Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

[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:

 

[Snarky Sack]

You want to talk about sore losers? lol. Have a talk with your boy, Trump, about that.


Possibly because the AG in CO at that time was GOP? Suffice it to say the GOP no longer holds that office in CO.

That may have very well been the case. If so, then from the standpoint of people who desire to force people to provide services that violate their beliefs, it would be an example of a bad case making bad law. The courts usually wait for a good case for something this important, so I doubt they knew that there was an issue of ripeness as another poster pointed out. But if the state of Colorado was then being represented by a Democrat, why would they not bring it up?

However, from the standpoint of people who desire that people not be forced to provide services that violate their beliefs, it was a good case precisely because of its hypothetical nature. Easier to argue that the law will someday be used to put them in prison for holding to their beliefs than to try to sue from prison. Also, without a sympathetic couple coming forward to shed crocodile tears about how they are being denied their human rights, the case can be judged with less emotion.

And bottom line, whether this was the best case or not, the fact is that they law, if left in place, would have wound up with people being prosecuted for holding to their beliefs re: providing services to a same-sex wedding. Might as well know now, whether that is constitutional. It isn't.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The supreme court has concluded another term that upended Americans’ lives.

Last week, the court’s conservative supermajority ruled against race-conscious decisions in college admissions, overturning decades of precedent supporting affirmative action.

A day later, the six conservative justices both struck down Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan and sided with a Colorado-based business owner who wanted to refuse service to same-sex couples.

As the conservative justices’ decisions attracted criticism, their behavior away from the bench also sparked alarm. Reports emerged that conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito had accepted previously undisclosed gifts and trips from wealthy stakeholders whose business interests at times clashed with cases before the supreme court.

The outcry unleashed over the justices’ ethics scandals, combined with the widespread disapproval of their opinions, has intensified calls to reform the supreme court.

And although court reform efforts have previously been denounced as radical overreach, more Americans are warming to the idea in the face of a six-three conservative supermajority issuing decisions viewed as largely out of step with the country’s principles and priorities.

“Democracy is at risk,” Congressman Hank Johnson, a Democrat in Georgia, said. “We must save this supreme court from itself, and that’s why it’s so important that we do court reform now.”…..

‘Democracy is at risk’: inside the fight for supreme court reform

As the court concludes another term that upended lives, conservative justices are attracting criticism for their rulings and their behavior away from the bench

www.theguardian.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

The supreme court has concluded another term that upended Americans’ lives.

Last week, the court’s conservative supermajority ruled against race-conscious decisions in college admissions, overturning decades of precedent supporting affirmative action.

A day later, the six conservative justices both struck down Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan and sided with a Colorado-based business owner who wanted to refuse service to same-sex couples.

As the conservative justices’ decisions attracted criticism, their behavior away from the bench also sparked alarm. Reports emerged that conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito had accepted previously undisclosed gifts and trips from wealthy stakeholders whose business interests at times clashed with cases before the supreme court.

The outcry unleashed over the justices’ ethics scandals, combined with the widespread disapproval of their opinions, has intensified calls to reform the supreme court.

And although court reform efforts have previously been denounced as radical overreach, more Americans are warming to the idea in the face of a six-three conservative supermajority issuing decisions viewed as largely out of step with the country’s principles and priorities.

“Democracy is at risk,” Congressman Hank Johnson, a Democrat in Georgia, said. “We must save this supreme court from itself, and that’s why it’s so important that we do court reform now.”…..

‘Democracy is at risk’: inside the fight for supreme court reform

As the court concludes another term that upended lives, conservative justices are attracting criticism for their rulings and their behavior away from the bench

www.theguardian.com

Really? "Upended American's lives?"

A gay couple, who turn out not to even be real, will not be allowed to force a website designer to design a website for their wedding so their lives are upended? Or do you mean that all the real gay couples who were eager to line up and use government force on one of the few website makers who would turn down their business now have their "lives upended?"

Nobody who was already admitted to a college based on their race will be kicked out now, so whose life is being upended with that ruling?

