SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 536
  • Views: 20K
  • Politics 
nycfan

nycfan

Master of the ZZLverse
ZZL Supporter
Messages
27,127
nycfan said:

Not the sort of thing that should be controversial or big news, but ...

Justice Kagan calls for a way to enforce Supreme Court ethics code​

Justice Elena Kagan suggested Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could appoint an outside panel of highly respected judges to review allegations of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
I would like it to be the same "panel", if there is one , looks at the other federal Judges
 
apnews.com

Americans are 'getting whacked' by too many laws and regulations, Justice Gorsuch says in a new book

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is out with a new book in which he says ordinary Americans are “getting whacked” by too many laws and regulations.
apnews.com apnews.com

“
Ordinary Americans are “getting whacked” by too many laws and regulations, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch says in a new book that underscores his skepticism of federal agencies and the power they wield.

“Too little law and we’re not safe, and our liberties aren’t protected,” Gorsuch told The Associated Press in an interview in his Supreme Court office. “But too much law and you actually impair those same things.”

“Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law” is being published Tuesday by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Gorsuch has received a $500,000 advance for the book, according to his annual financial disclosure reports.

…
The book expands on a theme that has run through Gorsuch’s opinions over the years, from his criticism of the Chevron decision back when he served on a federal appeals court in Denver to his statement in May 2023 in which he called emergency measures taken during the COVID-19 crisis that killed more than 1 million Americans perhaps “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”

While Gorsuch has voted with the other conservative justices in most of the court’s momentous cases, he also has joined with the liberals in notable cases, including those in which he wrote the opinion in 2020 that expanded protections against workplace discrimination to LGBTQ people. Gorsuch also has sided with the liberal justices in all the court’s cases involving Native Americans since he joined the court. …”
 
This is how credulous Neil Gorsuch is: he believes a magician's stage show. From an interview in today's NYTimes with David French:

"But Marty Hahne, he does children’s shows, birthday shows. So he pulls the rabbit out of the hat one day, and somebody in the audience comes up to him, flashes a badge, says, “I’m from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Do you have a license for your rabbit?” Marty says, “No, do I need a license?” And they get into a conversation. He doesn’t need a license if it’s an iguana, but he does because it’s a rabbit, and you don’t need a license if you’re going to cook the rabbit for dinner. So I could make rabbit stew in front of you, and I’d be like, “Yeah, that’s fine,” but you need a license if you’re going to exhibit."

I would wager that 95%+ of people in the audience of a magic show who come up on stage to talk to the magician are plants in cahoots with the magician. I simply do not believe that a Dept of Agriculture employee would interrupt the magic show to argue with the magician about rabbit licenses. It was staged. And then we have to ask how much more of it was staged.

The story continues, and it becomes less and less plausible:

He wants to comply. He’s not trying to do anything wrong. He fills out the paperwork and he does it. And he gets a follow-up from the government, saying after Hurricane Katrina, they decide everybody who exhibits animals now has to have a disaster-preparedness plan. And you have to account for everything from hurricanes, obviously, after Hurricane Katrina to chemical spills. And Marty says, he says this to an agent, “Well, I live in Missouri, and I do worry about tornadoes, and my disaster-preparedness plan is to get the family in the basement, then the dog, then the cat. If there’s time, I’ll get the rabbit.” Well, that didn’t go over very well.

Maybe Marty said that to an agent. That's possible. What happens next is . . .

So Marty hires a disaster management expert, and they come up with a disaster-preparedness plan that’s 28 pages long. The expert is a little worried because he’s not sure that’s long enough to satisfy the federal government.

Hahne also has to submit to home inspections. And during one of the home inspections, the agent notices the cage where the rabbit’s kept doesn’t have an arrow sticker pointing “This way up.” And he says, “Well, how do you know how to carry the rabbit?” And Marty says, “Well, there’s a handle on the top, and that’s how I carry the rabbit.” He said, “No, no, you’ve got to have a sticker.” He says, “Well, where do I get the stickers?” “So I’ll send you some.” Two weeks later, 200 stickers show up in the mail.

