The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on June 30, 2023, 02:03:44 pm
-
Awaiting decision any moment now...
-
Any word on this ruling yet?
-
I'm cautiously optimistic.
-
Any word on this ruling yet?
Discussing
Supreme Court rules in favor of Christian designer in gay wedding website case
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Colorado cannot require an evangelical Christian web designer to provide same-sex wedding websites that she argued was in violation of her conscience.
The court found that the state’s anti-discrimination law violates Lorie Smith’s free speech rights under the First Amendment by demanding that she create same-sex wedding websites if she wants to do so for opposite-sex unions.
The decision narrows states’ ability to apply public accommodation laws to artists, dealing a significant blow to LGBTQ advocates.
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, writing for himself and the court’s five other conservatives.
“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong,” Gorsuch wrote. “Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive.’”
The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4061169-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-christian-designer-in-gay-wedding-website-case/
-
Here we go...
SCOTUS struck down Biden's student loan forgiveness.....waiting more info
-
CNBC Now
@CNBCnow
·
44s
BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Biden's student loan forgiveness plan
-
This is turning out to be a great week. :patriot:
-
The Supreme Court just ruled on Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan
Published Fri, Jun 30 202310:36 AM EDTUpdated Moments Ago
Annie Nova
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, denying tens of millions of Americans the chance to get up to $20,000 of their debt erased.
The justices heard oral arguments at the end of February.
-
The Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that Joe Biden CANNOT unilaterally cancel student loan debt!!!!
-
Lindsey Burke
@lindseymburke
·
4m
Biden's student loan debt amnesty is dead! SCOTUS holds 6-3 that transferring half a trillion dollars from borrowers to all taxpayers is not authorized in HEROES. Huge win for taxpayers and future students!
-
CNBC Now
@CNBCnow
·
44s
BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Biden's student loan forgiveness plan
Cool!
(sorry for my two earlier posts; I was looking at the companion case that was brought by two borrowers; they lost on standing grounds unanimously).
The usual suspects, of course:
Reversed and remanded.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J.,
filed a concurring opinion. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
-
This is turning out to be a great week. :patriot:
Increase security around the Justices ----- now!
-
https://twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1674790357203300353
-
This is turning out to be a great week. :patriot:
Yes, it is.
However, it also means that there is going to be increased pressure to pack the Court to undo these decisions, which we will all have to guard against.
-
The rationale in the decision is going to be very interesting. It's one thing to say that the HEROED act did not authorize the loan forgiveness. That's obviously a very big deal, but it is limited to that one act.
The bigger deal would be if the court found that even if the act did authorize it, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the president. That's a bigger deal that might have a ripple effect in other cases.
-
The rationale in the decision is going to be very interesting. It's one thing to say that the HEROED act did not authorize the loan forgiveness. That's obviously a very big deal, but it is limited to that one act.
The bigger deal would be if the court found that even if the act did authorize it, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the president. That's a bigger deal that might have a ripple effect in other cases.
I don't believe it goes that far. It's primarily a creature of statutory interpretation.
-
Charles C. W. Cooke
@charlescwcooke
·
4m
Biden knew this was illegal. Everyone knew this was illegal. That he tried to do it anyway, in violation of his oath of office, remains a monumental disgrace.
-
I don't believe it goes that far. It's primarily a creature of statutory interpretation.
I guess he's still reading, but you may be right. Roberts tends to prefer his decisions to be narrow, and reaching the second issue is unnecessary if you find the language isn't even in the law itself.
ETA: looks like you're right - delegation issue wasn't discussed.
-
https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1674791602081140738
-
Greg Price
@greg_price11
HAHAHAHAHA Justice Roberts cited Nancy Pelosi in the majority opinion when she said Biden doesn't have the power to cancel student debt.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fz4Mr4ZaQAEi1Lr?format=jpg&name=small)
10:41 AM · Jun 30, 2023
-
Jack Poso 🇺🇸
@JackPosobiec
·
2m
Under this Supreme Court
Roe v Wade = GONE
Affirmative Action = GONE
Student Loan Forgiveness = GONE
Constitutional Carry = SECURED
Business Religious Freedom = SECURED
Say those 4 little words: Thank you, Donald Trump
-
Lavern Spicer 🇺🇸
@lavern_spicer
·
1m
Biden offered to have your college debt cancelled because he knew it would never happen.
