SCOTUS Watch

[Smoove_B]

It's almost like appointing someone to a position for life and making it crystal clear they're accountable to no one can influence their behavior.

[Daehawk]

Now who would do such a thing?

[Punisher]

Now who would do such a thing?

That's what's great about tjis country!
Nobody in their right mind here would ever do such a thing!

[Smoove_B]

I'll just put this here for posterity. It doesn't really matter:

Justice Samuel Alito spoke candidly about the ideological battle between the left and the right — discussing the difficulty of living “peacefully” with ideological opponents in the face of “fundamental” differences that “can’t be compromised.” He endorsed what his interlocutor described as a necessary fight to “return our country to a place of godliness.” And Alito offered a blunt assessment of how America’s polarization will ultimately be resolved: “One side or the other is going to win.”

Alito made these remarks in conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3, a function that is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices. His comments were recorded by Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker. Windsor attended the dinner as a dues-paying member of the society under her real name, along with a colleague. She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative.

...

n the intervening year, she tells the justice, her views on the matter had changed. “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor says. “I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”

“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

And the kicker:

Windsor goes on to tell Alito: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”

“I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito, who authored the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which reversed five decades of settled law and ended a constitutional right to abortion.

Vote. Please.

[Punisher]

Ok.
So obviously if you have a different religion than Christianity or catholicism, such as Buddhism or Muslim, he is all for having that in the schools as well?
Seems logical to me.

[Daehawk]

He shouldn't even be a SCJ. SCJs need to be impartial and neutral with no party, political, or religious leanings in their interpretation of the law. Unfortunately in this county some of us have voted, and allowed to be voted, in persons not of these principles. Its a rot at our core and it needs to be dug out post haste.

[stessier]

Phew. Although the reasoning is troubling.

Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill

The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a lawsuit seeking to roll back access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortions. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the doctors and medical groups challenging the expansion of access to the drug by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 and 2021 lack a legal right to sue, known as standing. The justices did not reach the merits of the challenge – that is, they did not rule on whether the FDA acted properly in expanding access to mifepristone.

Writing for the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged what he characterized as the challengers’ “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections” to elective abortion “by others” and to FDA’s 2016 and 2021 changes to the conditions on the use of the drug. But the challengers had not shown that they would be harmed by the FDA’s mifepristone policies, he explained, and under the Constitution, merely objecting to abortion and the FDA’s policies are not enough to bring a case in federal court. The proper place to voice those objections, he suggested, is in the political or regulatory arena.

[Blackhawk]

Well, at least it's one bullet temporarily dodged.

[Holman]

Well, at least it's one bullet temporarily dodged.

Or another Dobbs. They saw what happened last time.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, they're punting until they see what happens in November. If the GOP regains full control, bet on restrictions.

[Blackhawk]

Thus the 'temporarily'.

[waitingtoconnect]

Well, at least it's one bullet temporarily dodged.

They were told what they had to do. Get someone who has been “hurt” by it to bring a case. The anguished father who wanted to keep the baby or a mother who regretted the decision…

They are already moving…

[Isgrimnur]

Justices uphold Trump tax on overseas investments in win for Biden

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Trump-era tax on overseas investments, rejecting an argument from a Washington state couple in a case that could have jeopardized existing tax provisions and torpedoed Democratic talk of a wealth tax.

A 7-2 majority upheld the tax, though several justices offered differing rationales.

In reading his opinion from the bench, Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly stressed that the court’s decision was “narrow” and did not implicate the raging debate over a wealth tax.

At issue in the closely watched tax case was whether the government could levy a tax on investment proceeds that had not yet been received. Charles and Kathleen Moore, a Washington state couple, challenged a $15,000 tax bill they received because of their investment in an India-based company. The profit at issue, the Moores claimed, were reinvested and never distributed to them.

The tax involved was enacted by Congress in 2017 as part of a larger package signed by then-President Donald Trump. The one-time mandatory repatriation tax was levied on shareholders on undistributed profits accrued between 1986 and the end of 2017 by certain foreign corporations that are majority owned by Americans. The provision was expected to raise $340 billion over a decade.

