Welcome to Thunderdome

SCOTUS to rule on how the DOJ got convictions on many Jan 6th rioters.

Again, CNN calls them rioters throughout the article. I wonder why they changed their tone and definition of these people?

SCOTUS also may scale back power of federal agencies.

Article about a small firm getting a good share of SCOTUS cases and their unique approach to them.

Interesting read, but posting because of this:

At issue Tuesday is a Federal Reserve rule adopted in 2011 that caps debit card fees for merchants at 21 cents per transaction plus a .05% fee on the value of the purchase. Several merchant groups sued in 2021, claiming the cap was too high and that the government set it arbitrarily in violation of federal administrative law.

Seeking the case’s dismissal, the government cited a six-year statute of limitations it said barred the lawsuit. In response, the plaintiffs added the truck stop, Corner Post, which didn’t open its doors until 2018.

Bryan Weir, in his debut appearance at the Supreme Court, will argue the clock starts on the statute of limitations when a plaintiff – in this case, the truck stop – is affected. The Biden administration will counter that the clock starts when the rule goes into effect.

Two lower federal courts sided with the government. The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Corner Post “waited more than three years to file this lawsuit.”

Notice the government makes no argument about the merits of the case. They are simply saying, "You waited too long, so fuck you. We got away with it."

Why wouldn't this be something that, a government that works for its people, can examine at any point and see if it's harming its citizens and/or businesses?

SCOTUS to rule on Biden's "Good Neighbor" policy.

I don't have an opinion on who's right or wrong here. I've always understood both side of environmental debates: "Don't pollute vs Don't destroy the economy saving the world".

However, I think government needs to take a different approach to environmental stuff. Offer incentives to cut emissions to certain levels and offer financial and technical assistance if needed/requested. Even offer incentives for companies to only do business with other companies that have met whatever standard you're pushing?

The current method of passing a strict law only to then have corporations fight it in court seems like a waste of time and money.

Iirc, it was already determined with school newspapers that children didn't have 1A rights.

That being said, Facebook isn't going to want children off, because that's less ad revenue.

Feds are moving to stop "judge shopping".

What took them so long to figure out this was a problem?

Somehow I suspect corporations will still find friendly judges...

Will review ghost gun regulations

I believe I'm with the government on this one. I'm all for people owning whatever they want, but there's no legit reason to not have serial numbers on these things.

When the Russians land in Kansas they'll be able to go to the local courthouse and know which people have guns tho.

Putting this here because it's a court thing.

There are two other videos in the thread, but I'm hoping Troy can say what it all means. I understand the argument about the contempt of court and why the lawyer believes he should have been included in whatever conversation took place, but what's going on overall? How is Fanni Willis involved? How is this corruption, bullying, witness intimidation, etc.?

White House and other feds allowed to.... persuade? social media companies to take down what they deem to be misinformation.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics ... index.html

Yay.

A garbage ruling made by a government that does not work for the people.

Threw out Chevron weakening the power of government agencies.

IMHO, the correct ruling, but it will inevitably lead to more corporations shitting on people and the environment. Not because the agencies need that power, but because the people who should pass the laws suck.

Ruled homeless people can be ticketed for sleeping outside, including in cars.

This one is interesting. It seems like this is a classic "feelings vs. law" situation. The dissenting judges, the libs, argue this is an attack on homeless people and cruel. I get it. However, maybe as a society we shouldn't be so keen to accept homeless people and the conditions that create them as acceptable? Yes, this may hold some homeless people down or hurt them, but perhaps it will force government to stop passing policies that create so many homeless?

Say federal prosecutors overstepped with obstruction charges for Jan 6th rioters.

All those cases will need to be reopened, sentences reduced, people possibly let out, and so on. Also, this impact Trump's trial, although how much is up for debate.

It's still interesting to me that the MSM has completely dropped "insurrectionists" when discussing Jan 6th, yet still call the event an insurrection.

Leisher wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:34 am Threw out Chevron weakening the power of government agencies.

IMHO, the correct ruling, but it will inevitably lead to more corporations shitting on people and the environment. Not because the agencies need that power, but because the people who should pass the laws suck.

