> Seems like every couple of hours they are dismantling another regulation. Wonder why they are working in overdrive now
Paving the runway to land the big plane due Monday morning, giving Trump full, presidential immunity.
> giving Trump full, presidential immunity
The opinion will likely be written narrowly, giving him immunity for the things that hurt him most in this situation, not to be applied to anyone else in other circumstances.
The implication of what you wrote is that there will be future non-GOP presidents to whom concerns over the planned immunity would apply. Make no mistake: The next time we elect a Republican will be the last time "we elect" anything.
> The next time we elect a Republican will be the last time "we elect" anything.
That may very well be, even something the majority of scotus is ok with, but they do not know with 100% *certainty* that Trump will win this coming election. If they give the presidency "absolute immunity" and the next one is a Democrat, that was a poor gamble on their part.
And as someone else pointed out, even if Trump did win, in the meantime, it would leave Biden with a super power they'd certainly not want him to have.
They’re probably hoping/ planning for chaos and confusion during the counts so the decision ultimately ends up in their hands. They will without a doubt give it to the traitor.
Well, they wouldn't want Biden to have that immunity for the last 6 months before the fascists complete their takeover. If they grant complete immunity to all Presidents, then something still could be done by a non-Republican, so the SCROTUS still needs to word things carefully so only their team gets that ability.
I'm worried way too many people believe that. The people who hate Republicans but aren't going to show up on election day because, "Biden doesn't care about such-and-such," or "My life isn't better because of Joe Biden," or any number of reasons to throw away what might be their last chance to vote.
So infuriating, throwing the baby out with the bath water type thing smh. Like I know he's not what everyone wants but are they really gonna let trump into the White House like that? It's just outright malarkey
The independents and the non voters are the actual votes we need. The portion of the Democratic Party that is falling for it is smaller than you would think and I don’t think they would be enough of a factor to give trump the win. They aren’t going to vote for trump and you can’t ignore that trump is so unpopular people who don’t vote normally have voted just to ensure he couldn’t win again. Don’t forget the record level of voter turn out in the 2020 election.
I caught one today, a look at its comment history revealed it has been working 12-hour shifts with a comment posted approximately every 3 1/2 minutes. Every comment trashing Biden for various reasons and discouraging people from voting. A busy, busy troll indeed!
God I fucking hate how right you probably are. Scotus seems to be incurring some major wrath- it needs to be expanded by the next Democrat who has any political capital because this shit is unsustainable.
It'll be immunity in novel national emergency, which only applies to Trump and not the current president. They'll argue the circumstances that Trump was in required POTUS to have immunity, i.e., "habeous corpus," "9/11," and "foreign invasion". They'll argue that covid met these requirements and grant any, and all action by the Trump administration was legal and constitutional.
"He *believed* he had presidential immunity, and acted accordingly. No longer is it possible that there is a president so glacially stupid to not know they do not, in fact have it, so there can never be another president with complete immunity. Unless the same shitgibbon of an idiot were to be president again. In which case, we believe their ignorance will again be an appropriate excuse."
tbh, our only hope is that Biden gets another term, holds the senate, and 2 conservative seats free up on SCOTUS. Otherwise, we are gonna be stuck on this stupidity for a long time.
> They'll argue that covid met these requirements and grant any, and all action by the Trump administration was legal and constitutional.
Why not just elect Trump, declare war, now with presidential immunity, suspend elections "in time of war", enact martial law and curfews, and leave that state in perpetuity?
It's a slippery slope that goes rapidly downward if that is unlocked.
> giving Trump full, presidential immunity.
only trump though. the immunity won't extend to biden for anything, including adding justices to the supreme court because he didn't spend enough on bribes.
> including adding justices to the supreme court because he didn't spend enough on **bribes**.
I think you spelled "gratuity" wrong. 😏
TL;DR: [Bribes are legal tender](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/27/supreme-court-bribes-gratuities-snyder-kavanaugh) now.
I’m not a lawyer and I’m not very knowledgeable with politics but, how is it even conceivable that a president could get immunity? I can’t wrap my head around it. Is this a type of thing that’s WAY too stupid to even mention in the constitution because it’s so obvious? Same with the bribery stuff. Why is this really even a discussion at all?
I get corruption and all that, or at least I thought I did, but what the fuck? I get the law is super complex and all that, but you’re telling me these 9 judges have to decide whether it’s “legal” for a president to do whatever he wants, no repercussions? Why do you even need a law to say it’s illegal to be a King?
I’m just a confused American. This is just insanely sad
See, what gets me is that the Supreme Court is actually not allowed to rule over such things without Congress letting them.
The Supreme Court only has domain over 2 things.
1. Ambassadors, Public Ministers, & Consuls
2. Cases in which a State is a party
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Congress has granted Appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over other matters, but these are not rights allowed to it in the Constitution and can be revoked fully meaning if they aren't one of the few items they have original jurisdiction over, they don't matter.
and he should, knock out some supreme court assholes, put his choices in and then see if they can repeal some/all of the batshit decisions the court's been passing- fuck taking the high road
... although TBH Im not sure how possible it is to undo all the damage the supreme court is doing
That ruling would be such a double edged sword unless they rule very narrowly and specifically.
Absolute presidential immunity means Biden could just order a drone strike on Trump and claim immunity.
Man I wish there were some billionaires who cared about the rest of us and the world enough to bribe these judges for the betterment of society every now and then.
I’d just settle for one who takes the enlightened overlord viewpoint: I own these peasants, and I am going to make them the smartest, richest, healthiest damn peasants anyone ever owned anywhere.
This is my big issue. Like these jackholes aren't even giving the american people the opportunity to counter offer. Like seriously, how much money would it take for Ted Cruz to come out as a dyed in the wool Democrat? Four, maybe Five dollars?
Any supreme court justice that claims to be an originalist is completely full of shit for the simple reason that *the constitution doesn't give the supreme court the power of judicial review*. That was an authority the supreme court itself completely invented in 1805
Be the final authority of cases that make it there. The Court existed in 1790 and went 13 years before judicial review. West v Barnes was the first case decided, and it was basically clerical. The decision ultimately had to do with rules regarding writs of error.
The Supreme Court doesn't just deal with laws. They make legal decisions regarding a number of matters. One of the early ones had to do with citizenship, for example, and if you automatically gave up US citizenship by becoming a citizen of a different country.
Think of it like following royal bloodlines: they believe the Constitution was developed by their ancestors and thus they have some ancestral right to make sure it applies as *they* see fit. The Constitution should only apply to them and what they believe in.
All that pesky civil-minded progress gets in the way of their ability to power monger.
Let this be a reminder of what is at stake in this next election. Federal judges up and down the court system are appointed by current Administration. Imagine how much worse it will get if Trump is re-elected.
Vote in November. Register to vote now.
Is there a subreddit for this? I mean France organizes protests over unpopular legislation/rulings all the time. In America mass protests are exceedingly rare and it’s never directed at the right people/audiences.
There probably would be more forums talking about it, except, most of us are bots and are programmed to be make prosaic witticisms when bad news is posted.
We’re fucked, and I mean that viscerally: we are fucked and going down without a fight.
Protest organizers in authoritarian countries usually use Telegram because it's harder to track. Read up on some of their tactics.
If you're angry, take action. Be the one to organize a small community of like-minded people, then start delegating responsibilities to ensure steady growth. Start reading books on grassroots movements, MLMs (they're evil but their growth tactics are top notch), separatist groups, and social media marketing.
>we are fucked and going down without a fight.
Because progressives have been duped into believing that genuinely effective protesting is something only fascists do. That taking effective coordinated action against authoritarianism is reserved for the gun toting racist homophobes.
An enduring consumer and labor strike could cost the elite in America billions in lost profits. Keep it going long enough and the conservatives happily working away for their masters will realize they're disposable when they're hit by layoffs. It's as simple as progressives being willing to practice what they preach and share essentials among each other, and to maintain a blacklist of companies and persons to avoid at all costs. Essentials meaning water, food, shelter, and clothing. Democrats report over 45 million registered members, 10 million more than Republicans, and even just 45 million people refusing to meaningfully participate in the economy for a few months would bring this nation to its knees.
