Supreme Court of the United States

[IDBillzFan]

So SCOTUS is getting ready to hand down a decision about Biden's handout to rich white kids with Masters Degrees in Art History, and what you're too stupid to understand is that this is no different than giving PPP to small businesses during the pandemic.

 

This is what unhinged looks like.

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

So SCOTUS is getting ready to hand down a decision about Biden's handout to rich white kids with Masters Degrees in Art History, and what you're too stupid to understand is that this is no different than giving PPP to small businesses during the pandemic.

 

This is what unhinged looks like.

 

 

 

Can confirm, from direct experience: Randi Weingarten is an idiot.

 

Probably been hitting the Al Shanker Memorial Wine Cellar at AFT headquarters pretty hard.

[Spartacus]

https://www.outkick.com/ted-cruz-goes-after-merrick-garland-for-threats-to-supreme-court-justices/

Despite the threats of violence against justices, Biden administration Attorney General Merrick Garland essentially failed to prosecute anyone involved.

 

“In the wake of the leak of the Dobbs decision. When rioters descended on the homes of six Supreme Court Justices, night after night after night, you did nothing. The department did nothing,” Cruz said.

 

“Why are you unwilling to say no? The answer’s no. You know it’s no. I know it’s no. Everyone in this hearing room knows it’s no. You’re not willing to answer a question! Have you brought a case under this statute, yes or no?” Cruz angrily asked.

 

Under Garland, the Department of Justice has essentially decided that there should be two sets of rules, depending on political ideology.

 

When parents express concerns to school boards, Garland and the DOJ springs into action. When justices are threatened for doing their jobs? He lays off responsibility to US Marshals.

 

The double standards are obvious to anyone, except to Garland, of course.

 

 

[Ann]

 

[Ann]

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Any thoughts on why the entrenched DC mob has been trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court lately ??

 

 

 

 

SCOTUS Grants Review of Case That Will Gut the Federal Bureaucracy

 

In the biggest news to come out of the Supreme Court of the United States since Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Court has granted a review of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo.

 

In its deliberations, the court will deal with the question of whether to overrule the infamous Chevron Doctrine, a ’70s-era precedent that granted broad powers to the bureaucratic state to interpret vague, often narrow statutes with near zero accountability.

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/05/01/scotus-grants-review-of-case-that-will-gut-the-federal-bureaucracy-n739579

 

 

 

[devnull]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Any thoughts on why the entrenched DC mob has been trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court lately ??

 

 

 

 

SCOTUS Grants Review of Case That Will Gut the Federal Bureaucracy

 

In the biggest news to come out of the Supreme Court of the United States since Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Court has granted a review of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo.

 

In its deliberations, the court will deal with the question of whether to overrule the infamous Chevron Doctrine, a ’70s-era precedent that granted broad powers to the bureaucratic state to interpret vague, often narrow statutes with near zero accountability.

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/05/01/scotus-grants-review-of-case-that-will-gut-the-federal-bureaucracy-n739579

 

 

 

 

Because that which they do not control they must destroy

[B-Man]

"The Supreme Court on Monday said it would take up a case that could do away with a decades-old precedent that tells judges to defer to federal agencies..."

 

"... when interpreting ambiguous federal laws, a deference long targeted by conservatives concerned about the power of the administrative state. As the Supreme Court has become more conservative, the justices have grown less likely to defer to federal agencies under the 1984 precedent in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. But lower courts are bound to rely on the precedent because the Supreme Court has never officially renounced it. A split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit used the Chevron doctrine in deciding the case the Supreme Court added to its docket Monday: whether [the National Marine Fisheries Service] can force herring fishermen off the coast of New England to [pay the salaries of the] federal monitors [that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires them to make room for on board]...."

 
Writes Robert Barnes in "Supreme Court accepts case that challenges authority of federal agencies/Conservatives have long wanted to overturn the precedent known as the Chevron doctrine" (WaPo).

 

 

.

