Supreme Court Anyone?

Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Supreme Court to decide South Carolina racial gerrymander case
The Supreme Court on Monday announced it will determine whether South Carolina racially gerrymandered one of its congressional districts.
A three-judge district court panel in January ordered new maps be drawn after finding the state’s 1st Congressional District, as drawn by Republican state lawmakers, was specifically designed to dilute the power of Black voters.

The Supreme Court justices, in a brief, unsigned order, as is typical, agreed to hear the Republicans’ bid to reverse the lower decision, setting up a major redistricting case for the Supreme Court’s next annual term. The case is likely to be argued this fall.

The longtime Republican district runs along much of South Carolina’s coast and is currently represented by Rep. Nancy Mace (R).
In 2020, Mace narrowly defeated her Democratic opponent, who had won the seat in a major upset two years earlier. Last year, after district lines were redrawn, Mace won reelection by nearly 14 percentage points. The district is rated “likely Republican” for the next election cycle by the Cook Political Report.

A resident of the district and the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP challenged the redrawn lines, winning a partial victory at the district court earlier this year.
The three Democratic-appointed judges ruled against the challengers in their other claims while agreeing with them that state lawmakers’ shifting some 30,000 African Americans in Charleston County to a nearby district “was more than a coincidence” and violated the 14th and 15th Amendments.

The Republican state lawmakers then appealed to the justices.

“The three-judge panel abandoned all pretext of extraordinary caution in this case,” their attorneys wrote in court filings. “In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s ‘good faith.’”

The challengers to the map contended the maps are a racial gerrymander and were designed with a discriminatory purpose, asking the court to affirm the lower ruling.

“Because the panel correctly applied settled standards, the Court should summarily affirm,” the challengers wrote to the justices. “The panel had ample evidence to support its findings and conclusions. That includes direct and circumstantial proof of race-based intent by the Enacted Plan’s legislative architect and mapmaker — the same kind this Court has repeatedly relied on in the past.”
thehill.com

Supreme Court to decide South Carolina racial gerrymander case

The Supreme Court on Monday announced it will determine whether South Carolina racially gerrymandered one of its congressional districts. A three-judge district court panel in January ordered new m…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this court will do...If they rule against the republicans, it will only make me suspect that they are about to do something terrible, and they want something to point at to prove their bipartisan neutrality...
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
South Carolina again?
South Carolina Senate passes abortion ban, setting up Supreme Court showdown
The Republican-led South Carolina Senate on Tuesday passed a ban on abortions after an ultrasound detects cardiac activity, which is usually at about six weeks.

The bill now goes to the desk of Gov. Henry McMaster (R), who is expected to sign it quickly.

The legislation represents a significant setback to abortion rights in the state. Abortion is currently legal in South Carolina until 22 weeks of pregnancy, though there are only three clinics in the state and various regulations mean they generally can’t offer abortions beyond the first 12 weeks.

At six weeks, most women don’t know they are pregnant.
During debate on Tuesday, Republican leaders cited provisional state Health Department data that show rising numbers of out of state visitors are getting abortions in the state, but advocates said most of the people needing abortions are South Carolina residents.

When McMaster signs the legislation into law, it will set up a showdown with the state Supreme Court, which earlier this year overturned a similar 2021 six-week abortion ban as a violation of the state constitution’s right to privacy.
Republicans are confident the law will survive legal challenges.

The measure passed the House last week largely along party lines, 82 to 33.

Earlier in the debate, Sen. Katrina Shealy, one of the Republican women who blocked the total ban, proposed an amendment that would ban abortion after 12 weeks, calling it “a real compromise.”

“Don’t force women into making a decision in six weeks for something they may not even know that’s happening,” Shealy said.
Sen. Richard Cash objected to the amendment and said it would result in people having “abortions on demand” through 12 weeks of pregnancy.

“Babies begin with the union of the sperm and ovum – that’s how God designed it,” Cash said.
The amendment failed by a vote of 21-25.

While the Senate passed its own six-week ban a few months ago, it needed to vote again because House Republicans amended the bill to include some specific changes they said were designed to pass muster with the court.

In addition, January’s 3-2 decision was written by the court’s only female justice, who retired shortly after the ruling when she reached mandatory retirement age. The legislature replaced her with a man, who has the support of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus.
State lawmakers have tried and failed numerous times to pass abortion restrictions, but the House and Senate have disagreed over where to draw the line.

The more conservative House wanted to pass a ban on abortion beginning at conception, but it failed three separate times as the Senate was unable to overcome a filibuster by the chamber’s five women— three Republicans, one Democrat and an independent.