Hence the difference between "human" and "person".
Also applies to the abortion "debate", in which according to some "fetal personhood" is sacrosanct, and has value, as opposed to the human life of the mother or the child once born.
"Persons", particularly those who cannot be incarcerated and do not actually voice their own opinion, are rated higher than "humans" who might not agree with the shareholders/politicians/law enforcement.
>Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling, said the court granted the challengers' request because they are likely to ultimately prevail in the litigation, saying the EPA did not reasonably explain its actions.
But... They did. From the article:
*The EPA issued the rule at issue in March 2023 intending to target gases that form ozone, a key component of smog, from power plants and other industrial sources in 23 upwind states whose own plans did not satisfy the "Good Neighbor" provision of the Clean Air Act anti-pollution law, requiring steps to reduce pollution that drifts into states downwind.*
The EPA is arguing that the Clean Air Act's provision that is designed to empower the EPA to enforce regulations on air pollution that could affect neighboring states or areas gives them the power to enforce those regulations. Their new rule is just an extension of that and is a totally normal part of their operations.
*The agency said the rule would result in cleaner air for millions of people, saving thousands of lives.*
Yeah too bad the conservatives care more about the rights of oil companies to pollute and the ability of red states to dismantle the administrative state than they do about the lives of thousands if not millions of people.
Seriously, I do not understand how impaired your perspective and reasoning has to be for you to believe that *The Clean Air Act* doesn't grant the power to regulate air pollution. That is literally the entire point of the law.
>The rule implemented a federal program that applied to 23 states, **but separate challenges in lower courts have already paused enforcement in 12 of them**, including West Virginia.
During arguments in the case on Feb. 21, some of the conservative justices focused on the EPA's **lack of explanation for how the plan can work when it now regulates just 11 states instead of 23 as intended.**
Oh so its even dumber than I thought. It's not that they didn't explain the rule, it's that the EPA did not explain to the supreme courts satisfaction how they could effectively implement their plan to improve air pollution when half of the areas that are part of the plan have used the judicial system to prevent implementation (at least temporarily).
"How can you, the EPA, expect to follow through on a plan to make the air cleaner for everyone when half the states involved have blocked your plan just like we plan to? Seems you haven't thought things through."
Get the fuck out of here.
>Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by the court's three liberal justices. "The court today enjoins the enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits," Barrett wrote.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that the conservative Justices would ever rule based on flimsy, underdeveloped reasoning. /S
We're so screwed.
This supreme corrupt could have the clearest written law in front of them and will have no problem making up a bullshit excuse against it for the result they want (would be given “gratuity” for).
You know who else wanted to have regular updates? The writers of the Constitution, who expected fairly regular rewrites to adapt to changing circumstances. Amendments were considered a temporary stopgap measure until they could be adapted in with the next revision.
> writers of the Constitution, who expected fairly regular rewrites
Jefferson from what I can tell was one to state that. Still would need 2/3 of majorly to agree.
The fifth amendment sort of guarantees "life" which should be easy to argue that pollution is depriving people of life.
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Remember that law on the books that in plain text gives the Secretary of Education the ability to forgive student loan debt? Remember how the court just randomly decided that law didn't mean what it said?
This is what you’re not understanding. They can now enforce regulations that are in the law….except, there are not any regulations in the law itself. The law empowers the regulatory agency to regulate per their expertise. This functionally eliminates their authority.
SCOTUS picks and chooses when they like the spirit of the law vs the letter. And in this case they choose letter. If the law isn’t explicit then only they have the authority to interpret.
> Yeah too bad the conservatives care more about the rights of oil companies
They don't. They just like money being stuffed into their pocket.
Someone could pay them a couple mil to build a kitten slaughtering plant and they would allow it.
West coast here. I guess the good news is all our pollution will just blow into the widest and southern states who evidently love pollution so much. Bad time to become anti-vax and anti-chemicals for the MAGA who brought this upon our country.
Fun fact: the only correlation that’s been found for autism, is pollution. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/air-pollution-linked-with-increased-risk-of-autism-in-children/
I'm over this bullshit at this point. I was hesitant to support the idea that Bidens administration should work on enlarging the court, but, with these damn games Republicans have continued to play, I am absolutely ready to let that system unravel by adding more justice. Fuck. These. People.
Conservatives speaking in bad faith: “if you think about it the justices have no choice, I think congress should do its job”… as they actively donate, campaign for, and vote for the party hell bent on making sure congress can’t do its job.
We just need a remake of this country at this point because we're heading down a right wing Authoritarian path
Religion belongs no where in any part of government, ever no matter what.
Politicians cannot financially benefit from their positions at all
Politicians cannot stay in power forever
Politicians financials will be heavily scrutinized and be completely public
Regulatory bodies have power to regulate, Congress is the only one who can limit how far it goes
Idk what else lol
You should probably start with the root cause of this fracas if you want to reform anything. Courts are not legislatory organs - they can't write laws. The only reason they have as much power in the US as they do is that Congress refuses to legislate anything. Roe vs Wade should have never relied on a judicial decision - it should have been codified into a law ages ago. But the Congress isn't doing shit so the tripartite division of power just does not exist.
This is a somewhat under-covered part of all of this.
Congress has basically turned the presidency and courts into their whipping boys as they consolidate more powers to the executive branch and play games with judicial appointments.
Then they collect money from lobbying groups to basically not do anything, or pass favorable laws for them.
At best congress has become lazy and ineffectual. At worst they've become corrupt operators who shift attention elsewhere.
The only way laws are passed now is through omnibus spending bills. It’s not sustainable.
But it’s impractical for Congress to write out every regulation in the statutory text. They have never done this and will never do it. Because it makes government impossible. Agencies need to be able to fill in gaps.
It’s insane to me that no one is pointing out that 4 of those justices lied to Congress about settled law then blew up every law based on those settled laws. Everything can be litigated again. Congress please haul their asses back and ask them to explain themselves …
Environmental regulations dead now. Gay marriage (obergefell), the individual right to privacy (griswold), and Brown vs BOE up next. Seems like they might sneak ending no-fault divorce in there too.
And yes, Justice Thomas has literally said in written opinions that those are decisions he wants to overturn.
I wonder if those 'don't talk to me about the supreme court' voters in 2016 have enough awareness to feel bad about their part in what's coming?
Tbh, I’m surprised they’re trying to end no-fault divorce. That seems like it would heavily impact their donors, and only mildly appease evangelicals (and there’s a LOT of non-evangelical devout Christians that get divorced)
No-Fault divorce just means you can't get a divorce without a "good reason", and what constitutes a good reason is up to the judge signing off on it.
The rich and powerful are just going to shop around for a judge that will rubber-stamp their paperwork. Hell, if you're smart about it you can probably have some lifestyle clause slid into your prenup (or postnup, which is a thing) that you can point to as an excuse to get out of a marriage that no longer suits you.
The people hurt by this aren't any of them or their friends, it's poor people (usually particularly vulnerable young women) that get manipulated into a marriage that traps them in a nightmarish abusive relationship they can never escape because they don't have the means. It's not a coincidence that women's suicide rates dropped by a staggering 20 percent after No-Fault divorce was codified.
People need to start recognizing that conservatism has rotted away almost every aspect of our government, and it's going to take drastic action to keep it from falling apart.
We got too comfortable. Future generations who want to breathe free air are going to have to fight the fights that we've consistently rolled over and given up on for the last 50 years. Sucks for them, but this is how history works. Our children will suffer for our grandchildren to have it made... and then they'll screw it all up again.
I feel like I'm going to throw up reading this. I don't understand law and regulation extremely well, just enough that I knew Chevron and Roe were like knocking out big beam supports that they can use to collapse the roof.
I can [and will] vote, but this makes me feel so helpless.
>I wonder if those 'don't talk to me about the supreme court' voters in 2016 have enough awareness to feel bad about their part in what's coming?
I'll go ahead and spoil it: they don't.
