SCOTUS Decisions

[HisArpy]

Laws need to be changed so that rulings must be issued no later than 60 days after hearings. This practice of last minute stuff needs to end.

I'm sure you're aware of who is going to review those laws for legal effectiveness and enforcement...

 

[SmokingFap]

I'm sure you're aware of who is going to review those laws for legal effectiveness and enforcement...

Even if the Supremes somehow conceded the constitutionality of such requirements, enforcement would be simply impossible.

 

[SmokingFap]

The Purdue pharma bankruptcy settlement goes down. Interesting alignment of the judges on either side of the decision.

 

[jaF0]

Supreme Court Makes Another Abrupt Schedule Change​

The U.S. Supreme Court updated its website Thursday to show that it would release additional opinions next week.


.

 

[jaF0]

The Purdue pharma bankruptcy settlement goes down. Interesting alignment of the judges on either side of the decision.

BK judges should never be allowed to consider that.

 

[jaF0]

Homeless people can be fined for sleeping outside, Supreme Court rules ​

The ruling could lead more cities to crack down on homeless encampments.
by Kelsey Reichmann



And pay how? With what?

 

[ll74]

In no surprise to anyone, Chevron is overruled

 

[ll74]

Homeless people can be fined for sleeping outside, Supreme Court rules​

The ruling could lead more cities to crack down on homeless encampments.
by Kelsey Reichmann



And pay how? With what?

We're going to see more shuffling of undesirables into small towns who can't fight back on this one.

 

[HisArpy]

Homeless people can be fined for sleeping outside, Supreme Court rules​

The ruling could lead more cities to crack down on homeless encampments.
by Kelsey Reichmann



And pay how? With what?

Many of the homeless aren't insolvent, they just use their money to get high instead of paying for shelter/food. Also, if they don't pay they get housed in jail. This gets them off the street AND helps them get sober and into treatment programs.

On the downside, it's just more of the "rape the people financially" game that the courts play because it makes them billions every year.

In the end I think the court has realized that the prior decisions regarding the right of the homeless to camp/sleep in public need a bit of curtailing. The societal problems from those previous decisions have gotten overwhelming and many cities are starting to disobey the mandates against arresting transients in order to try and reduce public offenses and crime.

 

[jaF0]

Supreme Court overrules landmark precedent on government authority ​

The high court’s ruling shifts how judges weigh federal government deference when interpreting the country’s laws.
by Kelsey Reichmann

 

[jaF0]

"Kagan characterizes this decision, along with yesterday's ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, as "yet another example of the Court's resolve to roll back agency authority, despite congressional direction to the contrary." "

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The Grants Pass decision is welcome news for California where one third of the nation’s homeless population lives.

https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/06/california-homeless-camps-grants-pass-ruling/

 

[jaF0]

Punt on the Obstruction mess:

Amy HoweMod
9:45 AM
We have the fourth and final opinion in Fischer v US
It is by the Chief Justice, and the vote is 6-3. Barrett dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
This was a case about whether a federal law that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct congressional inquiries and investigations can be used to prosecute participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The question comes to the court in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Ellena ErskineMod
9:46 AM
Here's the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Amy HoweMod
9:47 AM
The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.
The court reverses the D.C. Circuit, which had adopted a broader reading of the law to allow the charges against Fischer to go forward. The case now goes back to the D.C. Circuit -- which, the court says, can assess whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation.


https://www.scotusblog.com/

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Two excellent decisions today thanks to President Trump’s appointments and Senator McConnell’s masterful leadership in the confirmation process. Icing on the cake and validation of Trump’s resounding victory in last night’s debate.

 

[ll74]

Punt on the Obstruction mess:

Amy HoweMod
9:45 AM
We have the fourth and final opinion in Fischer v US
It is by the Chief Justice, and the vote is 6-3. Barrett dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
This was a case about whether a federal law that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct congressional inquiries and investigations can be used to prosecute participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The question comes to the court in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Ellena ErskineMod
9:46 AM
Here's the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Amy HoweMod
9:47 AM
The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.
The court reverses the D.C. Circuit, which had adopted a broader reading of the law to allow the charges against Fischer to go forward. The case now goes back to the D.C. Circuit -- which, the court says, can assess whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation.


https://www.scotusblog.com/

Barrett on dissent. Jackson in majority.

As I said earlier, ideological lines aren't being followed with this court.

 

[HisArpy]

"Kagan characterizes this decision, along with yesterday's ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, as "yet another example of the Court's resolve to roll back agency authority, despite congressional direction to the contrary." "

The problem with this thinking is that it is contrary to the factual findings that Congress DIDN'T grant that authority to the various administrative departments.

