AI
Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:20:41 PM
LOLs. The worst thing about those cartoons is that they are so well deserved. The more you read and read again the better you
understand. Hopefully, anyhow. In that spirit repeat a bit from .. The importance of staying angry at the Supreme Court
[...]
No, the Supreme Court did not strike down affirmative action because of any change in the law. It struck it down because racial conservatives organized. They recruited powerful institutions like the Republican Party and the Federalist Society to their cause. And then they made a deal with the devil .. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/9/20962980/trump-supreme-court-federal-judges , as Trump-skeptical legal conservatives agreed to back his bid for the presidency in return for a small army of Federalist Society judges.
Men like Ed Blum held a grudge. And they held onto it for decades. Until they won.
This is, of course, the same story that played out in the last Supreme Court term .. https://www.vox.com/23180634/supreme-court-rule-of-law-abortion-voting-rights-guns-epa , when the Court eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, and when it drastically expanded the rights of gun owners. Again, there were no important new insights in any of the briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) or in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).
Those cases were decided the way they were because abortion foes and gun rights advocates organized, took over the Republican Party, and held onto their grudges. They have nothing whatsoever to do with “the law.”
Lawyers’ grudges are the most powerful grudges of all
There are, of course, mass movements against abortion, against affirmative action, and in support of expansive gun rights. Before racial conservatives convinced the Supreme Court to implement their college admissions policy preference from the bench, for instance, they successfully convinced voters to abolish affirmative action in many states.
The same cannot be said about the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine,” a legal rule .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/30/23779903/supreme-court-student-loan-biden-nebraska-john-roberts .. largely invented by Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, which played a major role in the Biden v. Nebraska decision striking down the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program.
That case asked whether a federal law known as the Heroes Act .. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-117/pdf/STATUTE-117-Pg904.pdf#page=1 .. permits the US Department of Education to reduce many student borrowers’ loans — some by as much as $20,000. The correct answer to this question is “yes .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/30/23779903/supreme-court-student-loan-biden-nebraska-john-roberts ," as the Heroes Act gives the secretary of education sweeping authority to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs ... as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.” And there’s no question that the Covid-19 pandemic, which inspired both the Trump and the Biden administrations to modify many student loan obligations, was such a “national emergency.”
The major questions doctrine, however, enables the Court to strike down programs, like Biden’s proposed loan relief under the Heroes Act, if a majority of the justices deem those programs too ambitious. As the Court has described this doctrine, it requires “Congress .. https://www.vox.com/congress .. to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance .. https://www.vox.com/2022/6/30/23189610/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia-clean-power-plan-major-questions-john-roberts .’”
[...]
one [from yours]
After the last two Supreme Court terms, it’s easy to see how a liberal could be tempted by despair. At least two of the justices are absurdly .. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow .. corrupt .. https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court , accepting lavish gifts from Republican billionaires. And most of the justices appear to be going down a checklist of long-held conservative grudges, ticking off more boxes with each passing year.
And, on top of all of that, the Court’s Republican-appointed majority has shown extraordinary willingness to bend the Court’s own rules to benefit one of the most powerful constituencies within the GOP — the religious right — while simultaneously bending them in the other direction to hurt liberal causes .. https://www.vox.com/23180634/supreme-court-rule-of-law-abortion-voting-rights-guns-epa .
Consider, for example, the Court’s June decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, in favor of a Christian conservative website designer who wishes to discriminate against same-sex couples who might want to hire her to design their wedding website in the future. Notably, this web designer has never designed a wedding website before; she has never been approached by a same-sex couple who wished to hire her to make such a website; and Colorado’s lawyers expressed doubts that the state’s anti-discrimination law applies to her .. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/3/23472175/supreme-court-303-creative-elenis-first-amendment-lgbtq-religion-website .. at all, even if she did refuse service to such a couple.
