Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

1246

Comments

  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 29,583
    09/15/1998, 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; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, 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;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,183
    what did Amy do?
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 29,583
    what did Amy do?
    Just belonged to a religious cult that sexually and physically abused children and church superiors kind of looked the other way. You know, typical church behavior.
    09/15/1998, 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; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, 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;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,864

    Supreme Court won't extend reduced charges to low-level crack cocaine offenders

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the decision but wrote separately suggesting that Congress should fix the problem.
    /
    June 14, 2021, 10:18 AM EDT / Updated June 14, 2021, 11:23 AM EDT
    By Pete Williams

    The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a revised federal law does not allow prison inmates to seek a reduction in their sentences for possessing small amounts of crack cocaine.

    The court said the wording of one of the rare bipartisan achievements of the Trump administration, the First Step Act, which made sweeping changes to the criminal justice system, means that the law does not apply to low-level offenders, even though supporters said they intended it to do so.

    Its decision was unanimous.

    During the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s, Congress passed a law providing that someone arrested for possessing a small amount of crack cocaine would receive the same sentence as someone who possessed 100 times that amount of powder cocaine.

    In 2010, Congress reduced that disparity for future defendants, but it did not apply the change to those already convicted. The First Step Act, passed in 2018, was intended to apply the reduction to people in prison, allowing them to seek reduced sentences too.

    The question for the court was whether the new law applied only to people convicted of possessing larger amounts of crack cocaine or to those arrested with only a small amount as well.

    The case was brought by a Florida man, Tarahrick Terry, who was sentenced to 15-and-a-half years in prison for possessing 3.9 grams of crack cocaine — about the same weight as four paper clips. His sentence under the old law was the same as what someone would have received for possessing nearly a pound of powder cocaine.

    Terry sought to have his sentence reduced under the First Step Act, but the lower courts said the law's retroactivity provision applied only to two other categories of sentences for larger amounts of the drug, not to low-level offenses.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the decision but wrote separately suggesting that Congress should fix the problem.

    “There is no apparent reason that career offenders,” such as the Florida man in this case, “should be left to serve out sentences that were unduly influenced by the 100-to-1 ratio,” a reference to the amount of powder versus crack cocaine that in the past had triggered a mandatory minimum sentence. But she said, “Unfortunately, the text will not bear that reading. Fortunately, Congress has numerous tools to right this injustice.”

    The Supreme Court's ruling means that hundreds of inmates who, like Terry, were convicted of possessing only small amounts of crack cocaine cannot seek to have their sentences reduced. Terry is scheduled to be released from prison in September.

    Pete Williams

    Pete Williams is an NBC News correspondent who covers the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, based in Washington.


    © 2021 NBC UNIVERSAL










    _____________________________________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 '14
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,318
    edited June 2021
    Looks like they got 1 right and 1 wrong

    'Obamacare' survives: Supreme Court dismisses big challenge https://news.yahoo.com/high-court-dismisses-challenge-obama-140551768.html  The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to the Obama era health care law, preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans. The Biden administration...

    High court sides with Catholic agency in foster care dispute https://news.yahoo.com/high-court-sides-catholic-agency-143945386.html
    The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with a Catholic foster care agency that says its religious views prevent it from working with same-sex couples ...
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 29,583
    Looks like they got 1 right and 1 wrong

    'Obamacare' survives: Supreme Court dismisses big challenge https://news.yahoo.com/high-court-dismisses-challenge-obama-140551768.html  The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to the Obama era health care law, preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans. The Biden administration...

