Fundraising complete, next renewal is August 2022. Paypal Donation Links US dollars CDN Dollars

SCOTUS Watch

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 68883
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

Texas legislature
State legislators in Texas make $600 per month, or $7,200 per year, plus a per diem of $190 for every day the Legislature is in session (also including any special sessions). That adds up to $33,800 a year for a regular session (140 days), with the total pay for a two-year term being $41,000. Legislators receive a pension after eight years of service, starting at age 60.
So who but the idle rich can afford to be a Texas state legislator?

Ballotpedia
Full-time states have legislators who devote 84 percent of a full time job to their legislative duties which include committee hearings, listening sessions, constituent service, and time spent campaigning. On average, each full-time legislator is paid about $82,358.

Hybrid states have legislators who devote 74 percent of a full time job to their legislative duties. Legislators estimate they spend more than two-thirds of a full-time job on their legislative duties. On average, each hybrid legislator is paid about $41,110.

Part-time states have legislators who devote 57 percent of a full time job to their legislative duties. On average, each legislator is paid about $18,449. These are also called "traditional or citizen legislatures" and the legislators typically need additional sources of income outside the legislature to make a living.
There are ten FT states, and fourteen PT states.
Black Lives Matter

Unrelated: "It's its own cloaca, shaped in its perfect, unique way"
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Fireball »

Holman wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:25 pm
Fireball wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:35 pm
Remus West wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:22 pm
Fireball wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:28 pm One of the electoral reforms we should pass next year should be the automatic publication on the IRS website of tax returns for the sitting president, vice president, members of the Cabinet and all members of Congress each year within a month of the returns being filed, as well as five years of prior returns for any candidate for president, vice president or Congress within a week of a person filing the FEC forms to create a candidate committee.
That would be a good one. I'd also like to see something that would force a person like tRump to actually separate from his holdings ala Carter's peanut farm.
Yes, I'd be fine with requiring the president to sell all financial assets and put all proceeds into a blind trust, with the exception of small, family-owned businesses up to a certain size for things like family restaurants or farms.
Why not this for all holders of public office?

You're either a public servant or you're not. The role isn't for everyone.
All elected officials? Including city council members and state legislators whose jobs are part time?

Members of Congress, Federal Judges, members of the Cabinet, sure. But "all holders of public office" is too much. The more onerous and burdensome you make being an elected official, the lower the quality of person you'll have running for office. There are lines to be drawn, and they shouldn't all be drawn in the most stringent manner possible.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 24918
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Holman »

Fireball wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:51 pm All elected officials? Including city council members and state legislators whose jobs are part time?

Members of Congress, Federal Judges, members of the Cabinet, sure. But "all holders of public office" is too much. The more onerous and burdensome you make being an elected official, the lower the quality of person you'll have running for office. There are lines to be drawn, and they shouldn't all be drawn in the most stringent manner possible.
Good point.

Perhaps the standard should be that the more power you have, the more public you must make your records and your history. A sort of sliding scale.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 12521
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Paingod »

Holman wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:42 amPerhaps the standard should be that the more power you have, the more public you must make your records and your history. A sort of sliding scale.
I'm okay with "If you sit anywhere in Congress or are elected to the Executive branch"
Black Lives Matter

2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 12952
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by ImLawBoy »

Fireball wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:35 pm
Remus West wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:22 pm
Fireball wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:28 pm One of the electoral reforms we should pass next year should be the automatic publication on the IRS website of tax returns for the sitting president, vice president, members of the Cabinet and all members of Congress each year within a month of the returns being filed, as well as five years of prior returns for any candidate for president, vice president or Congress within a week of a person filing the FEC forms to create a candidate committee.
That would be a good one. I'd also like to see something that would force a person like tRump to actually separate from his holdings ala Carter's peanut farm.
Yes, I'd be fine with requiring the president to sell all financial assets and put all proceeds into a blind trust, with the exception of small, family-owned businesses up to a certain size for things like family restaurants or farms.
Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter should have kept his peanut farm? My God, imagine the horrible power he would have wielded to control the global peanut markets . . . .
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4655
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Fireball »

