Supreme Court Anyone?

printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court
Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democrats’ attempt to mandate stronger ethics rules.

Alito, one of the high court’s leading conservatives, is just one of multiple justices who have come under recent scrutiny for ethics controversies that have fueled the renewed push.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Although the Constitution enables Congress to structure the lower federal courts, it explicitly vests judicial power within a singular Supreme Court.

Alito and some legal observers argue that means Congress can’t prescribe certain regulations for the high court without running afoul of separation of powers issues.

Chief Justice John Roberts has also questioned Congress’s ability to act, but not as definitive as Alito’s new remarks. Many court watchers who disagree with the premise believe that Roberts’ questioning has given fodder to Republican objections.

“I don’t know that any of my colleagues have spoken about it publicly, so I don’t think I should say,” Alito told the paper. “But I think it is something we have all thought about.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) was among the Democrats who rejected Alito’s reasoning, writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, “What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn’t apply to him.”

The piece also revealed Alito’s first public comments on the recent ethics push since he authored an op-ed for the same paper that was shared just before a ProPublica investigation into an undisclosed Alaskan fishing trip the justice accepted in 2008 paid for by a conservative donor was made public. Alito also conducted an interview with the Wall Street Journal in April.

One of the two authors of the piece, David Rivkin, is an attorney for conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo. Rivkin earlier this week penned a letter rebuffing Democratic lawmakers’ request for information about the Alaska trip, which Leo reportedly facilitated, and Rivkin also actively practices before the court. James Taranto, the other author, is the Journal’s editorial features editor.

“I marvel at all the nonsense that has been written about me in the last year,” Alito said.

The revelations about the Alaska trip followed a ProPublica investigation into luxury trips accepted by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. The Associated Press later raised concerns about an aide to liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushing book sales, and other justices past and present have also faced criticisms for a variety of other ethics dilemmas.

In the wake of the new reports, the Senate Judiciary Committee last week voted along party lines to advance a Supreme Court ethics reform bill, though the legislation faces slim odds of passage.

Republicans have portrayed the push as an attempt to tear down the court’s conservative majority, and some have similarly cited constitutional concerns.
thehill.com

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court

Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democ…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court
Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democrats’ attempt to mandate stronger ethics rules.

Alito, one of the high court’s leading conservatives, is just one of multiple justices who have come under recent scrutiny for ethics controversies that have fueled the renewed push.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

Although the Constitution enables Congress to structure the lower federal courts, it explicitly vests judicial power within a singular Supreme Court.

Alito and some legal observers argue that means Congress can’t prescribe certain regulations for the high court without running afoul of separation of powers issues.

Chief Justice John Roberts has also questioned Congress’s ability to act, but not as definitive as Alito’s new remarks. Many court watchers who disagree with the premise believe that Roberts’ questioning has given fodder to Republican objections.

“I don’t know that any of my colleagues have spoken about it publicly, so I don’t think I should say,” Alito told the paper. “But I think it is something we have all thought about.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) was among the Democrats who rejected Alito’s reasoning, writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, “What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn’t apply to him.”

The piece also revealed Alito’s first public comments on the recent ethics push since he authored an op-ed for the same paper that was shared just before a ProPublica investigation into an undisclosed Alaskan fishing trip the justice accepted in 2008 paid for by a conservative donor was made public. Alito also conducted an interview with the Wall Street Journal in April.

One of the two authors of the piece, David Rivkin, is an attorney for conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo. Rivkin earlier this week penned a letter rebuffing Democratic lawmakers’ request for information about the Alaska trip, which Leo reportedly facilitated, and Rivkin also actively practices before the court. James Taranto, the other author, is the Journal’s editorial features editor.

“I marvel at all the nonsense that has been written about me in the last year,” Alito said.

The revelations about the Alaska trip followed a ProPublica investigation into luxury trips accepted by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. The Associated Press later raised concerns about an aide to liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushing book sales, and other justices past and present have also faced criticisms for a variety of other ethics dilemmas.

In the wake of the new reports, the Senate Judiciary Committee last week voted along party lines to advance a Supreme Court ethics reform bill, though the legislation faces slim odds of passage.

Republicans have portrayed the push as an attempt to tear down the court’s conservative majority, and some have similarly cited constitutional concerns.
thehill.com

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court

Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democ…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
Just another line item on the honey-do list to be completed at the appropriate time.

Opinion | How to Impeach a Supreme Court Justice

www.politico.com

Opinion | How to Impeach a Supreme Court Justice

It has never been done successfully, but lawmakers should investigate whether Clarence Thomas’ behavior merits an attempt.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
ooof-da

ooof-da

Well-Known Member
“We have lived up, in my estimation, to deciding cases based on law, not based on partisan affiliation or partisanship,” Kavanaugh said. “We work … as a team of nine.”

How do these people say this kinda stuff and not totally loose their shit lmao
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
ooof-da said:
“We have lived up, in my estimation, to deciding cases based on law, not based on partisan affiliation or partisanship,” Kavanaugh said. “We work … as a team of nine.”

How do these people say this kinda stuff and not totally loose their shit lmao
Click to expand...
they operate in a sculpted reality
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Justice Clarence Thomas Cites Security for Private Jet Flights
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted flights by private jet last year and cited security concerns around the court's controversial abortion decision to justify some of the private travel, according to a disclosure form released on Thursday.

Thomas listed 2022 private jet trips provided by Texas businessman Harlan Crow to or from Dallas, Texas, for conferences in February and May, and to a property in upstate New York's Adirondack Mountains in July, the delayed filing showed.
Thomas has faced scrutiny following revelations that he had not disclosed luxury trips paid for by the wealthy benefactor.

He said in the document that he chose to fly by private plane in May 2022 because his "security detail recommended noncommercial travel whenever possible" due to the "increased security risk" following the leak that month of an opinion indicating that the court would overturn the constitutional right to abortion.
The following month, Thomas and other members of the court's conservative majority overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, in a decision that largely tracked the leaked version.
The disclosure forms filed by Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito come two months after the court's other seven justices' disclosures were released in June.

The court has recently confronted numerous questions about the justices' ethical conduct since the news organization ProPublica reported on Thomas' failure to disclose luxury trips and real estate transactions involving Crow.
An August Reuters/Ipsos poll found that just 39% of Americans said they had a positive view of the Supreme Court, down from 52% who cited a favorable view in a June 2022 poll, before the abortion decision.

In Thursday's filing, Thomas also disclosed a 2014 sale to Crow of his mother's house and two other houses in Savannah, Georgia, owned by Thomas and his family members for $133,000. Thomas said his failure to include the transaction in a prior financial disclosure was "inadvertent."
He disclosed other accounts that had been left out of prior reports, including personal bank accounts that had a combined balance of between $100,000 and $250,000 last year and a life insurance policy belonging to his wife Ginni Thomas that was valued at under $100,000 in 2021.

He also corrected the name of his wife's family real-estate holding company, which had been mislabeled in previous reports.
Both Thomas and Alito had been granted extensions to file their mandatory annual reports listing outside income and gifts, as required for certain senior government officials.
Alito's filing showed nearly $30,000 in income for teaching at two law schools and a free trip to Rome to speak at a conference.

NO BINDING CODE
Unlike other members of the federal judiciary, the life-tenured justices have no binding code of conduct, though they are subject to certain financial disclosure laws.

Food and other "personal hospitality" such as lodging at an individual's residence is generally exempt from disclosure. The Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for the federal judiciary, has tightened its regulations to require disclosure of private jet trips.
Thomas's lawyer Elliot Berke said the justice did not wilfully violate ethics guidelines and said the reporting errors were inadvertent.
In a statement, Berke denounced the criticism as “motivated by hatred for his judicial philosophy, not by any real belief in any ethical lapses.”
According to ProPublica, Alito failed to disclose a 2008 trip to Alaska on a private jet belonging to a billionaire hedge fund manager whose business interests have come before the court.

The Associated Press reported that aides to liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor promoted sales of her books in conjunction with her speaking events.
Following those revelations, the Senate Judiciary Committee in July approved a Democratic-backed bill that would mandate a binding ethics code for the justices. Given Republican opposition, the bill has little chance of becoming law.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Justice Clarence Thomas Cites Security for Private Jet Flights
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted flights by private jet last year and cited security concerns around the court's controversial abortion decision to justify some of the private travel, according to a disclosure form released on Thursday.

Thomas listed 2022 private jet trips provided by Texas businessman Harlan Crow to or from Dallas, Texas, for conferences in February and May, and to a property in upstate New York's Adirondack Mountains in July, the delayed filing showed.
Thomas has faced scrutiny following revelations that he had not disclosed luxury trips paid for by the wealthy benefactor.

He said in the document that he chose to fly by private plane in May 2022 because his "security detail recommended noncommercial travel whenever possible" due to the "increased security risk" following the leak that month of an opinion indicating that the court would overturn the constitutional right to abortion.
The following month, Thomas and other members of the court's conservative majority overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, in a decision that largely tracked the leaked version.
The disclosure forms filed by Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito come two months after the court's other seven justices' disclosures were released in June.

The court has recently confronted numerous questions about the justices' ethical conduct since the news organization ProPublica reported on Thomas' failure to disclose luxury trips and real estate transactions involving Crow.
An August Reuters/Ipsos poll found that just 39% of Americans said they had a positive view of the Supreme Court, down from 52% who cited a favorable view in a June 2022 poll, before the abortion decision.