    High court sides with Catholic agency in foster care dispute https://news.yahoo.com/high-court-sides-catholic-agency-143945386.html
    The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with a Catholic foster care agency that says its religious views prevent it from working with same-sex couples ...
    Not surprised. From Harper's Index:

    Percentage change since 1953 in the frequency with which the Supreme Court rules in favor of religious rights: +76

    Percentage of judges who have ruled in federal cases to allow religious gatherings despite COVID-19 restrictions: 38

    Of Repub-appointed judges who have done so: 66

    Of Dem-appointed judges: 0

    Senator Whitehouse knows the judiciary is being bought and paid for by one party. And folks say it can't happen here.
    09/15/1998, 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; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, 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;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,318
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,318
    Looks like they got another one right. 
    Damn Socialists Libs!!

    "Supreme Court passes on transgender bathroom challenge"
    https://share.smartnews.com/zTzvB
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,864
     
    Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting restrictions
    By MARK SHERMAN
    4 mins ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld voting restrictions in Arizona in a decision that could make it harder to challenge other voting measures put in place by Republican lawmakers following last year's elections.

    The court, by a 6-3 vote, reversed a lower court ruling in deciding that Arizona’s limits on who can return early ballots for another person and refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct are not racially discriminatory.

    The federal appeals court in San Francisco had held that the measures disproportionately affected Black, Hispanic and Native American voters in violation of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

    Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a conservative majority that the state's interest in the integrity of elections justified the measures.

    In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court was weakening the landmark voting rights law for the second time in eight years.

    "What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.’ I respectfully dissent,” Kagan wrote, joined by the other two liberal justices.

    The challenged Arizona provisions remained in effect in 2020 because the case was still making its way through the courts.

    President Joe Biden narrowly won Arizona last year, and since 2018, the state has elected two Democratic senators.


    _____________________________________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 '14
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,494
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 4,032
    The Arizona decision might be the best example of a successful long game for Mitch.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2021 Asbury Park
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,494
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,864
    hmm......

    Dems renew questions about FBI background check of Kavanaugh
    BY ERIC TUCKER
    Yesterday

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats are raising new concerns about the thoroughness of the FBI's background investigation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after the FBI revealed that it had received thousands of tips and had provided “all relevant” ones to the White House counsel's office.

    FBI Director Christopher Wray, responding to longstanding questions from Democrats, disclosed in a letter late last month that it had received more than 4,500 tips as it investigated the nominee's past following his 2018 nomination by President Donald Trump. The process was the first time that the FBI had set up a tip line for a nominee undergoing Senate confirmation, Wray said.

    A group of Democratic senators said in a letter to Wray dated Wednesday that his response “raises significant additional questions.” They called on him to explain, among other things, how many tips the FBI decided were relevant and what criteria agents used to make that determination and what policies and procedures were used to vet the tips. The senators also asked for more information about the tip line, including how it was staffed and how the tips were recorded or preserved.

    “Your letter confirms that the FBI’s tip line was a departure from past practice and that the FBI was politically constrained by the Trump White House,” the senators wrote.

    Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court in October 2018 after a rancorous process in which claims emerged that he had sexually assaulted women three decades ago. He emphatically denied the allegations.

    The FBI conducted a original background investigation into Kavanaugh that consisted of interviews with 49 people over the course of five days, Wray said. The bureau then did a supplemental background check after new information arose about a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who alleged that Kavanaugh had assaulted her when they were teens. As part of that process, Wray said, the FBI interviewed 10 people over six days.

    But, he stressed, the inquiry was limited in nature, without the “authorities, policies and procedures” that would be used for an FBI criminal investigation.

    Lawyers for Ford said in a statement that the FBI's letter established that the investigation was a “sham and a major institutional failure” and chastised the bureau for not interviewing Ford or acting on the thousands of tips it received about Kavanaugh.

    “Instead, it handed the information over to the White House, allowing those who supported Kavanaugh to falsely claim that the FBI found no wrongdoing,” said the lawyers, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks.

    ____

    Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP


    _____________________________________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 '14
  • cblock4lifecblock4life Posts: 628
    mickeyrat said:
    hmm......

