SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)
Comments
-
JB16057 said:
Classic response, name calling.Merkin Baller said:
Not a democrat.JB16057 said:
Oh OK, and what are you going to do about it? Sit on a Pearl Jam forum all day and play keyboard warrior with your fellow democrats?Merkin Baller said:
Classic response.JB16057 said:
All of government is corrupt. Just pile this on top because nothing is going to change.mrussel1 said:
First, yes there are. These are barred attorneys that follow a very specific code. Second, there are federal disclosure requirements and it seems plainly obvious that Thomas violated them. But it's up to Roberts to enforce them,. Congress can only censure or Impeach. The DOJ could file federal charges but that's unlikely.JB16057 said:
There are no code of ethics for the SCOTUS so there's problem number one. I have no idea why that is but I know it is above my paygrade.mrussel1 said:
These are public disclosures in plain view. Thomas was neither declaring them or recusing himself. You don't see the difference?JB16057 said:
The media and the dems know that every SCOTUS member has their own baggage. Speaking of Sotomayor, https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.htmlGern Blansten said:
Yeah...honestly I don't understand why the media and dems in congress aren't lighting themselves on fire. Imagine if this shit came out about Kagan or Sotomayorbenjs said:
And here I thought John Roberts was so concerned about the optics of the supreme court. If he gave a rat's ass, he'd compel this guy to pack his shit and get out now, or call for an investigation immediately and put him on suspension for the duration.Gern Blansten said:This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
"Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances."
I can only imagine there are plenty more stories like this from the SCOTUS but hearsay does not count. It's pretty pathetic that people still believe the stories about Kavanaugh. If you have proof, let's see it. Believing all women is a crock of shit. Funny how those that believe the Kavanaugh accusations don't believe the accusations against Biden. You can't have it both ways. If we have to believe one woman, we have to believe all women.
Yes, I see the difference but that doesn't change the fact that Sotomayor should have recused herself like any judge below SCOTUS would of had to do.
Third, you keep forgetting about Gorsuch in your criticism. Just a simple oversight?
Lazy & weak, too.
But do go on.
Lazy & weak, too.
You were crying about Hunter the other day, but now all government is corrupt.
Enjoy your afternoon.Post edited by Kat on0 -
Didn’t they vote 9-0 to not be regulated or something like that? You’re the expert on the law stuff so I figure you know. Or I can look it up! I know that’s a thing around here.mrussel1 said:
First, yes there are. These are barred attorneys that follow a very specific code. Second, there are federal disclosure requirements and it seems plainly obvious that Thomas violated them. But it's up to Roberts to enforce them,. Congress can only censure or Impeach. The DOJ could file federal charges but that's unlikely.JB16057 said:
There are no code of ethics for the SCOTUS so there's problem number one. I have no idea why that is but I know it is above my paygrade.mrussel1 said:
These are public disclosures in plain view. Thomas was neither declaring them or recusing himself. You don't see the difference?JB16057 said:
The media and the dems know that every SCOTUS member has their own baggage. Speaking of Sotomayor, https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.htmlGern Blansten said:
Yeah...honestly I don't understand why the media and dems in congress aren't lighting themselves on fire. Imagine if this shit came out about Kagan or Sotomayorbenjs said:
And here I thought John Roberts was so concerned about the optics of the supreme court. If he gave a rat's ass, he'd compel this guy to pack his shit and get out now, or call for an investigation immediately and put him on suspension for the duration.Gern Blansten said:This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
"Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances."
I can only imagine there are plenty more stories like this from the SCOTUS but hearsay does not count. It's pretty pathetic that people still believe the stories about Kavanaugh. If you have proof, let's see it. Believing all women is a crock of shit. Funny how those that believe the Kavanaugh accusations don't believe the accusations against Biden. You can't have it both ways. If we have to believe one woman, we have to believe all women.
Yes, I see the difference but that doesn't change the fact that Sotomayor should have recused herself like any judge below SCOTUS would of had to do.
