Reply With Quote
The Greenberg Traurig client got Gorsuch's vote 8 out of 12 times.
Both of these guys should be impeached.
The Greenberg Traurig client got Gorsuch's vote 8 out of 12 times.
Dp
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-26-2023 at 02:57 AM.
"I'm buddies with both of them, they're cool."
Conservative jihad against the administrative state.
Hopefully they don't have to make up a novel legal standard out of thin air to overrule the Chevron doctrine, like they did with Dobbs.
they did so in WV v. EPA as well, making up new bull to suit old Republican priorities has been a motif.
Impressive patronage, this whole relationship looks crooked as .
I wonder if Justice Thomas declared any of this on his taxes.
without an accountability mechanism or a functioning sense of shame in Clarence Thomas, nothing is likely to happen.
“Harlan Crow has long been passionate about the importance of quality education and giving back to those less fortunate, especially at-risk youth."
haven't quite reached the bottom yet
GIVE GINNI THOMAS THIS SACK OF CASH, NO FINGERPRINTS
https://www.theonion.com/clarence-th...-th-1850409408Telling critics in Congress that if they wanted serious reform they simply needed to make it worth his while, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas promised Friday he would adopt a code of ethics for the right price. “After hearing out the Senate Judiciary Committee’s concerns, I admit to seeing the wisdom in developing some kind of ethical framework for the Supreme Court, so long as Papa gets some sugar,” the senior associate justice said in a prepared statement, emphasizing that he would be willing to submit to a code of conduct that included ignoring special interests and disclosing private trips if there was some serious coinage thrown his way. “It’s reasonable to believe justices serving on the highest court in the land should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, if only so citizens can have faith in their decision-making process. And if that means so much to lawmakers, they should take whatever donors are giving me every year and double it. Also, in order for me to adhere to some sense of values, Ginni needs to wet her beak.” Thomas suggested he might also support term limits for justices if he was guaranteed a yearly all-expenses-paid trip to the Maldives in retirement.
asking questions about lavish private donations to Supreme Court justices undermines democracy.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...gifts-00095967Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Crapo, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, made it clear Tuesday that he would oppose any efforts to force Crow to provide the information, saying they would “undermine the independence of the Supreme Court and its individual Justices.”
Supreme Court to consider overruling Chevron doctrine
will hear a case that could significantly scale back federal agencies’ authority, with major implications for the future of environmental and other regulations.
The justices next term will consider whether to overturn a decades-old precedent that grants agencies deference when Congress left ambiguity in a statute.
the Chevron deference has become one of the most frequently cited precedents in administrative law since the decision was first handed down in 1984.
It involves a two-step test:
First, judges decide if Congress has in the statute directly spoken to the precise question at issue.
If it is ambiguous, courts defer to agencies as long as their actions are based on a “permissible construction.”
Some of the high court’s conservatives have raised concern about the precedent and how it has expanded the reach of agencies’ authority.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court...evron-doctrine
Of Course, SCOTUS6 s will ovrrule Chevron doctrine
another battle in their neoliberal war of "deconstructing the administrative state".
He followed strict rules as a judge and wants Supreme Court justices to do the same
A growing list of reports spotlighting several Supreme Court justices' lack of disclosure of high-cost gifts, expenses and business dealings — from luxury trips to real estate deals to private school tuition — has prompted many to call for ethics reform at the nation's highest court.
Among them is retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, a widely respected conservative judge who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006.
Luttig was a Supreme Court contender under President George W. Bush and a longtime friend of several conservative justices. He famously sent more than 40 of his clerks — nicknamed "Luttigators" — into Supreme Court clerkships during his tenure, the vast majority of whom worked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.4
submitted a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee for its hearing on Supreme Court ethics last week.
In it, he wrote that Congress "indisputably has the power under the Cons ution" to prescribe ethical standards for the Court,
if it were to fall short of what he described as "the housekeeping that is necessary to maintain a Republic."
"The Supreme Court should want to lead by the example that only it can set," he wrote.
"It should want to conduct itself in its non-judicial activities in all ways such that it is beyond reproach."
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174944642/supreme-court-ethics-michael-luttig-federal-judge
SCOTUS6 knows they are cheap political hacks and don't GAF about USA, democracy, or their own ethics.
They know they are above the law, untouchable
America is ed and un able.
A new Supreme Court case seeks to legalize assault weapons in all 50 states
A case on the Court’s “shadow docket” could strike down state and local bans on AR-15s and similar weapons.
The plaintiffs, which include a gun shop owner and a gun rights group, claim the two statutes violate the Second Amendment.
Should the Supreme Court accept that argument and overturn these laws,
it would have sweeping implications for the entire country.
That decision would need to be followed throughout the entire nation —
which would most likely mean that neither any state nor the US Congress could ban assault rifles or high-capacity magazines.
And there is good reason to fear that this Court could, at the very least, decide to make semiautomatic assault rifles legal throughout the United States.
https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/5/...rett-kavanaugh
My bet is that SCOTUS6 perverts the 2nd Amendment further, ignores 2A textualism totally, and bans bans of AR15/AK7 military weapons.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