That same crowd is making the same claims, about 2024.
I'm convinced they were never going to vote Democrat in the first place, and are just Republicans in disguise.
I do. I voted for Jill Stein in 2016 and have regretted it ever since. It was a huge mistake for *multiple* reasons, and I'll never make that mistake again. My entire state voting for Hillary wouldn't have changed the outcome, but I still made the wrong choice and regret it.
Primaries are the place to vote for your most ideal candidate (which I did). However, the GOP must be stopped in general elections. Gotta vote blue.
Good on you. I think one of the worst problems today is people not being able to admit they're wrong, or change their opinions when presented with evidence that goes against what they currently believe.
Part of it is the internet making words last forever. But the biggest problem is all of us--our culture, including young people. Like those who say that the Biden administration's advancements for LGBT rights don't matter at all because Biden himself did something homophobic several decades ago.
It's like there's nothing millennials and zoomers hate more than someone who learns from their mistakes and changes for the better. And we call ourselves so empathetic and virtuous.
I was a registered Republican who voted for Ron Paul in multiple primaries. I threw away my vote in 2016 and will never, ever, do that again. I regret not voting for hill-dog (although it wouldn’t matter in my blue state)
The Republican Party must be stopped.
America as a democracy is dying before our eyes and the current population is too busy posting memes and fucking around worrying about themselves to care.
In a thousand years people will look back on the slow death of the American empire as one of the most intriguing empirical collapses of all time, when hundreds if not thousands of checks and balances failed and the majority of people acted against their own interests out of sheer disdain for the ‘other side’.
All great empires destroy themselves in the end.
> Seems like they might sneak ending no-fault divorce in there too.
This is an explicit goal of many republican lawmakers everywhere, so I can see that happening.
Gorsuch is pro-gay marriage I think. It’s one of his pet interests - anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
Would only take 1 vote to uphold it.
> I wonder if those 'don't talk to me about the supreme court' voters in 2016 have enough awareness to feel bad about their part in what's coming?
The few of those I know that were like that are voting trump this time around, in protest of biden's policy on palestine. To clarify, they know trump is worse on palestine, they just want the dems to suffer for allowing biden to do this.
Probably never. People throw away their lives all the time without trying to take a single person they feel is making the world a worse place out with them. It seems to be an inherent trait of humanity, or at least those who want to self terminate.
This supreme court needs to be fucking stopped. They are going to land us in another civil war when they bring back segregation or some other awful shit like that.
These corporations don't know what will happen to them if Trump wins and becomes dictator we can see it it happened to Russia and Putin is Cheatto's idol. Bye Coca Cola you are now owned by Rogrer Stone, bye Oil companies you are now owned By Bannon. Trump will give them to all his cronies like what Putin did.
Without regulations, company supply chains become very suspect. I doubt American Airlines will be happy when Boeing's unregulated planes start falling out of the sky and killing their crew and passengers. Same goes for any food company sourcing food from America for their products. Chinese don't buy Chinese baby food, and maybe soon they won't buy American baby food either. A total lack of regulations approaches anarchy, and that's bad for business.
Both of course. They will find a way to eliminate presidential term limits and voting next. Most strong men around the world maintain power through judicial capture. The homeless ruling gave clear instructions on how to bring a case that would eliminate the right to protest. That’s one of the many things that’s next.
Corporations found it’s more cost effective to bribe..lobby a handful of people in the judicial and executive branch than a bunch of people in the legislative branch.
SCOTUS may as well just get this over with and announce it:
>Democracy will be no more. Henceforth, the United State is now officially a Corp-Kleptocracy. No money? No voice! Let the rejoice of MAGA begin!
Most corrupt joke of a judicial branch in the history of the United States. Way to go Republicans. Selling out the virtue of your country for some franks. Fuck you
Love that these corrupt fucks don't care if their own air and water are screwed. I think they imagine they'll be insulated since they can just get their own private stuff.
The whole system is absurd. Why is the POTUS picking SCOUTS judges in the first place, and why is it not considered a conflict on interest when these judges have to rule on cases directly concerning the person who gave them the job?
I just don't understand the American supreme court system, it's just set up in a way that guarantees partiality.
It's called checks and balances. The president makes a pick, the Senate has to approve it and then it's a lifetime appointment so they aren't beholden to the people who appointed them.
Part of the problem in this country is the executive branch has way overstepped it's role of enforcing laws and has moved to creating ones of their own. Another part of the problem is the size of the House is capped at 435 members. It should be around 1500 people now. This would free up Congresspeople to focus more on legislating rather than being spread too thin among committees to do anything effective. It would also restore a lot of balance to the Electoral College by reducing the effect of the bonus 2 people in lower population states.
The checks and balances were conceived thinking that Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary would be at odds.
There are no real checks and balances against a conservative extremist takeover of the judiciary while the conservative extremists paralyze Congress.
SCOTUS always insists that "Congress must act" to provide solutions.
However, administrative agencies were Congress' solution to dealing with the multitude of government responsibilities which require special expertise.
Administrative agencies *exist* because Congress DID act, and properly delegated its power to the agencies with expertise.
The Roberts Court has, once again, simply substituted Congress' policy preferences for its own. Yet SCOTUS has Constitutional no right or power to do this.
Indeed, this is the *opposite* of separation of powers — this is one branch of government usurping the powers of another.
The Roberts Court is a blight on this nation and should be dissolved. It has no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the Rule of Law, and no respect for the Republic.
It may be too late to end it before it does irreparable damage.
Do it anyway.
Why can't we just actually stand up do what the French are doing to their government instead of acting like a bunch of apathetic pussies? Apparently, Americans are just fine with their rights being steamrolled and then whine about it and not vote or protest.
- America is a lot bigger than France. And the more people you try to unite and mobilize the harder it is.
- You can't really have "centralized leadership" with any sort of coordinated effort that would be required to make a significant difference.
- Coordinating efforts gets difficult when you don't know which platform will actually allow you to do so.
- There are also a good chunk of crazies who would delight in an opportunity to open fire on the "terrorist protestors"
- America has stripped Americans of the ability to protest.
- You have no worker protections, so if you miss work protesting, there goes your job.
- Even if you don't miss work, your employer might decide to fire you if they find out you even participated.
- Most people can't afford to be without income right now. Hand to mouth, paycheck-to-paycheck living is the norm for a significant portion of the population.
- Most people just keep their head down and try to get through to tomorrow. They're one small slip from losing everything, but if they can just keep their head down, they can stay on their feet.
- Then there's the police brutality route. Who shows up to beat down protesters, media, and innocent bystanders? Police. Why? Because they get away with it. They enjoy it.
- And that breeds fear in people, makes them not want to risk being in a situation where they might end up on the wrong side of the police brutality show.
All of these are reasons why it just hasn't happened yet.
Lots of people are trying, most of the time you just don't hear anything about it because the energy required to build momentum is so great that it dies before it reaches you.
There are so many obstacles put in front of the path to making America great that your average citizen just can't afford to do anything about it.
Speculation, but I'd guess 99% of the people who are unhappy about all of this are sitting there hoping that someone will just take charge and start the march so they can "join in" when it's convenient for them.
> how can we fix this or get this shot overturned?
Vote against the party that bought these SCOTUS judges and appointed them into these positions of self-proclaimed "power". Today that means voting Democrat, not Republican.
If there is a Democratic Party win this election, they can pack the court with proper, fair and balanced judges who can reset the balance of these scales.
If someone like Trump, or really ANY Republican takes office in this election, all of our country's democracy will be slowly dismantled in the name of profit. At that point, this grand experiment called "Democracy" comes to an end.
But someone got wealthier, so hey, success, right? /s
The Democrats won't actually fix it, but it is our only option. Hopefully over several decades we replace Democrats with more left leaning candidates willing to do something
I doubt anyone can in our lifetimes. I image were in for 50-100 years of environmental degradation at an even greater pace and suppression of women, lgbtq, and anyone not white. Eventually it will get to a tipping point where most people can no longer drink water, eat, or take medicine without getting sick and/or dying, or be jailed for merely existing while not straight and/or white and then there will be riots, resistance, and rivers of blood in the streets. Then maybe the people that survive can build something better from the ashes.