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:15 am
Fireball wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:35 pm
Remus West wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:22 pm
Fireball wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:28 pm One of the electoral reforms we should pass next year should be the automatic publication on the IRS website of tax returns for the sitting president, vice president, members of the Cabinet and all members of Congress each year within a month of the returns being filed, as well as five years of prior returns for any candidate for president, vice president or Congress within a week of a person filing the FEC forms to create a candidate committee.
That would be a good one. I'd also like to see something that would force a person like tRump to actually separate from his holdings ala Carter's peanut farm.
Yes, I'd be fine with requiring the president to sell all financial assets and put all proceeds into a blind trust, with the exception of small, family-owned businesses up to a certain size for things like family restaurants or farms.
Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter should have kept his peanut farm? My God, imagine the horrible power he would have wielded to control the global peanut markets . . . .
It's literally the only reason he ran for president, and we denied him that power!
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 36242
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm Before I Got To Be President
For generations, U.S. presidents have gone to great lengths to avoid potential conflicts of interest. When I was elected, I followed suit by placing my small business in a blind trust to assure our citizens that I would always put the country’s interests ahead of my own. It’s a vital presidential tradition. That’s why I find it a bit curious that our new commander-in-chief has been allowed to ignore it.

For Christ’s sake, you people made me get rid of my peanut farm before you let me be president.

I grew up on that farm. When my father died, I moved back home and worked those fields with my own two hands to keep it afloat. It was a hard job, but it was so rewarding. It wasn’t just a business—it was the place I called home. Letting go of the family farm was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do, but I did it because the American people asked me to. I did it for their sake, without enthusiasm, but also without hesitation.

Boy, times sure have changed, haven’t they? I couldn’t help but notice that the current occupant of the White House owns more than 500 companies, has business interests across the Middle East and Asia, and owes hundreds of millions of dollars to banks he is now responsible for regulating. It seems a touch unfair that a bigger fuss was made about my little peanut operation than all his office towers, hotels, and golf courses combined. All I had was a farm, you know? A small, precious farm.

Seriously, it was just a few fields and a warehouse, and you idiots still appointed a special prosecutor and spent six months investigating it.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 19849
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Defiant »

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from a church in Nevada to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members to form a majority.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/us/s ... virus.html
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 68883
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

I ... don’t know how I feel about the decision.
Black Lives Matter

Unrelated: "It's its own cloaca, shaped in its perfect, unique way"
malchior
Posts: 14613
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

I don't know enough about it but that the entire right is having a meltdown is fun...oh I meant scary...to watch. The three dissenting opinions all complain about discrimination against religion. Maybe that's happening but I really, really, really doubt it. The more important thing to me is that we have a sharpening picture that the court may have several heavily theocratic jurists playing to the politics of religion now.

Edit: I just dug in now. The dissents may have a point that the churches might prevail but the applicant already has online services as an alternative. No one is saying they can't practice their religion. It seems like there is very little harm erring on the side of public health while the issue is worked out but these guys are heavily banging the drums to signal how Nevada (and the Court) is trampling all over religion.

To re-frame this a bit, the minority would have issued an order from their high seats in DC to Nevada overriding a Governor about his public health policy in the middle of a pandemic. And the only likely difference would be that the occupancy would be bumped from max 50 people to 50% occupancy limits to bring it in line with other indoor venues.