Nevertheless, the Court ruled in favor of this woman’s challenge to Colorado’s civil rights law, despite its holding in Texas v. United States .. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6489811204109737205&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (1998) that “a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’”
And yet, despite this Court’s penchant for Calvinball .. https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Calvinball#:~:text=Calvinball%20is%20a%20game%20invented,again%20in%20any%20future%20games. , there was one important area this term where the Court played things by the book. In a pair of voting rights .. https://www.vox.com/voting-rights .. decisions, the Court rejected efforts to effectively rewrite the Voting Rights Act .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/8/23753932/supreme-court-john-roberts-milligan-allen-voting-rights-act-alabama-racial-gerrymandering .. and the Constitution itself .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/27/23775378/supreme-court-moore-harper-john-roberts-independent-state-legislature-north-carolina-bush-gore .. in ways that would have benefited the Republican Party. And these two decisions may, in the long run, prove to be the most consequential of this just-concluded term.
In Moore v. Harper, the Court rejected a deranged legal theory .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/27/23775378/supreme-court-moore-harper-john-roberts-independent-state-legislature-north-carolina-bush-gore .. that sought to nullify every state constitutional provision that protects voting rights or that restricts gerrymandering. Under the strongest version of this argument, known as the “independent state legislature doctrine” (ISLD), state governors would also lose their power to veto laws impacting federal elections, and state supreme courts would lose their power to strike such laws down.
[ Rings a bell. Ok, got it --Supreme Court May Adopt Extreme MAGA Election Theory That Threatens Democracy
"The story is such that either we win at the ballot box to preserve our system, or we will have to fight these fuckers. Might have to either way. If we lose fair and square, okay, but it does not mean we have to surrender our way of life to a fascist minority."
[...] The U.S. Supreme Court, which is dominated by a radical right-wing majority, is again on the precipice of deciding a case that would be a major setback for free and fair elections and democracy. In its new term, the high court will hear arguments in Moore v. Harper, a case from North Carolina involving the authority of the state legislature to gerrymander congressional maps for unfair partisan advantage. There is a strong possibility that the court’s conservative majority will adopt the anti-democratic independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which has been promoted by MAGA extremists claiming that there are virtually no checks and balances on state legislatures in key election matters, even by voters or their state’s own courts. This theory has long been considered to be on the fringes of conservative legal arguments and discredited by the Supreme Court for more than a century.
P - The potential fallout of this case is enormous.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170089742]
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172300989
understand. Hopefully, anyhow. In that spirit repeat a bit from .. The importance of staying angry at the Supreme Court
[...]
No, the Supreme Court did not strike down affirmative action because of any change in the law. It struck it down because racial conservatives organized. They recruited powerful institutions like the Republican Party and the Federalist Society to their cause. And then they made a deal with the devil .. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/9/20962980/trump-supreme-court-federal-judges , as Trump-skeptical legal conservatives agreed to back his bid for the presidency in return for a small army of Federalist Society judges.
Men like Ed Blum held a grudge. And they held onto it for decades. Until they won.
This is, of course, the same story that played out in the last Supreme Court term .. https://www.vox.com/23180634/supreme-court-rule-of-law-abortion-voting-rights-guns-epa , when the Court eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, and when it drastically expanded the rights of gun owners. Again, there were no important new insights in any of the briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) or in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).
Those cases were decided the way they were because abortion foes and gun rights advocates organized, took over the Republican Party, and held onto their grudges. They have nothing whatsoever to do with “the law.”
Lawyers’ grudges are the most powerful grudges of all
There are, of course, mass movements against abortion, against affirmative action, and in support of expansive gun rights. Before racial conservatives convinced the Supreme Court to implement their college admissions policy preference from the bench, for instance, they successfully convinced voters to abolish affirmative action in many states.
The same cannot be said about the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine,” a legal rule .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/30/23779903/supreme-court-student-loan-biden-nebraska-john-roberts .. largely invented by Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, which played a major role in the Biden v. Nebraska decision striking down the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program.
That case asked whether a federal law known as the Heroes Act .. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-117/pdf/STATUTE-117-Pg904.pdf#page=1 .. permits the US Department of Education to reduce many student borrowers’ loans — some by as much as $20,000. The correct answer to this question is “yes .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/30/23779903/supreme-court-student-loan-biden-nebraska-john-roberts ," as the Heroes Act gives the secretary of education sweeping authority to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs ... as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.” And there’s no question that the Covid-19 pandemic, which inspired both the Trump and the Biden administrations to modify many student loan obligations, was such a “national emergency.”