Unconstitutional from the start.
The same way they be doing on reparations.
Sit your asses down!
-
Megyn Kelly
@megynkelly
A spectacular day for Donald Trump whose three conservative picks for SCOTUS were integral to the historic decisions yesterday and today. Major feather in his cap and will likely (& rightfully) be touted by his campaign in coming months.
10:46 AM · Jun 30, 2023
-
Charles C. W. Cooke
@charlescwcooke
·
4m
Biden knew this was illegal. Everyone knew this was illegal. That he tried to do it anyway, in violation of his oath of office, remains a monumental disgrace.
Yep. Vote buying, plain and simple, only he knew he wouldn't have to actually pay out.
-
Jack Poso 🇺🇸
@JackPosobiec
·
2m
Under this Supreme Court
Roe v Wade = GONE
Affirmative Action = GONE
Student Loan Forgiveness = GONE
Constitutional Carry = SECURED
Business Religious Freedom = SECURED
Say those 4 little words: Thank you, Donald Trump
And thank you to George H.W Bush, and to George W. Bush, for appointing the other 3 Justices who made up the 6-3 majority in those cases.
Guess we should elect more guys like that, huh?
-
Jack Poso 🇺🇸
@JackPosobiec
·
2m
Under this Supreme Court
Roe v Wade = GONE
Affirmative Action = GONE
Student Loan Forgiveness = GONE
Constitutional Carry = SECURED
Business Religious Freedom = SECURED
Say those 4 little words: Thank you, Donald Trump
Better to say, Thank you Mitch McConnell. Without McConnell, none of the three justices appointed under Trump would have made it to the Court.
-
Better to say, Thank you Mitch McConnell. Without McConnell, none of the three justices appointed under Trump would have made it to the Court.
Exactly...no matter what you think of McConnell he did push these 3 Justices through the Senate.
-
Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
A win on affirmative action
A win on religious liberty
A win on student loans
Liberals are having that kind of day
10:55 AM · Jun 30, 2023
-
Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
A win on affirmative action
A win on religious liberty
A win on student loans
Liberals are having that kind of day
10:55 AM · Jun 30, 2023
Now the real fight begins ......
-
Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions
https://amylhowe.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/ (https://amylhowe.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/)
In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor – a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School who once called herself “the perfect affirmative action baby” – dissented, in an opinion that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor emphasized that the majority’s decision had rolled “back decades of precedent and momentous progress” and “cement[ed] a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society.”
Thursday’s ruling was the latest in a series of challenges to the role of race in university admissions. In both the North Carolina and Harvard cases, the plaintiffs had asked the justices to overrule Grutter. In her opinion for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reaffirmed that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions,” but she warned that race-conscious admissions policies should not last forever. In 25 years, she suggested, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest” in diversity.
Eleven years after the court’s decision in Grutter, a group called Students for Fair Admissions filed the North Carolina and Harvard cases in federal court. The group was founded by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who had also spearheaded a challenge to the admissions policy at the University of Texas at Austin as well as to Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 case that narrowed the Voting Rights Act.
After the lower courts upheld both North Carolina’s and Harvard’s admissions policies, the Blum’s group came to the Supreme Court, where it asked the justices to overrule their decision in Grutter and bar the consideration of race in university admissions altogether. The court that agreed to take up both cases last year was a very different, and much more conservative, court than the one that had upheld the UT-Austin policy seven years before. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the UT-Austin decision, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was succeeded by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
More at link.
-
Exactly...no matter what you think of McConnell he did push these 3 Justices through the Senate.
Especially after he held off Obama on Garland by insisting that the confirmation process take place after the election in 2016, and then moving Barrett forward even though the 2020 election was around the corner. That took a lot of chutzpah, and courage.
-
Brenden Dilley
@WarlordDilley
No, I'm not working this Sunday.
No, I'm not baking you that fu*king cake.
No, I'm not paying your student loans.
Welcome to the real-world lefties!
10:57 AM · Jun 30, 2023
-
Brenden Dilley
@WarlordDilley
No, I'm not working this Sunday.