Man how long until democrats just have to start ignoring the SC?
I’m not saying every decision they make is bad they’re throwing us SOME bones just to keep from losing all legitimacy
But they’re rolling back established precedent all over the place and hamstringing climate change action and corruption
If they win in November they MUST be more aggressive on climate change especially like
I just feel the court is happily betting it all on Trump but even that won’t recover the sense of it’s legitimacy.
That's not how it works. If they gut the EPA or FDA's powers to enforce things then the companies they are meant to regulate will just ignore the agencies. So unless these agencies go with armed forces to the offices of the companies to enforce their rules, the companies can just keep ignoring them. Or hire their own security forces to repel the regulators. This is how an organized society at large erodes into anarchy.
I mean that’s very true but the other options for checking the court are so unlikely
Impeaching them? Never going to happen and the conservative justices like Thomas don’t recuse themselves from obvious conflicts of interest.
Expanding the court? Yeah let’s do that and then see what happens when the republicans next take office I don’t want it to have 31 justices from the two sides fighting.
The only other two options are just let them continue to be effectively the sovereigns of this country ignoring the courts precedent and blatantly favoring corporations and rich men to try and buy their favor, or to at least on some decisions like gutting the EPA we just don’t listen to them.
They can ignore decades of precedent, common sense, and overturn and gut critical things essentially just for money. We should see that most of these decisions are stupid and corrupt as shit and should ignore them.
I don’t live in a place with a landed gentry and the fact they’re behaving like that with no recourse from anyone really does not feel like the democracy I’ve been led to believe we aspire to.
America SHOULD be the greatest, it should be the nation forging ahead into uncharted territory because we have the resources to be the trailblazers. I’m not saying we progress without limits, conservatism should be a steadying hand, to make sure we carefully evaluate what we do. We want to get these things right the first time and instead like 30% of people that vote are a loud minority who are getting what only they want and no one with common sense seems to be willing to really put their foot down.
> Expanding the court? Yeah let’s do that and then see what happens when the republicans next take office I don’t want it to have 31 justices from the two sides fighting.
expand it to 13. Then it is tied to the number of circuits.
Man, the more I hear about the state of things, the more I'm ready to yeet myself off this planet. This shit is heavy and I'm watching both the planet and humanity fizzle in real time. I actually don't think I can mentally handle the reckless hate and greed anymore.
Aaah the supreme court, the real unchecked power in this country...
Edit also you gotta think about the other ruling that came down. Getting rid of Chevron opened the floodgates to utter corruption.
Every ruling from here on out is just favors being given to corporate! 99 percent sure they just got generous donations from their overlords.
This here is the real end to this country
>The challenge to the "Good Neighbor" rule was brought by Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia - all targeted by the rule - as well as pipeline operators, U.S. Steel, regional electricity generators and energy trade associations
A few decades ago they found that emissions from Ohio coal plants went east, across PA and to New York. Even the acid rain killing the Adirondacks was caused by Ohio coal plants. In PA and NY everyone from gardeners to farmers knew to lime the soil every year if they wanted anything to grow. It took many, many years to get Ohio's plants to correct their shit so it didn't pollute everyone to the east. Now the Adirondacks have healed and acid rain isn't the threat it once was. The Supreme Court is a bag of dicks
Americans just really don't like clean air. Breathing shitty cancerous air is worth it so you can drive big trucks and for a handful of businesses to make more money. Clean and water, that's communism.
> Breathing shitty cancerous air is worth it so you can drive big trucks and for a handful of businesses to make more money.
Cleaning the air costs money, money that comes out of the pockets of corporations and political shareholders. The same shareholders who bought their place at the SCOTUS table by buying these judges.
Agencies like the EPA are blocking the ability of these corporations to earn higher profits, by mandating pollution controls.
So, SCOTUS overturns Chevron, setting EPA and their powers aside, so now these corporations can do whatever they want, and as a result, make more profits. The Chevron ruling also deflates the deference for FDA (food), OSHA (safety), FAA (air travel), FCC (communications) and dozens of other departments.
Now our very food, water, air and travel are being decided by judges with no expertise in the subject matter, instead of the experts who have been educated in their fields for decades.
Those profits saved from not spending on pollution controls, can now be turned into "gratuities" that can be paid directly to the SCOTUS judges as "tips", and now that too, is fully legal.
See how that works? It's textbook tyranny unfolded right before our eyes.
> _tyranny, n: cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control._
I fucking wish they knew how bad it can get - I went to Hanoi and it’s frequently in the top 3 most polluted cities in the world and the air is fucking rough. I had to wear a mask at all times outside because it’s literally choking you out and you get a cough and black phlegm. Why are we doing this to ourselves?
Seems like every couple of hours they are dismantling another regulation. Wonder why they are working in overdrive now
> Seems like every couple of hours they are dismantling another regulation. Wonder why they are working in overdrive now Paving the runway to land the big plane due Monday morning, giving Trump full, presidential immunity.
> giving Trump full, presidential immunity The opinion will likely be written narrowly, giving him immunity for the things that hurt him most in this situation, not to be applied to anyone else in other circumstances.
They already started with Jan. 6th ruling.
They already said that with Bush v. Gore. It’s been recited numerous times.
Bold of you to be one of the few folks who legitimately believe there will ever be a non-Russian-style election in the US again if he wins.
Perhaps you intended to reply to someone else. I communicated no such thing.
The implication of what you wrote is that there will be future non-GOP presidents to whom concerns over the planned immunity would apply. Make no mistake: The next time we elect a Republican will be the last time "we elect" anything.
> The next time we elect a Republican will be the last time "we elect" anything. That may very well be, even something the majority of scotus is ok with, but they do not know with 100% *certainty* that Trump will win this coming election. If they give the presidency "absolute immunity" and the next one is a Democrat, that was a poor gamble on their part. And as someone else pointed out, even if Trump did win, in the meantime, it would leave Biden with a super power they'd certainly not want him to have.
They’re probably hoping/ planning for chaos and confusion during the counts so the decision ultimately ends up in their hands. They will without a doubt give it to the traitor.
Well, they wouldn't want Biden to have that immunity for the last 6 months before the fascists complete their takeover. If they grant complete immunity to all Presidents, then something still could be done by a non-Republican, so the SCROTUS still needs to word things carefully so only their team gets that ability.
>the SCROTUS still needs to word things carefully so only their team gets that ability. So much for being impartial. What an illegitimate court.
I'm worried way too many people believe that. The people who hate Republicans but aren't going to show up on election day because, "Biden doesn't care about such-and-such," or "My life isn't better because of Joe Biden," or any number of reasons to throw away what might be their last chance to vote.
So infuriating, throwing the baby out with the bath water type thing smh. Like I know he's not what everyone wants but are they really gonna let trump into the White House like that? It's just outright malarkey
It’s Russian trolls behind it, but a segment of the left are actually stupid enough to fall for it.
The independents and the non voters are the actual votes we need. The portion of the Democratic Party that is falling for it is smaller than you would think and I don’t think they would be enough of a factor to give trump the win. They aren’t going to vote for trump and you can’t ignore that trump is so unpopular people who don’t vote normally have voted just to ensure he couldn’t win again. Don’t forget the record level of voter turn out in the 2020 election.
I caught one today, a look at its comment history revealed it has been working 12-hour shifts with a comment posted approximately every 3 1/2 minutes. Every comment trashing Biden for various reasons and discouraging people from voting. A busy, busy troll indeed!
God I fucking hate how right you probably are. Scotus seems to be incurring some major wrath- it needs to be expanded by the next Democrat who has any political capital because this shit is unsustainable.
Well they pretty much green light some very ‘aggressive’ behavior if Trump loses.
The things he hurt america the most.
It'll be immunity in novel national emergency, which only applies to Trump and not the current president. They'll argue the circumstances that Trump was in required POTUS to have immunity, i.e., "habeous corpus," "9/11," and "foreign invasion". They'll argue that covid met these requirements and grant any, and all action by the Trump administration was legal and constitutional.
