What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS: sponsored by Harlan Crow

French Rage said:
I think that a trial/conviction of trying to hoard national security documents he illegally took with him will sit heavier with a lot of his potential swing voters than committing financial fraud. Hell, given his history and the mindset of a voter of his, they may be disappointed he hasn't been convicted of more financial fraud. It's still a crime and it's good to have it in writing, but unless he goes to prison, that's more or less what they penciled him in for anyways. Something national security related would be much much more serious; don't get me wrong, it will still only pull of a small fraction of potential voters, since if you're still voting for him at this point your lack of integrity means you're willing to let damn near anything go, but it still might be a little. With the numbers as is, it doesn't have to be half of his voters, maybe just a percentage. But conviction on the documents is an extremely bad look, even for him, and might just be the only thing that moves the meter at this point; so timely movement by the justice system is a necessity.
Click to expand...

Sic will still be on board though.
 
Wow.

Court throws out the Purdue/Sackler opioid settlement 5-4, with Jackson joining the majority and Roberts/ Kavanaugh siding with Sotomayor and Kagan in dissent.

Then 6-3 decision on the SEC case says the SEC needs to go to federal court to seek civil penalties because defendants have a 7th amendment right to a jury trial. That is potentially worse for administrative agencies than losing chevron deference will be. Especially if this gets imputed onto state administrative agencies. Holy shiat.

And then the abortion decision comes out as expected. DIGed.
 
Last edited:
unofan said:
Wow.

Court throws out the Purdue/Sackler opioid settlement 5-4, with Jackson joining the majority and Roberts/ Kavanaugh siding with Sotomayor and Kagan in dissent.
Click to expand...

I haven't tracked down a copy of the case, and haven't really followed it, but is this the gist of it? Purdue is sued by a bunch of states or parties regarding opiods. They file for bankruptcy. As part of the settlement in the bankruptcy, the plaintiff States or other parties get a whole bunch of money, but the individual owners of Purdue, the Sacklers, basically get released from any liability, even though they did not file for bankruptcy. The feds or someone else objects to Sacklers skating. The Supremes agree and say that the bankruptcy court didn't have the authority to basically release the Sacklers from liability, but at a cost that now the plaintiffs won't get the billions from Purdue (at least not yet)?
 
Roberts: because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do

Jesus christ man.
 
One silver lining is he clarified:

Roberts notes that today's decision does "not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful--including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself--are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology."
Click to expand...
 
If the courts can't rule on statutory ambiguities in a reasonable timeframe, I think that's clear that we need to increase the size of benches across the board, top to bottom. Opinions should be heard and decided within a month, not six. Because we're about to have a flood of lawsuits and the courts are NOT setup to be regulatory agencies.
 
I shouldn't be shocked by grants pass, but I am nonetheless. They're literally going down the path of "the law in all its majesty prevents the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges."

I get that homelessness is a huge problem in the west, but that saying isn't supposed to be taken as a "how to" manual.

From the executive summary of the opinion (which I know is not the opinion itself, but still): "Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building."

For fuck's sake.
 
Handyman said:
Today is the last day of session right? Or did they announce an extension?
Click to expand...

There's still 5 or so opinions outstanding (social media cases, jan 6th, trump), so there will be more next week.

There will be at least one more today, either from Roberts or per curium. Kagan is still reading from her dissent in the Chevron case.

Jan 6th convictions out. 6-3, overturned. Barret dissents, joined by Kagan and Sotomayor.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm fine with the Grants Pass decision if it finally motivates overpopulated western cities to crush well-heeled NIMBYs and build enough homeless shelters and low income housing.

*snort* Yeah, right. That'll be the day. :rolleyes:
 
Fuck me... 6-3 for Fischer and jackson joined the majority while barrett dissents with sotomayor and kagan.

What on earth?

The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.
Click to expand...
 
unofan said:
Jan 6th convictions out. 6-3, overturned. Barret dissents, joined by Kagan and Sotomayor.
Click to expand...

The shocking thing to me is that the court said that the insurrectionists didn't intend to obstruct the proceedings. Which I can't even imagine how they managed to twist themselves into that knot-thought. They weren't there to protest, they were there to murder members of the house and the VP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top