[Smoove_B]

I feel like there's something else the SCOTUS is slow-rolling a opinion on that's kinda big. I guess maybe they're going to drop it next Friday and smoke-bomb into Summer break?

EDIT: Oh, now I'm seeing they'll be releasing it next Wednesday - just in time for the debate.

[Smoove_B]

Gun restrictions upheld:

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.

The court on an 8-1 vote ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law — one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges.

...

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that since the United States was founded "our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."

The provision at issue in the case "fits comfortably within this tradition," he added.

...

In his dissent, Thomas stuck to his view that the history of similar laws at the time of the nation's founding is determinative. Other justices are more willing to consider laws that are not exactly the same but have a similar effect.

"Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue," Thomas wrote.

[hepcat]

I mean, Thomas would vote to bring back slavery at this point simply because it existed at the founding our country.

[Smoove_B]

Presidential Immunity ruling is going to be awesome next week, bank on it.

[Pyperkub]

Presidential Immunity ruling is going to be awesome next week, bank on it.

Chevron has the potential to be worse. there will be CYA in presidential immunity, but Chevron? The last 2 decades of Court decisions have most predictably been in favor of Corporations and Money, and this jumps to the front there. While civil rights/presidential/power/religious freedom to discrimminate etc. have all gotten some love, it's Corporate Money rulership which has been the most consistent fuckwittery, and banning regulations and rule making and throwing it to the Courts/Congress is all about enabling regulatory capture and monopoly.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, the Chevron thing isn't great, but the Presidential immunity case is going to potentially have immediate and consequential ripples.

The Chevron could also have significant ripples, but I'm not sure they will be nearly as immediate as the immunity case.

Either way, next week has the potential to be really terrible.

[Blackhawk]

My nerves can't handle borrowing trouble that I have no control over.

I'll worry about the verdict when we actually see what it is. That'll free up time to stress about other things in the meantime.

[Holman]

It's almost like appointing someone to a position for life and making it crystal clear they're accountable to no one can influence their behavior.

What's so evil is that the Clarence Thomas position seems to be this: a couple of decades ago he hinted that he wasn't making enough money as a SC Justice and was considering retirement to a lucrative law-firm perch. From that point he began receiving the undeclared gifts and benefits that have made his life what it is. Donors became aware that he was for sale.

In other words: sure, he has no moral compass, but he's not going to ruin the American experiment just for free.

(Whenever anyone tries to say that George HW Bush was a decent sort of Republican, remind them that Bush chose Thomas to replace Justice *Thurgood Marshall*.)

[Punisher]

Part of me wants to see presidential immunity confirmed just to see if Biden takes advantage of it.
Most of me wants a no because as fun as it would be to see Biden take advantage of it, he won't be around forever and who knows what kind monsters we might get in the future.
Maybe just rule yes but it only until November 5th...

[Kurth]

Part of me wants to see presidential immunity confirmed just to see if Biden takes advantage of it.
Most of me wants a no because as fun as it would be to see Biden take advantage of it, he won't be around forever and who knows what kind monsters we might get in the future.
Maybe just rule yes but it only until November 5th...

I don’t think we have to strain all that much to imagine what kind of monster we might get in the future. Especially when the future is 2024.

[LawBeefaroni]

Part of me wants to see presidential immunity confirmed just to see if Biden takes advantage of it.
Most of me wants a no because as fun as it would be to see Biden take advantage of it, he won't be around forever and who knows what kind monsters we might get in the future.
Maybe just rule yes but it only until November 5th...

I don’t think we have to strain all that much to imagine what kind of monster we might get in the future. Especially when the future is 2024.

[YellowKing]

Part of me wants to see presidential immunity confirmed just to see if Biden takes advantage of it.

The thing is, Biden wouldn't take advantage of it because he's a good person.

[geezer]

Part of me wants to see presidential immunity confirmed just to see if Biden takes advantage of it.

The thing is, Biden wouldn't take advantage of it because he's a good person.