Third, you keep forgetting about Gorsuch in your criticism. Just a simple oversight?0 -
There are absolutely federal rules and tougher ones just went into effect. The problem is enforcement. As I said earlier, it's censure. impeachment and possibly the DOJ but I'm not aware of any justice ever being charged with a crime specific to a federal rule.cblock4life said:
Didn’t they vote 9-0 to not be regulated or something like that? You’re the expert on the law stuff so I figure you know. Or I can look it up! I know that’s a thing around here.mrussel1 said:
First, yes there are. These are barred attorneys that follow a very specific code. Second, there are federal disclosure requirements and it seems plainly obvious that Thomas violated them. But it's up to Roberts to enforce them,. Congress can only censure or Impeach. The DOJ could file federal charges but that's unlikely.JB16057 said:
There are no code of ethics for the SCOTUS so there's problem number one. I have no idea why that is but I know it is above my paygrade.mrussel1 said:
These are public disclosures in plain view. Thomas was neither declaring them or recusing himself. You don't see the difference?JB16057 said:
The media and the dems know that every SCOTUS member has their own baggage. Speaking of Sotomayor, https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.htmlGern Blansten said:
Yeah...honestly I don't understand why the media and dems in congress aren't lighting themselves on fire. Imagine if this shit came out about Kagan or Sotomayorbenjs said:
And here I thought John Roberts was so concerned about the optics of the supreme court. If he gave a rat's ass, he'd compel this guy to pack his shit and get out now, or call for an investigation immediately and put him on suspension for the duration.Gern Blansten said:This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
"Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances."
I can only imagine there are plenty more stories like this from the SCOTUS but hearsay does not count. It's pretty pathetic that people still believe the stories about Kavanaugh. If you have proof, let's see it. Believing all women is a crock of shit. Funny how those that believe the Kavanaugh accusations don't believe the accusations against Biden. You can't have it both ways. If we have to believe one woman, we have to believe all women.
Yes, I see the difference but that doesn't change the fact that Sotomayor should have recused herself like any judge below SCOTUS would of had to do.
Third, you keep forgetting about Gorsuch in your criticism. Just a simple oversight?
0 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
I can see Robert’s stepping in and proclaiming that Crow doesn’t have too!mickeyrat said:jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
Crow wouldn't comply anyway.josevolution said:
I can see Robert’s stepping in and proclaiming that Crow doesn’t have too!mickeyrat said:"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Legally, he has to on this one. The first paragraph calls out what the Senate believes to be the legislative purpose of the subpoena. If Crow tries to fight it, well we have that recent ruling by the court that requires the ex-DA in NYC to testify about the Trump trial. The right wing court ruled there's a valid legislative purpose to encroach on a state DA. Considering Crow is not part of any branch of gov't, I can't see his argument not to produce the material. The question is whether he will provide all the materials. But it's super risky not to do so.gimmesometruth27 said:
Crow wouldn't comply anyway.josevolution said:
I can see Robert’s stepping in and proclaiming that Crow doesn’t have too!mickeyrat said:
As part of the Senate Judiciary Committee's ongoing efforts to craft legislation strengthening the ethical rules and standards that apply to the Justices of the Supreme Court, we request that you provide the Committee with certain information by May 22, 2023. This information will help identify specific shortcomings in the “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices,” as well as current law, that legislation needs to address. Please provide the following information:
0 -
I guess to be clear, this isn't a subpoena. But if he doesn't cooperate, I'm sure it will become one. The one problem is that Feinstein needs to be there to get it approved. Otherwise the committee is split evenly.0
-
she's back....mrussel1 said:I guess to be clear, this isn't a subpoena. But if he doesn't cooperate, I'm sure it will become one. The one problem is that Feinstein needs to be there to get it approved. Otherwise the committee is split evenly.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
but is she really though?mickeyrat said:
she's back....mrussel1 said:I guess to be clear, this isn't a subpoena. But if he doesn't cooperate, I'm sure it will become one. The one problem is that Feinstein needs to be there to get it approved. Otherwise the committee is split evenly."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Didn’t anybody else find it a little crazy that you guys were talking about it then she’s back?mickeyrat said:
she's back....mrussel1 said:I guess to be clear, this isn't a subpoena. But if he doesn't cooperate, I'm sure it will become one. The one problem is that Feinstein needs to be there to get it approved. Otherwise the committee is split evenly.0 -
COVID emergency orders are among `greatest intrusions on civil liberties,' Justice Gorsuch saysBy Mark ShermanToday
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court got rid of a pandemic-related immigration case with a single sentence.
Justice Neil Gorsuch had a lot more to say, leveling harsh criticism of how governments, from small towns to the nation's capital, responded to the gravest public health threat in a century.
