Supreme Court Ruling time again
- Thread starter Yuwipi Woman
- Start date
Cid
Proper break this time
Yeah there was so much snark in your post I couldn't quite work out the parameters of it
Just an appalling piece of shit though. Both of them.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
can you point to an opinion of an alito or a roberts or any of them and say "here is where the problem is?" the reason i hesitate to judge the justices is because i can't. talk about going against "type":
The Supreme Court just ruled 9-0 for a religious worker. But his fight is not over
Thursday’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarifies what employers owe to religious workers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
so even the "liberals" went with it.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yes, every single one of themcan you point to an opinion of an alito or a roberts or any of them and say "here is where the problem is?" the reason i hesitate to judge the justices is because i can't. talk about going against "type":
The Supreme Court just ruled 9-0 for a religious worker. But his fight is not over
Thursday’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarifies what employers owe to religious workers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Actnews.yahoo.com
so even the "liberals" went with it.
Yossarian
⏭️
The Supreme Court just ruled 9-0 for a religious worker. But his fight is not over
Thursday’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy clarifies what employers owe to religious workers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
so even the "liberals" went with it.
NYT had some interesting context on that
Much has changed since the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hardison case in 1977, when religious liberty was largely a liberal cause and when the typical plaintiff was a member of a religious minority. In the Hardison case, involving an adherent of the Worldwide Church of God who wanted to observe a Saturday Sabbath, the two dissenting justices were liberal lions.
Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., wrote that the “de minimis” standard adopted by the majority “makes a mockery of the statute,” adding that plain English did not support that interpretation of the phrase “undue hardship.”
The sums at issue in 1977 were “far from staggering: $150 for three months,” Justice Marshall wrote, adding: “To conclude that TWA, one of the largest air carriers in the nation, would have suffered undue hardship had it done anything more defies both reason and common sense.”
He called on the court to reverse course. “All Americans will be a little poorer until today’s decision is erased,” he wrote.
Supreme Court Weighs Clash of Postal Worker’s Sabbath and Sunday Deliveries
The justices have been receptive to claims of religious freedom and may take a broad view of a federal law that requires employers to “reasonably accommodate” workers’ religious practices.
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
Looks like the scum bags got up early this morning.
US Supreme Court strikes down student loan forgiveness plan
Mr Biden pledged to find another way to forgive student debt following the Supreme Court's decision.
www.bbc.com
US Supreme Court rules website designer can refuse to serve same-sex couples
The decision means states cannot compel artists to express messages against their religious beliefs.
www.bbc.com
petee
no gods, no malarkey
this'll be a scary one
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review a federal law that bars an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm, adding a major Second Amendment case to next term’s docket.
A federal appeals court invalidated the law in March in an opinion that critics said will make it easier for domestic abusers to obtain firearms.
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review a federal law that bars an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm, adding a major Second Amendment case to next term’s docket.
A federal appeals court invalidated the law in March in an opinion that critics said will make it easier for domestic abusers to obtain firearms.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
No point posting Twitter links unless it's an embedded pic/video. It doesn't work anymore.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Not sure what an embedded pic/video is tbh - none of them seem to work for me because I've not joined.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Me neither. I can read a tweet on urban, if it contains a video, that works too. If it's a thread on twitter, forget it.
Interesting background to the second case: Key document may be fake in LGBTQ+ rights case before US supreme courtLooks like the scum bags got up early this morning.
US Supreme Court strikes down student loan forgiveness plan
Mr Biden pledged to find another way to forgive student debt following the Supreme Court's decision.www.bbc.com
US Supreme Court rules website designer can refuse to serve same-sex couples
The decision means states cannot compel artists to express messages against their religious beliefs.www.bbc.com
petee
no gods, no malarkey
it sounds like they were ready
www.businessinsider.com
On Friday morning, the Supreme Court ruled Biden's initial plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt was an overreach of authority under the HEROES Act of 2003. That law gives the Education Secretary the ability to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency, like COVID-19, but the high court's majority ruled it was not the proper law to get relief to millions of borrowers.
Hours after the ruling, Biden announced his administration will be taking a new route. The Education Department filed a notice on Friday to begin the regulatory process of using the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel student debt, which does not require relying on a national emergency.
Biden just took the first step to cancel student debt using a different law after the Supreme Court struck his first plan down — but it'll take 'longer' this time
The Supreme Court struck down Biden's first attempt to cancel student debt. Here's what will come next for millions of bororwers.
www.businessinsider.com
On Friday morning, the Supreme Court ruled Biden's initial plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt was an overreach of authority under the HEROES Act of 2003. That law gives the Education Secretary the ability to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency, like COVID-19, but the high court's majority ruled it was not the proper law to get relief to millions of borrowers.