Student loan non-payers might now have to work out a payment plan, so their lives are upended?

How about toning down the emotion-laden language and saying something like: Many people did not like some of the decisions this term.

Also, that powerful people hang out with wealthy people is not as much of a revelation as your article seems to suggest.

 

[DaveXA]

Really? "Upended American's lives?"

A gay couple, who turn out not to even be real, will not be allowed to force a website designer to design a website for their wedding so their lives are upended? Or do you mean that all the real gay couples who were eager to line up and use government force on one of the few website makers who would turn down their business now have their "lives upended?"

Nobody who was already admitted to a college based on their race will be kicked out now, so whose life is being upended with that ruling?

Student loan non-payers might now have to work out a payment plan, so their lives are upended?

How about toning down the emotion-laden language and saying something like: Many people did not like some of the decisions this term.

To be sure, those aren't the poster's words, but rather words from the article he posted.

Also, that powerful people hang out with wealthy people is not as much of a revelation as your article seems to suggest.

Well then, I don't want to hear you moan and whine when the court flips 6-3 the other way and Democrat appointed judges go on fishing trips with individuals who have cases before the court.

At least I'm consistent, I don't like when justices from either side get cozy with people who might have a vested interest in court decisions. We both know that's a terrible look.

 

[Snarky Sack]

To be sure, those aren't the poster's words, but rather words from the article he posted.

Yes, those are the words I'm talking about, regardless of whose they are. I assume that Optimus doesn't post random articles, but that he has a point in posting them. I like his articles because they provoke discussion. I hope you don't object to the discussions.

Well then, I don't want to hear you moan and whine when the court flips 6-3 the other way and Democrat appointed judges go on fishing trips with individuals who have cases before the court.

I'm sure that is happening already, but the media isn't digging for such stories about Dem appointed judges, They are doing that for Rep appointed judges in anger about recent court rulings. If you could admit that one thing right here, my respect for you would double.

At least I'm consistent, I don't like when justices from either side get cozy with people who might have a vested interest in court decisions. We both know that's a terrible look.

Yes, I wish we had a government filled with my ideal vision of the stalwart, honest, forthright leaders who seek no personal gain, but only what is best for their employers, the taxpayers of the United States. Let me know if you come up with any names that fit that bill.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes, those are the words I'm talking about, regardless of whose they are. I assume that Optimus doesn't post random articles, but that he has a point in posting them. I like his articles because they provoke discussion. I hope you don't object to the discussions.

I'm not objecting to anything. "To be sure..." means what I meant.

I'm sure that is happening already, but the media isn't digging for such stories about Dem appointed judges, They are doing that for Rep appointed judges in anger about recent court rulings. If you could admit that one thing right here, my respect for you would double.

It could be. Depends on who's reporting it. Motives vary depending on who you talk to.

Yes, I wish we had a government filled with my ideal vision of the stalwart, honest, forthright leaders who seek no personal gain, but only what is best for their employers, the taxpayers of the United States. Let me know if you come up with any names that fit that bill.

You and I both know there are people out there with integrity and who fit that bill. But of course we probably wouldn't agree on who fits that bill because we're both biased.

And the the taxpayers aren't the employers of federal workers no matter how many times you say it. The government signs the checks, not the taxpayers. It's a silly assertion and I don't know why you keep repeating it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm not objecting to anything. "To be sure..." means what I meant.

It could be. Depends on who's reporting it. Motives vary depending on who you talk to.

You and I both know there are people out there with integrity and who fit that bill. But of course we probably wouldn't agree on who fits that bill because we're both biased.

And the the taxpayers aren't the employers of federal workers no matter how many times you say it. The government signs the checks, not the taxpayers. It's a silly assertion and I don't know why you keep repeating it.

I was talking specifically about the leaders, i.e. the elected officials.

Those are not employees of the taxpayers, either?

I don't understand why you take offense at being the employee of the taxpayers. I'm proud and grateful that the taxpayers in my school district see fit to employ me.

 

[DaveXA]

I was talking specifically about the leaders, i.e. the elected officials.

