Octopus Overlords

Daehawk wrote: Wed May 29, 2024 4:39 pm Now who would do such a thing?

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.”

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.

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 wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 5:16 pm Well, at least it's one bullet temporarily dodged.

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 5:16 pm Well, at least it's one bullet temporarily dodged.

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.

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.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 11:32 am Presidential Immunity ruling is going to be awesome next week, bank on it.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed May 29, 2024 4:29 pm 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.

Punisher wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:27 am 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 wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 8:06 am

Punisher wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:27 am 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.

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

YellowKing wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 8:59 am

Punisher wrote: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.

Punisher wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:27 am Part of me wants to see presidential immunity confirmed just to see if Biden takes advantage of it.

Alefroth wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:25 pm But Jacked Up Joe might.

Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:23 am

Punisher wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:27 am 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.

Punisher wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 3:38 pm

Unagi wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:23 am

Punisher wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:27 am 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.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 3:37 pm

Alefroth wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:25 pm 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).

YellowKing wrote: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.

YellowKing wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 5:39 pm 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.

“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.”

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2024 1:27 pm

“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.