The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Jun 27, 2022.

  1. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Seriously? Yeah, there are A LOT of those in the Catholic People of Praise community.
     
    fatbastard repped this.
  2. Germerica

    Germerica Member+

    May 2, 2012
    SoCal burbs
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    More evidence of people treating flippant Twitter commentary as real life. The average American doesn't even know who Amy Coney Barrett is.
     
  3. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #3528 yossarian, May 22, 2025
    Last edited: May 22, 2025
    Yeah, the same justice who voted in the majority in Bruen and Dobbs, is a lefty because she doesn't think the Orange shithead should be a king. Those Magats sure are bright.
     
    bigredfutbol and soccernutter repped this.
  4. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was actually mocking Yossarian.
     
    bigredfutbol, yossarian and Dr. Wankler repped this.
  5. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder?
     
    bigredfutbol, fatbastard and yossarian repped this.
  6. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    [Jeff the gay robot voice] "In Trump's PANTS!!!"
     
  7. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That would be Geoff (Peterson).
     
    fatbastard repped this.
  8. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    rslfanboy and Dr. Wankler repped this.
  9. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Reports I heard says that the Scotus exempted the Federal Reserve.

    It's okay if Trump disrupts society in the attempt to redistribute wealth upward. We can't have him introducing economic uncertainty into that mix.
     
  10. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    From the opinion.

    A stay is appropriate to avoid the disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation.

    Finally, respondents Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee. See Response of Wilcox in Opposition to App. for Stay 2−3, 27−28; Response of Harris in Opposition to App. for Stay 3, 5−6, 16−17, 36, 40. We disagree. The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States. See Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 222, n. 8.

    Somebody with a law degree, or perhaps the guru himself, can clarify, but as I read it, this order does not exempt the Fed.
     
  11. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This, exactly.
     
    soccernutter and Dr. Wankler repped this.
  12. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Read the opinion in its entirety if you haven't, but the part you quote is absolutely creating a "carve out" for the Fed because.....reasons. But don't take it from me. Justice Kagan's dissent is even better.....

    IOW, as the brilliant gals at Strict Scrutiny love to remind us, the conservative majority just mostly rules on vibes and grievances, rarely solid case authority.
     
    rslfanboy, M, soccernutter and 4 others repped this.
  13. diablodelsol

    diablodelsol Member+

    Jan 10, 2001
    New Jersey
    Assuming we ever reach a point again where we have actual justices on scotus…what is the process for reviewing and reversing all these absolute shit show decisions. Can the justices simply say…yeah..:that was bullshit…and that was bullshit…and this one…total bullshit.

    or do they have to wait for new cases to make their way up through the appellate courts?
     
    dapip repped this.
  14. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    From the article:

    The majority also rejected Harris’s suggestion that a ruling for the government could threaten the structure of the Federal Reserve. The Fed, it wrote, “is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” ​


    Now, whether or not they will actually stick to that forever...
     
  15. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They have to wait for specific challenges (cases).
     
    diablodelsol repped this.
  16. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That is what poker players call a “tell.”

    The Supremes really do think they’re a superlegislature.
     
    bigredfutbol, rslfanboy and Dr. Wankler repped this.
  17. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As shown by the overturn of Plessy v Ferguson and Roe v Wade, rulings by previous SCOTUS's can be overturned by later SCOTUS's. However, they can't do that on their own accord, it would require a new lawsuit to be filed for a similar issue. So, if SCOTUS officially rules that the President can fire any agency head except the Fed, the next time a Democrat is in office, they can fire all the Republican heads of those agencies and stack the agency with Democratically aligned people. At which points the Republicans sue the Democratic administration and SCOTUS pretends this ruling never existed.
     
    rslfanboy, ElNaranja and diablodelsol repped this.
  18. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Or the next Democratic president could just have 6 of those mother********ers executed and then claim immunity. More likely, he could just go Andrew Jackson on their asses…make them as relevant as the House of Lords. That’s what I’d recommend…treat them like a quaint debating society with no real power.

    I respect the effort, yoss, I really do, but the Supremes aren’t following rules or the Constitution or precedent, so it’s kind of foolish trying to predict how the future will go.
     
  19. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Where have I granted absolution?
    :D
     
  20. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My point is, why follow the rules? Why can’t President Kamala Buttmer just declare a handful of decisions null and void? I mean, the president is in charge of executing the laws.
     
  21. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You forget. If a Democratic President had done what Trump is doing, the Conservative Justices would have ruled against them.
     
  22. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, I’m not forgetting that.

    I’m pointing out that the Supremes have no method for enforcing their decisions. So just ignore the ones you don’t like. Pass another campaign finance bill and a gun control bill and all the rest and arrest people for violating those laws. When the Supremes declare them unconstitutional, laugh and tell them to ******** themselves. Send the FBI to arrest them if they get too bitchy about it.
     
  23. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [shrugs in Latin]
     
    soccernutter, rslfanboy, Val1 and 3 others repped this.
  24. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    Religion is under attack!

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a last-minute plea from Native Americans seeking to challenge a massive copper mining project in Arizona that would destroy a sacred site used for tribal ceremonies, a weighty dispute that pitted religious rights against business interests.

    The court turned away an appeal brought by the nonprofit group Apache Stronghold asserting that its members' religious rights will be violated if the Resolution Copper mine goes forward because it would obliterate Oak Flat, the site in question.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ican-lawsuit-copper-mine-sacred-la-rcna183774
     
  25. diablodelsol

    diablodelsol Member+

    Jan 10, 2001
    New Jersey
    I’ve commented quite a few times that I thought referring to “Trump judges” when commenting in the multitudes of inexplicable, indefensible decisions made by many of his appointees as absolving McConnell and the GoP of their role in the degradation of the federal judiciary. I pointed out that Trump was incapable of actually betting candidates and was only appointing judges that McConnell et al were recommending to him.


    upload_2025-5-29_21-34-20.jpg
    Just posting this as it confirms my suspicions. There is no such thing as. “Trump judge”. Their regular old run of the mill “conservatives”. And by conservative….i mean run of the mill fascists who are perfectly fine destroying our republic as long as they and their kind can end up on top.

    BTW….for a while I’ve thought that Musk ending up in the leopards thread would be the pinnacle of all I hoped for. Leonard Leo getting his face eaten might even top that.
     
    Mike03, bigredfutbol, rslfanboy and 2 others repped this.

Share This Page