The Thomas version is the republican dream because it effectively ends the administrative state and hobbles all environmental law. Imagine congress drafting air emissions regulations. lol.
Right. It would be a nightmare.
Looking at whoâs authored majorities so far for the January sitting only JR and Rapenaugh havenât done one yet so itâs likely one of those two. And given JRâs penchant for keeping the juicy ones for himself Iâd say itâs more likely to come from him.
Oh joy. Itâs sure to be overwrought and more confusing if thatâs the case.
âJustice Barrett, concurring with Parts 1-3 but dissenting from parts 4-7 of rape guyâs majority opinion,â clarifies FUCK OFF LIBS
Opinions coming today, tomorrow, and Friday. They havenât announced that Friday is the last day so itâs possible they kick one or two (lol Trump immunity) to next week although not certain yet. Either way get ready for some heinous shit to start coming out.
Granting Trump immunity right before the debate and letting him run a victory lap would be just perfect.
Maybe the Court grants Presidential immunity and a member of Seal Team 6 interrupts the debate by shooting Trump? Have we considered that yet?
10 Likes
Only 2 opinions, nothing major. The government can coordinate with social media companies 6-3 based on lack of standing by the states suing and reinforcing that bribery is legal 6-3. Seems super likely that weâre going to spill over into next week (lol warp speedaments).
2 Likes
1 Like
lol so you just have to pay your bribe after, not before?
and then itâs a gratuity⌠and vote trump for no taxes on tips!
1 Like
According to previous cases you can also pay your bribe before too. As long as you donât explicitly say âIâm giving you this bribe so you do Xâ and get it signed and notarized youâre pretty much good to go. Even then youâre probably 50/50 to get an overturn of your conviction by this court.
1 Like
On 5-4 they were making fun that when conservatives want to they can easily understand a concept but when it cuts against what they want they act very philosophical. On 5-4 it was when it comes to political gerrymandering the justices are like âwell what is a political party? What does it mean?â but when it comes to being asked to testify about corruption by a Democrat theyâre suddenly like âitâd look suspicious to only meet with one political partyâ
Here the justices are like âexchanging money? What about gifts? What is a gift in the first place?â and when you read the actual events told by the dissent youâre like âyea this is clearly corruptionâ. When you tailor your contracts to favor one company and then show up at the company saying âI need moneyâ and ask for $15,000 dollars (they negotiated it down to 13,000) and it gets billed as âconsulting servicesâ then yea itâs clearly corruption.
The employees even testified that he didnât do any consulting services! You canât make it any more obvious except to show up and say âIâm here for my bribeâ.
1 Like
The summary I saw was that the decision was that bribing a state official is a matter for the state and the existing federal laws applied to bribing federal officials.
doesnât that kind of make it a conflict of interest to narrow it like that? so if the state is the only one that can punish bribery of state officials, why not just bribe the state officials that punish bribery. free gratuities for all and no consequences?
we have investigated ourselves and we have found no wrongdoing.
What if I told you itâs completely legal to bribe a justice in the highest court in the country?
3 Likes
My understanding is that it was a federal law that applied to bribing state or local officials and the SC decided that for this particular law what happened didnât count as bribery. The state could have their own laws that could apply at the state level.
But I donât have time to read the decisions so I might have been reading the excerpts wrong.
1 Like
Bonus opinion: