this wasn't careful or thorough reasoning; this was a deliberate step towards making QI even more ridiculous
there is already a supreme court case which says that circuit precedent is binding on cops for QI purposes -- that has been a settled rule since 1999
by going out of their way to pretend that this is still an open question, the supreme court has manufactured a new basis for throwing that rule out (and is signaling that they want defendants to argue for that result)
Explaining that particular legalese is not disagreeing that the court is completely fucked.
this wasn't careful or thorough reasoning; this was a deliberate step towards making QI even more ridiculous
there is already a supreme court case which says that circuit precedent is binding on cops for QI purposes -- that has been a settled rule since 1999
by going out of their way to pretend that this is still an open question, the supreme court has manufactured a new basis for throwing that rule out (and is signaling that they want defendants to argue for that result)
Explaining that particular legalese is not disagreeing that the court is completely fucked.
people kept explaining, this legalese is not something to worry about, it's an innocent rhetorical norm
which in this case is wrong
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
this wasn't careful or thorough reasoning; this was a deliberate step towards making QI even more ridiculous
there is already a supreme court case which says that circuit precedent is binding on cops for QI purposes -- that has been a settled rule since 1999
by going out of their way to pretend that this is still an open question, the supreme court has manufactured a new basis for throwing that rule out (and is signaling that they want defendants to argue for that result)
Explaining that particular legalese is not disagreeing that the court is completely fucked.
people kept explaining, this legalese is not something to worry about, it's an innocent rhetorical norm
which in this case is wrong
Nowhere did I say this was an innocent rhetorical norm. I objected to the characterization of the phrasing as "sloppy writing" and explained how it is usually deployed in legal writing.
In this particular case, your reading may be correct. There is clearly at least one justice who may want to eliminate appellate decisions as a sufficient basis to overcome QI. The lack of dissent could signal majority support for this position.
That does not prove a majority supports this position, however. Per curiam decisions are opaque by nature. It's entirely possible that justices supporting the status quo around QI simply viewed the matter as irrelevant/settled and are secure enough in their majority on the issue that writing a dissent was a waste of time.
Is it a great sign for those wanting to hold police accountable? No, obviously not. Is it a cause for panic? I would argue no. We already knew that a couple justices are perfectly happy to allow police substantially more leeway in deploying violence. I'm not sure this tells us anything we didn't already know.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the Justice Dept's case against TX's abortion law in November. So while they're fast tracking the case, for some reason they're still refusing to simply stay the law until they can render an opinion.
The focus of the high court arguments will not be on the abortion ban, but whether the Justice Department can sue and obtain a court order that effectively prevents the law from being enforced, the Supreme Court said in its brief order.
If the law stays in effect, “no decision of this Court is safe. States need not comply with, or even challenge, precedents with which they disagree. They may simply outlaw the exercise of whatever rights they disfavor,” the Biden administration wrote in a brief filed earlier in the day.
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Sadly, I think we're in the Calvinball era of the court now; any state that builds this same end-run legal framework to do progressive things will get an unsigned shadow docket ruling outlawing it as a special case.
The gun regulations are coming, and I would bet a lot of money when they do the SC issues an immediate stay.
There's nothing to hold the Supreme Court accountable at this point, unless they somehow piss off 67 Senators. They could basically make any ruling at this point and there isn't shit anyone can do about, no matter how hypocritical, unconstitutional or evil it is.
The only thing they really have to fear at this point is an administration that decides the law doesn't apply to them, thus mooting anything the Supreme Court says. Which might be why they didn't go to bat for Trump.
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
+3
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
Didn't Trump basically do that with funding the wall, among many many other things?
+11
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
Didn't Trump basically do that with funding the wall, among many many other things?
Yes he did, and frankly at this point I think continuing to delegitimize the Supreme Court by just straight up ignoring them is a viable potential avenue if others don't work out. I see increasingly little value in the institution of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of constitutionality.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
+7
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
Didn't Trump basically do that with funding the wall, among many many other things?
Yes he did, and frankly at this point I think continuing to delegitimize the Supreme Court by just straight up ignoring them is a viable potential avenue if others don't work out. I see increasingly little value in the institution of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of constitutionality.
I would rather not callously abandon the rule of law completely just because the other side does.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
Didn't Trump basically do that with funding the wall, among many many other things?