IANAL. But I can't image any outcome other than immunity for official acts, no immunity for things outside official acts, which will, I assume, immediately send Trump's lawyers off to demand a whole 'nother round of lower court motions to DQ the indictments because "official acts" which will of course be appealed even if dismissed, and put the final nail in the trial before the election coffin.

I also can't imagine any other outcome for Chevron except for one that continues to gut the power of "unelected regulatory bodies that are accountable to no one blah blah blah."

[Unagi]

Part of me wants to see presidential immunity confirmed just to see if Biden takes advantage of it.

(I say respectfully)
That's idiotic, there is zero chance that Biden takes a "criminal green-light" and runs with it.

[Alefroth]

But Jacked Up Joe might.

[El Guapo]

But Jacked Up Joe might.

Is that Trump's new nickname for him? Gotta love that if you're Biden, right? Seems perfectly calibrated to counter-act Biden's real main weakness (age and perception of increasing senility).

[Punisher]

Part of me wants to see presidential immunity confirmed just to see if Biden takes advantage of it.

(I say respectfully)
That's idiotic, there is zero chance that Biden takes a "criminal green-light" and runs with it.

I don't really expect him to. It's just a part of me wishes he would. If for nothing else then to have trump react with a woe is me and complaining about presidential overreach.

[Unagi]

Part of me wants to see presidential immunity confirmed just to see if Biden takes advantage of it.

(I say respectfully)
That's idiotic, there is zero chance that Biden takes a "criminal green-light" and runs with it.

I don't really expect him to. It's just a part of me wishes he would. If for nothing else then to have trump react with a woe is me and complaining about presidential overreach.

I'd be okay with Seal Team Six taking Trump out, yes.

[Alefroth]

But Jacked Up Joe might.

Is that Trump's new nickname for him? Gotta love that if you're Biden, right? Seems perfectly calibrated to counter-act Biden's real main weakness (age and perception of increasing senility).

Mostly Hannity. Not sure if Trump has picked up on it, though he did say Biden would be jacked up at the debate.

[YellowKing]

Their continuous hedging to be able to claim victory for anything no matter the outcome has been so predictable it's downright sad. Biden stumbles, he's old and senile. Biden comes out swinging, he's on drugs. Trump "wins" the debate, everything was fair. Biden "wins" the debate, he was given the questions ahead of time.

It's like playing a game with the world's worst losers, except instead of bragging rights, life and death policy decisions are on the line.

[Pyperkub]

Their continuous hedging to be able to claim victory for anything no matter the outcome has been so predictable it's downright sad. Biden stumbles, he's old and senile. Biden comes out swinging, he's on drugs. Trump "wins" the debate, everything was fair. Biden "wins" the debate, he was given the questions ahead of time.

It's like playing a game with the world's worst losers, except instead of bragging rights, life and death policy decisions are on the line.

And they think this actually qualifies them to run America.

But the base wants it, so whatever the mob wants...

[GreenGoo]

It's like playing a game with the world's worst losers, except instead of bragging rights, life and death policy decisions are on the line.

And half the table supports and gaslights for him.

[Pyperkub]

Supremes enabling bribery bodes very poorly for Chevron, IMHO.

Policy being determined by campaign donations must rule everything.

[Smoove_B]

“I assume that a fair portion of what social media users had to say about COVID-19 and the pandemic was of little lasting value,” Alito wrote in his dissent. “Some was undoubtedly untrue or misleading, and some may have been downright dangerous. But we now know that valuable speech was also suppressed.”

What a douche.

[Kurth]

“I assume that a fair portion of what social media users had to say about COVID-19 and the pandemic was of little lasting value,” Alito wrote in his dissent. “Some was undoubtedly untrue or misleading, and some may have been downright dangerous. But we now know that valuable speech was also suppressed.”

What a douche.

I hate Alito a little more every day.

[Smoove_B]

Legitimately every time I think he can't possibly say something even more enraging, he does.

[Daehawk]

This 'for life' crap is 'for the dogs'. SCOTUS should most definitely have term limits like a President has. Say maybe 8 years.