I mean, really? Is that on record anywhere, or are we believing the [checks notes] professional deception artist, likely in search of publicity because magicians aren't exactly crushing it in the market (and Branson was only a short ways away for this guy)?

And then we wonder why Gorsuch falls for so much mendacity, hook, line and sinker. He's a gullible mark.
 
Gorsuch has been excellent (shockingly so) on Native American issues, pretty terrible on everything else. Re agency regulations, voters elect Presidents every four years who appong the leaders of those agencies, and vote for Congress every two years which controls the budgets of those agencies. If agencies do too much or too little, voters can change that. Voters can't vote out judges trying to become more powerful than the Exec or Leg branches
 
the illegitimate justice weighs in...

www.rawstory.com

'Or what?': Experts snap back at Neil Gorsuch after he tells Biden to 'be careful'

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently issued a warning to Joe Biden regarding the president's efforts to reform the nation's high court, leading political onlookers to ask, "Or what?" Gorsuch recently pushed back against Biden's recent proposals to restructure the Supreme Court...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently issued a warning to Joe Biden regarding the president's efforts to reform the nation's high court, leading political onlookers to ask, "Or what?"
 
heelinhell said:
the illegitimate justice weighs in...

www.rawstory.com

'Or what?': Experts snap back at Neil Gorsuch after he tells Biden to 'be careful'

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently issued a warning to Joe Biden regarding the president's efforts to reform the nation's high court, leading political onlookers to ask, "Or what?" Gorsuch recently pushed back against Biden's recent proposals to restructure the Supreme Court...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently issued a warning to Joe Biden regarding the president's efforts to reform the nation's high court, leading political onlookers to ask, "Or what?"
Click to expand...

For those with ad block.
 
PBOHEEL said:
How is he "illegitimate?"

You saying that is EXACTLY like the MAGAs saying that Trump won in 2020.

The rules of the Constitution of the United States of America were followed. No law, rule, etc.. were broken or even compromised.

Just because you don't like the make up of the court and your party doesn't have absolute power like you dream of daily doesn't make him an illegitimate justice. It makes you look petty and small.

I would also like to point out that if given the exact same scenario you would be championing Chuck Schumer for holding on a hearing for a Trump nominated Justice and agreeing whole heartedly with it. You know, "for the sake of democracy."

Love that line coming from a political party that is quick to accuse the GOP of "subverting democracy" but has a nominee that has received absolutely ZERO votes from the American people.

Holding onto President Biden just long enough to make sure that you could coronate the next nominee rather than have a democratically elected one pretty much takes you off the moral high ground.

God help us if you people ever get absolute power in this country.
Click to expand...
The most insidious delusion the GOP has embraced over the last 10 years is that their anti-democratic acts are justified because Dems would do the same thing if they had the power to do so. It’s an understandable rationalization for people who have long thought of themselves as the “patriotic” party, but are now entirely sold out to a street gang of authoritarians, but it’s a belief that’s entirely divorced from history and modern evidence. The worst thing is that even some Trump haters in the party have bought into this delusion. It’s like the entire party has been infected with RFK’s brain worm.
 
PBOHEEL said:
That sure did take you a lot of words to agree with me. I also see you have no rebuttal at all for saying the entire process was legitimate and most of all, legally done.

You also make t he asinine claim that the left wouldn't have done the same exact thing. Not sure you were trying to be coy on that or not but you and I, along with anyone with a knowledge of how politics work know full well if the scenario played out that would put a liberal justice on the bench your party would bend every damn rule in the book to make it happen.

Again, for the "sake of democracy" am I right?

If, and most likely when, President Trump is re-elected and has the Senate will you and your party still support expanding the SCOTUS or is that only if your party is in power and you can put the Justices in place that will rule in the way you want them to rule?

Serious question. Your party is saying the court is compromised and needs expanding right? So if the liberal Justices are the only ones that are impartial and the evil Conservative Justices must be put to pasture wouldn't expansion need to happen regardless of who wins in November?