Yes he did, and frankly at this point I think continuing to delegitimize the Supreme Court by just straight up ignoring them is a viable potential avenue if others don't work out. I see increasingly little value in the institution of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of constitutionality.
I would rather not callously abandon the rule of law completely just because the other side does.
I think Disregarding the Shadow Docket bullshit would be a fair compromise between totally abandoning the rule of law vs allowing the other side to ignore it entirely without consequence.
If SCOTUS isn't going to hear a case, and isn't going to sign an opinion, then that opinion should mean fuckall to the people it screws over.
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
Didn't Trump basically do that with funding the wall, among many many other things?
Yes he did, and frankly at this point I think continuing to delegitimize the Supreme Court by just straight up ignoring them is a viable potential avenue if others don't work out. I see increasingly little value in the institution of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of constitutionality.
I would rather not callously abandon the rule of law completely just because the other side does.
this wasn't careful or thorough reasoning; this was a deliberate step towards making QI even more ridiculous
there is already a supreme court case which says that circuit precedent is binding on cops for QI purposes -- that has been a settled rule since 1999
by going out of their way to pretend that this is still an open question, the supreme court has manufactured a new basis for throwing that rule out (and is signaling that they want defendants to argue for that result)
Explaining that particular legalese is not disagreeing that the court is completely fucked.
people kept explaining, this legalese is not something to worry about, it's an innocent rhetorical norm
which in this case is wrong
Nowhere did I say this was an innocent rhetorical norm. I objected to the characterization of the phrasing as "sloppy writing" and explained how it is usually deployed in legal writing.
yeah that's not what happened
Malyonsus was wishing that it had just been sloppy writing, because they recognized that SCOTUS had not made a mistake with their word choice, and was instead disingenuously teeing up a rule change to make QI even worse
I am mystified as to why so many people misread the post and then got weird and condescending about it
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
Didn't Trump basically do that with funding the wall, among many many other things?
Yes he did, and frankly at this point I think continuing to delegitimize the Supreme Court by just straight up ignoring them is a viable potential avenue if others don't work out. I see increasingly little value in the institution of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of constitutionality.
I would rather not callously abandon the rule of law completely just because the other side does.
A law only one side recognizes isn't much of a law. Conservatives flout and ignore the Supreme Court when it pleases them, and under a Conservative majority the Supreme Court either ignores it or backs it with insupportable doggerel. Furthermore as has been previously expressed the Courts have long been far more of a hindrance to progress and good governance than a boon. In theory I agree with the idea of Judicial Review. In practice, it has been a boondoggle and a millstone around the neck of democracy.
I will claim no expertise here, and this is just my own opinion based on my own observations, but experience of the institution has made me cynical of it, and disparaging of it, as a practical means of balancing the power of the legislature in any meaningful sense. I could be convinced otherwise, but there are 6 individuals who have done very much to convince me of this.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
+5
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
this wasn't careful or thorough reasoning; this was a deliberate step towards making QI even more ridiculous
there is already a supreme court case which says that circuit precedent is binding on cops for QI purposes -- that has been a settled rule since 1999
by going out of their way to pretend that this is still an open question, the supreme court has manufactured a new basis for throwing that rule out (and is signaling that they want defendants to argue for that result)
Explaining that particular legalese is not disagreeing that the court is completely fucked.
people kept explaining, this legalese is not something to worry about, it's an innocent rhetorical norm
which in this case is wrong
Nowhere did I say this was an innocent rhetorical norm. I objected to the characterization of the phrasing as "sloppy writing" and explained how it is usually deployed in legal writing.
yeah that's not what happened
Malyonsus was wishing that it had just been sloppy writing, because they recognized that SCOTUS had not made a mistake with their word choice, and was instead disingenuously teeing up a rule change to make QI even worse
I am mystified as to why so many people misread the post and then got weird and condescending about it
I passed the bar and it still took me about 3 or 4 reads of that sentence to understand why it was so stupid.
EDIT: To clarify
"Even assuming" or "Even if" is an extremely common rhetorical tool in general. In this specific case the sentence basically reads akin to
"Even assuming that you won the game because you had the most points, you still lose"
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
Didn't Trump basically do that with funding the wall, among many many other things?
Yes he did, and frankly at this point I think continuing to delegitimize the Supreme Court by just straight up ignoring them is a viable potential avenue if others don't work out. I see increasingly little value in the institution of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of constitutionality.