    Dems renew questions about FBI background check of Kavanaugh
    BY ERIC TUCKER
    Yesterday

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats are raising new concerns about the thoroughness of the FBI's background investigation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after the FBI revealed that it had received thousands of tips and had provided “all relevant” ones to the White House counsel's office.

    FBI Director Christopher Wray, responding to longstanding questions from Democrats, disclosed in a letter late last month that it had received more than 4,500 tips as it investigated the nominee's past following his 2018 nomination by President Donald Trump. The process was the first time that the FBI had set up a tip line for a nominee undergoing Senate confirmation, Wray said.

    A group of Democratic senators said in a letter to Wray dated Wednesday that his response “raises significant additional questions.” They called on him to explain, among other things, how many tips the FBI decided were relevant and what criteria agents used to make that determination and what policies and procedures were used to vet the tips. The senators also asked for more information about the tip line, including how it was staffed and how the tips were recorded or preserved.

    “Your letter confirms that the FBI’s tip line was a departure from past practice and that the FBI was politically constrained by the Trump White House,” the senators wrote.

    Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court in October 2018 after a rancorous process in which claims emerged that he had sexually assaulted women three decades ago. He emphatically denied the allegations.

    The FBI conducted a original background investigation into Kavanaugh that consisted of interviews with 49 people over the course of five days, Wray said. The bureau then did a supplemental background check after new information arose about a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who alleged that Kavanaugh had assaulted her when they were teens. As part of that process, Wray said, the FBI interviewed 10 people over six days.

    But, he stressed, the inquiry was limited in nature, without the “authorities, policies and procedures” that would be used for an FBI criminal investigation.

    Lawyers for Ford said in a statement that the FBI's letter established that the investigation was a “sham and a major institutional failure” and chastised the bureau for not interviewing Ford or acting on the thousands of tips it received about Kavanaugh.

    “Instead, it handed the information over to the White House, allowing those who supported Kavanaugh to falsely claim that the FBI found no wrongdoing,” said the lawyers, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks.

    ____

    Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP


    There is absolutely nothing that POS trump wouldn’t do is there? I know there’s a specific definition of treason but how does all this crap he’s done not come close. 
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,494
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,864


    Supreme Court set to take up all-or-nothing abortion fight
    By MARK SHERMAN
    Today

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Both sides are telling the Supreme Court there's no middle ground in Wednesday's showdown over abortion. The justices can either reaffirm the constitutional right to an abortion or wipe it away altogether.

    Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that declared a nationwide right to abortion, is facing its most serious challenge in 30 years in front of a court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has been remade by three appointees of President Donald Trump.

    “There are no half measures here,” said Sherif Girgis, a Notre Dame law professor who once served as a law clerk for Justice Samuel Alito.

    A ruling that overturned Roe and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey would lead to outright bans or severe restrictions on abortion in 26 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

    The case being argued Wednesday comes from Mississippi, where a 2018 law would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, well before viability. The Supreme Court has never allowed states to ban abortion before the point at roughly 24 weeks when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

    The justices are separately weighing disputes over Texas' much earlier abortion ban, at roughly six weeks, though those cases turn on the unique structure of the law and how it can be challenged in court, not the abortion right. Still, abortion rights advocates were troubled by the court's 5-4 vote in September to allow the Texas law, which relies on citizen lawsuits to enforce it, to take effect in the first place.

    “This is the most worried I’ve ever been,” said Shannon Brewer, who runs the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

    The clinic offers abortions up to 16 weeks of pregnancy and about 10% of abortions it performs take place after the 15th week, Brewer said.

    She also noted that since the Texas law took effect, the clinic has seen a substantial increase in patients, operating five days or six days a week instead of two or three.

    Lower courts blocked the Mississippi law, as they have other abortion bans that employ traditional enforcement methods by state and local officials.

    The Supreme Court had never before even agreed to hear a case over a pre-viability abortion ban. But after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death last year and her replacement by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the third of Trump's appointees, the court said it would take up the case.