BTW, Kavanaugh doesn't seem to think that different use cases matter. In both the similar California case and this one he goes on about supermarkets. People (typically) don't hang out in super markets for hours on end, shoulder to shoulder, singing, and shaking hands. Somehow that reality doesn't matter to him. It is just 'muh religion'. Maybe someone should remind him that is a good place to get beer.
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 26667
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 16018
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by pr0ner »

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:56 pm I ... don’t know how I feel about the decision.
It's consistent, since they did the same thing with a California church making a similar request a couple of months ago.
Hodor.
User avatar
Montag
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Montag »

If restrictions are being applied to groups in general, then you are not discriminating against religion. If it was only done to religions or worse specific religions, then you have a case.
words
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 3981
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kurth »

pr0ner wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:17 am
Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:56 pm I ... don’t know how I feel about the decision.
It's consistent, since they did the same thing with a California church making a similar request a couple of months ago.
Great read. And it's nice that there are some positive things to look to during these times. The following passage from that article summed up for me the thing I enjoy seeing the most:
The ruling that emerged in the consolidated LGBTQ cases reflects a new kind of consensus-building among the justices. The conservative majority is not a monolith that can be counted on to vote a certain way. Different conservative justices, following their own instincts and approaches, sometimes move left on the law.
As it should be.
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it -- John Gilmore
Black Lives Matter
malchior
Posts: 14613
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

I guess we can finally scratch flouting a SCOTUS decision off Trump's list.

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 26667
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:36 pm I guess we can finally scratch flouting a SCOTUS decision off Trump's list.

SCOTUS said the way they tried to do it was wrong, not that it couldn't be done. They pretty much laid out the path he had to take.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 12371
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Jaymann »

stessier wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:47 pm
malchior wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:36 pm I guess we can finally scratch flouting a SCOTUS decision off Trump's list.

SCOTUS said the way they tried to do it was wrong, not that it couldn't be done. They pretty much laid out the path he had to take.
Hopefully that would involve too much work and too many lost golf rounds for marmalade man.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
malchior
Posts: 14613
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

stessier wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:47 pm
malchior wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:36 pm I guess we can finally scratch flouting a SCOTUS decision off Trump's list.

SCOTUS said the way they tried to do it was wrong, not that it couldn't be done. They pretty much laid out the path he had to take.
Right but the judge overseeing the current case gave them an order based on the SCOTUS ruling. That Trump immediately turned around and essentially is doing nothing 'while they explore the legality of the program' is pretty much thumbing their nose at the court. It isn't like they need to invent some new process while they explore another option. This is how they've broken norms elsewhere. They step slowly into the lawlessness. If they were truly honoring the spirit of the SCOTUS decision they'd resume taking applications under the current program and go through the administrative change process.
User avatar
Montag
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Montag »

DACA is not law, it is an executive order. I find it problematic, the court is blocking the repeal of an order instead of its creation.

Congress needs to do its job (roll eyes, snicker, sigh) and codify it.
words
malchior
Posts: 14613
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Montag wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:53 am DACA is not law, it is an executive order. I find it problematic, the court is blocking the repeal of an order instead of its creation.

Congress needs to do its job (roll eyes, snicker, sigh) and codify it.
Sorta. Implementing Executive Orders is governed by the APA. It is a framework within the law. You can think of it as Congress devolved some its power to the Executive. And the Executive has to go through a process when they create new regulations like DACA. The Trump administration needed to follow a process to dismantle DACA. And that is what SCOTUS held; the Trump administration failed to follow the right process to roll back the regulation.

The Maryland judge then ordered them to resume the program based on SCOTUS's guidance. In essence, since it was rolled back illegally then the administration logically should follow the regulation and resume applications/extensions. The Trump administration essentially said, "Nope. Not doing it. Stop us." It's blatantly lawless.

Roberts might have given them a roadmap but it doesn't mean they don't still have to do the work. If they don't and Biden wins, then he'll just pick it up as it was and continue on. Which call me crazy is no way to run a country.
User avatar
Montag
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Montag »

malchior wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:54 am
Montag wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:53 am DACA is not law, it is an executive order. I find it problematic, the court is blocking the repeal of an order instead of its creation.

Congress needs to do its job (roll eyes, snicker, sigh) and codify it.
Sorta. Implementing Executive Orders is governed by the APA. It is a framework within the law. You can think of it as Congress devolved some its power to the Executive. And the Executive has to go through a process when they create new regulations like DACA. The Trump administration needed to follow a process to dismantle DACA. And that is what SCOTUS held; the Trump administration failed to follow the right process to roll back the regulation.