The justice, a 55-year-old conservative who was President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, called emergency measures taken during the COVID-19 crisis that killed more than 1 million Americans perhaps “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”
He pointed to orders closing schools, restricting church services, mandating vaccines and prohibiting evictions. His broadside was aimed at local, state and federal officials — even his colleagues.
MORE ON THE SUPREME COURT“Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale,” Gorsuch wrote in an eight-page statement Thursday that accompanied an expected Supreme Court order formally dismissing a case involving the use of the Title 42 policy to prevent asylum seekers from entering the United States.
The policy was ended last week with the expiration of the public health emergency first declared more than three years ago because of the coronavirus pandemic.
From the start of his Supreme Court tenure in 2017, Gorsuch, a Colorado native who loves to ski and bicycle, has been more willing than most justices to part company with his colleagues, both left and right.
He has mainly voted with the other conservatives in his six years as a justice, joining the majority that overturned Roe v. Wade and expanded gun rights last year.
But he has charted a different course on some issues, writing the court’s 2020 opinion that extended federal protections against workplace discrimination to LGBTQ people. He also has joined with the liberal justices in support of Native American rights.
When the omicron variant surged in late 2021 and early 2022, Gorsuch was the lone justice to appear in the courtroom unmasked even as his seatmate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has diabetes, reportedly did not feel safe in close quarters with people who were not wearing masks.
So Sotomayor, who continues to wear a mask in public, did not take the bench with the other justices in January 2022. The two justices denied reports they were at odds over the issue.
The emergency orders about which Gorsuch complained were first announced in the early days of the pandemic, when Trump was president, and months before the virus was well understood and a vaccine was developed.
The thrust of his complaint is not new. He has written before in individual cases that came to the court during the pandemic, sometimes dissenting from orders that left emergency decrees in place.
The justices intervened in several COVID-related cases.
With Gorsuch and five other conservatives in the majority, they ended the eviction moratorium and blocked a Biden administration plan to require workers at larger companies to be vaccinated or wear a mask and submit to regular testing. Once Amy Coney Barrett joined the court, after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, they ended restrictions on religious services in some areas.
By a 5-4 vote from which Gorsuch and three conservative colleagues dissented, the court allowed the administration to require many health care workers to be vaccinated.
But on Thursday, Gorsuch gathered his complaints in one place, writing about lessons he hoped might be learned from the past three years.
“One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action —almost any action — as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force,” he wrote.
Another possible lesson, he wrote: “The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government.”
He also had strong words for the Republican-led states that tried to keep the Title 42 policy in place, and the five conservatives justices whose votes extended the policy five months beyond when it would have otherwise ended in late December.
“At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another,” Gorsuch wrote.
In the final paragraph of his statement, Gorsuch acknowledged, but only grudgingly, that emergency orders sometimes are necessary. “Make no mistake — decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others,” he wrote.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
She looks awful. Time to pack it in.cblock4life said:
Didn’t anybody else find it a little crazy that you guys were talking about it then she’s back?mickeyrat said:
she's back....mrussel1 said:I guess to be clear, this isn't a subpoena. But if he doesn't cooperate, I'm sure it will become one. The one problem is that Feinstein needs to be there to get it approved. Otherwise the committee is split evenly.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?
They want to move the goal posts. Stop. It will screw up in the end anyways.
They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.0 -
tempo_n_groove said:Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?
They want to move the goal posts. Stop. It will screw up in the end anyways.
They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
..
So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically
The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.
Post edited by Lerxst1992 on0 -
Maybe because it’s already at 9?tempo_n_groove said:Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?
They want to move the goal posts. Stop. It will screw up in the end anyways.
They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Halifax2TheMax said:
Maybe because it’s already at 9?tempo_n_groove said:Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?
They want to move the goal posts. Stop. It will screw up in the end anyways.
They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
cmon, it currently could have meant to be read as from 9.0 -
Check with the original poster. Who really knows?Lerxst1992 said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Maybe because it’s already at 9?tempo_n_groove said:Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?
They want to move the goal posts. Stop. It will screw up in the end anyways.
They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
cmon, it currently could have meant to be read as from 9.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
tempo_n_groove said:Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?
They want to move the goal posts. Stop. It will screw up in the end anyways.
They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.
its not the first time it would expand. Or contract. There is no constitutionally set number for the court.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help