Dang Ol’ GOP SCOTUS Did It Again

[BradStevens]

And the Clinton Foundation?

The Clinton Foundation Is Dead — But The Case Against Hillary Isn't

While everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes,... Read More

www.investors.com

 

[dbmhoosier]

You were saying? @Willdog7

 

[DANC]

You were saying? @Willdog7

View embedded media

View embedded media

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

 

[Stuffshot]

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

You mean the Republican Trump appointees did this?

 

[DANC]

You mean the Republican Trump appointees did this?

Yes, along with the 3 Democrat appointees.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.

 

[DANC]

Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.

I was thinking the same thing, but figured it was too conspiratorial. lol

I fully expect them to punt on the immunity issue, saying something like "Well, the President does have immunity, except in some cases.....". And then each case would be decided on its own, which means any lower court ruling can be appealed. Which I actually think is correct. A blanket immunity is not something I want if a Democrat is President.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.

I enjoy it when you and DANC discuss the law. It’s like watching dogs play chess.

 

[Stuffshot]

Yes, along with the 3 Democrat appointees.

🤣

 

[Stuffshot]

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

LOL. Standing is not a "new judicial tactic." The fact you might not be familiar with it does not make it new.

I don't expect you to read it, but here's the opinion:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

The thing that stands out in the opinion is the apparent low quality of the legal arguments by the plaintiffs.

Three examples: Their lawyers didn't bother to sue the entities that actually blocked/deleted their content (Facebook and X). Also, the plaintiffs don't seem to have explained why the government was responsible for the blocking/ deletion by Facebook and X that occurred even before the government communicated with Facebook and X. And, they didn't explain why one plaintiff had standing to sue for blocking/deletion of a post by his brother, not his own post.

Read the actual opinion.

 

[Stuffshot]

Yes, along with the 3 Democrat appointees.

How can this be?!

The Trump appointees are acting like Democrats.

 

[Willdog7]

Wouldn't hear it because of lack of 'standing'. Why a bunch of horseshit.

Every citizen has 'standing' when it comes to freedom of speech and the government interference in free speech.

Evidently that's the new judicial tactic - if you don't want to decide a topic, claim the parties have lack of standing.

fREE speech does not include lying.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

fREE speech does not include lying.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

fREE speech does not include lying.

Sure it does. So long as you lie without malice you are good to go.

 

[dbmhoosier]

 

[dbmhoosier]

Kaboom

 

[dbmhoosier]

 

[DANC]

View embedded media

Don't get your hopes up. I think it will be a big 'meh'.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Don't get your hopes up. I think it will be a big 'meh'.

A President is immune from official acts and those closely related to official acts and remands back to the lower courts. My guess anyway.

 

[DANC]

A President is immune from official acts and those closely related to official acts and remands back to the lower courts. My guess anyway.

Right. It all comes down to what is an official act.

 

[Willdog7]

Kaboom

View embedded media

This is part of Project 2025. Taking power away from fed agencies and giving it to the courts. They have no experience in ruling and give power to maga.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Awww….. now they got their money’s worth. All those other decisions, Trump could care less about and likely doesn’t understand then. But today….now that he understands. Lol

 

[ulrey]

Awww….. now they got their money’s worth. All those other decisions, Trump could care less about and likely doesn’t understand then. But today….now that he understands. Lol

Welcome back.!

 

[DANC]

Same thing they did with the 2020 election dispute. Texas really doesn't have standing to challenge an unconstitutional Presidential election? Have you seen what's happened to its border?

Good news is this means SCOTUS is very likely to drop a couple atomic bombs very soon that they left will hate...the Jan 6 case and immunity. Roberts loves to do this shit. Throw the lefties a bone to play both sides of the fence.

You called it!

 

[stollcpa]

Awww….. now they got their money’s worth. All those other decisions, Trump could care less about and likely doesn’t understand then. But today….now that he understands. Lol

Do you have an analysis of Demented Joe’s debate performance?

 

[Spartans9312]

Want a participation medal when they get one right? Wonder why immunity case is taking so long? Hmmmmm

 

[dbmhoosier]

Insanity.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Insanity.

View embedded media

This would obviously be unconstitutional.

 

[DANC]

This would obviously be unconstitutional.

Only with this SC. Who knows if the makeup of the court was leftist. We have justices who can't define what a woman is.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Only with this SC. Who knows if the makeup of the court was leftist. We have justices who can't define what a woman is.

I suspect this would lose 9-0. Maybe Sotomayor would take a flyer. But I couldn’t see Kagan or KBJ joining her.

 

[DANC]

I suspect this would lose 9-0. Maybe Sotomayor would take a flyer. But I couldn’t see Kagan or KBJ joining her.

The leftists we have on there now are not really thought leaders. Put a strong leftist personality on there and it could all change drastically.

I think it's likely any SC would rule all this unconstitutional, but I wouldn't bet the future of the USA on it.

 

[Spartans9312]

Insanity.

View embedded media

 

[Willdog7]

View embedded media

trump has bought and paid for.

 

[dbmhoosier]

I suspect this would lose 9-0. Maybe Sotomayor would take a flyer. But I couldn’t see Kagan or KBJ joining her.

There need to be IQ tests for SCOTUS appointees.

 

[BradStevens]

There need to be IQ tests for SCOTUS appointees.

View embedded media

OK, WTF?

 

[UncleMark]

OK, WTF?

She always wanted to be onstage on Broadway. Didn't Scalia or Ginsberg do a cameo in an opera?

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

OK, WTF?

She was talking about this on Wait Wait this weekend. Guess it was sort of a life long dream situation.

Also, it was a good interview. Don't tell dbm, but she sounds very intelligent.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

She always wanted to be onstage on Broadway. Didn't Scalia or Ginsberg do a cameo in an opera?

They actually appeared together.

 

[UncleMark]

They actually appeared together.

Should have given them IQ tests.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Should have given them IQ tests.

At least require all appointees to release their LSAT scores.