The Maryland judge then ordered them to resume the program based on SCOTUS's guidance. In essence, since it was rolled back illegally then the administration logically should follow the regulation and resume applications/extensions. The Trump administration essentially said, "Nope. Not doing it. Stop us." It's blatantly lawless.

Roberts might have given them a roadmap but it doesn't mean they don't still have to do the work. If they don't and Biden wins, then he'll just pick it up as it was and continue on. Which call me crazy is no way to run a country.
I get it. If the Trump admin followed proper procedures he could have killed DACA. I believe many pundits said as such. If this is such an important issue, it should be law to prevent the executive branch toying with it.
words
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 36242
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Montag wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:48 pm
malchior wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:54 am
Montag wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:53 am DACA is not law, it is an executive order. I find it problematic, the court is blocking the repeal of an order instead of its creation.

Congress needs to do its job (roll eyes, snicker, sigh) and codify it.
Sorta. Implementing Executive Orders is governed by the APA. It is a framework within the law. You can think of it as Congress devolved some its power to the Executive. And the Executive has to go through a process when they create new regulations like DACA. The Trump administration needed to follow a process to dismantle DACA. And that is what SCOTUS held; the Trump administration failed to follow the right process to roll back the regulation.

The Maryland judge then ordered them to resume the program based on SCOTUS's guidance. In essence, since it was rolled back illegally then the administration logically should follow the regulation and resume applications/extensions. The Trump administration essentially said, "Nope. Not doing it. Stop us." It's blatantly lawless.

Roberts might have given them a roadmap but it doesn't mean they don't still have to do the work. If they don't and Biden wins, then he'll just pick it up as it was and continue on. Which call me crazy is no way to run a country.
I get it. If the Trump admin followed proper procedures he could have killed DACA. I believe many pundits said as such. If this is such an important issue, it should be law to prevent the executive branch toying with it.
It should be, but the GOP senate is not going to sign off. The long and short of it is if Biden wins and takes the Senate, there will be DACA codification. If Trump wins, the Dreamers are all getting deported. If Biden wins but Dems don't take the Senate... ???
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23820
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Zaxxon »

I know this isn't SCOTUS-specific, but yegads: the corruption just out in the open in this clip is staggering. And it's not even a new video, but just came to my attention today via Rogue POTUS.



-Sitting Senator shilling his book. (Yes, I know McConnell is far from the first to do this, and that lots of politicians do it. It's a bad thing to use your political seat to enrich yourself. Full stop.)
-With a foreword by the sitting President.
-Flat-out taking credit for holding up valid judicial appointees by the formerly-sitting President, from the other party.
-That cackle is clearly only utterable by a corrupt person.
malchior
Posts: 14613
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Rove and others laid out the plan but McConnell implemented it even when it was clear the Conservative project was off the rails. He is going to be the rare Senator remembered by history...and not for positive reasons.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 20373
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Pyperkub »

Montag wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:48 pm
malchior wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:54 am
Montag wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:53 am DACA is not law, it is an executive order. I find it problematic, the court is blocking the repeal of an order instead of its creation.

Congress needs to do its job (roll eyes, snicker, sigh) and codify it.
Sorta. Implementing Executive Orders is governed by the APA. It is a framework within the law. You can think of it as Congress devolved some its power to the Executive. And the Executive has to go through a process when they create new regulations like DACA. The Trump administration needed to follow a process to dismantle DACA. And that is what SCOTUS held; the Trump administration failed to follow the right process to roll back the regulation.

The Maryland judge then ordered them to resume the program based on SCOTUS's guidance. In essence, since it was rolled back illegally then the administration logically should follow the regulation and resume applications/extensions. The Trump administration essentially said, "Nope. Not doing it. Stop us." It's blatantly lawless.

