Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[LA - L.A.]

In order for there to be a crime Due Process requires that the crime be charged

A crime was charged. The crime that was charged doesn't require the other crimes to be charged separately, they are proven within the trial of the crimes charged.

Sendai knows what they are saying is a lie.

Sendai has been challenged several times to cite court rulings that say the New York law is a violation of due process.

Sendai has ignored every single one of those challenges, because Sendai knows what they're saying is a lie, so there are no rulings for them to cite.

Sendai is a dishonest person, no one should believe anything they say.

Sendai could have easily proven me wrong buy citing rulings that specifically that specifically struck the New York law down as being a violation of due process. That's the proof that Sendai knows what they keep saying isn't true. Sendai is not bright enough to figure out he's hurting the very cause he's trying to help. That's a they problem, not a we problem.

Everything Sendai says about the law is a lie. Everything.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Soft Drink.

I’m going to say I was probably 4 or 5 and it was Sarsaparilla.

Too late, human trainer. Your cover is blown. I do what you're doing on an independent contractor basis, that's why it's easy for me to spot what you're doing.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[Sendai]

A crime was charged. The crime that was charged doesn't require the other crimes to be charged separately, they are proven within the trial of the crimes charged.

Sendai knows what they are saying is a lie.

Sendai has been challenged several times to cite court rulings that say the New York law is a violation of due process.

Sendai has ignored every single one of those challenges, because Sendai knows what they're saying is a lie, so there are no rulings for them to cite.

Sendai is a dishonest person, no one should believe anything they say.

Sendai could have easily proven me wrong buy citing rulings that specifically that specifically struck the New York law down as being a violation of due process. That's the proof that Sendai knows what they keep saying isn't true. Sendai is not bright enough to figure out he's hurting the very cause he's trying to help. That's a they problem, not a we problem.

Everything Sendai says about the law is a lie. Everything.

The only crime in the charge was falsification of records. Nothing in the charge about Election Law or Tax Law violations. The prosecution didn’t spring them until closing arguments. Also makes the case ripe for a 6th amendment violation.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The only crime in the charge was falsification of records.

That's the only crime that the New York law required to be charged.

The prosecution didn’t spring them until closing arguments.

That is a flat out lie. The prosecution showed evidence of those crimes while putting on their case and the jurors all agreed that the prosecution proved the records were falsified to cover up another crime.

Also makes the case ripe for a 6th amendment violation.

That's another lie and here's how I prove it's a lie folks. @Sendai, cite the cases that
ruled the New York law that Trump was convicted under violates 6th amendment rights.

Now here's what happens next folks. @Sendai is going to come back and just repeat the same lies he keeps repeating. He is not going to show you a single court ruling that the New York law Trump was convicted under violates 6th amendment rights.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Wasn’t sure if this should go here or abortion thread
=========


The US supreme court will allow the Biden administration to withhold millions of dollars in grant money from the state of Oklahoma over its refusal to provide information about abortion providers to patients who seek it.

In an order released on Tuesday, the nine-member court said an injunction filed by the state had been denied in a 6-3 decision. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were the three who would have granted Oklahoma’s application for relief.

Tuesday’s order reaffirms two previous lower-court decisions in which judges determined a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration by the state of Oklahoma over the taking back of the funds was unlikely to succeed.

The grant at the center of the legal battle – Title X family planning program – is distributed by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In 2021, HHS created a new rule for grant recipients that required them to offer “non-directive”, neutral information about health and family planning options, including on abortion, and to offer people referrals to medical providers, including those who offer abortion services.

The following year, HHS approved a grant to Oklahoma’s health department, but reminded the state it had to comply with the new rule, a point that HHS reiterated after the landmark 2022 Dobbs decision – which overturned the national right to abortion – came down, according to court records. That same year, Oklahoma’s governor signed one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws, but the HHS determined that state law did not preclude them from meeting the requirement for neutral information on abortion and referrals to providers upon request.


