Supreme Court Ruling time again

[Yuwipi Woman]

In terms of the side the military takes?

The upper officers are generally fairly liberal, but the enlisted class tend to be pretty conservative.

 

[8ball]

The upper officers are generally fairly liberal, but the enlisted class tend to be pretty conservative.

So splits in the military could well be possible in the hypothetical case of a massive kick-off…

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

So splits in the military could well be possible in the hypothetical case of a massive kick-off…

Yes, but you have to remember that the regular people on the right have been tooling up for a long time now. They've been expecting to overthrow the government for a while. I think the military would try to stay out of a power grab, as they did on Jan 6. I think the militia people could probably start a war all on their own.

 

[8ball]

Yes, but you have to remember that the regular people on the right have been tooling up for a long time now. They've been expecting to overthrow the government for a while. I think the military would try to stay out of a power grab, as they did on Jan 6. I think the militia people could probably start a war all on their own.

Did the military get on the phone with the Jan 6 nuts?

I think the militia probably could start a war. I don’t think they could finish one. Except by surrendering when they run out of sandwiches.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Did the military get on the phone with the Jan 6 nuts?

I'm pretty sure that Trump tried to get the generals to intervene on his behalf and the brass refused to get involved.

 

[8ball]

I'm pretty sure that Trump tried to get the generals to intervene on his behalf and the brass refused to get involved.

Yeah, that was never gonna happen.

 

[spring-peeper]

In terms of the side the military takes?

Who really knows....it is possible, with the right government in place, the military may well be on their side.

 

[spring-peeper]

Yeah, that was never gonna happen.

Of course not!!!!

 

[8ball]

Who really knows....it is possible, with the right government in place, the military may well be on their side.

This was the military that said at the beginning of his tenure that his special suitcase would be subject to suitable checks and balances.

But yeah, had things been different…

 

[frogwoman]

Biden can end Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ program, supreme court rules

Ruling by 5-4 allows administration to terminate policy that forced asylum seekers to return to Mexico while claims are considered

www.theguardian.com

This is good, I guess?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Biden can end Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ program, supreme court rules

Ruling by 5-4 allows administration to terminate policy that forced asylum seekers to return to Mexico while claims are considered

www.theguardian.com

This is good, I guess?

In outcome yes, but it still highlights how extreme this court is: only two out of the six conservative justices recognise that the incumbent US president has the right to not follow Trump’s fascist policies. That one or two of them occasionally through a bone to the other side shouldn’t distract from how radical and extreme they are.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Next years docket is starting to shape up.

When its next nine-month term begins in October, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments on the use of race in college admissions, on the intersection of free speech and gay rights and on a challenge to an environmental permitting law.

In the blockbuster court year that ended Thursday, conservative justices used their 6-3 majority to strike down federal abortion rights, remove some limits on gun permits, curb federal regulatory power and blur the line between church and state.

“Last term saw the fewest decisions from argued cases since the Civil War, and this term isn’t on track for many more,” Shay Dvoretzky, head of the Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Group at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, said in an emailed statement. “So it’s noteworthy that these controversial issues have made the cut, suggesting eagerness among some members of the court to revisit or remake precedent in significant ways.”

The upcoming cases come for an institution that is facing waning approval and internal strife that has spilled into public view. The court is still conducting an investigation into who leaked a draft opinion of the abortion ruling in May, and justices have had to get added security as protesters picket outside some of their homes.

The court, which will include a Black woman for the first time, will consist of four members who’ve joined in the past five years. The new justices have shown they are not afraid to upend precedent -- long a key feature of American law and known as “stare decisis.” Chief Justice John Roberts warned his five fellow conservatives who voted to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that such a drastic reversal could cause a “serious jolt to the legal system.”

Some liberal scholars say upcoming decisions by the court could impact underrepresented groups.

“You have a court who is looking to push the needle and looking to move the law to the right in very stark ways,” said David Gans, a civil rights lawyer at the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center.

But others argue that the court has taken a more moderate approach.

“We have not seen the kind of radical revolution that some people are claiming occurred,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University.

With the exception of the abortion case, other decisions by the Supreme Court have been much more incremental, Somin said. For example, when the court struck down a New York law that required citizens to show a special need to carry a handgun in public, it made clear that a wide range of regulations would still be permitted, he said.

The 2022-2023 court term includes several cases that will test the court’s commitment to precedent. Among the cases to watch:

Race-Based Admissions:

For years, universities have been able to take race into account in their admissions process, which the Supreme Court affirmed in a 2003 decision. But the current court agreed to take up challenges to admission policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina.

A special interest group called Students for Fair Admissions accused Harvard of favoring Black and Hispanic applicants over Asian Americans. Lawrence Bacow, Harvard’s president, has said eliminating race as a factor would make it more challenging for the school to create a diverse student body. In the North Carolina case, the Supreme Court took the rare step of intervening before a trial judge’s decision made it to the appellate level.

“The cases may offer additional insight into where the court is on stare decisis,” said Greg Garre, a partner at law firm Latham & Watkins and a former solicitor general who successfully argued a 2016 case before the court upholding the race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas.

Gay Rights:

The court will hear an appeal from a website designer who said she refused to start creating pages for same-sex weddings because doing so would be at odds with her faith. The case bears similarities to a 2018 decision in which the justices sided with a Colorado baker who refused to make cakes for gay weddings, although the court avoided a ruling that would allow business owners to turn away customers on religious grounds.

