The Supreme Court: RIP Literally Everything

It’s not condescending to clarify a point of debate. Anyway, I’m not going to fight over this. I’m done fighting on this site. I’m going back to posting about fun stuff like tv and poker. Carry on.

1 Like
2 Likes

Maybe y’all just expect too much from journalists.

I would say that it’s more a frustration with journalists having this elevated self images about their importance as The Fourth Estate while performing so abysmally.

1 Like

I’ve been on the RBG is fucking terrible train for a long time (for not stepping down). She has negative VORJ if we replaced her with whoever Clinton’s second pick was. That person would have probably voted the same on pretty much everything, not been BFFs with Scalia, and had the good sense to step down in Obama’s second term when in her 80s and having been recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Fuck her. And we haven’t even gotten to her recently discovered racism yet.

If Breyer doesn’t step down soon, he’s going on Melkerson’s shit list. He has a little time, but the window is closing fast. He needs to give notice to resign upon confirmation of his successor pretty damn quickly.

3 Likes

Anyone who socialized with Antonin Scalia was a piece of shit. Period. RBG was married to a BigLaw tax partner. I respect her narcissistic tenacity but she just plain sucked. Shout out only fighting for issues that influenced your life directly in true Republican fashion.

4 Likes

Biden’s commission on SCOTUS reform has delivered its report!

13 Likes

I can’t wait for the 5-4 episode on this report

“Even if we accept humans are causing climate change this close identification with climate change and humans has real detrimental consequences.”

5 Likes

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1450092416250286084?t=8dy83ovEklD8WcZL62NnUA&s=19

1 Like

Unanimously.

Why cops need immunity of any kind will never make sense to me.

If anything, the people in society we give the power of force should be excluding from any kind of immunity except in very defined and narrow circumstances.

6 Likes

Qualified immunity isn’t a cop thing, it applies to all government officials. The reason it exists is that no one would work for the government otherwise. Anyone who wields power will affect lots of people. If your decision which happens to harm someone gives a cause of action, every high ranking official would be bankrupt.

I realize that deterring people from becoming cops is feature not bug.

Then we need an effective measure to deal with situations where their misconduct causes harm. They can’t have it both ways so that police officers are forever and always held harmless for the consequences of their actions. This has the obvious ans observed real world affect of encouraging stuff like police brutality.

1 Like

That’s always going to look like a version of the system we have: disciplinary boards and occasional criminal charges. Probably the only way to do that is to staff departments with people who are more inclined to snitch than get along with their colleagues. That’s a rare personality trait to begin with and social media is deterring the few people like that from signing up.

Qualified Immunity was made up by a court in 1967. People worked for the government before then. They still would today – job security and benefits!
YOU would take a govt job with no qualified immunity. It wouldn’t even enter into your thinking.

6 Likes

The qualified immunity defense protects police and other government officials from civil litigation in certain circumstances, permitting lawsuits only when an individual’s “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights have been violated.

The rulings indicated that the justices think lower courts still are denying qualified immunity too frequently in police excessive force cases, having previously chided appeals courts on that issue in recent years.

The Supreme Court, against government tyranny.

Weird, can’t remember any cases about legacies donors or athletes, lol law

The highly unusual court action appears to be the result of two internal Supreme Court rules. It takes the votes of only four justices to grant review in a case. But it takes the votes of five justices to reverse a lower court decision like this one.

Seems bleak

That they seem to be OK with utterly dystopian bounty enforcement on top of the dystopian end of Roe is doubly disheartening.

1 Like