No, I'm not baking you that fu*king cake.
No, I'm not paying your student loans.
Welcome to the real-world lefties!
10:57 AM · Jun 30, 2023
:thumbsup:
-
Exactly...no matter what you think of McConnell he did push these 3 Justices through the Senate.
. And that is freaking huge.
Also have to give him extra credit for holding up the nomination of Garland. He took a tremendous amount of heat for doing that, and I remember all sorts of conservatives saying with certainty that he would fold at the last minute and give the Democrats their nomination. But he never did.
That decision was the margin of victory in overturning Roe.
McConnell thinks very strategically. He balances the likely response of the voting public with the likelihood of winning on an issue, and how important that issue actually is. That means there are times he gives way on conservative issues because he doesn't believe the political blowback is worth the benefit. That's particularly true when he doesn't believe there is a significant chance of a bill actually being signed into law.
But the Democrats deeply despise him because he ends up being so effective in the long run. What's funny to me is the guy knows how many conservatives despise him for thinking he's wishy-washy in a traitor, but he doesn't care. His goal is to have his conservative a country as we can long-term, and he's willing to take the heat to make that happen.
-
Chuck Schumer
@SenSchumer
·
19m
This disappointing and cruel student debt ruling shows the callousness of the MAGA Republican-controlled Supreme Court.
The fight will not end here.
The Biden administration has remaining legal routes to provide broad-based student debt cancellation.
-
Chuck Schumer
@SenSchumer
·
19m
This disappointing and cruel student debt ruling shows the callousness of the MAGA Republican-controlled Supreme Court.
The fight will not end here.
The Biden administration has remaining legal routes to provide broad-based student debt cancellation.
Chuckie, if student loan forgiveness is such a good thing, then get it enacted in Congress!!!!
-
Joe Concha
@JoeConchaTV
·
26s
One could call this week Joe Biden's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week. And imagine a world without Trump's 2016 victory and the subsequent makeup of the Supreme Court. Elections have consequences, and the GOP nominee would be wise to hammer that point home.
-
Love.. pointing-down
Brenden Dilley
@WarlordDilley
No, I'm not working this Sunday.
No, I'm not baking you that fu*king cake.
No, I'm not paying your student loans.
Welcome to the real-world lefties!
10:57 AM · Jun 30, 2023
-
Better to say, Thank you Mitch McConnell. Without McConnell, none of the three justices appointed under Trump would have made it to the Court.
And, yet.....had McConnell not done his job, it would have been somehow, someway, unquestionably Trump's fault. :laugh:
-
Chuck Schumer
@SenSchumer
·
19m
This disappointing and cruel student debt ruling shows the callousness of the MAGA Republican-controlled Supreme Court.
The fight will not end here.
The Biden administration has remaining legal routes to provide broad-based student debt cancellation.
"Callousness."
Once again, Chucky shows he has no idea of what the Supreme Court's role in our form of government is actually supposed to be.
Arguments regarding "callousness" are properly made to Congress.
-
"Callousness."
Once again, Chucky shows he has no idea of what the Supreme Court's role in our form of government is actually supposed to be.
Arguments regarding "callousness" are properly made to Congress.
:thumbsup:
-
And, yet.....had McConnell not done his job, it would have been somehow, someway, unquestionably Trump's fault. :laugh:
Not in my book. I'm just grateful that the little orange bitch had enough common sense to do what McConnell told him to do.
-
And, yet.....had McConnell not done his job, it would have been somehow, someway, unquestionably Trump's fault. :laugh:
Poor little orange baby. Everybody always picks on him....
McConnell holding the Republican Senate firm to deny Garland's appointment in 2020, and to confirm those three nominees had nothing to do with Trump. That was all McConnell.
The only reason he was able to hold the Senate GOP together was because he called in all the markers he had on people like Murkowski and other RINO senators. Basically, he told the members of that caucus that he had always stuck by them, and this was the time for payback.
That's the reason why he always supports incumbents in the primaries. He views loyalty to members of his caucus as a two-way street that gives him massive leverage when whenever he needs to go to the arm-twisting mat.
-
Poor little orange baby. Everybody always picks on him....
