUS idea that any mayor receiving 13k in gratuities from a contractor of that town/city and that somehow that isn't a bribe...should concern everyone. 

Edited June 26 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I thought that SCOTUS ruled that the Republican former mayor was cleared since he took the bribes ahem gratuities after tha fact. And that US code 18 statute 666 didn't cover both briberies and gratuities.

 

Fwiw this SCOTUS does have a troubling pattern of weakening the ability of the federal.government to prosecute public corruption cases (e.g Bob McDonnell). So I still stand by my argument that American conservatism is a grift. 🙂

It didn’t cover after the fact stuff

if you read the ruling they go into explanation that these specific things are handled at the local/state level

 

and also suggest congress could amend the law to include it, but generally these have been handled at the local level 

 

which is not the same as ruling bribery is illegal. Which is what the tweets say and what people run with. 
 

scotus has had a long history of saying they don’t get to make legislation - if congress wants to pass new laws or amend things, have at it. But otherwise they work with what is written, as it was written. 
 

(I’m aware it seems they’ve played fast and loose with that at times but big picture they have more or less been consistent on that i believe)

[TheGreatBuzz]

 

 

[Larry]

They figured out that the GOP desperately needs somebody to save them from being held responsible for the legislation they knowingly voted to pass?  

[Simmsy]

4 minutes ago, Larry said:

They figured out that the GOP desperately needs somebody to save them from being held responsible for the legislation they knowingly voted to pass?  

 

Well, after two years of the GOP smashing everyone's rights, an afternoon of mega dump rulings isn't going to change much.

[The Evil Genius]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

It didn’t cover after the fact stuff

if you read the ruling they go into explanation that these specific things are handled at the local/state level

 

and also suggest congress could amend the law to include it, but generally these have been handled at the local level 

 

which is not the same as ruling bribery is illegal. Which is what the tweets say and what people run with. 
 

scotus has had a long history of saying they don’t get to make legislation - if congress wants to pass new laws or amend things, have at it. But otherwise they work with what is written, as it was written. 
 

(I’m aware it seems they’ve played fast and loose with that at times but big picture they have more or less been consistent on that i believe)

 

I really don't agree.

 

Having fully read Kavanaugh "Federalism is Guuuud" as long as it supports Republican causes summary..I still argue this is setting them up to protect their own conservative grift down the line

 

Remember kids..it's not bribes, according to Kavanaugh, if it comes after the fact. So all these little bribes..ahem...gratuities that he and his fellow judges have been pocketing without reporting..they arent bribes per se...theyre gratuities. And they are OK now and forever forward with this ruling, right? 

 

I mean..had Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas et al not all been making bank on "gratuities"..they wouldn't spend multiple pages talking about the difference between bribes and gratuities. And comparing $100 gift cards to Olive Garden or whatever the **** he wrote to $13k in payment to this mayor. Nor would they have to hide behind Federalism as an argument against this case being a bribe. 

 

It's a ridiculous concept that the Federalist Society is arguing, imho.

 

That 1, it's not a bribe and that 18 USC 666 only speaks to bribes. And that 2, the State (not Feds) should be handling this because SCOTUS is saying it wasn't a bribe. 

 

As a public sector employee, I can't think of many reasons that any public servant at any level should be accepting gratuities. 

Edited June 26 by The Evil Genius
Typos..

[TheGreatBuzz]

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

Glad they ruled against the sackler family. 
 

Don’t see anything wrong with todays rulings (not super familiar with all the cases)

[ixcuincle]

good call on the sackler ruling 

Just now, tshile said:

Glad they ruled against the sackler family. 
 

Don’t see anything wrong with todays rulings (not super familiar with all the cases)

big pharma is bad and should be held accountable.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[tshile]

The headlines are just so piss poor awful (unless I’m misunderstanding something about the rulings - which is entirely possible)

 

they didn’t limit the EPA - they issued a stay on their policy and kicked it back down to lower court to be litigated. That’s not limiting anything. 
 

they didn’t strip the SEC of enforcement practices - they simply ruled there is a right to a jury trial in federal court. 
 

 

[The Evil Genius]

31 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

they didn’t limit the EPA - they issued a stay on their policy and kicked it back down to lower court to be litigated. That’s not limiting anything. 

 

Well, tbf it will be held up in contested court cases for several years. And if a Republican wins the Presidency, it will be likely killed. So yeah, it did limit the EPA (both short term and possibly long term). It will also likely have long lasting effects on the EPA pursuing now very expensive civil court cases against polluters. I suspect the EPA will just not pursue as many cases as they did in the past. So more pollution. Yay big business. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

People seem to missing the horrible effects these Federalist Society majority rulings are going to have long term. 

 

 

How long until we learn Ohio has given bribes ahem gratuities to Gorsuch after this ruling?

Edited June 27 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

31 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Well, tbf it will be held up in contested court cases for several years. And if a Republican wins the Presidency, it will be likely killed. So yeah, it did limit the EPA (both short term and possibly long term). It will also likely have long lasting effects on the EPA pursuing now very expensive civil court cases against polluters. I suspect the EPA will just not pursue as many cases as they did in the past. So more pollution. Yay big business. 

Kicking something back to lower court to continue litigation isn’t stripping anyone of anything. 
 

the fact litigation takes a while is how the system works. The fact future presidents can change it, is also just the way the system works. 
 

the headlines are garbage and/or click-bait as are the tweets. Not sure why it’s so hard to just be honest about what’s going on. Especially the AP. 

And of course - no one actually reads the rulings or whatever garbage clarification exists 3/4 of the way through the article. 
 

so the garbage headlines is what everyone thinks 🙄

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

[China]

SCOTUS giving Trump an even longer delay:

 

Supreme Court Makes Another Abrupt Schedule Change

 

The U.S. Supreme Court made another abrupt schedule change on Thursday, confirming that the session will continue into July.

 

As the court scrambles to hand down opinions of its pending cases before the justices recess for the summer, it has added additional opinion days to the schedule. On Thursday, another schedule change was made when the court added an opinion day on Monday to the calendar on its website. Court sessions begin in October and can continue until late June or early July.

 

Court pundits had speculated about the schedule change because of something Chief Justice John Roberts did not do at the conclusion of court on Thursday morning.

 

"Court concludes without the Chief Justice announcing that tomorrow will be the final day of opinions. That means we're likely to have another opinion day next week," Kimberly Robinson, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law, wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Edited June 27 by China