Roberts might have given them a roadmap but it doesn't mean they don't still have to do the work. If they don't and Biden wins, then he'll just pick it up as it was and continue on. Which call me crazy is no way to run a country.
I get it. If the Trump admin followed proper procedures he could have killed DACA. I believe many pundits said as such. If this is such an important issue, it should be law to prevent the executive branch toying with it.
Let's not forget that there was a deal on the table - DACA for Wall Funding which Trump nixed.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
malchior
Posts: 14613
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 44440
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

The contents of his speech are...something.

I guess we're going to learn about term limits for Justices and just how large the Supreme Court can get in 2021.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
malchior
Posts: 14613
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:54 am The contents of his speech are...something.
Indeed - I think it is important that this audience were the largely unelected group responsible for picking the last three Supreme Court justices and ~30% of the Judiciary over the last 4 years.

As to the content of his speech, religious freedom and individual liberty are being tested during the pandemic? Really? It's pure face palm time. You can't reason with this sort of purity testing. Apparently individual freedom has to be free and pure without even temporary curb. It's somehow better to be dead than to be told to wait a little while before meeting in large groups. And oh no, you have to wear some cloth on your face to go shopping. Good lord.
I guess we're going to learn about term limits for Justices and just how large the Supreme Court can get in 2021.
I reckon that is off the table until at least 2022...at best. We're in for a long-ride and the American experiment is going to get rockier. Another thing I consider is that 6 SCOTUS members are now Federalist Society members. That is troubling in itself. A majority of the Supreme Court belongs to a borderline extremist political society.
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 14510
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Zarathud »

malchior wrote:Another thing I consider is that 6 SCOTUS members are now Federalist Society members. That is troubling in itself. A majority of the Supreme Court belongs to a borderline extremist political society.
The GOP delegated their judicial process to a medieval understanding of the Constitution that is not only at odds with modern society but its founders.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Tao
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Tao »

Supreme Court decided in favor of Religious freedom over not killing your community. Should just be called the Supreme Court of the GOP at this point, Justice Roberts now comes across as leaning left. Four years of Trump was a mass of ants you find in your kitchen, McConnel, the GOP and the courts are termites slowly, quietly, eating through the support beams.
Last edited by Tao on Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't touch my stuff when I'm dead...it's booytrapped!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 44440
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

More on that decision:
Last month, I wrote that Amy Coney Barrett would help to usher in a new post-truth jurisprudence on the Supreme Court. While I had cited her anti-science statements on climate change, her arrival on the court has created a new 5-4 majority against public-health science at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

When it ruled this week against New York state's decision to limit religious gatherings in a few high-incidence parts of New York City, the court proved the dangers of scientifically illiterate judges overturning government decisions that were based on scientific evidence.

...

The problem is that the apparently scientifically illiterate majority on the court missed the entire point of the restriction on religious services. Gorsuch mistakenly claims that New York state deems laundry and liquor as essential but religious services as not essential. That is false. Kavanaugh mistakenly claims that New York state failed to justify why houses of worship are excluded from the "favored class" of businesses with lesser restrictions. This too is false.

...

None of this is to argue that New York state's regulations were perfectly drawn. That is not the point. The point is that the Supreme Court should be on the side of saving lives and urging rational, science-based behavior by all, especially at this moment of maximum peril to the population. Even more than the Supreme Court, religious groups should also be siding actively and energetically with public health authorities, both to protect their own congregants and all of society. Pope Francis succored Catholics around the world by shifting to an online Mass in response to the quarantine. His recent New York Times op-ed eloquently makes the point that the common good takes precedence over simplistic appeals to "personal freedom" in protests against justified public health measures.

Our religious faiths are the great teachers of the supreme value of human life, and they can be great healers for those in mental distress during the pandemic. The message to the American people should be a united one, with the nation's faith leaders, public health specialists, the politicians and, yes, Supreme Court justices using scientific knowledge combined with compassion to end the pandemic with the maximum speed and the least further suffering and loss of life.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7960
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Little Raven »

SCOTUS declines to hear case against bathroom access for transgender students.
The Supreme Court brushed aside a lawsuit Monday aimed at barring transgender students from bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.

The high court has decided not to hear the case aimed at ending an Oregon school district's policy of allowing transgender students to use facilities that match their gender identity.

The Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal is a win for civil rights groups that worried that the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which cemented a conservative majority on the bench, would “threaten LGBTQ equality.”
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7960
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Little Raven »

In a unanimous decision, SC rules that individual government agents can be sued for violating Muslims' religious liberty.
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed three Muslims who had been placed on no-fly lists to sue for financial damages against FBI officials under a federal law meant to protect religious liberty.

Writing for an 8-0 court, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993 to prohibit the federal government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise without a compelling interest, allows the suits against the individual agents.
"The question here," Thomas wrote, "is whether that includes claims for money damages against Government officials in their individual capacities. We hold that it does."
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7960
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Little Raven »

Supreme Court rejects Kansas voting restriction.
The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up Kansas’ petition seeking to re-establish a voting restriction crafted by former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

By denying the state’s petition, the court upheld rulings by the U.S. Court for the District of Kansas and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that found Kansas’ proof of citizenship law to be unconstitutional.

The law, which went into effect in 2013, required prospective voters to provide a birth certificate, passport or other documentation to prove their status as citizens before they could register to vote, a measure that the law’s supporters said would prevent non-citizens from voting.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
malchior
Posts: 14613
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Little Raven wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:11 pm Supreme Court rejects Kansas voting restriction.
The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up Kansas’ petition seeking to re-establish a voting restriction crafted by former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

By denying the state’s petition, the court upheld rulings by the U.S. Court for the District of Kansas and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that found Kansas’ proof of citizenship law to be unconstitutional.

The law, which went into effect in 2013, required prospective voters to provide a birth certificate, passport or other documentation to prove their status as citizens before they could register to vote, a measure that the law’s supporters said would prevent non-citizens from voting.
That case was a shit show from the beginning. Kobach was literally sent to remedial legal education by the judge because it was so botched. I sort of expect some other state to pick up the mantle and bring a better case to SCOTUS.
User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 16463
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Utah

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Skinypupy »

SCOTUS will be hearing NCAA case on student-athlete compensation and benefits. Depending on how they rule, this could make or break the NCAA and college sports.

Will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
For those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Black lives matter
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 26667
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

Skinypupy wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:37 pm SCOTUS will be hearing NCAA case on student-athlete compensation and benefits. Depending on how they rule, this could make or break the NCAA and college sports.

Will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
Break the NCAA - yes (and good riddance). College sports - it will change, but certainly it will continue in some form.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50465
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by LawBeefaroni »

stessier wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:46 pm
Skinypupy wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:37 pm SCOTUS will be hearing NCAA case on student-athlete compensation and benefits. Depending on how they rule, this could make or break the NCAA and college sports.

Will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
Break the NCAA - yes (and good riddance). College sports - it will change, but certainly it will continue in some form.
It will trim their profits. Don't see it breaking them.

I assume it wouldn't be like pro sports. Athletes would be salaried way below market value at a league standard floor/ceiling and any performance incentives would come from jersey sales, side gigs, etc, not team salaries.

Would be a pittance for the NCAA and the Div I schools.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 12371
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Jaymann »

Josh Barro Retweeted
Sam Stein
@samstein

NEW — Liberals, led by @brianefallon are quick out of the gate this morning calling on Justice Breyer to retire

https://politico.com/news/2021/01/06/li ... ire-455321

According to Al Franken, there is no minimum age for a Supreme Court Justice. He suggested the Democrats appoint a 12 year old to have 80 or so years of service.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 36242
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Jaymann wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:01 pm Josh Barro Retweeted
Sam Stein
@samstein

NEW — Liberals, led by @brianefallon are quick out of the gate this morning calling on Justice Breyer to retire

https://politico.com/news/2021/01/06/li ... ire-455321

According to Al Franken, there is no minimum age for a Supreme Court Justice. He suggested the Democrats appoint a 12 year old to have 80 or so years of service.
Just saying, my daughter is turning 12 in July. She's pretty sharp, and strongly supported Biden.
Black Lives Matter.
Post Reply