McConnell holding the Republican Senate firm to deny Garland's appointment in 2020, and to confirm those three nominees had nothing to do with Trump. That was all McConnell.
The only reason he was able to hold the Senate GOP together was because he called in all the markers he had on people like Murkowski and other RINO senators. Basically, he told the members of that caucus that he had always stuck by them, and this was the time for payback.
That's the reason why he always supports incumbents in the primaries. He views loyalty to members of his caucus as a two-way street that gives him massive leverage when whenever he needs to go to the arm-twisting mat.
Exactly.
-
Poor little orange baby. Everybody always picks on him....
Trump is receiving near universal recognition and kudos for yesterday's and today's court decisions.
Sure, there are the usual pockets of anti-Trump sentiment, but they're predictable and fleeting.
-
This is turning out to be a great week. :patriot:
And don't forget to thank Donald J. Trump on your way out! :laugh:
-
James Woods
@RealJamesWoods
Regardless of your opinion about the Trump presidency, his mark on the Supreme Court has been extraordinary. Decision after decision has restored a fundamental constitutionalist perspective to our legal landscape. Trump’s agenda either remade or restored America - your choice.
11:57 AM · Jun 30, 2023
-
Trump is receiving near universal recognition and kudos for yesterday's and today's court decisions.
Sure, there are the usual pockets of anti-Trump sentiment, but they're predictable and fleeting.
He always did like to take credit for things he had very little to do with.
-
And, yet.....had McConnell not done his job, it would have been somehow, someway, unquestionably Trump's fault. :laugh:
I think you’re wrong, if McConnell had blown it and not had Trumps picks approved it would be him not Trump blamed.
-
Trump is receiving near universal recognition and kudos....
From his predictably hard core supporters, sure. Wouldn't expect anything else. Although most of those same supporters seemed to have a remarkably different opinions about these same Justices regarding the 2020 election challenges....
That being said, his promise to select nominees based on Federalist Society recommendations was literally the only reason I voted for him in 2016. Also think there was nothing particularly remarkable about his picks given that the three Bush appointees all voted the same way.
-
And don't forget to thank Donald J. Trump on your way out! :laugh:
He deserves much of the credit.
-
Exactly...no matter what you think of McConnell he did push these 3 Justices through the Senate.
And kept a seat from being filed with Merrick Garland. The fact that the phrase "Associate Justice Merrick Garland" does nooto apply to realtity and only belongs to some alternate universe should be enough to earn McConnell the gratitude of all American conservatives.
-
And kept a seat from being filed with Merrick Garland. The fact that the phrase "Associate Justice Merrick Garland" does nooto apply to realtity and only belongs to some alternate universe should be enough to earn McConnell the gratitude of all American conservatives.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
And don't forget to thank Donald J. Trump on your way out! :laugh:
By the way, isn't this the exact same Supreme Court (other than switching out Breyer for KBJ...) that rejected all of Trump's election challenges in 2021?
-
From his predictably hard core supporters, sure. Wouldn't expect anything else.
The acknowledgement and credit are coming from more than supporters of Trump. Venture beyond anti-Trump bubbles and discover this for yourself. Prepare to be surprised.
-
The acknowledgement and credit are coming from more than supporters of Trump. Venture beyond anti-Trump bubbles and discover this for yourself. Prepare to be surprised.
Simply McConnell following Reagan's advice: one can get a lot accomplished if one does not care who gets the credit.
McConnell is responsible for the current Court and the justices on it; Trump is not, except in the almost meaningless sense that he rubber-stamped what he was told to do. He can claim all the credit he wants; that doesn't make him resonsible for the makeup of the Court.
-
Simply McConnell following Reagan's advice: one can get a lot accomplished if one does not care who gets the credit.
McConnell is responsible for the current Court and the justices on it; Trump is not, except in the almost meaningless sense that he rubber-stamped what he was told to do. He can claim all the credit he wants; that doesn't make him resonsible for the makeup of the Court.
I agree it says absolutely nothing about the primaries. It is an argument (in my opinion, the only one) for voting for him in the general election in 2024.
-
Now the real fight begins ......
Well, all the offended still have two months of hot summer to burn down neighborhoods, and the power grid is shaky enough with more demand than ever...
