The US Supreme Court and its decisions

Ungnome

Grand Empress of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
I look at it this way... These are judges, members of the Judicial branch. I'm sure they aren't too happy about the legislative branch usurping power from them(even if it IS on a state level). Not much congress can do, especially a split congress, to them outside of changing the number of justices or impeaching them.
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
EmkIXAk.jpeg

Tl;Dr Means file on time or depend on someone to do it for you before your mind slips. Normal length: They denied 30 years of retroactive disability because the victim of the multiple incapacitating (physically and mentally) ailments did not file within the year. However, in all fairness, he didn't just wake up with the ailments so could have filed on time. - they reasoned. They ignored that he could not just imagine the ailments when filing either, that would be fraud. By the time he knew of the disability he was mentally dependent on others - they heard Regardless, he should have filed as soon as he was diagnosed with an ailment that disabled him. Passing the duty of filing to the Doctors of the same agency that caused his ailment. The military. Welcome to the new USSC, where a mentally ill patient has to have the mental capacity to know AND file for disability or depend on those causing the disability to do so. All that "support vets" campaign is just posturing. Although I get why not pay retroactively 30 years of delay. Maybe limit it to 10.
 

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
The worst part is that Veterans decision was a unanimous 9-0 so the Liberals either bought into the bullshit reasoning (bad) or didn’t want to use whatever capital they have to fight a wrong decision (also bad!)
 

G.B.Blackrock

Well-known member
Citizen
The worst part is that Veterans decision was a unanimous 9-0 so the Liberals either bought into the bullshit reasoning (bad) or didn’t want to use whatever capital they have to fight a wrong decision (also bad!)
Or maybe 30 years really is too long a time to bring a claim to the court? This isn't some conspiracy.
 

MrBlud

Well-known member
Citizen
30 years even if the delay was BECAUSE of their disability or otherwise beyond their control.

That’s jive.
 

G.B.Blackrock

Well-known member
Citizen
30 years even if the delay was BECAUSE of their disability or otherwise beyond their control.

That’s jive.
I'm not going to say that the one-year limit is the right one, but 30 years is ridiculously long. Court cases aren't primarily about the precedent they set. They're about the case in front of them. 30 years is far too long.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen

A panel of judges on an exceedingly reactionary federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that the federal law prohibiting individuals from “possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order” is unconstitutional.

Under Judge Cory Wilson’s opinion in United States v. Rahimi, people with a history of violent abuse of their romantic partners or the partners’ children now have a Second Amendment right to own a gun, even if a court has determined that they are “a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child.”
 

Patch

Well-known member
Citizen

One of the lawsuits, Department of Education v. Brown, was filed by borrowers who hold student loans. Myra Brown sued because her student loans are through private entities rather than the government, and she would get no relief under the current plan. Alexander Taylor, the other plaintiff, is mad because he would only get $10,000 forgiven rather than $20,000, as he didn’t have a Pell Grant.

These are not random scrappy ex-students. Instead, they’re carefully-curated conservative plaintiffs represented by a famous high-profile conservative law firm, Consovoy McCarthy, that has worked with students suing to overturn affirmative action and also with Trump in some election law cases. They made sure to initially sue in the Northern District of Texas, where Trump appointed six of the 12 judges and George W. Bush appointed four. They were pretty much guaranteed to draw a conservative judge and get a win.

There’s a technical reason that neither of these people should be able to pursue this lawsuit. Plaintiffs need to have standing to bring a case. They must show that they were personally injured, that the defendant caused the injury, and that the defendant is the entity that can fix the injury. But here, the plaintiffs’ proposed fix is that Brown continues to receive no relief, that Taylor gets the $10,000 in relief he is currently eligible for taken away from him, and that 26 million other people get no relief at all.

The solicitor general for the United States, Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of the government, pointed out that the injuries Brown and Taylor complain of are “a complete mismatch” for the relief they seek. That’s because Brown and Taylor are pretending to say they want more student loan forgiveness than the program provides, but what they’re actually asking the Supreme Court to do is to throw out the plan altogether. As Prelogar put it in oral arguments on Tuesday, “Parties cannot go to Court to make themselves and everyone else worse off.”

Things are equally weird, standing-wise, with the other case, Biden v. Nebraska, in which six conservative states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina — sued to block the debt forgiveness program. Their argument? That a giant student loan servicing company, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), is located in Missouri, and if Biden’s loan forgiveness plan sticks, MOHELA’s revenue will go down.

If this will harm MOHELA so much, why didn’t MOHELA sue? Along with the idea that standing requires an injury that can be fixed by the defendant being sued, standing rules also generally prohibit a third party from suing on behalf of another, so the states shouldn’t be here. Further, MOHELA doesn’t appear to have asked the states to pursue this action on its behalf.

...

This might seem arcane or boring, but, as Joe Biden would say, it’s a BFD. The states themselves can’t claim any injury here. Indeed, if the plan were upheld, literally millions of dollars would flow back into state tax coffers as borrowers could spend that $10,000 or $20,000 rather than making student loan payments — the opposite of an injury. Allowing the states to have standing to sue in this instance would enable conservative states to get in the courthouse door anytime, even if they can’t prove they’re being harmed.

 

Ungnome

Grand Empress of the Empire of One Square Foot.
Citizen
Thomas should be impeached over that, but even IF the house were under democratic control, I doubt he would be.
 

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
If I were aiming to write a character who's a cartoonish caricature of a white southern racist, "Harlan Crow" would absolutely be on the list of names that get crossed off for being too obvious.
 

Plutoniumboss

Well-known member
Citizen
"Crow, the billionaire heir to a real estate fortune, has said that he’s filled his property with these mementoes because he hates communism and fascism."

Just like my house is filled with Transformers because I really hate toys.
 

KidTDragon

Now with hi-res avatar!
Citizen
And all the statues of confederate generals are to remind people why we shouldn't have another civil war.
 


Top Bottom