SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

1414244464749

Comments

  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,300
    bookmark the link n the article....


    ProPublica Updates “Supreme Connections” Database With New Justice Disclosures

    The update includes data from eight financial disclosures made public last Friday that cover 2023, as well as information from some older filings.


    by Ken Schwencke June 12, 6 a.m. EDT

    Change Appearance

    Series: Friends of the Court: SCOTUS Justices’ Beneficial Relationships With Billionaire Donors

    ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    We updated our “Supreme Connections” database on Wednesday with new entries from recently released financial disclosures from Supreme Court justices, as well as five filings from 2003 to 2007 we had previously been missing.

    Defend the facts. Support independent journalism by donating to ProPublica.

    Donate Now

    “Supreme Connections” is our database that makes it easy for anyone to browse justices’ financial disclosures and to search for connections to people and companies mentioned within them.

    This update includes data from eight disclosures made public last Friday, covering the 2023 calendar year. It does not include data for Justice Samuel Alito, who received a 90-day extension.

    The latest update includes two 2019 vacations retroactively added by Justice Clarence Thomas, which were paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow and which the justice had previously failed to disclose. ProPublica was the first to reveal those and an array of other significant gifts from several billionaires. Thomas previously argued he did not need to disclose such gifts.

    We have also added information from a 2003 filing from Alito and information from Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2004-07 filings that were previously obtained by JudicialWatch and archived by the Internet Archive. While federal ethics law requires judges to file these disclosures each year, the law requires most of them to be destroyed after six years, making many disclosures from earlier years hard to find.

    In total, the update adds $50,000 worth of gifts disclosed (including concert tickets given to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by Beyoncé herself), 18 new organizations and individuals, and more than 200 new connections, such as book deals, trips and reimbursements.

    Twitter
    Facebook

    _____________________________________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
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,321
    So no immunity decision ha! This is how I see this going I’m not the most knowledgeable poster here on politics so I’m probably just being paranoid.
    Trumpolini bought the services of the three judges he got seated on the SC bench in return they have to pay back the favor hence the delay, 
    They are waiting for the election to happen so they can both side the issue of immunity, if Biden wins they will rule that no one is above the law!
    if Trumpollini wins they will side with him and state that Presidents are immune to prosecution
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Posts: 19,744
    Fucking Thomas the only dissent on the guns case...unreal
    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, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,300
    _____________________________________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: 38,300
    gift article


     Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic-violence restraining orders
    By Ann E. Marimow
    June 21, 2024 at 10:27 ET
    The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms in its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights.
    The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in its decision two years ago known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
    In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
    Bruen required the government to point to historic analogues when defending laws that place limits on firearms, leading to a spate of court challenges against limits on possessing firearms — including the one in this case, United States v. Rahimi.

    continues..

    _____________________________________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
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,246
    mickeyrat said:
    gift article


     Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic-violence restraining orders
    By Ann E. Marimow
    June 21, 2024 at 10:27 ET
    The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms in its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights.
    The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in its decision two years ago known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
    In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
    Bruen required the government to point to historic analogues when defending laws that place limits on firearms, leading to a spate of court challenges against limits on possessing firearms — including the one in this case, United States v. Rahimi.

    continues..

    a blind squirrel finds nuts every once in a while too.
    "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."
  • ikiTikiT Posts: 11,054
    we're fucking waiting...

    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 40,236
    Rough draft on abortion accidentally published.

    Looking for the draft now...

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,246
    they are REALLY dragging their feet on this trump is immune case. you know 3 or 4 of them will say he has immunity.
    "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."
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,663
    edited June 27
    Ketanji joins the extreme conservatives on the Purdue Pharma case and Kavanaugh and Roberts join the liberals. I agree on the decision. Fuck the Sackler family trying to weasel out of liabilty.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,246
    tbergs said:
    Ketanji joins the extreme conservatives on the Purdue Pharma case and Kavanaugh and Roberts join the liberals. I agree on the decision. Fuck the Sackler family trying to weasel out of liabilty.
    is that why they rejected it? i hadn't read about it yet. just saw the headline that the settlement was rejected. i figured that the court said the penalty was too stiff. you know, to protect billionaires like they usually do.
    "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."
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,300
    gift article.....



    Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
    By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal
    June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET
    A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.
    The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves.
    The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts.
    In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.

    continues...

    _____________________________________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: 38,745
    mickeyrat said:
    gift article.....



    Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
    By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal
    June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET
    A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.
    The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves.
    The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts.
    In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.

    continues...

    Does this ruling potentially impact the Alex Jones bankruptcy?
    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©
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,300
    mickeyrat said:
    gift article.....



    Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
    By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal
    June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET
    A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.
    The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves.
    The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts.
    In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.

    continues...

    Does this ruling potentially impact the Alex Jones bankruptcy?