But.. I kid... you and I both know that the Justices aren't impartial. Especially the ones that are on there from the left. Zero chance of them every stepping out of line. It's all about party politics with them.

You can't say that about the evil Conservatives. They have crossed the aisle a hell of a lot more than any liberal Justice would dream of.
Click to expand...
kellyanne conway lies GIF by Election 2016
 
PBOHEEL said:
That sure did take you a lot of words to agree with me. I also see you have no rebuttal at all for saying the entire process was legitimate and most of all, legally done.

You also make t he asinine claim that the left wouldn't have done the same exact thing. Not sure you were trying to be coy on that or not but you and I, along with anyone with a knowledge of how politics work know full well if the scenario played out that would put a liberal justice on the bench your party would bend every damn rule in the book to make it happen.

Again, for the "sake of democracy" am I right?

If, and most likely when, President Trump is re-elected and has the Senate will you and your party still support expanding the SCOTUS or is that only if your party is in power and you can put the Justices in place that will rule in the way you want them to rule?

Serious question. Your party is saying the court is compromised and needs expanding right? So if the liberal Justices are the only ones that are impartial and the evil Conservative Justices must be put to pasture wouldn't expansion need to happen regardless of who wins in November?

But.. I kid... you and I both know that the Justices aren't impartial. Especially the ones that are on there from the left. Zero chance of them every stepping out of line. It's all about party politics with them.

You can't say that about the evil Conservatives. They have crossed the aisle a hell of a lot more than any liberal Justice would dream of.
Click to expand...
No. You can't assume the Dems would have done the same since they haven't done so.

If doing what's right means conservatives have to cross the aisle then congrats. Just wondering why it took so long.
 
PBOHEEL said:
You also make t he asinine claim that the left wouldn't have done the same exact thing. Not sure you were trying to be coy on that or not but you and I, along with anyone with a knowledge of how politics work know full well if the scenario played out that would put a liberal justice on the bench your party would bend every damn rule in the book to make it happen.
Click to expand...
I'll take logical fallacies for $500, Alex.
 
PBOHEEL said:
The only "alternative facts" are the ones that the court is somehow "illegitimate" because it is a Conservative Majority.

The left can't stand the facts that they do not have absolute power, do not control the entire judiciary etc...

Imagine if Trump tried to flex on the co-equal branch of government. The outcry on this board alone would be unreal.

But.... since it is a leftwing dominated board anything the left says or does is leaps and bounds better than what the GOP has to offer.

Again... nothing I have posted can be refuted, disproved or proven to be "alternative facts." Facts are facts even if you don't agree with them.

And the facts are the court is legitimate and there is only one party trying to take over a co-equal branch of government and it isn't the GOP.
Click to expand...
Step 1: Makes up a completely fictional narrative about what Dems would have done if they had been in the same position as McConnell and the Pubs in 2016.

Step 2: “YOU CAN’T REFUTE MY COMPLETELY FICTIONAL HYPOTHETICAL NARRATIVE THAT FLIES IN THE FACE OF 250 YEARS OF US HISTORY!!!”

Definitely a good faith discussion we’re having here.
 
PBOHEEL said:
The only "alternative facts" are the ones that the court is somehow "illegitimate" because it is a Conservative Majority.

The left can't stand the facts that they do not have absolute power, do not control the entire judiciary etc...

Imagine if Trump tried to flex on the co-equal branch of government. The outcry on this board alone would be unreal.

But.... since it is a leftwing dominated board anything the left says or does is leaps and bounds better than what the GOP has to offer.

Again... nothing I have posted can be refuted, disproved or proven to be "alternative facts." Facts are facts even if you don't agree with them.

And the facts are the court is legitimate and there is only one party trying to take over a co-equal branch of government and it isn't the GOP.
Click to expand...
Just because they are equal branches doesn't mean there isn't oversight. If the oversight shows areas of concern and nothing is done to address those concerns, what you suggest is just not do anything.
 
