The US Supreme Court and its decisions

Patch

Well-known member
Citizen
You think resorting to violence would work when the opposing side has been ginning itself up over fears about "Antifa," showing up to "peaceful" protests openly carrying firearms, and asking when they get to use them?

These people were willing to hang Mike Pence. Mike Pence.

A better idea would be to realize that what's coming in the next few months can't be stopped, and is going to leave a lot of young women in a very vulnerable place. They're the ones who will need help the most.
 

Rust

Slightly Off
Citizen
Again - everyone has to decide how they choose to respond to the Intruder in their home threatening their lives and futures. That choice is going to be different for everyone, but it's a choice that is going to have to be made.

I for one find myself disinterested in just casually watching the boot come crashing down upon my face.
 

G.B.Blackrock

Well-known member
Citizen
I'm all for suggesting more decisive action, but let me be clear, ANY action I take is going to be toward the reduction of violence, never the promotion of it, whatever the co-existing political agenda.
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
I'm all for suggesting more decisive action, but let me be clear, ANY action I take is going to be toward the reduction of violence, never the promotion of it, whatever the co-existing political agenda.
Their political agenda is to end co-existance.
 

TM2-Megatron

Active member
Citizen
i hate christianity so ******* much.

Because its contemporaries have done such a better job in their attitudes toward women? Religion as a whole is a crock of shit. A few of the ancient ones are at least a bit of fun, since their gods acknowledged being assholes.

This is possibly the fastest the Senate has done anything in my lifetime.

Of course. Because, no matter what they say in their speeches or how they appeal to voters at election time, whether they claim to be "left" or "right" wing (in truth they're neither; their goals are 100% self-serving), their top priority is to preserve their own status and to protect other rich people like them... in their eyes, the only group that genuinely counts in society.

You want something different? You won't be allowed to have it as long as we continue to allow any of them to exist.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
FSaPdITXEAAAtfX
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
Another 5th court decision, and I think the takes on this one might be more accurate, as on reading the decision what I get out of it so far seems to match the Slate reporter.



If this interpretation is accurate, and if this is applied across the board, no regulatory agency(such as the EPA or FDA) can impose any penalties without going through a jury trial first, and it seems like every law is going to have to be exactly worded and interpreted to the letter, even if it makes no sense(which is one of the reasons regulations exist - they explain HOW a given law is enforced). Loopholes galore, and good luck getting congress to fix them. If this gets pushed to the Supreme Court(and it may, if the implications are accurate) given the current makeup I'd expect this to stand.

That's what I and others seem to be getting out of it, anyways. For my part (1) suggests that no regulatory agency can adjucate penalties anymore if a regulation is breached, and will have to bring it before a jury, as the point seems to be that in-house adjucation is unconstitutional. And (2) pretty much says that writing regulations is a legislative action, and Congress must now account for every scenario when writing their laws, rather than delegating it to regulation writers, and only those can be enforced. (3) I can't really say anything about as I don't know what that's referring to.

(And I do have to say that in a vacuum I can see why they'd bring up points 1 and 2, but ignoring that it apparently goes against settled case law according to the dissent, it also relies on Congress actually fully thinking things through and doing their job fully, and introduces a greatly increased workload on the court system, not to mention the fun of trying to explain advanced finance concepts to a jury that doesn't understand them)
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
So... it kinda seems like they're trying to strike down literally all oversight in the US at once.
 

CoffeeHorse

Exhausted, but still standing.
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
This is an interesting one because on one hand the 5th Circuit does have an argument, but on the other hand the practical reality is going to be unworkable. Adjudication should be done by actual courts, but there are not enough courts to possibly handle the workload this is going to create. Congress should do their damned jobs and actually think through the laws they pass instead of relying on agencies to make it so, but they won't.

It's a Trojan Horse of a case if I ever saw one. They're going to blow up our whole regulatory system under the guise of a conceptually better system that will be practically unworkable and leave us with no system at all.
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
I'm wondering how many things we take for granted now are regulations instead of laws, and unenforceable if this stands and is applied to all the other agencies...

I've been discussing it with someone else, and he thinks this is actually a long time coming as it comes down to a) the agencies are not the Courts, b) the agencies are not Congress, so what they had been doing since FDR was technically unconstitutional, but no one called them on it. Apparently his law professor in 2019 was pointing out something like this was going to happen eventually due to that. In a way the whole thing was one big duct tape job trying to keep the wheels on and someone said "fix it properly" after there's several feet of duct tape being the only thing holding it all together, and the people who can fix it would rather argue about what color to paint it or secretly want it broken so they can go home and play video games.

Take this, the Act thing above, rulings like the Abortion thing.. it really feels like as a whole the Federal government is being weakened massively, and states are going to be a LOT more important in the near future.
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
Which, realistically, is a horrible idea. Considering how much... variety, exists in the standards between individual states, and how willing some states are to turn people into chattle and slaves. One overarching standard is pretty much required these days.

If they hand the oversight of... ****, anything... to the states as the end regulator: then the red states will become fuedal kingdoms and toxic wastelands threatening their neighbours.
 


Top Bottom