"He *believed* he had presidential immunity, and acted accordingly. No longer is it possible that there is a president so glacially stupid to not know they do not, in fact have it, so there can never be another president with complete immunity. Unless the same shitgibbon of an idiot were to be president again. In which case, we believe their ignorance will again be an appropriate excuse."
tbh, our only hope is that Biden gets another term, holds the senate, and 2 conservative seats free up on SCOTUS. Otherwise, we are gonna be stuck on this stupidity for a long time.
> They'll argue that covid met these requirements and grant any, and all action by the Trump administration was legal and constitutional. Why not just elect Trump, declare war, now with presidential immunity, suspend elections "in time of war", enact martial law and curfews, and leave that state in perpetuity? It's a slippery slope that goes rapidly downward if that is unlocked.
> giving Trump full, presidential immunity. only trump though. the immunity won't extend to biden for anything, including adding justices to the supreme court because he didn't spend enough on bribes.
> including adding justices to the supreme court because he didn't spend enough on **bribes**. I think you spelled "gratuity" wrong. 😏 TL;DR: [Bribes are legal tender](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/27/supreme-court-bribes-gratuities-snyder-kavanaugh) now.
I’m not a lawyer and I’m not very knowledgeable with politics but, how is it even conceivable that a president could get immunity? I can’t wrap my head around it. Is this a type of thing that’s WAY too stupid to even mention in the constitution because it’s so obvious? Same with the bribery stuff. Why is this really even a discussion at all? I get corruption and all that, or at least I thought I did, but what the fuck? I get the law is super complex and all that, but you’re telling me these 9 judges have to decide whether it’s “legal” for a president to do whatever he wants, no repercussions? Why do you even need a law to say it’s illegal to be a King? I’m just a confused American. This is just insanely sad
If they did that Biden could order assasinations now of anyone he wants in the interest of national security
You just KNOW these jackholes would make sure to have a provision saying it wouldn't take effect until Biden is out of office.
See, what gets me is that the Supreme Court is actually not allowed to rule over such things without Congress letting them. The Supreme Court only has domain over 2 things. 1. Ambassadors, Public Ministers, & Consuls 2. Cases in which a State is a party > In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Congress has granted Appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over other matters, but these are not rights allowed to it in the Constitution and can be revoked fully meaning if they aren't one of the few items they have original jurisdiction over, they don't matter.
If it doesn't take effect until Biden is out of office, it comes in effect too late to help the sack of suet too.
and he should, knock out some supreme court assholes, put his choices in and then see if they can repeal some/all of the batshit decisions the court's been passing- fuck taking the high road ... although TBH Im not sure how possible it is to undo all the damage the supreme court is doing
That ruling would be such a double edged sword unless they rule very narrowly and specifically. Absolute presidential immunity means Biden could just order a drone strike on Trump and claim immunity.
This would make them completely powerless. They are voting to make the judiciary the only real power in the US.
They rule on everything at the end of their session. Happens every year.
Yea. These rulings are just all pretty heavy hitters and heavily hitting in one, absurd direction.
Makes sense, do all the unpopular stuff at once so there is less backlash
Yep, now time to go on vacation with billionaires to soothe their tired, decision making brains. They really deserve it. /s
hey, mental gymnastics are hard.
End of session, they typically release their decisions around now every year. June is a very common time for SCOTUS rulings
Worst birthday presents ever 😞
Project 2025?
Because they announce decisions all at once
Man I wish there were some billionaires who cared about the rest of us and the world enough to bribe these judges for the betterment of society every now and then.
Unfortunately, there's a reason they're billionaires.
Now that'd be an effective use of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation's money!
I’d just settle for one who takes the enlightened overlord viewpoint: I own these peasants, and I am going to make them the smartest, richest, healthiest damn peasants anyone ever owned anywhere.
Sorry, Victor Von Doom is far too good for this world.
You can either be a billionaire or have a soul, one or the other.
U can’t be a billionaire without fucking ppl over to begin with.
You don’t get to be a billionaire by caring about others.
“Ok people, how much is it worth to you (wink, wink.)”
They need to find out how gratuitous they’re feeling
We’re not far from them having tablets in front of them with tip: 20% 50% 500%
“RV” or “Island vacation” or “Cash” or “Other”
Damn and John Oliver just offered an RV for Thomas to leave
Think the price may be up to an RV per decision now.
This is my big issue. Like these jackholes aren't even giving the american people the opportunity to counter offer. Like seriously, how much money would it take for Ted Cruz to come out as a dyed in the wool Democrat? Four, maybe Five dollars?
It's funny how their strict reading of the Constitution magically always ends up falling in a way that benefits their patrons.
Any supreme court justice that claims to be an originalist is completely full of shit for the simple reason that *the constitution doesn't give the supreme court the power of judicial review*. That was an authority the supreme court itself completely invented in 1805
Without judicial review what would be the role of the supreme court?
Be the final authority of cases that make it there. The Court existed in 1790 and went 13 years before judicial review. West v Barnes was the first case decided, and it was basically clerical. The decision ultimately had to do with rules regarding writs of error. The Supreme Court doesn't just deal with laws. They make legal decisions regarding a number of matters. One of the early ones had to do with citizenship, for example, and if you automatically gave up US citizenship by becoming a citizen of a different country.
Check if the law is applied correctly, not if the law itself correctly applies the constitution. This can be a good or a bad thing.
Think of it like following royal bloodlines: they believe the Constitution was developed by their ancestors and thus they have some ancestral right to make sure it applies as *they* see fit. The Constitution should only apply to them and what they believe in. All that pesky civil-minded progress gets in the way of their ability to power monger.
Let this be a reminder of what is at stake in this next election. Federal judges up and down the court system are appointed by current Administration. Imagine how much worse it will get if Trump is re-elected. Vote in November. Register to vote now.
[удалено]
Is there a subreddit for this? I mean France organizes protests over unpopular legislation/rulings all the time. In America mass protests are exceedingly rare and it’s never directed at the right people/audiences. There probably would be more forums talking about it, except, most of us are bots and are programmed to be make prosaic witticisms when bad news is posted. We’re fucked, and I mean that viscerally: we are fucked and going down without a fight.
Protest organizers in authoritarian countries usually use Telegram because it's harder to track. Read up on some of their tactics. If you're angry, take action. Be the one to organize a small community of like-minded people, then start delegating responsibilities to ensure steady growth. Start reading books on grassroots movements, MLMs (they're evil but their growth tactics are top notch), separatist groups, and social media marketing.
>we are fucked and going down without a fight. Because progressives have been duped into believing that genuinely effective protesting is something only fascists do. That taking effective coordinated action against authoritarianism is reserved for the gun toting racist homophobes. An enduring consumer and labor strike could cost the elite in America billions in lost profits. Keep it going long enough and the conservatives happily working away for their masters will realize they're disposable when they're hit by layoffs. It's as simple as progressives being willing to practice what they preach and share essentials among each other, and to maintain a blacklist of companies and persons to avoid at all costs. Essentials meaning water, food, shelter, and clothing. Democrats report over 45 million registered members, 10 million more than Republicans, and even just 45 million people refusing to meaningfully participate in the economy for a few months would bring this nation to its knees.
Masters is the correct term.
Great time to be a big money corporation, terrible time to be a human
But corporations are people (When it comes to giving $$ to politicians, not in any other way)
Hence the difference between "human" and "person". Also applies to the abortion "debate", in which according to some "fetal personhood" is sacrosanct, and has value, as opposed to the human life of the mother or the child once born. "Persons", particularly those who cannot be incarcerated and do not actually voice their own opinion, are rated higher than "humans" who might not agree with the shareholders/politicians/law enforcement.
>Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling, said the court granted the challengers' request because they are likely to ultimately prevail in the litigation, saying the EPA did not reasonably explain its actions. But... They did. From the article: *The EPA issued the rule at issue in March 2023 intending to target gases that form ozone, a key component of smog, from power plants and other industrial sources in 23 upwind states whose own plans did not satisfy the "Good Neighbor" provision of the Clean Air Act anti-pollution law, requiring steps to reduce pollution that drifts into states downwind.* The EPA is arguing that the Clean Air Act's provision that is designed to empower the EPA to enforce regulations on air pollution that could affect neighboring states or areas gives them the power to enforce those regulations. Their new rule is just an extension of that and is a totally normal part of their operations. *The agency said the rule would result in cleaner air for millions of people, saving thousands of lives.* Yeah too bad the conservatives care more about the rights of oil companies to pollute and the ability of red states to dismantle the administrative state than they do about the lives of thousands if not millions of people. Seriously, I do not understand how impaired your perspective and reasoning has to be for you to believe that *The Clean Air Act* doesn't grant the power to regulate air pollution. That is literally the entire point of the law. >The rule implemented a federal program that applied to 23 states, **but separate challenges in lower courts have already paused enforcement in 12 of them**, including West Virginia. During arguments in the case on Feb. 21, some of the conservative justices focused on the EPA's **lack of explanation for how the plan can work when it now regulates just 11 states instead of 23 as intended.** Oh so its even dumber than I thought. It's not that they didn't explain the rule, it's that the EPA did not explain to the supreme courts satisfaction how they could effectively implement their plan to improve air pollution when half of the areas that are part of the plan have used the judicial system to prevent implementation (at least temporarily). "How can you, the EPA, expect to follow through on a plan to make the air cleaner for everyone when half the states involved have blocked your plan just like we plan to? Seems you haven't thought things through." Get the fuck out of here. >Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by the court's three liberal justices. "The court today enjoins the enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits," Barrett wrote. I'm shocked, SHOCKED that the conservative Justices would ever rule based on flimsy, underdeveloped reasoning. /S We're so screwed.
This supreme corrupt could have the clearest written law in front of them and will have no problem making up a bullshit excuse against it for the result they want (would be given “gratuity” for).
Clean air is not in the original constitution, and therefore is not guaranteed.
Even if it *is* in the Constitution, this court still says it is not guaranteed. I.e. civil asset forfeiture.
> Clean air is not in the original constitution, Neither is the supreme court having the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
Maybe we should update that archaic document. I don't think it's all that praiseworthy we have one of the oldest constitutions still in use.
You know who else wanted to have regular updates? The writers of the Constitution, who expected fairly regular rewrites to adapt to changing circumstances. Amendments were considered a temporary stopgap measure until they could be adapted in with the next revision.
> writers of the Constitution, who expected fairly regular rewrites Jefferson from what I can tell was one to state that. Still would need 2/3 of majorly to agree.
Because of the way changing the constitution works, it will be nearly impossible for Democrats to ever get this done.
The Constitution ain't guaranteed either.
A Republic, if you can keep it.
We had a good run at least, 250 years is respectable.
You mean that as a joke, I know asshole who say that meaningfully. Because conservatism is built on the principle of "fuck you got mine."
The fifth amendment sort of guarantees "life" which should be easy to argue that pollution is depriving people of life. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Remember that law on the books that in plain text gives the Secretary of Education the ability to forgive student loan debt? Remember how the court just randomly decided that law didn't mean what it said?
[удалено]
I threw up a hashtag. What more do you want?
Did you change your Facebook photo?
Considering they just dismantled all regulatory authority period, of course they don’t think the clean air act grants any power at all.
They still have authority, they just can't write their own regulations. MTG and Bobert are going to write them now, people will die.
This is what you’re not understanding. They can now enforce regulations that are in the law….except, there are not any regulations in the law itself. The law empowers the regulatory agency to regulate per their expertise. This functionally eliminates their authority. SCOTUS picks and chooses when they like the spirit of the law vs the letter. And in this case they choose letter. If the law isn’t explicit then only they have the authority to interpret.
[удалено]
Yes, we should really follow their example and get ahead of the issue
> Yeah too bad the conservatives care more about the rights of oil companies They don't. They just like money being stuffed into their pocket. Someone could pay them a couple mil to build a kitten slaughtering plant and they would allow it.
West coast here. I guess the good news is all our pollution will just blow into the widest and southern states who evidently love pollution so much. Bad time to become anti-vax and anti-chemicals for the MAGA who brought this upon our country.
The spice I mean smog must flow!
Fun fact: the only correlation that’s been found for autism, is pollution. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/air-pollution-linked-with-increased-risk-of-autism-in-children/
Reminder to vote for democrats this November if you like living on planet earth.
[1000 kilometers stare looking at the burning garbage bin *just south of the Canadian border*] ...I have *no* confidence whatsoever.
Too bad we didn't even elect these assholes
Not directly, but it was a pretty obvious consequence of electing an insane idiot.
It’s the slow burn at the end of the world ladies and gentlemen, the truly wicked are in charge and under the guise of ‘christian Nationalism’
I'm over this bullshit at this point. I was hesitant to support the idea that Bidens administration should work on enlarging the court, but, with these damn games Republicans have continued to play, I am absolutely ready to let that system unravel by adding more justice. Fuck. These. People.
Pack the court has always been the solution
They're just waiting for a 'gratuity'.
Truly the most corrupt court in history.
“Congress could act” They know what they’re doing
Conservatives speaking in bad faith: “if you think about it the justices have no choice, I think congress should do its job”… as they actively donate, campaign for, and vote for the party hell bent on making sure congress can’t do its job.
They could help congress act by making them representative of the peoples' will and ruling on the legality of gerrymandering. Wait no not like that.
We just need a remake of this country at this point because we're heading down a right wing Authoritarian path Religion belongs no where in any part of government, ever no matter what. Politicians cannot financially benefit from their positions at all Politicians cannot stay in power forever Politicians financials will be heavily scrutinized and be completely public Regulatory bodies have power to regulate, Congress is the only one who can limit how far it goes Idk what else lol
You should probably start with the root cause of this fracas if you want to reform anything. Courts are not legislatory organs - they can't write laws. The only reason they have as much power in the US as they do is that Congress refuses to legislate anything. Roe vs Wade should have never relied on a judicial decision - it should have been codified into a law ages ago. But the Congress isn't doing shit so the tripartite division of power just does not exist.
This is a somewhat under-covered part of all of this. Congress has basically turned the presidency and courts into their whipping boys as they consolidate more powers to the executive branch and play games with judicial appointments. Then they collect money from lobbying groups to basically not do anything, or pass favorable laws for them. At best congress has become lazy and ineffectual. At worst they've become corrupt operators who shift attention elsewhere.
The only way laws are passed now is through omnibus spending bills. It’s not sustainable. But it’s impractical for Congress to write out every regulation in the statutory text. They have never done this and will never do it. Because it makes government impossible. Agencies need to be able to fill in gaps.
Damn they are really just saying "fuck you all" over and over and over
Super cool how a bunch of lawyers are gonna decide scientific matters now. Reminds me of the Indiana Pi Bill for math.
Can these motherfuckers do ANYTHING good?
They can get rich. That's it.
It’s insane to me that no one is pointing out that 4 of those justices lied to Congress about settled law then blew up every law based on those settled laws. Everything can be litigated again. Congress please haul their asses back and ask them to explain themselves …
"We changed our minds." And that would be the end of it.
Environmental regulations dead now. Gay marriage (obergefell), the individual right to privacy (griswold), and Brown vs BOE up next. Seems like they might sneak ending no-fault divorce in there too. And yes, Justice Thomas has literally said in written opinions that those are decisions he wants to overturn. I wonder if those 'don't talk to me about the supreme court' voters in 2016 have enough awareness to feel bad about their part in what's coming?