Those are not employees of the taxpayers, either?

I don't understand why you take offense at being the employee of the taxpayers. I'm proud and grateful that the taxpayers in my school district see fit to employ me.

Because it's a silly notion and you're the only person I've ever met that makes this assertion.

And fwiw, even elected officials aren't employees of the taxpayers. They're paid by the US Treasury, not by taxpayers (at least not directly). While they are indeed elected officials, they're actually employed by the federal government as executive level employees, including POTUS, VP, etc. They're elected by the voters, but that's really about it.

And, voters cannot fire Congressmen during their term. Recalling them isn't allowed according to the Constitution.

I'm not at all offended. Just stating facts here.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Because it's a silly notion and you're the only person I've ever met that makes this assertion.

Really? See that's what happens when you talk to people who don't think like you. Anyone not progressive would understand that taxpayers pay the salaries of federal workers and are therefore their employers. Even if we are wrong about that, that's what we think, and if this is news to you, I suggest widening your horizons.

If you know someone who is not progressive, tell them you are a federal worker and them who you work for. It won't take too many tries for you to meet the second person you've ever met who thinks it is the taxpayer.

And fwiw, even elected officials aren't employees of the taxpayers. They're paid by the US Treasury, not by taxpayers (at least not directly). While they are indeed elected officials, they're actually employed by the federal government as executive level employees, including POTUS, VP, etc. They're elected by the voters, but that's really about it.

And, voters cannot fire Congressmen during their term. Recalling them isn't allowed according to the Constitution.

I'm not at all offended. Just stating facts here.

Thanks for the facts. I'll concede that thinking that government - not taxpayers - is your employer is a valid way to look at it.

I'm just surprised that you are posting on a Sunday. I thought you only posted when you're getting paid for it.



Just kidding! Couldn't resist. It's my last day, so I'm bustin' some bowls over heah . . .

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[DaveXA]

Really? See that's what happens when you talk to people who don't think like you.

Lol, i have more Republican friends than Democrat, by a mile. I've already stated I'm a lifelong conservative and a Republican until Trump won the GOP nomination in July 2016. So ...

Anyone not progressive would understand that taxpayers pay the salaries of federal workers and are therefore their employers. Even if we are wrong about that, that's what we think, and if this is news to you, I suggest widening your horizons.

I've never met a Republican who has said this. Hell, even the Trumpers I know haven't made this claim. So...

If you know someone who is not progressive, tell them you are a federal worker and them who you work for. It won't take too many tries for you to meet the second person you've ever met who thinks it is the taxpayer.

Heck, my Trumper friend who retired from the Department of Education a few years ago says she worked for the federal government. She's never once said she was employed by the taxpayers and I've known her for 25 years. And she actually was at the 1/6 Trump speech. She didn't walk to the Capitol because she was tired and went home.

Thanks for the facts. I'll concede that thinking that government - not taxpayers - is your employer is a valid way to look at it.

I'm just surprised that you are posting on a Sunday. I thought you only posted when you're getting paid for it.



Just kidding! Couldn't resist. It's my last day, so I'm bustin' some bowls over heah . . .

 

[SFIDC3]

Even if we are wrong about that, that's what we think

Above pretty much sums up his entire posting history here....or maybe I'm giving too much credit here?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Lol, i have more Republican friends than Democrat, by a mile. I've already stated I'm a lifelong conservative and a Republican until Trump won the GOP nomination in July 2016. So ...

So you were a lifelong progressive Republican. Trump won the nomination well before all the hysteria about Russian collusion and the rest started. Th opposition to Trump at that time by Reps was for him wanting to actually implement conservative ideas that Rhinos pretended to believe.

If I'm wrong about state three of your conservate beliefs, while I pop come corn.

I've never met a Republican who has said this. Hell, even the Trumpers I know haven't made this claim. So...

Heck, my Trumper friend who retired from the Department of Education a few years ago says she worked for the federal government. She's never once said she was employed by the taxpayers and I've known her for 25 years. And she actually was at the 1/6 Trump speech. She didn't walk to the Capitol because she was tired and went home.