-
I agree it says absolutely nothing about the primaries. It is an argument (in my opinion, the only one) for voting for him in the general election in 2024.
What? That he follows orders from McConnell? That's a reason for voting for him?
The only reason I can see for voting for him would be if the GOP was stupid enough to nominate him for the general, because at that point, better a twit like Trump than an epic disaster like Biden or any other democrat.
-
What? That he follows orders from McConnell? That's a reason for voting for him?
The only reason I can see for voting for him would be if the GOP was stupid enough to nominate him for the general, because at that point, better a twit like Trump than an epic disaster like Biden or any other democrat.
Well, that's why I said it was an argument for voting for him in the "general election" in 2024....
-
Well, that's why I said it was an argument for voting for him in the "general election" in 2024....
Ok; fair enough. Although I wouldn't really call it voting for him so much as voting against the democrat.
-
Poor little orange baby. Everybody always picks on him....
McConnell holding the Republican Senate firm to deny Garland's appointment in 2020, and to confirm those three nominees had nothing to do with Trump. That was all McConnell.
The only reason he was able to hold the Senate GOP together was because he called in all the markers he had on people like Murkowski and other RINO senators. Basically, he told the members of that caucus that he had always stuck by them, and this was the time for payback.
That's the reason why he always supports incumbents in the primaries. He views loyalty to members of his caucus as a two-way street that gives him massive leverage when whenever he needs to go to the arm-twisting mat.
I think it is more basic than that. If either side of the aisle lets the government go full-on totalitarian, one side or the other will be picking up rifles.
Keeping the swamp going is ultimately about balance.
Even small steps down the road to totalitarianism are just fine with a public that has been trained to forget yesterday among the use-and-discard life they lead, but too big of a step will rile even the most somnolent masses.
With a future of Democrat legislative power and likely the White House, too, the SCOTUS is all that's left to put the brakes on and avoid the sort of overstep that would have the peasants storming the Bastille.
Democrats around Power go into a feeding frenzy, so something had to be done.
-
That's the reason why he always supports incumbents in the primaries. He views loyalty to members of his caucus as a two-way street that gives him massive leverage when whenever he needs to go to the arm-twisting mat.
Apparently he really liked Incumbent Mark Kelly in Arizona. That might explain why he screwed Blake Masters over and handed Senate control over to Schumer.
-
Simply McConnell following Reagan's advice: one can get a lot accomplished if one does not care who gets the credit.
McConnell is responsible for the current Court and the justices on it; Trump is not, except in the almost meaningless sense that he rubber-stamped what he was told to do. He can claim all the credit he wants; that doesn't make him resonsible for the makeup of the Court.
:mauslaff:
-
:mauslaff:
As long as the little orange bitch does what he's told by people who actually know how to lead, things get done. I know you hate that fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.
-
Apparently he really liked Incumbent Mark Kelly in Arizona. That might explain why he screwed Blake Masters over and handed Senate control over to Schumer.
Top notch.
-
By the way, isn't this the exact same Supreme Court (other than switching out Breyer for KBJ...) that rejected all of Trump's election challenges in 2021?
And your point is....???
Stop pissing in the punch bowl.
-
Simply McConnell following Reagan's advice: one can get a lot accomplished if one does not care who gets the credit.
McConnell is responsible for the current Court and the justices on it; Trump is not, except in the almost meaningless sense that he rubber-stamped what he was told to do. He can claim all the credit he wants; that doesn't make him resonsible for the makeup of the Court.
Don't be a jerk.
If Donald Trump didn't beat Hillary Clinton, McConnell wouldn't even be in the argument.
-
Don't be a jerk.
If Donald Trump didn't beat Hillary Clinton, McConnell wouldn't even be in the argument.
Wonderful. That just means that Trump was only instrumentally useful - useful like a rubberstamp, nothing more, and that he is entitled to no more credit than a rubberstamp is for the content of the document on which it leaves its stamp.
Trump was not responsible for this Court's composition, McConnell was, along with the Federalist Society. Trump was nothing more than a tool to be used by McConnell.
-
By the way, isn't this the exact same Supreme Court (other than switching out Breyer for KBJ...) that rejected all of Trump's election challenges in 2021?