I would rather not callously abandon the rule of law completely just because the other side does.
If the rule of law only binds one side then its not law. Its tyranny
I dunno how, or if, this court can thread the needle of keeping the federal government from being able to stop shitty red states from being shitty, while also allowing future Republican administrations to stop blue states from doing good things. But I bet they will try.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
Didn't Trump basically do that with funding the wall, among many many other things?
Yes he did, and frankly at this point I think continuing to delegitimize the Supreme Court by just straight up ignoring them is a viable potential avenue if others don't work out. I see increasingly little value in the institution of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of constitutionality.
I would rather not callously abandon the rule of law completely just because the other side does.
If the rule of law only binds one side then its not law. Its tyranny
That's not even getting into disagreements over what "rule of law" even means.
Also, you can tell the Court is worried about this avenue because of all the public "we're not political!" BS various justices have been spouting. Protesting too much and all that.
BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to consider limiting EPA's authority to curb greenhouse gases from power plants, will hear appeals from coal-mining companies and Republican-led states
Steve Vladeck is a professor of law at the University of Texas has some thoughts on the case:
Not just the EPA’s authority; #SCOTUS has agreed to take up Congress’s *constitutional* authority to delegate to the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Could be a watershed moment in US history. For one it would override a very recent SCOTUS ruling (Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 which found that the EPA was required to regulate GHG emissions). For two it would further the erosion of the administrative state by requiring Congressional law specifically regulate separate entities rather than delegate authority to agencies, which is absurd on its face. For three well lol if you think the United States is gonna address climate change in any meaningful manner.
BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to consider limiting EPA's authority to curb greenhouse gases from power plants, will hear appeals from coal-mining companies and Republican-led states
Steve Vladeck is a professor of law at the University of Texas has some thoughts on the case:
Not just the EPA’s authority; #SCOTUS has agreed to take up Congress’s *constitutional* authority to delegate to the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Could be a watershed moment in US history. For one it would override a very recent SCOTUS ruling (Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 which found that the EPA was required to regulate GHG emissions). For two it would further the erosion of the administrative state by requiring Congressional law specifically regulate separate entities rather than delegate authority to agencies, which is absurd on its face. For three well lol if you think the United States is gonna address climate change in any meaningful manner.
This would make a good excuse to tell the SC to get bent and start ignoring their rulings entirely, IMO. This would be such a disgusting overreach of their authority and such a bad faith misinterpretation of the constitution, if they even bother anything beyond a surface level appeal to the nations' founding document, it really is just fucking untenable.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
The ruling would destroy the Federal Government. It would more or less destroy any federal authority to do anything.
Though, we do know that SCOTUS will append a "this ruling is only meant to take effect in this instance except in situations as which we will explain in the future as dictated by our donors and excoriate you for not following this ruling in an unsigned order"
BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to consider limiting EPA's authority to curb greenhouse gases from power plants, will hear appeals from coal-mining companies and Republican-led states
Steve Vladeck is a professor of law at the University of Texas has some thoughts on the case:
Not just the EPA’s authority; #SCOTUS has agreed to take up Congress’s *constitutional* authority to delegate to the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Could be a watershed moment in US history. For one it would override a very recent SCOTUS ruling (Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 which found that the EPA was required to regulate GHG emissions). For two it would further the erosion of the administrative state by requiring Congressional law specifically regulate separate entities rather than delegate authority to agencies, which is absurd on its face. For three well lol if you think the United States is gonna address climate change in any meaningful manner.
Just as expected, they are coming for Chevron. I expect this to be bad.
BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to consider limiting EPA's authority to curb greenhouse gases from power plants, will hear appeals from coal-mining companies and Republican-led states
Steve Vladeck is a professor of law at the University of Texas has some thoughts on the case:
Not just the EPA’s authority; #SCOTUS has agreed to take up Congress’s *constitutional* authority to delegate to the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Could be a watershed moment in US history. For one it would override a very recent SCOTUS ruling (Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 which found that the EPA was required to regulate GHG emissions). For two it would further the erosion of the administrative state by requiring Congressional law specifically regulate separate entities rather than delegate authority to agencies, which is absurd on its face. For three well lol if you think the United States is gonna address climate change in any meaningful manner.