 

[HisArpy]

Punt on the Obstruction mess:

Amy HoweMod
9:45 AM
We have the fourth and final opinion in Fischer v US
It is by the Chief Justice, and the vote is 6-3. Barrett dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
This was a case about whether a federal law that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct congressional inquiries and investigations can be used to prosecute participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. The question comes to the court in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Ellena ErskineMod
9:46 AM
Here's the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Amy HoweMod
9:47 AM
The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.
The court reverses the D.C. Circuit, which had adopted a broader reading of the law to allow the charges against Fischer to go forward. The case now goes back to the D.C. Circuit -- which, the court says, can assess whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation.


https://www.scotusblog.com/

It goes back to the DC circuit court which has already determined that the statute cannot be used in the way the government wishes it to be used. So it's not really a punt, more of an onside kick.

I do wish it was more definitive though because it leaves a lot of room for artful pleading.

 

[butters]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=06abfa6185854130aaf3de5f39a49aac&ei=139

court had to issue a corrected opinion regarding the air pollutants case after 5 times referring to nitrogen oxide as nitrous oxide (laughing gas)

Gorsuch—and his clerks, who would have helped prepare the opinion—referred five times in his opinion to “nitrous oxide,” which is a greenhouse gas that’s more commonly known as an anesthetic and referred to as “laughing gas.”
The opinion actually meant to refer to “nitrogen oxide,” an air pollutant that the EPA’s policy at issue was aimed at reducing.

The court issued a corrected opinion that fixed the error throughout the ruling, after the mistake gained traction on social media.
The mistake was seized on by critics of the court’s conservative majority, with writer Elie Mystal noting on X, “Remember folks, Neil Gorsuch thinks that he should have the final say on environmental regulations, not the experts at the EPA.”

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The problem with this thinking is that it is contrary to the factual findings that Congress DIDN'T grant that authority to the various administrative departments.

I’ll be interested to see how the Chevron deference ruling impacts the Biden Administration’s efforts to bring back net neutrality. Good chance that effort is toast.

 

[HisArpy]

I’ll be interested to see how the Chevron deference ruling impacts the Biden Administration’s efforts to bring back net neutrality. Good chance that effort is toast.

The elimination of Chevron is going to cause pain to certain groups of lobbyists but its not going to stop them. There are still lots of words left in all those US statutes for them to "reimagine" and "redefine."

 

[Cockpit4U]

In no surprise to anyone, Chevron is overruled

Agreed.

The original decision was so flawed it’s surprising it’s taken this long to overturn it. Long overdue.

 

[jaF0]

The Supreme Court rules for a North Dakota truck stop in a new blow to federal regulations​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/abcnews.go.com.icoABC|5 hours ago
The Supreme Court has opened the door to new, broad challenges to regulations long after they take effect, the third blow in a week to federal agencies

Supreme Court keeps red state social media crackdown on ice, ordering new lower court review​

The justices said the lower courts needed to do more work before the high court could decide if social media laws from Texas and Florida violated the Constitution.

 

[butters]

SCOTUS refused to take up case challenging OSHA... thomas was pissed

The case in question — Allstates Refractory Contractors v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor — was supported by conservative business groups and Republican attorneys general who want to limit OSHA's power over American workplaces, USA Today reported. In it, the plaintiffs, general contractors in Ohio, argue that Congress violated the Constitution by delegating legislative power to an outside agency when it established OSHA in 1970.

i wonder how many "gifts" he'll not receive for not getting this case before the court.

"Congress purported to empower an administrative agency to impose whatever workplace-safety standards it deems 'appropriate,'" Thomas wrote. "That power extends to virtually every business in the United States."

The federal US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld OSHA's constitutionality in 2023, arguing that the agency's authority is valid because it's limited to just workplace safety, Reuters reported.

"The agency claims authority to regulate everything from a power lawnmower's design," he wrote, "to the level of 'contact between trainers and whales at SeaWorld.'"


He argued that if OSHA didn't unconstitutionally grant too much legislative power to an agency, "it is hard to imagine what would."

"It would be no less objectionable if Congress gave the Internal Revenue Service authority to impose any tax on a particular person that it deems 'appropriate,'" Thomas continued.

poor pouting thomas

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p&cvid=9647738e54ec473eb056f35a965adab7&ei=43

 

[butters]

Justice Barrett says trump's 'fake electors' scheme isn't covered by immunity

Trump attorney Will Scharf told CNN Monday night that while some of the presumptive GOP nominee’s actions count as private conduct, meaning they can still be charged as crimes by special counsel Jack Smith, he should enjoy immunity for his failed attempt to put forward fake electors in key states following the 2020 election. “We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency,” Scharf said, noting that the Supreme Court left that question for lower courts to decide.

Writing specifically about Trump's fake-elector scheme: "In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States. And while Congress has a limited role in that process, the President has none.”

she also agreed with Justice Sotomayor about courts needing to hear both the quid and to pro quo

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...tp&cvid=83642b097cb34f85b0c67c79517d63c4&ei=5