The women repeatedly criticized male leadership for trying to bring the bill up for a vote.
While some of that bloc voted for the previous version of the bill earlier this year, they objected to the changes made by the House, which included eliminating a provision that allowed a minor to ask a court for permission to have an abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

The vote comes a week after Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly overrode the veto of their Democratic governor to enact a 12-week abortion ban.
thehill.com

South Carolina Senate passes abortion ban, setting up Supreme Court showdown

The Republican-led South Carolina Senate on Tuesday passed a ban on abortions after an ultrasound detects cardiac activity, which is usually at about six weeks. The bill now goes to the desk of Gov…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
printer said:
South Carolina again?
South Carolina Senate passes abortion ban, setting up Supreme Court showdown
The Republican-led South Carolina Senate on Tuesday passed a ban on abortions after an ultrasound detects cardiac activity, which is usually at about six weeks.

The bill now goes to the desk of Gov. Henry McMaster (R), who is expected to sign it quickly.

The legislation represents a significant setback to abortion rights in the state. Abortion is currently legal in South Carolina until 22 weeks of pregnancy, though there are only three clinics in the state and various regulations mean they generally can’t offer abortions beyond the first 12 weeks.

At six weeks, most women don’t know they are pregnant.
During debate on Tuesday, Republican leaders cited provisional state Health Department data that show rising numbers of out of state visitors are getting abortions in the state, but advocates said most of the people needing abortions are South Carolina residents.

When McMaster signs the legislation into law, it will set up a showdown with the state Supreme Court, which earlier this year overturned a similar 2021 six-week abortion ban as a violation of the state constitution’s right to privacy.
Republicans are confident the law will survive legal challenges.

The measure passed the House last week largely along party lines, 82 to 33.

Earlier in the debate, Sen. Katrina Shealy, one of the Republican women who blocked the total ban, proposed an amendment that would ban abortion after 12 weeks, calling it “a real compromise.”

“Don’t force women into making a decision in six weeks for something they may not even know that’s happening,” Shealy said.
Sen. Richard Cash objected to the amendment and said it would result in people having “abortions on demand” through 12 weeks of pregnancy.

“Babies begin with the union of the sperm and ovum – that’s how God designed it,” Cash said.
The amendment failed by a vote of 21-25.

While the Senate passed its own six-week ban a few months ago, it needed to vote again because House Republicans amended the bill to include some specific changes they said were designed to pass muster with the court.

In addition, January’s 3-2 decision was written by the court’s only female justice, who retired shortly after the ruling when she reached mandatory retirement age. The legislature replaced her with a man, who has the support of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus.
State lawmakers have tried and failed numerous times to pass abortion restrictions, but the House and Senate have disagreed over where to draw the line.

The more conservative House wanted to pass a ban on abortion beginning at conception, but it failed three separate times as the Senate was unable to overcome a filibuster by the chamber’s five women— three Republicans, one Democrat and an independent.

The women repeatedly criticized male leadership for trying to bring the bill up for a vote.
While some of that bloc voted for the previous version of the bill earlier this year, they objected to the changes made by the House, which included eliminating a provision that allowed a minor to ask a court for permission to have an abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

The vote comes a week after Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly overrode the veto of their Democratic governor to enact a 12-week abortion ban.
thehill.com

South Carolina Senate passes abortion ban, setting up Supreme Court showdown

The Republican-led South Carolina Senate on Tuesday passed a ban on abortions after an ultrasound detects cardiac activity, which is usually at about six weeks. The bill now goes to the desk of Gov…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
well, here it comes, this corrupted piece of shit court will allow it, opening the door for more of this fuckery, and we'll end up having to lynch the motherfuckers to get them to just motherfucking stop with their shit...
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Kavanaugh joins Supreme Court liberals in disagreeing with new wetlands test
The Supreme Court’s major wetlands case on Thursday was technically unanimous as all nine justices ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

But beneath the surface of the Idaho landowners’ win, the court’s three liberals and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined to push back on how far the majority narrowed which wetlands are protected.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito ruled that eligible wetlands must have a “continuous surface connection” with a protected body of water, making the two areas “indistinguishable” from one another.

That narrow definition handed a win to Michael and Chantell Sackett, whom the EPA had previously prevented from building a home on land they owned, and it more broadly limited the EPA’s authority in terms of where it can implement safeguards.

“By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote in a separate opinion.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s three liberals, joined Kavanaugh’s opinion, which criticized the majority’s test as “atextual.”

The daylight between the two sides concerned wetlands that are separated from a covered water only by a manmade dike or barrier, natural river berm or a beach dune. Kavanaugh contended that Congress wrote the Clean Water Act to protect those, as well.

“I would stick to the text,” Kavanaugh wrote. “There can be no debate, in my respectful view, that the key statutory term is ‘adjacent’ and that adjacent wetlands is a broader category than adjoining wetlands. To be faithful to the statutory text, we cannot interpret ‘adjacent’ wetlands to be the same thing as ‘adjoining’ wetlands.”