    Trump had pledged to appoint “pro-life justices” and predicted they would lead the way in overturning the abortion rulings. Only one justice, Clarence Thomas, has publicly called for Roe to be overruled.

    The court could uphold the Mississippi law without explicitly overruling Roe and Casey, an outcome that would satisfy neither side.

    Abortion-rights advocates say that result would amount to the same thing as an outright ruling overturning the earlier cases because it would erase the rationale undergirding nearly a half-century of Supreme Court law.

    “A decision upholding this ban is tantamount to overruling Roe. The ban prohibits abortion around two months before viability,” said Julie Rikelman, who will argue the case for the clinic.

    On the other side, abortion opponents argue that the court essentially invented abortion law in Roe and Casey, and shouldn't repeat that mistake in this case.

    If the justices uphold Mississippi's law, they'll have to explain why, said Thomas Jipping, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow. They can either overrule the two big cases, Jipping said, “or they're going to have to come up with another made-up rule.”

    Conservative commentator Ed Whelan said such an outcome would be a “massive defeat” on par with the Casey decision in 1992, in which a court with eight justices appointed by Republican presidents unexpectedly reaffirmed Roe.

    This court appears far more conservative than the one that decided Casey, and legal historian Mary Ziegler at Florida State University’s law school, said the court probably would “overrule Roe or set us on a path to doing so.”

    Chief Justice John Roberts might find the more incremental approach appealing if he can persuade a majority of the court to go along. Since Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has moved in smaller steps on some issues, even when it appeared there was only a binary choice.

    It took two cases for the court to rip out the heart of the federal Voting Rights Act that curbed potentially discriminatory voting laws in states with a history of discrimination.

    In the area of organized labor, the court moved through a series of cases that chipped away at public sector unions’ power.

    The high court also heard two rounds of arguments over restrictions on independent spending in the political arena before removing limits on how much money corporations and unions can pour into election advocacy.

    If the court looks to public sentiment, it would find poll after poll that shows support for preserving Roe, though some surveys also find backing for greater restrictions on abortion.

    Mississippi is one of 12 states ready to act almost immediately if Roe is overturned. Those states have enacted so-called abortion trigger laws that would take effect and ban all or nearly all abortions.

    Women in those states wanting abortions could face drives of hundreds of miles to reach the nearest clinic or they might obtain abortion pills by mail. Medication abortions now account for 40% of abortions.

    Some legal briefs in the case make clear that the end of Roe is not the ultimate goal of abortion opponents.

    The court should recognize that “unborn children are persons” under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, a conclusion that would compel an end to almost all legal abortions, Princeton professor Robert George and scholar John Finnis wrote. Finnis was Justice Neil Gorsuch's adviser on his Oxford dissertation, an argument against assisted suicide.


    _____________________________________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 '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,864
    edited December 2021
      https://news.yahoo.com/behind-scenes-president-biden-supreme-215101680.html  “The fact that we had really serious discussions, had wonderful testimony, and incredibly useful input from people across the country” was remarkable, Harvard ...


     
    On Dec 8 the Presidential Commission on SCOTUS submitted its much-anticipated final write-up to the President
    On Dec. 8 the Presidential Commission on SCOTUS submitted its much-anticipated final write-up to the President.
    More

    On Dec. 8 the Presidential Commission on SCOTUS submitted its much-anticipated final write-up to the President. Credit - Getty Images

    Some say bipartisanship in Washington is dead. But you wouldn’t know it listening to the final public meeting of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court on Dec. 7, during which all 34 commission members, including constitutional conservatives, liberals, and progressives, voted unanimously to submit their 294 page report on Supreme Court reform to President Joe Biden.

    “The fact that we had really serious discussions, had wonderful testimony, and incredibly useful input from people across the country” was remarkable, Harvard Law School professor Laurence H. Tribe told TIME. “The result is a report that I think will be useful 100 years from now.”