    I would say no, because jones like guiliani was seeking to get out of judgement against whereas this was a settlement deal approved by most parties of interest.
    _____________________________________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: 38,300

     
    Search Query
    WOSU 89.7
    All Things Considered
    All Things Considered
    WOSU 89.7


    Supreme Court allows White House to request removal of misinformation on social media NPR
    Jordan Thomas
    Published June 26, 2024 at 10:11 AM EDT
    The Supreme Court
    Andrew Harnik
    /
    Getty Images
    The Supreme Court

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory for the Biden administration Wednesday, throwing out a lower court ruling that had placed major restrictions on the ability of government officials to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies.

    While the court’s ruling was procedural, it was nonetheless a stark repudiation of two lower courts in the South, and their eagerness to embrace conspiracy theories about alleged government coercion of social media companies.

    Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all. She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. “Unfortunately,” she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals “relied on factual findings that are “clearly erroneous.”

    For instance, she said, the plaintiffs who brought the case maintained that the White House had bombarded Twitter with requests to set up a streamlined process for censorship requests. But in fact, she said, the record showed no such requests. Rather, on one occasion a White House official asked Twitter to remove a fake account pretending to be the account of Biden’s granddaughter. Twitter took down the fake account and told the official about a portal that could be used in the future to flag similar issues.

    “Justice Barrett went out of her way to stress that facts matter and that lower courts in this case embraced a fact-free version of what transpired between officials in the Biden administration and Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies,” said law professor Paul Barrett, no relation to the justice, who is deputy director of the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU.

    In her opinion for the court majority, Justice Barrett said that at every turn, the alleged facts turned to dust, and that the plaintiffs had failed to trace past or potential future harm to anything done by officials at the White House, the CDC, the FBI, or a key cyber security agency. Indeed, the court said, many of the actions taken by the social media platforms to modify content about COVID vaccines or other matters, were taken before any contacts with government officials took place.

    The court’s decision will make it considerably more difficult for people to bring challenges like this in the future because the justices said that it’s not enough to rail against the government for criticizing an individual’s message online. Rather, there has to be a causal link between the government’s commentary and what happens on a social media platform. In short, there has to be a traceable link, a link that the court said was entirely missing in this case, as the social media companies had their own incentives for moderating content, and often exercised their own judgment.

    Justice Samuel Alito dissented, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

    “For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” wrote Altio. “Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”

    Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight Center First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, agreed with the court majority that in this particular case, the plaintiffs had alleged a very generalized theory of coercion, but he added that the court needs to set out specific factors for evaluating when government officials go too far.

    “It’s important for Democrats and liberals who are perhaps sympathetic to the Biden administration’s efforts” to prevent COVID misinformation or Russian election interference, to consider whether they would be comfortable with these same rules if the Trump administration “were to pressure social media companies to take down speech related to MeToo or Black Lives Matter or pro-Palestinian speech.”

    “We need a set of rules that make sense in all of these contexts,” Jaffer said, adding, “And so far, the court hasn’t given us a lot to work with.”

    Copyright 2024 NPR

    Nina Totenberg is NPR's award-winning legal affairs correspondent. Her reports air regularly on NPR's critically acclaimed newsmagazines All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Weekend Edition.
    Jordan Thomas
    [Copyright 2024 NPR]
    © 2024 WOSU Public Media
    _____________________________________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
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,663
    Waiting, watching the clock...

    I swear, if they rule in favor of Trump today, this country is truly sliding in to being controlled by a criminal and his mob of morons.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • ikiTikiT Posts: 11,054
    tbergs said:
    Waiting, watching the clock...

    I swear, if they rule in favor of Trump today, this country is truly sliding in to being controlled by a criminal and his mob of morons.
    amen

    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • ikiTikiT Posts: 11,054
    from the realtime scotusblog

    "Interestingly, this leaves Jackson and the chief as the only justices without opinions for April. Fischer v. US (the Jan. 6 case) and the Trump immunity case are the only two remaining cases from the April argument session."

    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • ikiTikiT Posts: 11,054
    this court BLOWS

    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,321
    Fuck the homeless the SCOTUS! 
    And if they rule 🍊🤡💩 head is immune doesn’t that include the current president? 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,300
    _____________________________________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: 38,300
    _____________________________________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
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,663
    Rulings are in. 
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,663
    The court has ruled on presidential immunity. “A
    former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” the ruling says. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Posts: 19,744
    As expected I think...back to the lower court to sort out what was official and what wasn't
    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, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,663
    Seems like the obvious decision and one that didn't really need the Supreme Court ruling, which is pretty pointless and provides little substance.

    Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,527
    tbergs said:
    Seems like the obvious decision and one that didn't really need the Supreme Court ruling, which is pretty pointless and provides little substance.

    Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.
    I agree, this is all pretty much what was expected and common sense.  While Trump will try to take a victory lap, let's remember that he said he had "absolute immunity".  He doesn't.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,527
    I find the Net Choice rulings interesting and just as consequential.  I still cannot wrap my head around the argument that a social media company has no editorial control of their platform.  
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,300
    mrussel1 said:
    I find the Net Choice rulings interesting and just as consequential.  I still cannot wrap my head around the argument that a social media company has no editorial control of their platform.  

    terms of service, no? thats where their absolute editorial controll lies, doesn't it?
    _____________________________________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
Sign In or Register to comment.