Kagan also authored a separate opinion, joined only by the court’s other two liberals, forcefully pushing back on the majority’s test. Alito, meanwhile, said the increased protections read the statute too broadly and the separate opinions “cannot be taken seriously.”

“The EPA argues that ‘waters’ is ‘naturally read to encompass wetlands’ because the presence of water is ‘universally regarded as the most basic feature of wetlands’ … but that reading proves too much. Consider puddles, which are also defined by the ordinary presence of water even though few would describe them as ‘waters,'” Alito wrote.
thehill.com

Kavanaugh joins Supreme Court liberals in disagreeing with new wetlands test

The Supreme Court’s major wetlands case on Thursday was technically unanimous as all nine justices ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But beneath the surface of the Idaho land…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
thehill.com

Sen. Whitehouse: Supreme Court justices are ‘in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone’

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are “in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone” in light of the ethical issues that have been raised about the …
thehill.com


Sen. Whitehouse: Supreme Court justices are ‘in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone’

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are “in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone” in light of the ethical issues that have been raised about the members of the court recently.
Whitehouse said in an NBC News interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” that establishing an ethics code for the court will not be easy, but Congress has a role to play in administering how the internal ethics of the judiciary are conducted.

He said instituting an ethics pledge and disclosure demands during the confirmation process for judges is not practical. He said Justice Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself in cases involving the 2020 presidential election despite his wife, Ginni, supporting efforts to overturn the results of the case because the justice maintained that he was not involved and not aware of her activities.

“That is a question of fact. That’s something that could have, and should have, been determined by a neutral examination, and then we’d all know,” Whitehouse said. “And so, the problem with the Supreme Court is that they’re in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone.”

Whitehouse, who serves as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, said the other ethical questions surrounding Thomas recently are based on a law requiring financial disclosure that Congress passed, demonstrating its authority to act.

Thomas has faced scrutiny in recent months over the gifts he received from a friend and GOP megadonor, Harlan Crow, over multiple years, including luxury trips and tuition for Thomas’ great-nephew to attend private school. Thomas also did not disclose a real estate sale in which Thomas and his family sold his old home to Crow.

Federal law requires members of the Supreme Court, along with other officials, to disclose most gifts they receive on annual financial disclosure forms, with some exemptions. Thomas has said he did not believe he needed to disclose the trips he received from Crow because they were part of personal hospitality from a friend.

The revelations have led Democrats to call for an updated ethical code that is easier to enforce to be enacted for the court, while Republicans have been hesitant to support these efforts and mostly defended Thomas’ conduct.

Whitehouse said Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts should encourage the Judicial Conference, which recommendspolicy for Congress to pass related to the federal courts, to develop ethics guidelines similar to what is in effect for circuit courts of appeals.

“It’s not as if you have to go off into terra incognita here. They actually know how to do that,” he said.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
thehill.com

Sen. Whitehouse: Supreme Court justices are ‘in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone’

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are “in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone” in light of the ethical issues that have been raised about the …
thehill.com


Sen. Whitehouse: Supreme Court justices are ‘in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone’

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are “in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone” in light of the ethical issues that have been raised about the members of the court recently.
Whitehouse said in an NBC News interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” that establishing an ethics code for the court will not be easy, but Congress has a role to play in administering how the internal ethics of the judiciary are conducted.

He said instituting an ethics pledge and disclosure demands during the confirmation process for judges is not practical. He said Justice Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself in cases involving the 2020 presidential election despite his wife, Ginni, supporting efforts to overturn the results of the case because the justice maintained that he was not involved and not aware of her activities.

“That is a question of fact. That’s something that could have, and should have, been determined by a neutral examination, and then we’d all know,” Whitehouse said. “And so, the problem with the Supreme Court is that they’re in a fact-free zone as well as an ethics-free zone.”

Whitehouse, who serves as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, said the other ethical questions surrounding Thomas recently are based on a law requiring financial disclosure that Congress passed, demonstrating its authority to act.

Thomas has faced scrutiny in recent months over the gifts he received from a friend and GOP megadonor, Harlan Crow, over multiple years, including luxury trips and tuition for Thomas’ great-nephew to attend private school. Thomas also did not disclose a real estate sale in which Thomas and his family sold his old home to Crow.

Federal law requires members of the Supreme Court, along with other officials, to disclose most gifts they receive on annual financial disclosure forms, with some exemptions. Thomas has said he did not believe he needed to disclose the trips he received from Crow because they were part of personal hospitality from a friend.

The revelations have led Democrats to call for an updated ethical code that is easier to enforce to be enacted for the court, while Republicans have been hesitant to support these efforts and mostly defended Thomas’ conduct.