Tbh, I’m surprised they’re trying to end no-fault divorce. That seems like it would heavily impact their donors, and only mildly appease evangelicals (and there’s a LOT of non-evangelical devout Christians that get divorced)
The wealthy always have other ways out. They aren't constrained by these types of things It's about controlling women
No-Fault divorce just means you can't get a divorce without a "good reason", and what constitutes a good reason is up to the judge signing off on it. The rich and powerful are just going to shop around for a judge that will rubber-stamp their paperwork. Hell, if you're smart about it you can probably have some lifestyle clause slid into your prenup (or postnup, which is a thing) that you can point to as an excuse to get out of a marriage that no longer suits you. The people hurt by this aren't any of them or their friends, it's poor people (usually particularly vulnerable young women) that get manipulated into a marriage that traps them in a nightmarish abusive relationship they can never escape because they don't have the means. It's not a coincidence that women's suicide rates dropped by a staggering 20 percent after No-Fault divorce was codified.
Clarence Thomas would end mixed-race marriages if you paid him enough
Ha! You should hire a kid to graffiti this somewhere around the Supreme Court.
The difference is those evangelicals vote, all of them vote in every single election, and they tend to be pretty united in their voting patterns.
Men have a lot of outdated laws written that protects their divorces, just not a woman's. Surprise.
People need to start recognizing that conservatism has rotted away almost every aspect of our government, and it's going to take drastic action to keep it from falling apart.
We got too comfortable. Future generations who want to breathe free air are going to have to fight the fights that we've consistently rolled over and given up on for the last 50 years. Sucks for them, but this is how history works. Our children will suffer for our grandchildren to have it made... and then they'll screw it all up again.
I feel like I'm going to throw up reading this. I don't understand law and regulation extremely well, just enough that I knew Chevron and Roe were like knocking out big beam supports that they can use to collapse the roof. I can [and will] vote, but this makes me feel so helpless.
>I wonder if those 'don't talk to me about the supreme court' voters in 2016 have enough awareness to feel bad about their part in what's coming? I'll go ahead and spoil it: they don't. That same crowd is making the same claims, about 2024. I'm convinced they were never going to vote Democrat in the first place, and are just Republicans in disguise.
I do. I voted for Jill Stein in 2016 and have regretted it ever since. It was a huge mistake for *multiple* reasons, and I'll never make that mistake again. My entire state voting for Hillary wouldn't have changed the outcome, but I still made the wrong choice and regret it. Primaries are the place to vote for your most ideal candidate (which I did). However, the GOP must be stopped in general elections. Gotta vote blue.
same here. I've voted straight Democrat in every election since then.
Good on you. I think one of the worst problems today is people not being able to admit they're wrong, or change their opinions when presented with evidence that goes against what they currently believe.
Part of it is the internet making words last forever. But the biggest problem is all of us--our culture, including young people. Like those who say that the Biden administration's advancements for LGBT rights don't matter at all because Biden himself did something homophobic several decades ago. It's like there's nothing millennials and zoomers hate more than someone who learns from their mistakes and changes for the better. And we call ourselves so empathetic and virtuous.
I was a registered Republican who voted for Ron Paul in multiple primaries. I threw away my vote in 2016 and will never, ever, do that again. I regret not voting for hill-dog (although it wouldn’t matter in my blue state) The Republican Party must be stopped.
America as a democracy is dying before our eyes and the current population is too busy posting memes and fucking around worrying about themselves to care. In a thousand years people will look back on the slow death of the American empire as one of the most intriguing empirical collapses of all time, when hundreds if not thousands of checks and balances failed and the majority of people acted against their own interests out of sheer disdain for the ‘other side’. All great empires destroy themselves in the end.
> Seems like they might sneak ending no-fault divorce in there too. This is an explicit goal of many republican lawmakers everywhere, so I can see that happening.
Gorsuch is pro-gay marriage I think. It’s one of his pet interests - anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination and therefore unconstitutional. Would only take 1 vote to uphold it.
> I wonder if those 'don't talk to me about the supreme court' voters in 2016 have enough awareness to feel bad about their part in what's coming? The few of those I know that were like that are voting trump this time around, in protest of biden's policy on palestine. To clarify, they know trump is worse on palestine, they just want the dems to suffer for allowing biden to do this.
Thanks RBG
How long til a vigilante acts out on the supreme Court judges?
Probably never. People throw away their lives all the time without trying to take a single person they feel is making the world a worse place out with them. It seems to be an inherent trait of humanity, or at least those who want to self terminate.
This supreme court needs to be fucking stopped. They are going to land us in another civil war when they bring back segregation or some other awful shit like that.
I mean - EPA, FDA, NLRB, and OSHA have just been declawed right? Already getting pretty terrible :-/
The Republic is dead. The only question now is if we become an Oligarchy lead by SCOTUS, or a Dictatorship lead by a Strongman in the White House.
bruh we are led by CORPORATIONS the government was long traded for the shareholder
These corporations don't know what will happen to them if Trump wins and becomes dictator we can see it it happened to Russia and Putin is Cheatto's idol. Bye Coca Cola you are now owned by Rogrer Stone, bye Oil companies you are now owned By Bannon. Trump will give them to all his cronies like what Putin did.
Without regulations, company supply chains become very suspect. I doubt American Airlines will be happy when Boeing's unregulated planes start falling out of the sky and killing their crew and passengers. Same goes for any food company sourcing food from America for their products. Chinese don't buy Chinese baby food, and maybe soon they won't buy American baby food either. A total lack of regulations approaches anarchy, and that's bad for business.
Both of course. They will find a way to eliminate presidential term limits and voting next. Most strong men around the world maintain power through judicial capture. The homeless ruling gave clear instructions on how to bring a case that would eliminate the right to protest. That’s one of the many things that’s next.
Corporations found it’s more cost effective to bribe..lobby a handful of people in the judicial and executive branch than a bunch of people in the legislative branch.
SCOTUS may as well just get this over with and announce it: >Democracy will be no more. Henceforth, the United State is now officially a Corp-Kleptocracy. No money? No voice! Let the rejoice of MAGA begin!
Most corrupt joke of a judicial branch in the history of the United States. Way to go Republicans. Selling out the virtue of your country for some franks. Fuck you
Love that these corrupt fucks don't care if their own air and water are screwed. I think they imagine they'll be insulated since they can just get their own private stuff.
"We should let them continue polluting until we decide if it's safe or not!"
Supreme Court and congress were created to keep the power balance of the president for the People, but now they r representing themselves
The whole system is absurd. Why is the POTUS picking SCOUTS judges in the first place, and why is it not considered a conflict on interest when these judges have to rule on cases directly concerning the person who gave them the job? I just don't understand the American supreme court system, it's just set up in a way that guarantees partiality.
It's called checks and balances. The president makes a pick, the Senate has to approve it and then it's a lifetime appointment so they aren't beholden to the people who appointed them. Part of the problem in this country is the executive branch has way overstepped it's role of enforcing laws and has moved to creating ones of their own. Another part of the problem is the size of the House is capped at 435 members. It should be around 1500 people now. This would free up Congresspeople to focus more on legislating rather than being spread too thin among committees to do anything effective. It would also restore a lot of balance to the Electoral College by reducing the effect of the bonus 2 people in lower population states.
But they're not working as a check and balance? As far as I can tell, the judges votes almost exclusively by party lines.
The checks and balances were conceived thinking that Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary would be at odds. There are no real checks and balances against a conservative extremist takeover of the judiciary while the conservative extremists paralyze Congress.
Yeah, that's why originalism is so fucking stupid.
SCOTUS always insists that "Congress must act" to provide solutions. However, administrative agencies were Congress' solution to dealing with the multitude of government responsibilities which require special expertise. Administrative agencies *exist* because Congress DID act, and properly delegated its power to the agencies with expertise. The Roberts Court has, once again, simply substituted Congress' policy preferences for its own. Yet SCOTUS has Constitutional no right or power to do this. Indeed, this is the *opposite* of separation of powers — this is one branch of government usurping the powers of another. The Roberts Court is a blight on this nation and should be dissolved. It has no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the Rule of Law, and no respect for the Republic. It may be too late to end it before it does irreparable damage. Do it anyway.
I smell the collaps of confidence in the rulings of this court... fuck off you deadbeats... you're bought and paid for.
The bought and paid for Supreme Court strikes again... brought to you by Brawndo.
Why can't we just actually stand up do what the French are doing to their government instead of acting like a bunch of apathetic pussies? Apparently, Americans are just fine with their rights being steamrolled and then whine about it and not vote or protest.
