https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4798492-bill-barr-biden-supreme-court-reform/
Another leak about Supreme Court deliberations. Also makes the complaints about Barrett, that sheâs under the sway of Kagan, make sense.
I get that this stuff is non sensical, but I donât get how this
In his separate July 1 opinion for a minority, Alito pointed up why states might want to regulate how platforms filter content: âDeleting the account of an elected official or candidate for public office may seriously impair that individualâs efforts to reach constituents or voters, as well as the ability of voters to make a fully informed electoral choice. And what platforms call âcontent moderationâ of the news or user comments on public affairs can have a substantial effect on popular views.â
is compatible with rejecting the equal time doctrine. I mean I know Alito is just mad that conservatives are supposedly being censored, but it seems like not allowing Biden to give a presentation package on Fox News could substantial effect Bidenâs ability to reach voters.
Justice Clarence Thomas failed to publicly disclose additional private travel provided by the wealthy conservative donor Harlan Crow, a top Democratic senator said in a letter on Monday.
Customs and Border Protection records revealed that the justice and his wife, Virginia Thomas, took a round trip between Hawaii and New Zealand in November 2010 on Mr. Crowâs private jet, according to the letter. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, writing to Mr. Crowâs lawyer, demanded that he supply more information about the financial relationship between the two men.
2 Likes
This recent episode made me slightly more sympathetic to the majority position on the recent homeless case. At least it doesnât seem totally made up like their other major decisions.
Cliffs? Because at first glance in June, I thought this was a cruel decision that, while not batshit insane, still rested on poor logic and ignored precedent, and yesterdayâs 5-4 only reinforced that.
Essentially because the law doesnât make it illegal to be homeless it doesnât contradict the constitution. The law makes actions illegal (ie camping). The president made it illegal to be a drug addict.
Interesting nuance that doesnât seem totally batshit insane like so much if the other reasons.
Obviously I donât agree but at least it doesnât seem wholly made up.
That has been covered by others (and coincidentally by 5-4 in the episode mentioned by TN)
The court pretends itâs actions because thatâs what they have to say, the same way they pretend all of their rulings are based on something that could maybe somehow have a shred of logic.
But itâs not actions, itâs status. Theyâre literally saying this, unironically
3 Likes
Again I am not agreeing. Iâm simply saying it doesnât seem wholly made up like âmajor questions doctrineâ.
I can see good faith people disagreeing on this interpretation. Itâs a low bar but at least itâs not totally bs. lol
1 Like
I donât think we should be giving the majority any credit for simply blatantly misapplying the law rather than making it up.
1 Like
Yea for sure, I didnât mean to imply that you agree. Just making the point that I donât think their argument in this instance actually has any more credence to it than the normal bullshit they spit out
The example they gave in this episode was interesting. Apparently a few years after the first case about status a guy appealed his drunk in public conviction for the same reason and Scotus said those laws are fine as they were not criminalizing being an alcoholic, just being drunk in public.
The original case was a conviction for literally being an addict.
Itâs an interesting nuance.
It makes it illegal to be broke.
It was the law until 2018, so no reason to assume it has no legal basis. Itâs still heinous and obviously cruel.
Itâs not illegal to not have a home or to sleep, just to sleep if you donât have a home.
2 Likes
ie, the difference is that you donât have to get drunk or take drugs to live, but you do have to sleep and get some kind of shelter.
Return of the two penny hangover coming soon
2 Likes
Sure but as I understand the original SCOTUS logic it was that being an addict isnât a choice so itâs a status. Laws canât make a status illegal.
Again, Iâm not agreeing with the decision. Just found it more nuanced than I had originally thought.
And sleeping isnât a choice either at some point. Is breathing a choice? The law in question was one in Grants Pass, Oregon where it was illegal to sleep in public. You can argue about whether taking shelter and sleeping is an action or status, but thatâs dumb lawbro stuff. Itâs not reasonable to legislate as if itâs a choice.
And again, those kinds of laws were in place up until 2018. This new horrible decision is a return to the norm, so itâs not like Clarence Thomas is the first asshole in history.