The major questions doctrine, however, enables the Court to strike down programs, like Biden’s proposed loan relief under the Heroes Act, if a majority of the justices deem those programs too ambitious. As the Court has described this doctrine, it requires “Congress .. https://www.vox.com/congress .. to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance .. https://www.vox.com/2022/6/30/23189610/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia-clean-power-plan-major-questions-john-roberts .’”
[...]
one [from yours]
After the last two Supreme Court terms, it’s easy to see how a liberal could be tempted by despair. At least two of the justices are absurdly .. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow .. corrupt .. https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court , accepting lavish gifts from Republican billionaires. And most of the justices appear to be going down a checklist of long-held conservative grudges, ticking off more boxes with each passing year.
And, on top of all of that, the Court’s Republican-appointed majority has shown extraordinary willingness to bend the Court’s own rules to benefit one of the most powerful constituencies within the GOP — the religious right — while simultaneously bending them in the other direction to hurt liberal causes .. https://www.vox.com/23180634/supreme-court-rule-of-law-abortion-voting-rights-guns-epa .
Consider, for example, the Court’s June decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, in favor of a Christian conservative website designer who wishes to discriminate against same-sex couples who might want to hire her to design their wedding website in the future. Notably, this web designer has never designed a wedding website before; she has never been approached by a same-sex couple who wished to hire her to make such a website; and Colorado’s lawyers expressed doubts that the state’s anti-discrimination law applies to her .. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/3/23472175/supreme-court-303-creative-elenis-first-amendment-lgbtq-religion-website .. at all, even if she did refuse service to such a couple.
Nevertheless, the Court ruled in favor of this woman’s challenge to Colorado’s civil rights law, despite its holding in Texas v. United States .. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6489811204109737205&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (1998) that “a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’”
And yet, despite this Court’s penchant for Calvinball .. https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Calvinball#:~:text=Calvinball%20is%20a%20game%20invented,again%20in%20any%20future%20games. , there was one important area this term where the Court played things by the book. In a pair of voting rights .. https://www.vox.com/voting-rights .. decisions, the Court rejected efforts to effectively rewrite the Voting Rights Act .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/8/23753932/supreme-court-john-roberts-milligan-allen-voting-rights-act-alabama-racial-gerrymandering .. and the Constitution itself .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/27/23775378/supreme-court-moore-harper-john-roberts-independent-state-legislature-north-carolina-bush-gore .. in ways that would have benefited the Republican Party. And these two decisions may, in the long run, prove to be the most consequential of this just-concluded term.
In Moore v. Harper, the Court rejected a deranged legal theory .. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/27/23775378/supreme-court-moore-harper-john-roberts-independent-state-legislature-north-carolina-bush-gore .. that sought to nullify every state constitutional provision that protects voting rights or that restricts gerrymandering. Under the strongest version of this argument, known as the “independent state legislature doctrine” (ISLD), state governors would also lose their power to veto laws impacting federal elections, and state supreme courts would lose their power to strike such laws down.
[ Rings a bell. Ok, got it --Supreme Court May Adopt Extreme MAGA Election Theory That Threatens Democracy
"The story is such that either we win at the ballot box to preserve our system, or we will have to fight these fuckers. Might have to either way. If we lose fair and square, okay, but it does not mean we have to surrender our way of life to a fascist minority."
[...] The U.S. Supreme Court, which is dominated by a radical right-wing majority, is again on the precipice of deciding a case that would be a major setback for free and fair elections and democracy. In its new term, the high court will hear arguments in Moore v. Harper, a case from North Carolina involving the authority of the state legislature to gerrymander congressional maps for unfair partisan advantage. There is a strong possibility that the court’s conservative majority will adopt the anti-democratic independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which has been promoted by MAGA extremists claiming that there are virtually no checks and balances on state legislatures in key election matters, even by voters or their state’s own courts. This theory has long been considered to be on the fringes of conservative legal arguments and discredited by the Supreme Court for more than a century.
P - The potential fallout of this case is enormous.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170089742]
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172300989
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