:yowsa: Including Texas vs Pennsylvania in which they had original jurisdiction!
Thus driving the final nail in the coffin of this once great republic!
It is also the very same court that just days ago ignored the plain language of the constitution in Moore vs Harper.
-
:yowsa: Including Texas vs Pennsylvania in which they had original jurisdiction!
Thus driving the final nail in the coffin of this once great republic!
It is also the very same court that just days ago ignored the plain language of the constitution in Moore vs Harper.
So does Trump get credit for this being a good Court, or not? Because there are some pro-Trump people doing exactly that right now, though many of the same people were singing a different time as rece.tly as yesterday. Do we respect the decisions they reach, or not?
In my opinion, far too many people look at a case and ask whether the result was fair, just, or right, instead of looking at the case and asking whether or not it was consistent with the applicable law.
Sometimes the law itself just sucks. But good judges should enforce sucky laws just the same as they enforce well written ones. Because deciding which laws are good, in which one suck, is not a determination entrusted to the judicial branch, but rather to the elected branches of our government.
-
So does Trump get credit for this Court, or no? Do we respect the decision they reach, or not?
In my opinion, far too many people look at a case and ask whether the result was fair, just, or right, instead of looking at the case and asking whether or not it was consistent with the applicable law.
So.eti.es the law just sucks. But good judges should enforce sucky laws just the same as they enforce well written ones. Because deciding which laws are good, in which one suck, is not a determination entrusted to the judicial branch, but rather to the elected branches of our government.
:thumbsup:
-
Wonderful. That just means that Trump was only instrumentally useful - useful like a rubberstamp, nothing more, and that he is entitled to no more credit than a rubberstamp is for the content of the document on which it leaves its stamp.
Trump was not responsible for this Court's composition, McConnell was, along with the Federalist Society. Trump was nothing more than a tool to be used by McConnell.
Nope. it means that had if Hillary had won, today, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't exist 'legally' in its present form.
It means that the Court would be 6-3 DEM today.
Keep digging.... :laugh:
-
As long as the little orange bitch does what he's told by people who actually know how to lead, things get done. I know you hate that fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.
Your bitterness is showing, and it's ugly. Just thought you'd like to know.
-
:yowsa: Including Texas vs Pennsylvania in which they had original jurisdiction!
Thus driving the final nail in the coffin of this once great republic!
It is also the very same court that just days ago ignored the plain language of the constitution in Moore vs Harper.
I'd like to know what/who really spooked the hell out of Roberts. @Bigun
-
I'd like to know what/who really spooked the hell out of Roberts. @Bigun
I'd put my money on Obama (and whomever controls him)
-
So does Trump get credit for this being a good Court, or not? Because there are some pro-Trump people doing exactly that right now, though many of the same people were singing a different time as rece.tly as yesterday. Do we respect the decisions they reach, or not?
In my opinion, far too many people look at a case and ask whether the result was fair, just, or right, instead of looking at the case and asking whether or not it was consistent with the applicable law.
Sometimes the law itself just sucks. But good judges should enforce sucky laws just the same as they enforce well written ones. Because deciding which laws are good, in which one suck, is not a determination entrusted to the judicial branch, but rather to the elected branches of our government.
The ONLY thing that matters to me is whether or not what they do is, to the letter, consistent with the United States Constitution as written. @Maj. Bill Martin
-
The ONLY thing that matters to me is whether or not what they do is, to the letter, consistent with the United States Constitution as written. @Maj. Bill Martin
That may be. But plenty others just seem more concerned with whether or not they rule the "right" way.
The other factor to consider is that the Constitution itself isn't perfect. It's got some gaps and ambiguities in it that makes reasonable disagreement possible. Of course, there is plenty of unreasonable disagreement as well.
-
That may be. But plenty others just seem more concerned with whether or not they rule the "right" way.
The other factor to consider is that the Constitution itself isn't perfect. It's got some gaps and ambiguities in it that makes reasonable disagreement possible. Of course, there is plenty of unreasonable disagreement as well.
And, there are plenty of things that, rightly or wrongly, are left up to the other two branches of the government. The so-called "political question" doctrine, for example.