    The commission, formed in April by executive order, directed a bipartisan collection of legal experts to provide analysis of the “principal arguments” for and against—“including an appraisal of the merits and legality”—of various proposed reforms to the high court, such as changing the size and composition of the court or reducing its power in the constitutional system. On Dec. 8, more than seven months and six public meetings later, the commission submitted their much-anticipated final write-up to the President.

    But the report, it turned out, made news mostly for its lack of news: the commissioners did not take a position on imposing term limits on justice or expanding the size of the bench, two of the top requests from progressives calling for reform amid a high stakes and highly politicized 2021-2022 SCOTUS term. Instead, the report reads more like a deeply researched pro-con list for major reforms, carefully critiquing each proposal and discussing how each might be legally implemented. (The report does more openly endorse smaller reforms such as a judicial code of ethics.)

    Read more: I Spent 7 Months Studying Supreme Court Reform. We Need to Pack the Court Now

    TIME interviewed nine members of the commission. All expressed pride in the final report, describing it as a pivotal document that provides the first rigorous examination of the legality and feasibility of reform efforts that have been in the public discourse for years. They also praised their colleagues’ collegiality and respectful debate.

    But some also expressed frustration at the exercise itself. At at time when distrust in institutions is high and the court appears posed to remake major elements of American society—including abortion accessgun rights and religious liberty—the toothless commission was convened as an exercise in bipartisan analysis, rather than an engine of transformative change.

    “Ultimately, it looks like a policy report,” said one member, who spoke on condition of anonymity to be able to speak freely about the experience on the commission. “I’m not sure how useful it will be as a way of guiding and providing a path forward.”

    Story continues
    View article source

    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________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 '14
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,417
    edited January 13
    Just read that the SCOTUS shot down Biden’s Covid-19 business mandates.  Can’t help but think this had something to do with it:
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/politics/fact-check-sotomayor-mandate-covid-dinner-gorsuch/index.html

    @Washington(CNN)Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a significant false claim on Friday about Covid-19's impact on children.”
    Continued in link
    What was she thinking?
    I mean, I was not for the mandates for private companies, but who would have thought a striking blow to them would have come from her massively false statements?
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,864
    PJPOWER said:
    Just read that the SCOTUS shot down Biden’s Covid-19 business mandates.  Can’t help but think this had something to do with it:
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/politics/fact-check-sotomayor-mandate-covid-dinner-gorsuch/index.html

    @Washington(CNN)Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a significant false claim on Friday about Covid-19's impact on children.”
    Continued in link
    What was she thinking?
    I mean, I was not for the mandates for private companies, but who would have thought a striking blow to them would have come from her massively false statements?

    so what does the inaccuracy on kids have to with employed adults? I cant see the connection?
    _____________________________________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 '14
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 29,583
    mickeyrat said:
    PJPOWER said:
    Just read that the SCOTUS shot down Biden’s Covid-19 business mandates.  Can’t help but think this had something to do with it:
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/politics/fact-check-sotomayor-mandate-covid-dinner-gorsuch/index.html

    @Washington(CNN)Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a significant false claim on Friday about Covid-19's impact on children.”
    Continued in link
    What was she thinking?
    I mean, I was not for the mandates for private companies, but who would have thought a striking blow to them would have come from her massively false statements?

    so what does the inaccuracy on kids have to with employed adults? I cant see the connection?
    Particularly when mistakes are made in oral arguments and yet justices, appointed by both parties, have made mistakes in their WRITTEN decisions which then become codified into law. I’ll let you guess which party has a longer, more impactful record of such malfeasance and whom is harmed the most by them. But yea, Randy Paul was right, disinformation is effective. Good luck, ‘Murica.
    09/15/1998, 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; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, 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;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 29,583
    Great to see that even the con SCOTUS judges are getting in on the own the libs. What a jerk. From the NYT email blast.

