That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
18 years.Daehawk wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:37 pm This 'for life' crap is 'for the dogs'. SCOTUS should most definitely have term limits like a President has. Say maybe 8 years.
I think this sounds good to me. They can represent 'a generation', and no more.Blackhawk wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2024 6:41 pm18 years.Daehawk wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:37 pm This 'for life' crap is 'for the dogs'. SCOTUS should most definitely have term limits like a President has. Say maybe 8 years.
Every slot should be on an 18-year limit, with one slot becoming available, in sequence, every two years on non-election years.
- The court grants a group of states’ request to put the EPA’s “good neighbor plan” on hold in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency. The rule was issued to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities based on the EPA’s interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires “upwind” states to reduce emissions that affect the air quality in “downwind” states.
- The court rules in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin, that would release members of the Sackler family, which owned the company but did not declare bankruptcy, from any future liability for claims against them.
- In SEC v. Jarkesy, the court rules that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
- The court dismisses Moyle v. United States, allowing doctors in Idaho to continue providing abortions in emergency medical situations.
From the dissent:
Today, the Court flips the script: It is now "the courts (rather than the agency)" that will wield power when Congress has left an area of interpretive discretion. A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this Court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies. The Court has substituted its own judgment on workplace health for that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; its own judgment on climate change for that of the Environmental Protection Agency; and its own judgment on student loans for that of the Department of Education.
Yep, judicial power grab in progress. It wasn't so long ago that they were literally admonishing Congress to pass law if they didn't like the SC's weighing in. WRT the recent SEC demasculating, Dodd-Frank did just that (giving teeth to an SEC enforcement agency) and the SC just took it away! Fucking right wing hypocrites man.Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:39 amFrom the dissent:
Today, the Court flips the script: It is now "the courts (rather than the agency)" that will wield power when Congress has left an area of interpretive discretion. A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this Court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies. The Court has substituted its own judgment on workplace health for that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; its own judgment on climate change for that of the Environmental Protection Agency; and its own judgment on student loans for that of the Department of Education.
At first that struck me as simplistic, but it sure feels right. Could also be the addition of conservative justices, but probably both.Zarathud wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2024 1:30 am Trumpism has broken down restraint in all branches of government.
Do you mean, achieve a fillabuster-proof lock on the Senate?Smoove_B wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2024 1:56 pm If the Democrats somehow manage to collectively pull off the impossible in 2024
6-3Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5-43
Well, Clarence and Alito aren't due back from St. Barts until around 11, but they don't have to submit any paperwork on their trip, so they should be able to get right to it.WYBaugh wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:42 am Any idea what time the not so supreme court is handing Trump immunity?
“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.”
Totally agree but what's to stop Biden from doing the same? Meaning, why would this only be a GOP thing?YellowKing wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:15 am The SC just gave a blank check for Republicans, with the Presidency, to ensure no Democrat ever holds the office again. They'll re-write the rules in their favor, eradicate those who aren't loyal, and it will all be done under the guise of "official acts." We're fucked. As far as I'm concerned, today was the end of democracy in America. Not unexpected with this court, but chilling to see become reality.
As far as Trump goes, they just handed him a can of gasoline and a book of matches and pointed him in the direction of this country's institutions.
Actually, they burned those down separately in the Chevron decision...did a lot of his work for him! He can now be creative and spend time doing more personal mafia type shit. Everyone was losing their shit over the Biden debate debacle, yet these two things are 100x worse.YellowKing wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:15 am The SC just gave a blank check for Republicans, with the Presidency, to ensure no Democrat ever holds the office again. They'll re-write the rules in their favor, eradicate those who aren't loyal, and it will all be done under the guise of "official acts." We're fucked. As far as I'm concerned, today was the end of democracy in America. Not unexpected with this court, but chilling to see become reality.
As far as Trump goes, they just handed him a can of gasoline and a book of matches and pointed him in the direction of this country's institutions.
Technically it's not, but can you picture Biden participating in previously illegal acts just because he can? Most people have morals and guidelines they follow even if they're not under threat of prosecution.WYbaugh wrote:Totally agree but what's to stop Biden from doing the same? Meaning, why would this only be a GOP thing?
Now I REALLY want to be President!WYBaugh wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 10:48 am Sotomayor's dissent
“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.”
Yeah, but at some point you need to put your morals aside for the greater good.YellowKing wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:23 amTechnically it's not, but can you picture Biden participating in previously illegal acts just because he can? Most people have morals and guidelines they follow even if they're not under threat of prosecution.WYbaugh wrote:Totally agree but what's to stop Biden from doing the same? Meaning, why would this only be a GOP thing?
I don't think the solution to giving corrupt people free reign is to become corrupt ourselves.
I read someone on Twitter who eloquently put it: "The bad guys know the good guys won't do bad things."
And November is going to be a complete and utter shit show.Blackhawk wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 1:11 pm November.
In November, I can either breathe a temporary sigh of relief, or i can give up, go back to bed, adopt a rocking chair lifestyle, and leave the news off for the next two or three decades until I move into a cozy grave.
Either way, the stakes are so high that I'm not calling it done until November.
Don't kid yourself - it will be an escalating shit show up until November, and then into the new year - regardless of who wins.