- America is a lot bigger than France. And the more people you try to unite and mobilize the harder it is. - You can't really have "centralized leadership" with any sort of coordinated effort that would be required to make a significant difference. - Coordinating efforts gets difficult when you don't know which platform will actually allow you to do so. - There are also a good chunk of crazies who would delight in an opportunity to open fire on the "terrorist protestors" - America has stripped Americans of the ability to protest. - You have no worker protections, so if you miss work protesting, there goes your job. - Even if you don't miss work, your employer might decide to fire you if they find out you even participated. - Most people can't afford to be without income right now. Hand to mouth, paycheck-to-paycheck living is the norm for a significant portion of the population. - Most people just keep their head down and try to get through to tomorrow. They're one small slip from losing everything, but if they can just keep their head down, they can stay on their feet. - Then there's the police brutality route. Who shows up to beat down protesters, media, and innocent bystanders? Police. Why? Because they get away with it. They enjoy it. - And that breeds fear in people, makes them not want to risk being in a situation where they might end up on the wrong side of the police brutality show. All of these are reasons why it just hasn't happened yet. Lots of people are trying, most of the time you just don't hear anything about it because the energy required to build momentum is so great that it dies before it reaches you. There are so many obstacles put in front of the path to making America great that your average citizen just can't afford to do anything about it. Speculation, but I'd guess 99% of the people who are unhappy about all of this are sitting there hoping that someone will just take charge and start the march so they can "join in" when it's convenient for them.
Seriously asking- how can we fix this or get this shot overturned?
[удалено]
> how can we fix this or get this shot overturned? Vote against the party that bought these SCOTUS judges and appointed them into these positions of self-proclaimed "power". Today that means voting Democrat, not Republican. If there is a Democratic Party win this election, they can pack the court with proper, fair and balanced judges who can reset the balance of these scales. If someone like Trump, or really ANY Republican takes office in this election, all of our country's democracy will be slowly dismantled in the name of profit. At that point, this grand experiment called "Democracy" comes to an end. But someone got wealthier, so hey, success, right? /s
The Democrats won't actually fix it, but it is our only option. Hopefully over several decades we replace Democrats with more left leaning candidates willing to do something
I doubt anyone can in our lifetimes. I image were in for 50-100 years of environmental degradation at an even greater pace and suppression of women, lgbtq, and anyone not white. Eventually it will get to a tipping point where most people can no longer drink water, eat, or take medicine without getting sick and/or dying, or be jailed for merely existing while not straight and/or white and then there will be riots, resistance, and rivers of blood in the streets. Then maybe the people that survive can build something better from the ashes.
Misleading headline - with that Chevron ruling on Friday they have put EVERY federal regulation on hold.
Man how long until democrats just have to start ignoring the SC? I’m not saying every decision they make is bad they’re throwing us SOME bones just to keep from losing all legitimacy But they’re rolling back established precedent all over the place and hamstringing climate change action and corruption If they win in November they MUST be more aggressive on climate change especially like I just feel the court is happily betting it all on Trump but even that won’t recover the sense of it’s legitimacy.
That's not how it works. If they gut the EPA or FDA's powers to enforce things then the companies they are meant to regulate will just ignore the agencies. So unless these agencies go with armed forces to the offices of the companies to enforce their rules, the companies can just keep ignoring them. Or hire their own security forces to repel the regulators. This is how an organized society at large erodes into anarchy.
Idk if ignoring anything going on in our government is a good idea for anyone right now. Ignoring things got us here.
I think they mean ignoring the judgments entirely, not ignoring the mess that the SC is.
AKA The Andrew Jackson treatment
I mean if he could do it for evil...
Like McConnell ignoring Obama's SCOTUS pick?
I mean that’s very true but the other options for checking the court are so unlikely Impeaching them? Never going to happen and the conservative justices like Thomas don’t recuse themselves from obvious conflicts of interest. Expanding the court? Yeah let’s do that and then see what happens when the republicans next take office I don’t want it to have 31 justices from the two sides fighting. The only other two options are just let them continue to be effectively the sovereigns of this country ignoring the courts precedent and blatantly favoring corporations and rich men to try and buy their favor, or to at least on some decisions like gutting the EPA we just don’t listen to them. They can ignore decades of precedent, common sense, and overturn and gut critical things essentially just for money. We should see that most of these decisions are stupid and corrupt as shit and should ignore them. I don’t live in a place with a landed gentry and the fact they’re behaving like that with no recourse from anyone really does not feel like the democracy I’ve been led to believe we aspire to. America SHOULD be the greatest, it should be the nation forging ahead into uncharted territory because we have the resources to be the trailblazers. I’m not saying we progress without limits, conservatism should be a steadying hand, to make sure we carefully evaluate what we do. We want to get these things right the first time and instead like 30% of people that vote are a loud minority who are getting what only they want and no one with common sense seems to be willing to really put their foot down.
> Expanding the court? Yeah let’s do that and then see what happens when the republicans next take office I don’t want it to have 31 justices from the two sides fighting. expand it to 13. Then it is tied to the number of circuits.
That’s a good number to peg it to…if the republicans would even bother to pay it lip service. Which I doubt.
Man, the more I hear about the state of things, the more I'm ready to yeet myself off this planet. This shit is heavy and I'm watching both the planet and humanity fizzle in real time. I actually don't think I can mentally handle the reckless hate and greed anymore.
I the ink it’s time for reform… of the three branches
I mean, why let the Environmental Protection Agency have the agency to protect the environment? What kind of sense would that make?
Aaah the supreme court, the real unchecked power in this country... Edit also you gotta think about the other ruling that came down. Getting rid of Chevron opened the floodgates to utter corruption. Every ruling from here on out is just favors being given to corporate! 99 percent sure they just got generous donations from their overlords. This here is the real end to this country
:( I think this is it guys..
>The challenge to the "Good Neighbor" rule was brought by Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia - all targeted by the rule - as well as pipeline operators, U.S. Steel, regional electricity generators and energy trade associations A few decades ago they found that emissions from Ohio coal plants went east, across PA and to New York. Even the acid rain killing the Adirondacks was caused by Ohio coal plants. In PA and NY everyone from gardeners to farmers knew to lime the soil every year if they wanted anything to grow. It took many, many years to get Ohio's plants to correct their shit so it didn't pollute everyone to the east. Now the Adirondacks have healed and acid rain isn't the threat it once was. The Supreme Court is a bag of dicks
We need to defeat Project 2025. If it's not already too late. The Supreme Court is out of control.
Americans just really don't like clean air. Breathing shitty cancerous air is worth it so you can drive big trucks and for a handful of businesses to make more money. Clean and water, that's communism.
> Breathing shitty cancerous air is worth it so you can drive big trucks and for a handful of businesses to make more money. Cleaning the air costs money, money that comes out of the pockets of corporations and political shareholders. The same shareholders who bought their place at the SCOTUS table by buying these judges. Agencies like the EPA are blocking the ability of these corporations to earn higher profits, by mandating pollution controls. So, SCOTUS overturns Chevron, setting EPA and their powers aside, so now these corporations can do whatever they want, and as a result, make more profits. The Chevron ruling also deflates the deference for FDA (food), OSHA (safety), FAA (air travel), FCC (communications) and dozens of other departments. Now our very food, water, air and travel are being decided by judges with no expertise in the subject matter, instead of the experts who have been educated in their fields for decades. Those profits saved from not spending on pollution controls, can now be turned into "gratuities" that can be paid directly to the SCOTUS judges as "tips", and now that too, is fully legal. See how that works? It's textbook tyranny unfolded right before our eyes. > _tyranny, n: cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control._
I fucking wish they knew how bad it can get - I went to Hanoi and it’s frequently in the top 3 most polluted cities in the world and the air is fucking rough. I had to wear a mask at all times outside because it’s literally choking you out and you get a cough and black phlegm. Why are we doing this to ourselves?
Wonder how much they made on this ruling.
Term limits for the activist court NOW