    When the Supreme Court justices emerged from the red drapes at the front of the courtroom last Friday and took their seats — to hear arguments about President Biden’s vaccine mandate — all but one of the justices there were wearing masks. The exception was Neil Gorsuch.
    That Gorsuch would resist mask wearing is no surprise. He is a conservative judge with a libertarian streak who has spent his life around Republican politics. In conservative circles, masks have become a symbol of big-government subjugation.

    But his decision not to wear one — while the other Republican appointees on the court all were — still felt surprising. The justices usually make an effort to treat one another respectfully. They disagree on the law, sometimes harshly, while maintaining productive and even warm relationships, like the famous friendship between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
    “When you’re charged with working together for most of the remainder of your life, you have to create a relationship,” Sonia Sotomayor said a few years ago, describing her welcoming of Brett Kavanaugh. “This is our work family.”

    Gorsuch had to know that his masklessness could make other justices uncomfortable, including the 83-year-old Stephen Breyer and the 67-year-old Sotomayor, who has diabetes, a Covid risk factor. Sotomayor sits next to Gorsuch on the bench and, notably, chose not to attend Friday’s argument in person. She participated remotely, from her chambers.
    When Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post asked a Supreme Court spokesperson whether Sotomayor had done so because Gorsuch was maskless, Marcus got no response.

    One of the few public comments from somebody close to Gorsuch came from Mike Davis, a conservative activist and former Gorsuch clerk. On Twitter, Davis defended his former boss by writing, “We know cloth masks don’t [work].” It was a statement that managed to be both exaggerated and beside the point.
    Masks, especially medical masks like KN95 and N95 masks, reduce the spread of Covid, studies show. In response to that evidence, the Supreme Court tells lawyers and reporters in the courtroom to wear medical masks.

    The effect of masks may not be as large as their advocates sometimes claim, and masks can impede communication. So I recognize that well-meaning people can disagree about when they should be worn. Still, Gorsuch’s lack of a mask inside the courtroom seemed needlessly risky and disdainful of his colleagues.
    “Wearing a mask is the decent thing to do,” Marcus wrote in her Washington Post column, “especially when you are around vulnerable individuals.” This week, Gorsuch again appeared without a mask at the court.

    His decision seems emblematic of a country where partisan loyalty can trump Covid reality. It also seems emblematic of a court on which the justices are increasingly willing to behave as partisan actors rather than impartial judges.
    And if you’re a liberal reader who’s tempted to believe that those descriptions apply only to Republicans — or a conservative reader who’s frustrated that I have focused on Gorsuch — I hope you will read the rest of today’s newsletter.

    09/15/1998, 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; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, 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;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 12,806
    https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/supreme-court-justices-arent-scorpions-but-not-happy-campers-either

    Unbelievable....Gorsuch refuses to wear a mask even though Sotomayor is high risk
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 19,430
    https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073428376/supreme-court-justices-arent-scorpions-but-not-happy-campers-either

    Unbelievable....Gorsuch refuses to wear a mask even though Sotomayor is high risk
    i am not surprised by this at all. i mean, trump appointee and all...
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,318
    Every once in a while they get it right.....

    Supreme Court clears the way for House to get Trump White House documents

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 19,430
    Every once in a while they get it right.....

    Supreme Court clears the way for House to get Trump White House documents

    serious question.

    when will thomas be issued his subpoena?
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 12,806
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 4,032
    Wow...now we're looking at three years of an eight-seat Supreme Court.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2021 Asbury Park
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 12,806
    OnWis97 said:
    Wow...now we're looking at three years of an eight-seat Supreme Court.
    LOL...yeah Mitch is going to figure out a way to fuck this up
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 15,111
    I hate the political nature of the Supreme Court…
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 29,583
    What will be Moscow Mitchy Baby's reasoning this time to withhold a SCOTUS nominee, barring the usual liberal, communist, socialist, wants to destroy America diatribe? I hope Biden nominates someone appointed to the federal bench by Shrub.
    09/15/1998, 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; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, 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;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
Sign In or Register to comment.