-
Yet another flipflop from Joe.
Biden, 2019: “But why should, in fact, these people out here pay for the fact that my kids had a significant debt, but they went to Yale and they went to Penn and they went – for incredibly high tuitions.” https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1674844381629513737
-
Shannon Bream
@ShannonBream
·
3m
POTUS speaking on GOP opposition to student loan debt forgiveness program says they couldn’t stand the thought of helping the middle class.
Shannon Bream
@ShannonBream
·
1m
Replying to
@ShannonBream
POTUS says #SCOTUS got it wrong today on the forgiveness decision. Announces new plan to forgive debt under a different law.
-
https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/1674872754560987136
-
Sahil Kapur
@sahilkapur
·
21s
Biden says he'll now invoke Higher Education Act to "provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible."
Ed Dept can use it to "compromise, waive or release loans under certain circumstances."
Says it's "legally sound" but will "take longer."
-
Here we go again.
-
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
6m
...President Biden insists that "the hypocrisy is stunning" in failing to write off billions in loans. It is a curious objection in light of this decision. Biden himself (and figures like Speaker Nancy Pelosi) previously indicated that this effort would be unconstitutional.
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
2m
Replying to
@JonathanTurley
...The NEA is focused on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness or the Total and Permanent Disability Discharge and does not reach the full scope of the program.
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
1m
Replying to
@JonathanTurley
...The President just said that the Court "misinterpreted the Constitution." Yet, that also means the Justice Department previously misinterpreted the Constitution as did Pelosi and himself.
-
Philip Melanchthon Wegmann
@PhilipWegmann
·
2m
Biden: "I think the Court misinterpreted the Constitution."
-
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
...The NEA is likely to be a dog that will not hunt for the President if he wants to replicate the current scope of the loan program. It is trying another novel means rather than going back to Congress as contemplated under Article I and Article II.
-
RNC Research
@RNCResearch
·
5h
“People think that the president of the United States has the power for [student loan] debt forgiveness. He does not.” — Nancy Pelosi (July 2021)
-
Biden is a Constitutional scholar so he knows. /s
-
Sahil Kapur
@sahilkapur
·
21s
Biden says he'll now invoke Higher Education Act to "provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible."
Ed Dept can use it to "compromise, waive or release loans under certain circumstances."
Says it's "legally sound" but will "take longer."
What Joe Biden, and many others, proclaim "legally sound" should be taken with very large grains of salt.
-
Michael Stratford
@mstratford
🚨 NEWS: Biden admin will begin regulatory process to enact student debt relief under Higher Education Act, per notice posted today on Ed Dept's website:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/negregpublichearingannouncement.pdf
3:59 PM · Jun 30, 2023
-
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1674875174716416001
-
Since there is a lot of pretend in this Thread, IMHO the Court would be packed to the roof with better Judges than Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsch had we had 6 years of Pres. Cruz, by now.
-
Since there is a lot of pretend in this Thread, IMHO the Court would be packed to the roof with better Judges than Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsch had we had 6 years of Pres. Cruz, by now.
I think the three of them are okay, though I think Gorsuch generally is the best of the three. Like all textualists, though, he comes up with some results that folks just aren't going to like....
-
Huh
Twitter is now requiring I log in to view these posts. Anyone else getting that?
-
Huh
Twitter is now requiring I log in to view these posts. Anyone else getting that?
I was getting that as well.
-
https://twitter.com/WarMachineRR/status/1674872885716951040
-
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1674879817890578433
-
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
The Supreme Court's recent rulings were sadly predictable for anyone who understands the hard-right agenda. Their goal has always been to install Justices whose job is to turn back the clock on our freedoms, on decades of constitutional decisions, and on our continuing struggle to “form a more perfect union” that includes all of us.
Let's vote out their political enablers and rein in the dark, subversive money that supports them in their quest to reverse a century of progress.
-
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
The Supreme Court's recent rulings were sadly predictable for anyone who understands the hard-right agenda. Their goal has always been to install Justices whose job is to turn back the clock on our freedoms, on decades of constitutional decisions, and on our continuing struggle to “form a more perfect union” that includes all of us.