In Thursday's filing, Thomas also disclosed a 2014 sale to Crow of his mother's house and two other houses in Savannah, Georgia, owned by Thomas and his family members for $133,000. Thomas said his failure to include the transaction in a prior financial disclosure was "inadvertent."
He disclosed other accounts that had been left out of prior reports, including personal bank accounts that had a combined balance of between $100,000 and $250,000 last year and a life insurance policy belonging to his wife Ginni Thomas that was valued at under $100,000 in 2021.

He also corrected the name of his wife's family real-estate holding company, which had been mislabeled in previous reports.
Both Thomas and Alito had been granted extensions to file their mandatory annual reports listing outside income and gifts, as required for certain senior government officials.
Alito's filing showed nearly $30,000 in income for teaching at two law schools and a free trip to Rome to speak at a conference.

NO BINDING CODE
Unlike other members of the federal judiciary, the life-tenured justices have no binding code of conduct, though they are subject to certain financial disclosure laws.

Food and other "personal hospitality" such as lodging at an individual's residence is generally exempt from disclosure. The Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for the federal judiciary, has tightened its regulations to require disclosure of private jet trips.
Thomas's lawyer Elliot Berke said the justice did not wilfully violate ethics guidelines and said the reporting errors were inadvertent.
In a statement, Berke denounced the criticism as “motivated by hatred for his judicial philosophy, not by any real belief in any ethical lapses.”
According to ProPublica, Alito failed to disclose a 2008 trip to Alaska on a private jet belonging to a billionaire hedge fund manager whose business interests have come before the court.

The Associated Press reported that aides to liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor promoted sales of her books in conjunction with her speaking events.
Following those revelations, the Senate Judiciary Committee in July approved a Democratic-backed bill that would mandate a binding ethics code for the justices. Given Republican opposition, the bill has little chance of becoming law.
Click to expand...
If the democrats win in 24 Clarence will retire or face impeachment, he could retire before the election, but that would mean Biden would appoint his replacement and he will be paid well by his master's to hold off until the election. If the republicans win, he can stay on and the gravy train continues, if he retires, he loses his usefulness and his "friends". If the democrats win big enough majorities in 24, more than just Thomas could be in trouble as the house and senate investigate everybody with public hearings and subpoenas for them all including the janitors.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Supreme Court asked to take up abortion pill dispute
The Biden administration formally asked the Supreme Court on Friday to review and overturn a ruling from a federal appeals court that would limit the availability of the common abortion pill mifepristone.

DOJ’s request followed a separate one made Friday by Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of the brand name Mifeprex. In its filing, the company said its drug is safe and effective, and that the appeals court decision “upends FDA-approved conditions of use” for the drug.

Mifepristone is widely used across the U.S. to end a pregnancy in the first 10 weeks of gestation, and was first approved in 2000. About half of all abortions nationwide are performed using mifepristone as the first of a two-pill regimen. It is also used to help manage miscarriages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in August that mifepristone — the branded drug Mifeprex and its generic counterpart — can stay on the market in states where abortion is legal, but changes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made since 2016 to ease access to the drug were not allowed because the agency did not follow proper procedure.

In a court filing, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote that if the appeals court’s decision is allowed to take effect, “it would upend the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with damaging consequences for women seeking lawful abortions and a healthcare system that relies on the availability of the drug under the current conditions of use.”

The conservative judges ruled FDA acted improperly when it said mifepristone can be used up to 10 weeks of pregnancy rather than seven, allowed the medication to be mailed to patients, lowered the dosage, and permitted providers other than physicians to prescribe the drug.

The case seemingly marks “the first time any court has restricted access to an FDA-approved drug based on disagreement with FDA’s expert judgment about the conditions required to assure that drug’s safe use—much less done so after those conditions had been in effect for years” and millions of people have safely used the drug, Prelogar wrote.

That decision will remain on hold until the Supreme Court decides whether to take up the case in the term that begins in October. If that happens, arguments would likely happen sometime in early 2024, with a decision coming by the summer.

The case marks the highest stakes legal battle on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

Danco’s attorney Jessica Ellsworth argued its drug Mifeprex is safe and effective, and that the Fifth Circuit’s decision “upends FDA-approved conditions of use” for the drug.

The decision “raises questions about whether a single federal court can limit abortion access in the States that protect it. And it destabilizes the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries by questioning when scientific studies — accepted by FDA — are sufficient to support conditions of use,” Ellsworth wrote.

“For the women and teenage girls, health care providers, and States that depend on FDA’s actions to ensure safe and effective reproductive health care is available, this case matters tremendously,” she added.
thehill.com

Supreme Court asked to take up abortion pill dispute

The Biden administration formally asked the Supreme Court on Friday to review and overturn a ruling from a federal appeals court that would limit the availability of the common abortion pill mifepr…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Supreme Court extends pause on appeals court’s order in Biden social media case
The Supreme Court on Friday extended a temporary pause to an appeals court order restricting the Biden administration’s role in social media companies’ content moderation while it considers whether to halt the ruling.

Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, extended a brief pause of the injunction until Sept. 27.

The order is not an indication of how Alito will vote when the court decides whether to issue the longer pause.
The decision follows an appeal court’s determination that the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment by urging social media companies to take down specific content.

A three-person Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that federal agencies cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove posts countering the government’s stance. The White House, FBI and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were found by the panel to have crossed the line into coercion, while the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and State Department did not.

The Justice Department argued in court filings that the “startling” injunction issued by the panel imposed “unprecedented limits” on the government’s ability to respond to public concern, maintain national security and relay information.
“If allowed to take effect, the injunction would impose grave and irreparable harms on the government and the public,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in a court filing.

Two Republican attorneys general brought the case in a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to curb misinformation online, which they called a “campaign of censorship” by the government.

A federal judge sided with the attorneys general in July and blocked government officials from contacting social media companies over “any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.” The appeals court’s decision sharply narrowed that ruling.

The attorneys general argued in court filings that top Biden officials “threaten, pressure and coerce” social media platforms to censor “core political speech” — a state of play they called “intolerable to the First Amendment.”
“Federal interference fundamentally transforms online discourse, rendering entire viewpoints virtually unspeakable on social media,” they wrote.
thehill.com

Supreme Court extends pause on appeals court’s order in Biden social media case

The Supreme Court on Friday extended a temporary pause to an appeals court order restricting the Biden administration’s role in social media companies’ content moderation while it considers whether…
thehill.com thehill.com

"Drink bleach! Drink Bleach! Drink Bleach!"

Sorry gov, you have no right to save lives.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
That would be nice, once we’ve fried some of the bigger fish.

View attachment 5330343
Click to expand...
There are 49 GOP senators and those are 12 in total, looks like serious division and Trump is going down in court and might be disqualified. If they hitched their wagon to Trump, they are about to be dragged over the cliff! I don't see their positions getting any stronger, how many are up for primaries in 24? Donald will go down in flames right in the middle of their primaries and could be disqualified at the end of the year. Will they support Trump being written in on the ballot in defiance of the SCOTUS? He will need to prove he's too big to jail or disqualify and having millions write him in on the primary ticket (in his mind) might be one way to do it!

So, do those senators and congress people up for primaries as Donald goes down in DC, support him and if so, how? Write Trump in, is an idea that should be spread until Donald picks it up for ego food, if he is disqualified from the primary or the general election, and he will attack the GOP nominee as a bonus!
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
There are 49 GOP senators and those are 12 in total, looks like serious division and Trump is going down in court and might be disqualified. If they hitched their wagon to Trump, they are about to be dragged over the cliff! I don't see their positions getting any stronger, how many are up for primaries in 24? Donald will go down in flames right in the middle of their primaries and could be disqualified at the end of the year. Will they support Trump being written in on the ballot in defiance of the SCOTUS? He will need to prove he's too big to jail or disqualify and having millions write him in on the primary ticket (in his mind) might be one way to do it!

So, do those senators and congress people up for primaries as Donald goes down in DC, support him and if so, how? Write Trump in, is an idea that should be spread until Donald picks it up for ego food, if he is disqualified from the primary or the general election, and he will attack the GOP nominee as a bonus!
Click to expand...
How do you figure the bolded? You write it as declarative, certain. Ignoring the twin demons Should and Oughtta, how is it Will?
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
How do you figure the bolded? You write it as declarative, certain. Ignoring the twin demons Should and Oughtta, how is it Will?
Click to expand...
In this case Trump is going nowhere but down while on fire before exploding, if they hang on, they will get burned. Sooner or later, except for the ones in the most rabidly red states, they will have to dump him, and the day of decision will be well before he goes to jail. He might get disqualified, but he will be convicted for instance! :lol:
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED said:
In this case Trump is going nowhere but down while on fire before exploding, if they hang on, they will get burned. Sooner or later, except for the ones in the most rabidly red states, they will have to dump him, and the day of decision will be well before he goes to jail. He might get disqualified, but he will be convicted for instance! :lol:
Click to expand...
They’ve proved resilient so far. I think you’re calling a no-hitter in the ninth.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
They’ve proved resilient so far. I think you’re calling a no-hitter in the ninth.
Click to expand...
We will see, there are cases over the 14th in train now and some states need answers as early as Dec 15th, right now the secretaries of state are showing deference to the court on the issue, but the SCOTUS is on thin ice reinstating Trump to the ballot since that needs a 2/3 majority in both house and senate. If they gave him a pass and shocked most in the legal community they might have trouble if a secretary of state disqualified Trump over the 14th and dug in their heels demanding a house vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top