A major goal of the conservative legal movement: Friday’s ruling undoes a precedent that empowered executive branch agencies, which many conservatives have come to believe are dominated by liberals under both parties’ administrations — a critique often described as “the deep state.”

Amusing that SCOTUS makes a move to reduce executive power, the day after Trump's chances of being president again went up.

GORDON wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 12:40 pm Amusing that SCOTUS makes a move to reduce executive power, the day after Trump's chances of being president again went up.

I don't think it applies to executive orders, just agencies like the Department of Education, Department of Justice, National Park Services, and so on.

I think?

Rules Trump has some immunity on Jan 6th.

Deflects, for now, on state laws aimed at websites censoring conservative opinions.

It also reflects some of the difficulty the justices faced in trying to understand the reach of the Florida and Texas laws, which proponents said would help guarantee the freedom of internet users’ speech but that opponents said infringed on platforms’ own First Amendment rights and would make social media an unworkable mess.

Emphasis mine. Are they fucking kidding? When hasn't social media been an unworkable mess?

And honestly, what's their real argument here? "Allowing all opinions is bad because then everyone will have a voice"?

A truck stop can sue the Fed over debit card fees.

Wondering if Justice Jackson is a fucking idiot? Worry no more!

Here she is comparing blocking transgender healthcare to children and laws against interracial marriage.

Obviously not allowing the permanent mutilation of a child's body when the laws clearly state that they are not capable of making long term decisions, is exactly the same as some old racists not wanting to see whites and blacks have their names together on a piece of paper that is easily reversed.

BTW, fuck these bigoted CNN hacks pushing their politics.

It was a particularly poignant moment in the argument over Tennessee’s law,

No, it wasn't. It was a political maneuver trying to make a comparison to two cases where there isn't any similarity in the core issue.

For example:

The court’s ruling in Loving rejected the state’s arguments for why its ban on interracial marriage passed constitutional muster. The state had said that since the ban applied to both White and Black people, it didn’t treat either group differently based on race. It also said the court should defer to the state on the issue given countervailing scientific views.

Interesting that they mention the "scientific views" on that case, but don't go into it here. Perhaps because the science clearly states that transgender care for children is damaging, doesn't save lives (the suicide rate has been completely unaffected), is really just profit based, etc.

Puberty blockers and surgeries to remove/add parts is FOR LIFE. Marriage is until you hire a lawyer to get out of it. They are not the same thing.

SCOTUS passes on obvious way Boston schools are circumventing the end of Affirmative Action.

Also pass on a gender case in Wisconsin.

I don't even know how that one got to SCOTUS. If the parents couldn't prove the policies exist in the lower court, why would SCOTUS hear it? Get more evidence and try again.

Leisher wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2024 10:49 am SCOTUS passes on obvious way Boston schools are circumventing the end of Affirmative Action.

SCOTUS has already held that institutions can have some form of diversity policies, and this seems consistent with that.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2024 11:13 am

Leisher wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2024 10:49 am SCOTUS passes on obvious way Boston schools are circumventing the end of Affirmative Action.

SCOTUS has already held that institutions can have some form of diversity policies, and this seems consistent with that.

The problem with that is where does the line get created between "this is ok" and "this is not". As true with ANY issue, if you give people a way to abuse something, they will.

the proportion of admitted students who were White or Asian fell from 61% to 49%

I would argue that in today's US, "diversity policies", is just a nice way of saying "racist policies". Diversity can be great. It can also be terrible. Skin color (Or really any of our differences: sex, gender, religion, age, political ideology, etc.) should only ever matter if it matters to the job. (EX: Hooters)

That being said, I am actually fine with how this program operates because they're taking the highest scores from three different zip codes. Meaning, they really do not know the applicant's race. However, as I said above, I'd like a line to be set. Perhaps SCOTUS has one in mind, but it has to be publicly established. And maybe they want to get that line drawn but this isn't the case for that?

I wonder if they would have accepted the case if heavier emphasis was given to kids in one area code over the others or if a fourth or more area codes were excluded?