Let's vote out their political enablers and rein in the dark, subversive money that supports them in their quest to reverse a century of progress.
Wow. The lies and bullshit in that statement are unbelievable.
-
RNC Research
@RNCResearch
·
5h
“People think that the president of the United States has the power for [student loan] debt forgiveness. He does not.” — Nancy Pelosi (July 2021)
Prior to the statement...I have never agreed with Pelosi.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fz5exzvX0AInsR-?format=jpg&name=small)
-
BIDEN: "The hypocrisy is stunning!"
Considering Biden agreed with Pelosi (and what the Court said today) not so long ago that the president lacked the authority to dismiss student loan debt, yeah, it's pretty stunning.
-
Mehdi Hasan
@mehdirhasan
43 million Americans who were promised relief by an elected president just got screwed over by an unelected group of justices, half of whom were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote and benefited from a stolen seat.
Yep. It’s all totally fine. Nothing to see here.
11:20 AM · Jun 30, 2023
Brit Hume
@brithume
Being "screwed over" is an interesting way to describe a ruling that requires people who freely took out loans to pay them back, as they promised they would. Not to mention that neither that neither the Constitution nor the law authorized the promised relief.
5:52 PM · Jun 30, 2023
Ah yes, the old "unelected Supreme Court" lament. Can you imagine if they were elected? It would be 2020's utter corruption all over again.
-
Good grief, Trump could of gave us justices that were to the right on two of the three. We have all seen this court wavier on things the rest of us know were unconstitutional. We got lukewarm at best on 2 of the 3. These are no brainer decisions, yet the leftist had no problem pushing to the far left in their decisions.
-
Ah yes, the old "unelected Supreme Court" lament. Can you imagine if they were elected? It would be 2020's utter corruption all over again.
That was a promise Biden didn't have the authority to make. That authority lies with Congress, and Congress refused.
-
Better to say, Thank you Mitch McConnell. Without McConnell, none of the three justices appointed under Trump would have made it to the Court.
Thanks to RBG for not retiring also.
-
Thanks to RBG for not retiring also.
:thumbsup:
-
Clay Travis
@ClayTravis
Make no mistake what happened here: Joe Biden and his advisors knew he didn’t have the power to erase this student loan debt. But they did it right before an election to try and motivate young voter turnout. Now that the court, rightly, struck down Biden’s unconstitutional act, he will blame the court for doing so and try and use that as motivation in 2024.
12:00 PM · Jun 30, 2023
-
Good grief, Trump could of gave us justices that were to the right on two of the three. We have all seen this court wavier on things the rest of us know were unconstitutional. We got lukewarm at best on 2 of the 3. These are no brainer decisions, yet the leftist had no problem pushing to the far left in their decisions.
Keep digging.
Doesn't change the FACT the ruling would have been 6-3 the other way if any Democrat won in 2016. :laugh:
-
Hypothetically @DCPatriot It would have been 7-2 had Cruz been elected. :smokin:
-
I'd like to know what/who really spooked the hell out of Roberts. @Bigun
Apparently there are blackmail issues regarding Roberts' adopted children...I'm surprised he does anything right now.
And thank you for the "top notch" comment above!
-
Hypothetically @DCPatriot It would have been 7-2 had Cruz been elected. :smokin:
Okay... but how did you get the extra vote?
Who we talkin' bout here, Willis?
-
He could sell NFT cards like your buddy.
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.L0OdLzYPovZD9S_ccK0nrQHaEQ?pid=ImgDet&rs=1)
-
Okay... but how did you get the extra vote?
Who we talkin' bout here, Willis?
Two full terms. :shrug:
-
https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/1674922447643246592
-
Apparently there are blackmail issues regarding Roberts' adopted children...I'm surprised he does anything right now.
Ditto. Just a reminder, there are only four Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court. A fifth is a political appointee who will do whatever the GOPe says. And a sixth who is severely compromised, so much so that he reversed his own written opinion on Obamacare midstream. That is the most stunning record of John Roberts - he writes 71 pages on why Obamacare was unconstitutional, and the remaining pages on why he would vote to uphold it.
-
Two full terms. :shrug:
Justice Amul Tharap instead of Ketanji Brown Dumbass would have been nice.