[Cinga]

11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

"The Supreme Court on Monday said it would take up a case that could do away with a decades-old precedent that tells judges to defer to federal agencies..."

 

"... when interpreting ambiguous federal laws, a deference long targeted by conservatives concerned about the power of the administrative state. As the Supreme Court has become more conservative, the justices have grown less likely to defer to federal agencies under the 1984 precedent in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. But lower courts are bound to rely on the precedent because the Supreme Court has never officially renounced it. A split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit used the Chevron doctrine in deciding the case the Supreme Court added to its docket Monday: whether [the National Marine Fisheries Service] can force herring fishermen off the coast of New England to [pay the salaries of the] federal monitors [that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires them to make room for on board]...."

 
Writes Robert Barnes in "Supreme Court accepts case that challenges authority of federal agencies/Conservatives have long wanted to overturn the precedent known as the Chevron doctrine" (WaPo).

 

 

.

 

This is going to be interesting to watch, not because I'm under any illusion they will overturn every non-Congressional regulation, but it is going to be fun because that is certainly what they should do. 

[IDBillzFan]

Just a reminder as we watch the left try to destroy SCOTUS.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

[Ann]

 

[B-Man]

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

52 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

I love the argument that many are making that this Supreme Court was legislating by overturning Roe, which was the law.

 

Roe was a SCOTUS decision.  So...the were legislating when they decided that?  But they can't "legislate" now overturning the decision?  Basically, you're simultaneously celebrating "legislation from the bench" while decrying it...based solely on whether or not you agree with the decision...and you're wrong in both cases anyway?

 

&#%$ing stakeheads.  

[Koko]

58 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

I love the argument that many are making that this Supreme Court was legislating by overturning Roe, which was the law.

 

Roe was a SCOTUS decision.  So...the were legislating when they decided that?  But they can't "legislate" now overturning the decision?  Basically, you're simultaneously celebrating "legislation from the bench" while decrying it...based solely on whether or not you agree with the decision...and you're wrong in both cases anyway?

 

&#%$ing stakeheads.  

 

These people are all for a free and independent judiciary, just so long as that free and independent judiciary rules in their favor at all times. Otherwise, they're literally Hitler who should be cancelled.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Y'know, absolutely none of this would be going on if just ONE person was able to convince RBG to retire while Obama was in his second term.

 

This is purely speculation on my part, but I have to believe she was SO convinced Hillary would win, she opted to wait so Hillary could appoint her replacement.

 

As we say in sales, you don't have the PO until it's physically in your hand. Or as (I believe) Vin Scully said "Never say 'it's outta here' until it's outta here."

 

Now they face a conservative SCOTUS for years. Or at least until they can get someone from their base to kill one of the conservative judges, which seems to be part of their plan.

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Y'know, absolutely none of this would be going on if just ONE person was able to convince RBG to retire while Obama was in his second term.

 

This is purely speculation on my part, but I have to believe she was SO convinced Hillary would win, she opted to wait so Hillary could appoint her replacement.

 

As we say in sales, you don't have the PO until it's physically in your hand. Or as (I believe) Vin Scully said "Never say 'it's outta here' until it's outta here."

 

Now they face a conservative SCOTUS for years. Or at least until they can get someone from their base to kill one of the conservative judges, which seems to be part of their plan.

Hillary as Pres was a done deal.

 

convinced the Rs literally stole Wisconsin by using the same D tactics

probably overrode the Dominion machines

 

Remember Wisconsin was so much a lock, Hillary didn't bother to visit, even for just appearance sake

 

tis why the shock and outrage was so severe

 

[Ann]

The left despises him because he is a conservative African-American
 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

23 minutes ago, Ann said:

The left despises him because he is a conservative African-American
 

 

 

Reminder:  "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

 

Democrats do not recognize conservatives as anything but conservatives.  If you're a conservative, you're not black, gay, a woman, Hispanic, or anything else.  You're just a Nazi.

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]