In March last year, Oklahoma accepted another Title X grant from the HHS. To satisfy the 2021 rule, the state promised to provide patients with a “national call-in” phone number that would provide them with neutral information. But by May, Oklahoma officials had removed the phone number, prompting HHS to give the state 30 days to come into compliance, which Oklahoma refused to do.……..

Supreme court allows US to withhold Oklahoma’s family planning fund

State refused to comply with health and human services department’s order to give abortion providers’ information

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Days after the US supreme court ruled affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional, the legal activist behind the big win for conservatives called the ruling “the end of the beginning”.

“This issue of race and ethnicity in our public lives is not going to go away,” Edward Blum told the New York Times in July 2023. “All of these preferences, whether it’s in the employment arena, contracting arena, internships – all of that I think will be energized by this supreme court opinion. And we’re blessed to have this supreme court opinion.”

True to Blum’s word, conservative groups have unleashed a flood of lawsuits since the ruling with the ultimate goal of dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in the American workplace. In the year since the supreme court’s affirmative action decision, 68 lawsuits that call DEI into question have been filed.


This legal fight looks to be much more complicated than efforts to overturn affirmative action. DEI encompasses many different policies and practices designed to make workplaces more equitable, from hiring diverse candidates to preventing bias in the workplace. Many DEI policies started as measures to protect marginalized workers from discrimination and strengthening their positions in the workplace through initiatives like mentorship programs and de-bias training. But conservatives against DEI see this as the best moment to get DEI out of the American workplace.

Legal scholars with NYU School of Law’s Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging have been tracking anti-DEI lawsuits and recently launched a database of more than 100 lawsuits that could change DEI.

The Guardian spoke with David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer center, who broke down what the battle against DEI is starting to look like.…….

How the US supreme court’s affirmative action ruling unleashed anti-DEI cases

Activists against diversity, equity and inclusion feel the 6-3 conservative majority will aid workplace lawsuits

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly – and in favor – of Donald Trumpahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.

The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on – and generally favoring – the Republican former president.

Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.


In addition to the presidential immunity ruling, the decisions collectively barred states from removing any official – including Trump – from a federal ballot as well as declaring the government had overstepped with respect to obstruction of justice charges filed against participants of the 6 January 2021 attack that the former president’s supporters aimed at Congress.

The Times reported that last February, Roberts sent a memo to his fellow supreme court justices regarding the criminal charges against Trump for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.

In the leaked memo, the Times reported that he criticized a lower court decision that allowed the case to move forward – and he argued to the other justices that Trump was protected by presidential immunity.

He reportedly said that the supreme court ought to hear the case and grant Trump greater protection from prosecution.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” the Times said that Roberts wrote to the other supreme court justices in the private memo.……..

Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report

Chief justice reportedly took unusually active role in three recent supreme court decisions centering on Trump

www.theguardian.com

 

[DaveXA]

John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly – and in favor – of Donald Trumpahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.

The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on – and generally favoring – the Republican former president.

Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.


In addition to the presidential immunity ruling, the decisions collectively barred states from removing any official – including Trump – from a federal ballot as well as declaring the government had overstepped with respect to obstruction of justice charges filed against participants of the 6 January 2021 attack that the former president’s supporters aimed at Congress.

The Times reported that last February, Roberts sent a memo to his fellow supreme court justices regarding the criminal charges against Trump for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.

In the leaked memo, the Times reported that he criticized a lower court decision that allowed the case to move forward – and he argued to the other justices that Trump was protected by presidential immunity.

He reportedly said that the supreme court ought to hear the case and grant Trump greater protection from prosecution.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” the Times said that Roberts wrote to the other supreme court justices in the private memo.……..

Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report

Chief justice reportedly took unusually active role in three recent supreme court decisions centering on Trump

www.theguardian.com

It should be shocking and surprising...yet it feels like this isn't gonna move the needle and be dismissed as business as usual, unfortunately. Smh