Supreme Court of the United States

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

@Deranged Rhino... interesting, questioning seemed to me as if they might give it to CO as a state right even though the 14th is in the Constitution

 

Maybe, we'll see. It sure sounded like it was going to be 8-1/9-0 kind of decision. But I could be off. I only caught bits and pieces while on my run today (and am now playing catch up)  

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Cinga]

48 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

On all these, particularly this one questioning to me seemed to be trying their best to give the benefit of doubt to CO. Some of the questions you could even say were leading, setting up for a favorable answer.

Guess I focused too much on the questions and not the answers 

[Foxx]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

So... If anyone calls for electors to not certify... INSURECTION!!!!
amiright??

 

[Billsandhorns]

59 minutes ago, Foxx said:

So... If anyone calls for electors to not certify... INSURECTION!!!!
amiright??

 

Are they republican? 

[IDBillzFan]

Late Night "Comedian" Hates Black People.

 

 

[Billsandhorns]

14 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

Late Night "Comedian" Hates Black People.

 

 

Isn't attempting to bribe a public official a crime? 

[Cinga]

2 hours ago, Billsandhorns said:

Isn't attempting to bribe a public official a crime? 

 

Only if your a Republican

[Ann]

 

 

[Foxx]

The SC is supposed to issue a ruling today at 10 am. Will it be the Colorado case?

[Ann]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

The SC is supposed to issue a ruling today at 10 am. Will it be the Colorado case?

Yes It was unanimous
 

 

[Ann]

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, Ann said:

 

 

As of this morning, my project (and many, many others) are under "no changes" restrictions that are commonly put in place for major disasters.

I'm honestly wondering if it's because of the possibility of demonstrations related to this decision.

[Hedge]

One take:

 

 

[devnull]

My guess what MSNBC coverage is gonna be

 

 

[Cinga]

For the record, I pointed out early on in the entire 14th movement that Section 5 of the 14th only gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the Amendment and that is the biggest part of the SCOTUS decision here.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

 

Quote

 

All nine Members of the Court agree with that result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it. See post, Part I (joint opinion of SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.); see also post, p. 1 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it. These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices. But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

It is so ordered.

 

 

 

Edited March 4 by Cinga

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

It is important to remember, overall, that the politics are not the person...

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

[Ann]

Supreme Court wants $19.4 million in new funds to protect the justices and their homes

 

The Supreme Court has asked Congress for an extra $19.4 million for security to deal with “evolving risks” and a change in how the justices’ homes are protected, according to the office that administers the federal courts system.

 

The office’s 2025 budget request for the Supreme Court includes 33 new positions to boost protection for the nine justices as threats against the judiciary have increased in recent years.

 

“Ongoing threat assessments indicated that there are evolving risks that require continuous protection,” the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts wrote in its request to Congress.

 

Increased funds are also needed to allow the Supreme Court Police to take over around the clock protection of the justices’ residences from the U.S. Marshals Service, the office said.

 

</snip>