This would make a good excuse to tell the SC to get bent and start ignoring their rulings entirely, IMO. This would be such a disgusting overreach of their authority and such a bad faith misinterpretation of the constitution, if they even bother anything beyond a surface level appeal to the nations' founding document, it really is just fucking untenable.
That it would. But alas I don't think Biden would be up for that.
Oh, the Supreme Court is going to try to destroy the federal government and it's the one issue that Joe Manchin is absolutely guaranteed to cheer on and block packing the court over
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
In "Worst person you know made a great point." Barret and Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the libs to declined to block a vaccines mandate in Maine that required religious exemptions.
In "Worst person you know made a great point." Barret and Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the libs to declined to block a vaccines mandate in Maine that required religious exemptions.
The only thing I wonder is if there's any concern from people like Roberts that completely gutting the regulatory state would cause an actual backlash.
In "Worst person you know made a great point." Barret and Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the libs to declined to block a vaccines mandate in Maine that required religious exemptions.
They understand that plague doesn't discriminate, and vaccines are not perfect. They're also not both feet in the grave old. It's very much in their own best interest to rule this way
Yeah, I think it's probably that being anti-vaxx is not relevant to the kind of conservatism a bunch of the republican SCOTUS justices care about. It's the same way they snubbed Trump. They don't give a fuck about him and they don't give a fuck about this covid-denialism shit either. There's no gutting regulation or rigging elections or lowering taxes or controlling women's bodies or whatever else in this issue.
Oh they do care. Business America is very much interested on getting Everything Back To Normal (tm) and it sunk early on the year that the only way that happens is everybody getting their shots. So, mood has been "get the jab or get the boot". Specially with the Biden Executive Orden that put a hard deadline for federal contractors to have everybody with their shots. As an example, Citigroup:
New York (CNN Business)Citigroup told staff Thursday that US-based employees will be required to get fully vaccinated if they want to stay employed.
In a post on LinkedIn, Citi's head of human resources Sara Wechter partially cited the Biden administration's vaccine order for federal contractors, noting the US government is a "large and important client" of the bank.
"We have an obligation to comply with the Executive Order issued by the White House mandating that individuals supporting government contracts be fully vaccinated — an order that would impact the vast majority of our U.S. colleagues," Wechter wrote.
A Citi (C) official told CNN the bank is strongly encouraging and incentivizing employees to submit proof of vaccination by December 8, including by offering a $200 "thank you" to those that do.
As a condition of employment, Citi employees will need to submit proof of vaccination by January 14, the Citi official said, adding that the bank will do everything it can to help staff get vaccinated to avoid being let go.
The other factor behind the vaccine mandate at Citi is a desire to protect its employees.
"Having a vaccinated workforce enables us to ensure the health and safety of our colleagues as we return to the office in the US," Wechter, the HR executive, wrote in the LinkedIn post.
Yeah, I suspect what's going on with the vaccine thing is that more of the federalist shits are factoring in corporate interests. Having your dipshit base run around like disease carrying rats is really bad for business because enough people will flat out refuse to work or go out because of that shit. You probably also see a divide where some are still willing to cater to the dipshit plague crowd because they actually believe in that horseshit or just don't give a shit because the realize their time is numbered. Where you get Kavanaugh and Barrett being young enough that they get a few decades to abuse their position on the court, but only if their disease rat fucker base doesn't get them killed with preventable illnesses.
I also would be surprised if the corporate interests are pushing for this to not go the way the lunatics want because there is a real risk that the setup filters down in a way that makes winning elections harder for them. Even when rigging the vote, you still need to have your population be within a certain ballpark to have the numbers to win. If they are all dying and new people are bailing because they are aware enough to realize why their peers are dying in the sticks. You run a real risk of not having the votes to keep power (I mean they might try to say fuck elections, but I don't think that plays out well for them at all). Sure they have a bunch of shitty cops but those fuckers are cowards when faced with someone that can fight back and they know the military is not on their side.
As for the other case. I'm already preparing for that to be a shit show. If they undermine the EPA the way they appear to be gunning for, no fucking way they manage to coherently limit that to just the agencies they don't like. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the dipshits haven't thought this through at all. Probably thinking doing it will be a great way to own the libs, not realizing all the things this will fuck up. Also likely not realizing how this is really going to bite them in the ass through a massive backlash.