Hours after the ruling, Biden announced his administration will be taking a new route. The Education Department filed a notice on Friday to begin the regulatory process of using the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel student debt, which does not require relying on a national emergency.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
This case wouldn't usually even having standing until the Supreme Court loosened the requirements in a recent case. Sadly, this particular case won't get thrown out on the basis of fraud, but the lawyer who brought the case could be disbarred. I think that's unlikely too, because the right is quite happy with the result and don't care how they got there.
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
I heard on one of the news outlets (don't recall which) that an appeal might be in the offing as this is a rule on a hypothetical and SC can only deliberate and pass judgement on a case that is active and where actual harm is demonstrated....
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
They'd have to agree to take the case and I find that (sadly) unlikely.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
a good day so far.
www.nbcnews.com
but for noo yorkas on non-market rental programs (whoever could that include) the big news is:
citylimits.org
Supreme Court allows sanctions against Trump-allied lawyers over 2020 election lawsuit
The justices leave in place an appeals court ruling that partly upheld sanctions arising from a lawsuit claiming that presidential election results in Michigan were rigged.
www.nbcnews.com
but for noo yorkas on non-market rental programs (whoever could that include) the big news is:
Supreme Court Tosses Lingering Challenges to Rent Stabilization in NY
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will not take up two lingering challenges to rent stabilization from New York City landlords, ending months of uncertainty after a broad challenge to the regime got tossed out at the beginning of October.
citylimits.org
Yossarian
⏭️
a good day so far.
Supreme Court allows sanctions against Trump-allied lawyers over 2020 election lawsuit
The justices leave in place an appeals court ruling that partly upheld sanctions arising from a lawsuit claiming that presidential election results in Michigan were rigged.
but for noo yorkas on non-market rental programs (whoever could that include) the big news is:
Supreme Court Tosses Lingering Challenges to Rent Stabilization in NY
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will not take up two lingering challenges to rent stabilization from New York City landlords, ending months of uncertainty after a broad challenge to the regime got tossed out at the beginning of October.
They also told Marjorie Taylor Greene and friends to suck up their mask fines
Supreme Court turns away House GOP lawmakers’ appeal over mask rule violations
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to revive a lawsuit from three House Republicans after their pay was docked for not complying with a pandemic-era mask requirement on the chamber floor. I…
thehill.com
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
It seems John Oliver has made Clarence Thomas an offer... GTFO the SC for a tour bus and a million bucks a year!
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Two of the judges currently deciding whether Trump can be tried for inciting an insurrection:
www.pbs.org
Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, agrees to interview with Jan. 6 panel
Conservative activist Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has agreed to participate in a voluntary interview with the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.
www.pbs.org
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
More controversy
www.theguardian.com
Tldr?
Gerrymandering and discrimination against black people in the south.
Supreme court rules South Carolina doesn’t need to redraw congressional map to consider Black voters
Justices send case back to lower court, saying it didn’t properly evaluate evidence in ruling Republican plan was discriminatory
Tldr?
Gerrymandering and discrimination against black people in the south.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
SCOTUS majority are just the legal wing of the US fascist movement (aka the Trumpified GOP).
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
It's insane that Biden hasn't stuffed the Supreme Court like Trump did to reverse the insane decisions they've made. And hasn't taken on the churches at least to tax any that make political statements. And tackle the propaganda put out by Musk et al. And make some of the worst activities of the state republicans into federal offences. All that has been clearly needed since before he even became president.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
More on the fascist Alito insanity. His wife sounds like just as much of a rupulsive sack of shit as him
www.rollingstone.com
Justice Alito's Upside-Down Flag Claim Dismantled by Police, Neighbors: Report
Neighbors of Justice Sam Alito disputed his claims that his wife hung an upside-down American flag in response to a clash over an anti-Trump sign.
www.rollingstone.com
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was of the opinion that anyone who wants a gun in the US would be able to get one, legally or otherwise.
High Voltage
In the top 97% of Urban's most interesting posters
Nope DV is one of the few things that can stop you getting a firearm
There’s several loopholes mainly abused by law enforcement officers who have a bit of a showing with DV cases
There’s several loopholes mainly abused by law enforcement officers who have a bit of a showing with DV cases
petee
no gods, no malarkey
some states have more stringent requirements, it's a state-by-state thing.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
"wHeN tHeY gO lOw, wE gO hIgH"
I don't think most establishment Democrats realise what they're up against. They seem to be under the impression that they're dealing with the loyal opposition, rather than a fifth column that accepts foreign money while trying to overthrow the duly elected administration.
Similar threads