Oh, you don't have to convince me that federal employees are sensitive about being employed by the taxpayer. I've heard how they talk amongst themselves about how that 8.7% raise they got this year is just not enough ...

As so often, agree to disagree.

 

[DaveXA]

So you were a lifelong progressive Republican.

No, i was a conservative Republican.

Trump won the nomination well before all the hysteria about Russian collusion and the rest started. Th opposition to Trump at that time by Reps was for him wanting to actually implement conservative ideas that Rhinos pretended to believe.

Other people can speak for themselves. I was opposed to Trump from the day he announced because i believed him to be not remotely qualified and he was a blathering, pompous idiot who liked to tell people "you're fired!". He's one of the most narcissistic, selfish individuals on the planet. And thats really no exaggeration. So, i had my reasons for not supporting him long before most other people because i knew him well before most others did.

You dont have to believe me though. I'm on record as stating as much on our other website. Not gonna go look for it though.

If I'm wrong about state three of your conservate beliefs, while I pop come corn.

What are you asking? If you want to know what i believe, have you not been paying attention since you arrived here? Smh.

Oh, you don't have to convince me that federal employees are sensitive about being employed by the taxpayer. I've heard how they talk amongst themselves about how that 8.7% raise they got this year is just not enough ...

You've heard no such thing. It wasnt 8.7%. For 2023 it was 4.1-4.6% depending on location.

2023 GS Pay Scale With Locality | FedSmith.com

The 2023 GS pay scale incorporates a 2023 federal pay raise with an overall average of 4.6% with a General Schedule (GS) base pay increase of 4.1% and a 2023

www.fedsmith.com

As so often, agree to disagree.

Kinda hard to take this seriously when you don't have your facts straight.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No, i was a conservative Republican.

Other people can speak for themselves. I was opposed to Trump from the day he announced because i believed him to be not remotely qualified and he was a blathering, pompous idiot who liked to tell people "you're fired!". He's one of the most narcissistic, selfish individuals on the planet. And thats really no exaggeration. So, i had my reasons for not supporting him long before most other people because i knew him well before most others did.

Uh-Huh.

You dont have to believe me though. I'm on record as stating as much on our other website. Not gonna go look for it though.


What are you asking? If you want to know what i believe, have you not been paying attention since you arrived here? Smh.

I asked for the pure amusement of seeing you dodge the question. You're not the first "anti-Trump Republican" who cannot name one Republican or conservative belief that they hold. I've never asked one who could. In the time you typed those three sentences reiterating your claim to be a conservative Republican, you could have typed three of your conservative Republican beliefs. I understand why you don't, though.

I'm starting to think that the "anti-Trump Republican voter" is a myth. Obviously, there are many anti-Trump establishment Republicans who oppose Trump, especially the ones the keeps defeating in the primaries. But anti-Trump Republican voters? I hear about them on TV and the internet, but I never see any one who claims to be that and can articulate their conservative beliefs.

You've heard no such thing. It wasnt 8.7%. For 2023 it was 4.1-4.6% depending on location.

2023 GS Pay Scale With Locality | FedSmith.com

The 2023 GS pay scale incorporates a 2023 federal pay raise with an overall average of 4.6% with a General Schedule (GS) base pay increase of 4.1% and a 2023

www.fedsmith.com

Kinda hard to take this seriously when you don't have your facts straight.

Yes, my mistake. the 8.7 percent was for Social Security recipients. I don't think that is fair that people who sit at home waiting for a check get 8.7% when you do basically the same thing and get less. I know you "have to" go in one day every two weeks. But that means that for the price of two sick days, you can have a month's vacation.

If you are on the GS scale, you're not hurting. This I know from my days in the military. You get step increases every two or three years, even counting years where you sat at home or at the beach.

I said earlier that in my district the pay raise is 1.5% this year. Plus I get "step increases" for years of service, though we don't call them that. I am not complaining. The taxpayers that are my employers who work in the private sector are mostly getting no raises at all in spite of the inflation.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Uh-Huh.