Though not sure how well this nation is going to hold up when that shit show lands. I fear that's likely going to create a scenario where those of us with disabilities and a need for assistance might have to look into apply for refugee status abroad because I can already see that being used to hack away at ADA, medicare, medicaid, and any other government program. So some fucking pig can get their next yacht quicker and gleefully squeal over how they get to run their petty fiefdom as they please. Well up until the point where it all blows up in their fucking faces.
The only thing I wonder is if there's any concern from people like Roberts that completely gutting the regulatory state would cause an actual backlash.
In the conservative mind, there is never any backlash. The whole point is to teach people their place in the world. By making this ruling, by saying these words, we demonstrate this. This is how they carve reality to fit their imaginations. This is how you put the rabble down, they say as they pound the table. This is the law, dammit, and you better respect that.
So when the inevitable backlash does come, and it has been building strong this past year, they will continue to act surprised that people outside of their chosen groups don't respond well to being told to get in line.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
In "Worst person you know made a great point." Barret and Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the libs to declined to block a vaccines mandate in Maine that required religious exemptions.
A fig leaf to appear 'balanced' after they just vivisected the EPA on the steps of the courthouse
Do note that they haven't done anything to the EPA yet. They just seem to doing things that only make sense if they plan on giving the EPA a right good kicking at the very least somewhere in about a year or so.
Posts
Explaining that particular legalese is not disagreeing that the court is completely fucked.
people kept explaining, this legalese is not something to worry about, it's an innocent rhetorical norm
which in this case is wrong
Nowhere did I say this was an innocent rhetorical norm. I objected to the characterization of the phrasing as "sloppy writing" and explained how it is usually deployed in legal writing.
In this particular case, your reading may be correct. There is clearly at least one justice who may want to eliminate appellate decisions as a sufficient basis to overcome QI. The lack of dissent could signal majority support for this position.
That does not prove a majority supports this position, however. Per curiam decisions are opaque by nature. It's entirely possible that justices supporting the status quo around QI simply viewed the matter as irrelevant/settled and are secure enough in their majority on the issue that writing a dissent was a waste of time.
Is it a great sign for those wanting to hold police accountable? No, obviously not. Is it a cause for panic? I would argue no. We already knew that a couple justices are perfectly happy to allow police substantially more leeway in deploying violence. I'm not sure this tells us anything we didn't already know.
Which does not give me high hopes for the outcome.
Edit: that is to say it gives the conservatives on SCOTUS two options
1) it’s unconstitutional but you cannot sue so too bad neener neener neener
2) you can sue and we are going to put up every procedural block to prevent the inevitable outcome as long as possible.
I hope that the answer is two but it’s still not a great result.
The gun regulations are coming, and I would bet a lot of money when they do the SC issues an immediate stay.
The only thing they really have to fear at this point is an administration that decides the law doesn't apply to them, thus mooting anything the Supreme Court says. Which might be why they didn't go to bat for Trump.
Have you ever heard of the legal theory "what are you going to do about it huh?
Honeslty, at this point it wouldn't surprise me if a president pulls an Andrew Jackson "The court has rendered it's decision, now let them enforce it." within the next 10 years.
Didn't Trump basically do that with funding the wall, among many many other things?
Yes he did, and frankly at this point I think continuing to delegitimize the Supreme Court by just straight up ignoring them is a viable potential avenue if others don't work out. I see increasingly little value in the institution of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of constitutionality.
I would rather not callously abandon the rule of law completely just because the other side does.
I think Disregarding the Shadow Docket bullshit would be a fair compromise between totally abandoning the rule of law vs allowing the other side to ignore it entirely without consequence.
If SCOTUS isn't going to hear a case, and isn't going to sign an opinion, then that opinion should mean fuckall to the people it screws over.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The rule of law is an agreement.
yeah that's not what happened
Malyonsus was wishing that it had just been sloppy writing, because they recognized that SCOTUS had not made a mistake with their word choice, and was instead disingenuously teeing up a rule change to make QI even worse
I am mystified as to why so many people misread the post and then got weird and condescending about it
A law only one side recognizes isn't much of a law. Conservatives flout and ignore the Supreme Court when it pleases them, and under a Conservative majority the Supreme Court either ignores it or backs it with insupportable doggerel. Furthermore as has been previously expressed the Courts have long been far more of a hindrance to progress and good governance than a boon. In theory I agree with the idea of Judicial Review. In practice, it has been a boondoggle and a millstone around the neck of democracy.