Lorie Smith, a Colorado resident, is challenging a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating on a variety of factors, including sexual orientation. Smith, who lost the case on appeal, argued that the law infringed on her right of free speech because it required her to communicate messages that were at odds with her faith, and because it kept her from posting a statement that explained her beliefs.

While Smith has invoked her religious rights, the justices have indicated that their focus on her case will be free speech.

Environment:

The first case that will be argued on Oct. 3 involves a couple that has put up a 15-year fight to build a house on property that federal regulators say is protected wetlands. A ruling in their favor could let developers build more houses without having to get federal permits and give companies more flexibility on where they can dispose of pollutants.

A 2006 ruling by the court left ambiguity around when the Clean Water Act should be applied to wetlands. At the time, four justices, led by Antonin Scalia, concluded that the law covered wetlands only if they have a continuous surface connection to a river, lake or other major waterway. Justice Anthony Kennedy offered up a different standard that applied to wetlands with a “significant nexus” to one of those large bodies of water. The couple is asking for the Supreme Court to adopt Scalia’s definition, after a federal appeals court judge last year ruled that the Clean Water Act governed their property.

Harvard Affirmative Action, Gay Rights Cases Are Next Up at Supreme Court

 

[Storm Fox]

A judge in Massachusetts uses the Supreme Court ruling regarding the EPA oversite to delay the Right to Repair law passed by a 75% referendum result

In delaying state’s right-to-repair law yet again, federal judge cites Supreme Court EPA ruling

US District Judge Douglas Woodlock was expected to issue his ruling in the case on Friday. Instead, Woodlock gave notice that he would first have to consider the implications of the high court’s ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which limited the regulatory powers of the EPA. Woodlock did not explain how the case is related to the dispute before his court.

So basically making it up as they go.

 

[frogwoman]

Listening to a 5-4 episode on Originalism, the doctrine that says that the law should be made according to what the founders intended when they wrote the constitution., hundreds of years ago. Alito and the late Scalia agreed with this doctrine

 

[Cid]

Listening to a 5-4 episode on Originalism, the doctrine that says that the law should be made according to what the founders intended when they wrote the constitution., hundreds of years ago. Alito and the late Scalia agreed with this doctrine

Except that they don't actually do that of course... Particularly obvious in the recent gun law cases. Second amendment is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The absurdity of extending that to strike down (anti) concealed carry laws should be pretty obvious. As I recall it's one of the few amendments that comes with a qualifier (the well regulated militia bit) which, by any normal method of statutory interpretation, should indicate that that is key to how the principle should be applied. To justify their interpretation they go through some truly batshit contortions, e.g looking at laws from Henry VIII's England. It's a flawed doctrine at best, but in the hands of the current court it's basically just a tool for justifying whatever those fucks want it to.

This whole thing is absolutely fucked and basically terrifying. No idea where the solutions lie.

 

[frogwoman]

What's their definition of well regulated?

 

[frogwoman]

I do think there's a case for saying our gun laws are too strict but I'd rather have this than a 'constitutional right' to wave AR 15s around etc

 

[Cid]

What's their definition of well regulated?

Wish I had the time to go deeper into the current legal shenanigans, but I'm pretty much relying on the same sources as everyone else... 5-4 and another podcast called Opening Arguments (bit painfully liberal, but often has good info).

 

[scifisam]

I do think there's a case for saying our gun laws are too strict but I'd rather have this than a 'constitutional right' to wave AR 15s around etc

Our guns laws are definitely not too strict. You can get reasonably big guns legally, and nobody needs the right to access machine guns even with a license, or access even very small handguns without a license.

 

[frogwoman]

Our guns laws are definitely not too strict. You can get reasonably big guns legally, and nobody needs the right to access machine guns even with a license, or access even very small handguns without a license.

Yeah I don't think anyone should be able to get a gun without a licence!

 

[Ax^]

and no one in the UK has the need for a concealed handgun

why you can only get long gun variation of most common hand guns

 

[WouldBe]

What's their definition of well regulated?

Not sure that individuals count as a militia wether well regulated or not.

 

[WouldBe]

and no one in the UK has the need for a concealed handgun

why you can only get long gun variation of most common hand guns

Guns for civilians should have a minimum barrel length of 4 foot.

 

[Ax^]

.

 

[Ax^]

gun for a well regulated militia

 

[Ax^]

as an aside Moore vs harper next so

like Abortion it going to bring back laws to state level wherein a one party in a state who are one biased and in control
would have the the ability to redistribute.
which county or district you vote in

whilst restricting central government review of the changes

so if your in a racist state, it lets them limit the impact of your vote

 

[spring-peeper]

as an aside Moore vs harper next so

like Abortion it going to bring back laws to state level wherein a one party in a state who are one biased and in control
would have the the ability to redistribute.
which county or district you vote in

whilst restricting central government review of the changes

so if your in a racist state, it lets them limit the impact of your vote

I read an article that said that people are starting to move to states that reflect their values.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

What’s the latest with Biden expanding the court to balance out the fruitloops?

 

[Ax^]

aye but that suits the republican because if liberals move out of the right places

they can control the electoral colleges

which is the only reason they been in power in the last 20 years

 

[Ax^]

What’s the latest with Biden expanding the court to balance out the fruitloops?

bit of a lame duck taken in because he not trump

does not have enough power in both house to push much into law

that angle is already been exploited but really

if they want to win the next election, do something quick