So far today, the Supreme Court has overruled Chevron, a 40-year-old precedent, in order to reduce the power of federal agencies; and decided the Department of Justice can't try January 6 protesters for obstructing an official proceeding. All that's left is for them to decide that Donald Trump has immunity to prosecution.
That would be a bridge too far, even for them, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?
the whole point of Jan 6 was to stop an official proceeding, which they would have done if they could have lynched pence or killed (face it) Pelosi.
That Roberts did not make Thomas recuse from the J6 case says all that needs to be said given Ginni's role in the lead up to and on that day.
They also criminalized being homeless
Because the cruelty is the point
I did like this decision. Because housing the homeless in jails or transporting them via stock cars to the nearest homeless internment camp to be built in the middle of nowhere will be much cheaper than just letting them erect tents on public property. And it's obviously What Would Jesus Do to get all the "Catholics" on SCOTUS onboard.
I said this the other day but, the entire Republican philosophy hinges around wealth being the arbiter of good and bad. If you have money, you are therefor good, if you don't it's your own damn fault and you are therefor bad.
If you follow that logic it leads you to:
Poor people need a boot to the ass to get them to straighten up.
If you feed the animals, it makes them dependent and unable to take care of themselves.
If you are white and poor, it's because illegal immigrants are taking all the jobs.
If you are homeless, it's because illegal immigrants are taking all the housing.
If you are have been the victim of a property crime, it's because soft lefties won't lock up criminals.
Argue all you want, but somewhere around 50% of the country believes this.
It's the Prosperity Gospel.
If you got something, it because you are good. If you’ve got nothing it’s because you are bad.
Republicans believe in the “Santa doctrine “.
I would rephrase the second line: "If they've got nothing, it's because they're bad."
Under this doctrine, if *you've* got nothing, it's the fault of [pick your favorite target from Trump's list].
"Criminalized being homeless"? Not exactly. They said it was ok for municipalities to criminalize homelessness (specifically sleeping outside) and the 8th Amendment can't be used as an argument against it.
Anyhow, the old saying needs revision now: The rich and the poor have an equal right to be arrested for sleeping under bridges.
Jesus, what the hell is Kevin smoking out there in Orange County?
Can you elucidate this?
congress is in gridlock so alito's crew is going full-bore power grab
they'll do what they want and no one is going to stop them
Oh, I am sure we will see a sternly written letter from Durbin some point today.
He's away getting a hip replacement after the knee surgery & will be out for a while.
well, his staff issued this then
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/durbin-statement-on-supreme-court-ruling-in-chevron-deference-cases-failure-of-justice-thomas-to-recuse
Chevron was dead anyways, due to the Court creating the "Major Questions" doctrine: IE, "If the Court majority wants to overrule something, they just claim that it's a Major Question and Congress wasn't specific enough in its legislation to justify the administrative decision under it". This just means they don't have to bother with that figleaf - any judge can strike down an administrative regulation or ruling on the grounds that it supposedly violates the law that authorized it. As the dissent points out, it's a huge power grab by the Judicial Branch against the legislature and executive.
I really do not think they'll take a maximalistic stance of Trump's immunity claims. If they do issue a ruling other than a negative one, it will probably be a Roberts-esque attempt at an extremely narrow ruling that supposedly shouldn't create precedent for the idea that Presidents can commit crimes with impunity.
Other big ruling is that they overturned a lower court ruling a few years back that limited the power of cities to use police to drive out homeless people under threat of fines and prosecution. Not great for those folks, but good for people who despise seeing homeless people camping in public parks and so forth. I remember a former cop talking about how they used to clear out vagrants - you hit them with warrants that are area-limited, so if they stay out of the area in question they won't be arrested.
EDIT: That said, if Congress was dealing with a troublesome Court and wanted to avoid having them overruling administrative decision-making, they could pull an Ex Parte MCCardle and outright strip the Court of jurisdiction over that particular case. The Court could push back on that, but then Congress and the President could use it as a reason to ignore their pushback.
So...
Let's assume for the moment that the court grants the President immunity for life on Monday.
Does that mean that Biden should round up Trump and his cohorts later that day? That's what immunity should provide for, right?
Or, let's assume for this moment that the court says no immunity for you, Donald.
What then?
Or, will they just say immunity only applies to Donald Trump? That'd certainly be an extremely narrow ruling.
This all is reading like a comic book plot about now. Will Sylvester Stallone have a lead role in the movie version?
"Does that mean that Biden should round up Trump and his cohorts later that day? "
Well people have been calling on Biden to step down, right? As I understand it, if presidential immunity is confirmed, then Biden could send Seal Team Six after Trump, then immediately resign (avoiding impeeachment and allowing Dems to find a new candidate) and be immune from prosecution. Not saying that's what he should do, but the rules are the rules.
It's time to double the size of the Court and put into place ethical rules that the Court must abide by, subject to being forced to recuse for a whole year.