PBOHEEL said:
The only "alternative facts" are the ones that the court is somehow "illegitimate" because it is a Conservative Majority.

The left can't stand the facts that they do not have absolute power, do not control the entire judiciary etc...

Imagine if Trump tried to flex on the co-equal branch of government. The outcry on this board alone would be unreal.

But.... since it is a leftwing dominated board anything the left says or does is leaps and bounds better than what the GOP has to offer.

Again... nothing I have posted can be refuted, disproved or proven to be "alternative facts." Facts are facts even if you don't agree with them.

And the facts are the court is legitimate and there is only one party trying to take over a co-equal branch of government and it isn't the GOP.
Click to expand...
Mitch McConnell says hold my beer. The court is this way because of sham Republican maneuvering to stack said court within the confines of the 9 members. They would do it again if the opportunity arises. The court as it’s its comprised is not legitimate secondarily.
 
PBOHEEL said:
LOL....

You don't think that is what would have happened?? And you typed that in "good faith" correct?? Come on man.... you are smarter than that. You and I, as well as everyone reading this thread knows damn well the same thing would have happened. For that matter, the same thing would have happened with Barrett.

Ask Harry Reid what to do when you don't get the Judges you want and how easy it is to get your way when you have the votes. Then, when McConnell did the same thing for the SCOTUS many on the old board had a fit and how it was "undermining democracy..."

You see the hypocrisy there? If not... not much I can say to that.

Politics is dirty and it's not a one-sided deal. Both parties do all they can to cling to power. One side tries to pretend they don't and lie about it at every turn.

Imagine the GOP hiding a POTUS who is obviously suffering mental deficiencies and coronating a nominee as opposed to having an actual election.

How many pages do you think that hypothetical would go with the "GOP undermining the will of the people?"

But, as always, when the Democrats do something to that goes against Democratic norms it is perfectly OK because it is painted as "saving Democracy.."

Oh... and for the poster that said I had no credibility because I posted the wrong age of Harris she is 59. Hope that helps and makes you sleep better at night.
Click to expand...
That’s a lot of words just to admit you keep making shit up.
 
PBOHEEL said:
How so? I am curious as to how you can make that statement and believe it to be true.

It's not compromised at all. If you mean Thomas taking gifts then I will challenge you to look into Sotomayer and Jackson. They both have had "questionable" activities in the last year or so.

There was no "sham maneuvering." Vacancies came up. The processes in place were followed. What are you referring to as a "sham?" I'm sure a few of the lawyers on here will disagree with you if they are honest that there was any type of "sham."

You are upset because your heir apparent Queen was not elected in 2016. Your beef should be with RBG and here unwillingness to retire.

McConnell did what every damn politician worth his weight in salt would do. He took advantage of the situation at hand within the confines of the Constitution and the law.

And don't get it twisted. Your side would have done the same damn thing. i.e. Harry Reid. Your chapped because you didn't get the chance.

Here's another question for you.... since the court is "compromised" as you put it and Trump is re-elected and has the Senate should he expand the court or replace Justices to amend the wrongs? Or should that only happen if the Democrats take power? Please answer those.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
You seem to be full of crap. My queen. Wtf are you talking about. There’s no sound reasoning to hold up or deny an appt Becuase of some arbitrary time limit left on a presidents term. And likewise rhe rush to push through Robert’s. There’s no justification for McConnell behavior. None. Theirs is no normalization of that kind of behavior. Unless you are just plain weird.
 
PBOHEEL said:
What's made up Law? You are a legal "expert" in many people's eyes on here.

You resort to that comment because you know that in that hypothetical what I said is 100% accurate.

Point out what in the hypothetical is untrue please.
Click to expand...
1. There is zero evidence Dems would have done the same thing in 2016 that McConnell and the Pubs did. You’re making that up so you feel better about your side’s unprecedented power grab.

2. Please advise what McConnell and the Senate Pubs did in 2016 to fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise and consent on Obama’s timely nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top