I asked for the pure amusement of seeing you dodge the question. You're not the first "anti-Trump Republican" who cannot name one Republican or conservative belief that they hold. I've never asked one who could. In the time you typed those three sentences reiterating your claim to be a conservative Republican, you could have typed three of your conservative Republican beliefs. I understand why you don't, though.

I'm starting to think that the "anti-Trump Republican voter" is a myth. Obviously, there are many anti-Trump establishment Republicans who oppose Trump, especially the ones the keeps defeating in the primaries. But anti-Trump Republican voters? I hear about them on TV and the internet, but I never see any one who claims to be that and can articulate their conservative beliefs.

Yes, my mistake. the 8.7 percent was for Social Security recipients. I don't think that is fair that people who sit at home waiting for a check get 8.7% when you do basically the same thing and get less. I know you "have to" go in one day every two weeks. But that means that for the price of two sick days, you can have a month's vacation.

If you are on the GS scale, you're not hurting. This I know from my days in the military. You get step increases every two or three years, even counting years where you sat at home or at the beach.

I said earlier that in my district the pay raise is 1.5% this year. Plus I get "step increases" for years of service, though we don't call them that. I am not complaining. The taxpayers that are my employers who work in the private sector are mostly getting no raises at all in spite of the inflation.

This coming from the Libertarian who refused to discuss any planks in the Libertarian platform. forking rich.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This coming from the Libertarian who refused to discuss any planks in the Libertarian platform. forking rich.

I dont' remember anyone asking me to discuss planks in the Libertarian platform. Maybe it was when I was not seeing your posts.

I'm libertarian the adjective, not "Libertarian" the noun, but I'll be happy to discuss any particular plank of their platform you would like me to. I would guess that I support most of them.

 

[DaveXA]

Uh-Huh.

I asked for the pure amusement of seeing you dodge the question. You're not the first "anti-Trump Republican" who cannot name one Republican or conservative belief that they hold. I've never asked one who could. In the time you typed those three sentences reiterating your claim to be a conservative Republican, you could have typed three of your conservative Republican beliefs. I understand why you don't, though.

You're relatively new here, so I'll humor you.
1. Generally support lower taxes.
2. Generally support less regulation.
3. Generally believe education should be driven at the local level.
Hell, I'll even give you a 4th, I tend to vote Republican at the local and sometimes state level, at least that was the case until Trump came around and usurped the party.

I'm starting to think that the "anti-Trump Republican voter" is a myth.

Obviously, there are many anti-Trump establishment Republicans who oppose Trump, especially the ones the keeps defeating in the primaries. But anti-Trump Republican voters? I hear about them on TV and the internet, but I never see any one who claims to be that and can articulate their conservative beliefs.

Between the 3 linked twitter accounts there are over 500k followers. A large majority of these are registered Republican voters who don't support Trump. Hardly a myth.

Yes, my mistake. the 8.7 percent was for Social Security recipients. I don't think that is fair that people who sit at home waiting for a check get 8.7% when you do basically the same thing and get less. I know you "have to" go in one day every two weeks. But that means that for the price of two sick days, you can have a month's vacation.

For accuracy, I go in once a week, not once every 2 weeks. The minimum in our agency is once weekly. Some go in more often depending on the position.

If you are on the GS scale, you're not hurting. This I know from my days in the military. You get step increases every two or three years, even counting years where you sat at home or at the beach.

Yes, you do, but again still well below average starting salaries. Where I live, my salary is bottom 20%. Not one individual I work with is sitting at home twiddling their thumbs, let alone on the beach unless they're using their scheduled leave like it would be for any normal job. The pot shots says more about you than the people I actually work with.

I said earlier that in my district the pay raise is 1.5% this year. Plus I get "step increases" for years of service, though we don't call them that. I am not complaining. The taxpayers that are my employers who work in the private sector are mostly getting no raises at all in spite of the inflation.

That's actually not entirely true. It depends on your location, job market, profession, etc. Some are more competitive than others. But overall, yes, wage growth has trailed inflation, and that's true for both federal and private sector jobs.