I will claim no expertise here, and this is just my own opinion based on my own observations, but experience of the institution has made me cynical of it, and disparaging of it, as a practical means of balancing the power of the legislature in any meaningful sense. I could be convinced otherwise, but there are 6 individuals who have done very much to convince me of this.
I passed the bar and it still took me about 3 or 4 reads of that sentence to understand why it was so stupid.
EDIT: To clarify
"Even assuming" or "Even if" is an extremely common rhetorical tool in general. In this specific case the sentence basically reads akin to
"Even assuming that you won the game because you had the most points, you still lose"
If the rule of law only binds one side then its not law. Its tyranny
That's not even getting into disagreements over what "rule of law" even means.
Also, you can tell the Court is worried about this avenue because of all the public "we're not political!" BS various justices have been spouting. Protesting too much and all that.
Steve Vladeck is a professor of law at the University of Texas has some thoughts on the case:
Could be a watershed moment in US history. For one it would override a very recent SCOTUS ruling (Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 which found that the EPA was required to regulate GHG emissions). For two it would further the erosion of the administrative state by requiring Congressional law specifically regulate separate entities rather than delegate authority to agencies, which is absurd on its face. For three well lol if you think the United States is gonna address climate change in any meaningful manner.
This would make a good excuse to tell the SC to get bent and start ignoring their rulings entirely, IMO. This would be such a disgusting overreach of their authority and such a bad faith misinterpretation of the constitution, if they even bother anything beyond a surface level appeal to the nations' founding document, it really is just fucking untenable.
Though, we do know that SCOTUS will append a "this ruling is only meant to take effect in this instance except in situations as which we will explain in the future as dictated by our donors and excoriate you for not following this ruling in an unsigned order"
Just as expected, they are coming for Chevron. I expect this to be bad.
“Of course the Federal Government can regulate this and delegate that to the EPA. Go fuck yourselves.”
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I'm very confused.
https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-health-maine-6f246ae1c1dd501e40ceb470f0cc2366
A fig leaf to appear 'balanced' after they just vivisected the EPA on the steps of the courthouse
They understand that plague doesn't discriminate, and vaccines are not perfect. They're also not both feet in the grave old. It's very much in their own best interest to rule this way
I also would be surprised if the corporate interests are pushing for this to not go the way the lunatics want because there is a real risk that the setup filters down in a way that makes winning elections harder for them. Even when rigging the vote, you still need to have your population be within a certain ballpark to have the numbers to win. If they are all dying and new people are bailing because they are aware enough to realize why their peers are dying in the sticks. You run a real risk of not having the votes to keep power (I mean they might try to say fuck elections, but I don't think that plays out well for them at all). Sure they have a bunch of shitty cops but those fuckers are cowards when faced with someone that can fight back and they know the military is not on their side.
As for the other case. I'm already preparing for that to be a shit show. If they undermine the EPA the way they appear to be gunning for, no fucking way they manage to coherently limit that to just the agencies they don't like. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the dipshits haven't thought this through at all. Probably thinking doing it will be a great way to own the libs, not realizing all the things this will fuck up. Also likely not realizing how this is really going to bite them in the ass through a massive backlash.
Though not sure how well this nation is going to hold up when that shit show lands. I fear that's likely going to create a scenario where those of us with disabilities and a need for assistance might have to look into apply for refugee status abroad because I can already see that being used to hack away at ADA, medicare, medicaid, and any other government program. So some fucking pig can get their next yacht quicker and gleefully squeal over how they get to run their petty fiefdom as they please. Well up until the point where it all blows up in their fucking faces.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
In the conservative mind, there is never any backlash. The whole point is to teach people their place in the world. By making this ruling, by saying these words, we demonstrate this. This is how they carve reality to fit their imaginations. This is how you put the rabble down, they say as they pound the table. This is the law, dammit, and you better respect that.
So when the inevitable backlash does come, and it has been building strong this past year, they will continue to act surprised that people outside of their chosen groups don't respond well to being told to get in line.
Do note that they haven't done anything to the EPA yet. They just seem to doing things that only make sense if they plan on giving the EPA a right good kicking at the very least somewhere in about a year or so.