Whitehouse said Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts should encourage the Judicial Conference, which recommendspolicy for Congress to pass related to the federal courts, to develop ethics guidelines similar to what is in effect for circuit courts of appeals.

“It’s not as if you have to go off into terra incognita here. They actually know how to do that,” he said.
Click to expand...
When i was a kid, people trusted the supreme court, they had faith that the court would interpret the law fairly and constitutionally.
Over the years that faith has been lost, and now i wouldn't trust one conservative justice to make a fair or constitutional decision about anything.
That makes me lose faith in the integrity of the entire system, and the only way i feel like i can trust them again is after a massive enema to remove the corrupt republican assets, planted to subvert the system.
what good is an ethical, fair house and senate (not that we have that, by far.) if the judicial branch will just subvert the will of the people anyway?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Roger A. Shrubber said:
When i was a kid, people trusted the supreme court, they had faith that the court would interpret the law fairly and constitutionally.
Over the years that faith has been lost, and now i wouldn't trust one conservative justice to make a fair or constitutional decision about anything.
That makes me lose faith in the integrity of the entire system, and the only way i feel like i can trust them again is after a massive enema to remove the corrupt republican assets, planted to subvert the system.
what good is an ethical, fair house and senate (not that we have that, by far.) if the judicial branch will just subvert the will of the people anyway?
Click to expand...
I imagine many people, shakers and movers included, have arrived at essentially that opinion.

Scotus is in for change.

Maybe not this year, but the writing is on the wall imo. Overthrow party voices of defense and support will ultimately turn out to have been Not Helping.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4026628-the-roberts-court-takes-aim-at-the-establishment-clause/

Why can't religious zealots keep their shit to themselves? They have to know they're dying off, who are they trying to change the world for? In two generations they won't have the numbers to be a significant political factor, they'll become a stridently vocal minority, constantly complaining about their rights, even as they continue to try to shit on the rights of everyone around them.
Are they trying to use the school system as christian indoctrination centers? To shore up their failing ranks? Good luck with that, every generation has less interest in religion than the previous one did, and i don't see that trend changing any time soon.
And i heartily approve that trend.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4026628-the-roberts-court-takes-aim-at-the-establishment-clause/

Why can't religious zealots keep their shit to themselves? They have to know they're dying off, who are they trying to change the world for? In two generations they won't have the numbers to be a significant political factor, they'll become a stridently vocal minority, constantly complaining about their rights, even as they continue to try to shit on the rights of everyone around them.
Are they trying to use the school system as christian indoctrination centers? To shore up their failing ranks? Good luck with that, every generation has less interest in religion than the previous one did, and i don't see that trend changing any time soon.
And i heartily approve that trend.
Click to expand...
They know if they do not do it now then they are lost.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
The big news at Newsmax.

Supreme Court's Gun Rights Ruling May Help Hunter Biden
An expansion of Second Amendment rights last June by the U.S. Supreme Court referred to by President Joe Biden as an "affront to common sense and the Constitution," could benefit Hunter Biden, who is under investigation by the Department of Justice for several potential offenses, including whether he lied on a federal firearms application in 2018 when asked whether he was addicted to drugs, according to Politico.

The ruling, in which the high court struck down New York state's concealed carry law, was recently cited by Hunter Biden's defense team to persuade DOJ investigators that a prosecution against him for the allegation would likely be thrown out, reports The New York Times.

When Hunter Biden bought the gun, he filled out a 4473 form on which he avowed that he was not an "unlawful user of, or addicted to," any "controlled substance."

But according to his 2021 memoir, he frequently used crack cocaine at the time.
The Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen has led to dozens of lawsuits across the country challenging aspects of the federal firearms background check system.

Biden's team has cited one case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes Delaware, where a Pennsylvania man who was denied a gun permit over an old misdemeanor is asking to be granted gun ownership based, in part, on Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion.
The case is likely to be decided over the next several months and could be important for Biden. David Weiss, the U.S. Attorney for Delaware, was appointed by former President Donald Trump and is leading the probe.

Most courts have still upheld the law banning drug users from owning guns, though, says Jeff Welty, a professor at the School of Government at the University of North Carolina, who closely tracks gun cases.

"A majority isn't everybody," Welty said. "And given how unsettled the law is in this area, I think anyone charged with a violation of that statute would give serious consideration to raising the Second Amendment as a defense."
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Not sure if this is something.

thehill.com

Attorney for billionaire at center of Clarence Thomas controversy offers to meet with Judiciary staff

An attorney for GOP megadonor Harlan Crow offered to meet with Senate Judiciary Committee staff as Democrats push to investigate undisclosed, luxury trips that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas…
thehill.com
Click to expand...
I think he is hoping that the republicans on the committee will act as obstructionists for him and the thomases, because they're all in on the bought out, biased, hand picked, packed supremely republican court
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top