Supreme Court of the United States

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

17 minutes ago, Ann said:

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>

 

50% of the increase is probably from the Kavanaugh confirmation alone.

[Fansince88]

7 hours ago, Ann said:

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>

I dont think this is an irresponsible request. 

[Hedge]

 

 

[Boyst]

i am truly worried about the safety of these judges. the ramifications could and would alter this country's future more than any president could/can.

 

i truly hope they're kept safe - all of them.

[Ann]

 

[Boyst]

1 hour ago, Ann said:

 

there is no winning outcome of this trial. either we find out that there is free speech on the internet of which is controlled and maintained by private businesses thus enforcing all businesses to accept any/all speech...

or...

the internet is not a free platform and is allowed to make it's own rules and regulations which allows some sites to monopolize or dictate entire events.

[B-Man]

 

Good God.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Good God.

 

 

 

ACB was unimpressive as well from what I heard (though I only heard a few minutes). 

 

It'll be interesting to see how this goes. Big stakes. 

[Deranged Rhino]

55 minutes ago, Boyst said:

there is no winning outcome of this trial. either we find out that there is free speech on the internet of which is controlled and maintained by private businesses thus enforcing all businesses to accept any/all speech...

or...

the internet is not a free platform and is allowed to make it's own rules and regulations which allows some sites to monopolize or dictate entire events.

 

That would be a win, no matter how you slice it. Mainly because we live in an oligarchy at the moment, not a republic, thus anything that limits the powers of the unelected money pulling the strings while empowering the People's voice is a win. 

 

 

[Ann]

 

 

Supreme Court blocks Texas from enforcing controversial immigration law for now

 

The Supreme Court on Monday indefinitely blocked Texas from enforcing an immigration law that would allow state officials to arrest and detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally.

 

The so-called administrative stay will remain in place while the court considers emergency appeals from the Biden administration and others, who want the justices to block enforcement of the law while their legal challenges to it play out. Monday’s order does not include an expiration date for the stay.

 

The order came from Justice Samuel Alito because he oversees matters arising from the appeals court that is currently weighing the case.

 

 

</snip>

[Ann]

SCOTUS Rejects Biden Admin’s Emergency Appeal, Says Texas Can Enforce Immigration Law

 

Texas can enforce a law allowing state authorities to arrest immigrants suspected of crossing the border illegally, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, another development in the complicated battle between the Republican-led state and the Biden administration.

 

The high court voted 6-3 to reject the Biden administration’s emergency request for a stay on the Texas law while litigation continues in lower courts, NBC News reported. All six conservative justices voted to reject the administration’s request, while the three liberal justices dissented.

 

</snip>

 

 

[Ann]

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

 

 

No, they didn't.  They ruled that the 5th is abusing the idea of an "administrative stay" to slow-roll their decision on the case.  The administrative say meant the 5th could keep rescheduling it on the docket, and never hear it.  They're forcing the 5th to hear the case.

 

Once again...people claiming a narrow procedural decision is somehow a vindication of the merits of the case, when it's absolutely nothing of the sort.  Am I the only one that reads the actual decision?

 

EDIT: and for once (probably the first time), I agree with Sotomayor's dissent in principle: immigration law is solely the purview of the federal government, and Texas's SB4 is a state attempt to supersede federal law, which is unconstitutional.  HOWEVER...it shows just how idiotic her and Brown-Jackson are that they're making an inappropriate constitutional argument in dissenting in a procedural decision. 

 

"We can't vacate the say, because the law is unconstitutional" is phenomenally stupid, as it's trying to make a decision on the merits of the case before the 5th Circuit has even heard the case.  You're deciding a case about an administrative stay, not Texas SB4, you lunatics.  It demonstrates how completely unsuited for the SCOTUS these two are.

Edited March 19 by Crap Throwing Clavin

[4merper4mer]

3 hours ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

No, they didn't.  They ruled that the 5th is abusing the idea of an "administrative stay" to slow-roll their decision on the case.  The administrative say meant the 5th could keep rescheduling it on the docket, and never hear it.  They're forcing the 5th to hear the case.

 

Once again...people claiming a narrow procedural decision is somehow a vindication of the merits of the case, when it's absolutely nothing of the sort.  Am I the only one that reads the actual decision?

 

EDIT: and for once (probably the first time), I agree with Sotomayor's dissent in principle: immigration law is solely the purview of the federal government, and Texas's SB4 is a state attempt to supersede federal law, which is unconstitutional.  HOWEVER...it shows just how idiotic her and Brown-Jackson are that they're making an inappropriate constitutional argument in dissenting in a procedural decision. 

 

"We can't vacate the say, because the law is unconstitutional" is phenomenally stupid, as it's trying to make a decision on the merits of the case before the 5th Circuit has even heard the case.  You're deciding a case about an administrative stay, not Texas SB4, you lunatics.  It demonstrates how completely unsuited for the SCOTUS these two are.

The interesting thing here to me is that the Feds have areas where they are the correct level of government to write law, but……what happens when they willfully do not enforce the law they passed?  To me the legislative and judicial branches need to exercise checks and balances over the executive branch to compel enforcement.  Alternatively, if this congress no longer agrees with a law a preceding congress wrote….repeal it.  
 

If there is a law, the exec doesn’t enforce it, the legislature does nothing, then a State or another party with standing should be able to compel enforcement via the courts.  If the courts compel the exec to enforce, the legislature still doesn’t repeal and the exec thumbs their nose, then we don’t really have a nation of laws.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

If there is a law, the exec doesn’t enforce it, the legislature does nothing, then a State or another party with standing should be able to compel enforcement via the courts.  

 

They should.  There was another decision, probably mentioned above, where a court decided the states didn't have standing to sue to compel the federal government to enforce laws...which I thought was very odd, because if the states didn't have standing, who did?

 

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

 If the courts compel the exec to enforce, the legislature still doesn’t repeal and the exec thumbs their nose, then we don’t really have a nation of laws.

 

And we don't.  Have you seen any evidence in the past 12 years that we do?

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

They should.  There was another decision, probably mentioned above, where a court decided the states didn't have standing to sue to compel the federal government to enforce laws...which I thought was very odd, because if the states didn't have standing, who did?

 

 

And we don't.  Have you seen any evidence in the past 12 years that we do?

"lack of standing" is the favorite cop out to avoid hearing cases that would result in a decision contrary to progressive feelings

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

"lack of standing" is the favorite cop out to avoid hearing cases that would result in a decision contrary to progressive feelings

 

Which happened repeatedly to election fraud cases after both the 2020 and 22 elections. I mean if voters or candidates don't have standing, then who the f*** does?

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

"lack of standing" is the favorite cop out to avoid hearing cases that would result in a decision contrary to progressive feelings

 

You're an idiot.

[Fansince88]

On 3/19/2024 at 4:08 PM, Ann said:

 

Yeah, that was all over the news.....well, not really.  I dont watch the news but nobody talked about it so I assume it wasnt. Was it? 

[Cinga]

I wonder if this is what it looks like when shit really hits the fan?