Reply With Quote
Sotomayor: "Given its conduct in these proceedings, the Government’s posture resembles that of the arsonist who calls 911 to report firefighters for violating a local noise ordinance."
Sotomayor: "Given its conduct in these proceedings, the Government’s posture resembles that of the arsonist who calls 911 to report firefighters for violating a local noise ordinance."
SCOTUS is exposing thousands of people to the risk of death, slavery and torture in holes they're not from
seems rather disproportionate to what in most cases is an administrative violation
Sotomayor put it better than me
plaintiffs respond
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...04.174.0_1.pdf
So im still working so i haven't been able to pay much attention to things, but did the Supreme Court just bring back the slave trade?
it's all about backing Trump
We're in uncharted territory with this SCOTUS. They're making decisions--without regard to precedent, without regard to norms, without regard to justice, without regard to the impact on the rule of law in the U.S., without regard to consequences, and very often with a complete lack of transparency.
while the case moves through the courts
with no due process there's no guarantee citizens will be able to prove they're citizens so, while I'm not a lawyer, I think maybe the court just ruled they can send anyone they want anywhere they want.
lower court moves with alacrity
Judge Murphy says the 8 men in Djibouti on their way to South Sudan WILL GET THE DUE PROCESS he previously ordered, saying that his remedial order remains in effect despite the Supreme Court's unreasoned order lifting the stay on his class-wide injunction.https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfrie.../3lsctgmsmoc24
Here's the remedial order that Judge Murphy says was not properly before the Supreme Court and which is therefore still in effect
Judge Murphy's order was foreshadowed in Sotomayor's dissent
SCOTUS destroying the authority of district courts is way radical...one might even say revolutionary
maga scotus s
also, one of the 27 grievances in the Declaration of Independence
sending people overseas without trial was one of the reasons we pink-slipped King George
I keep remembering the 1679 habeas corpus act. It reacted to the king arresting people & without trial deporting them. It began: “for prevention of imprisonment beyond seas.”Without explanation, our current SCOTUS majority is undoing centuries of justice.
lol
the unsigned, unargued ruling left room for the district court to issue a new order. had the majority bothered to rebut Sotomayor they could have forestalled this.
maybe the majority should have explained what it meant, idk just spitballing here...the briefing was complete as of June 5, it's not like they didn't have time to write something
lol, you have no ing clue what you are talking about. "left room" No you ing idiot, a district judge ignored a SCOTUS ruling and used the dissent to issue his ruling. For as much whining as you've done about muh Judicial Crisis it's amazing that when there actually is one you not only get it wrong but stupidly cheer it on.
TSAnon the driveling fascist
Winehole fell for it again
from co-equal sovereign to super-legislature
https://data4democracy.substack.com/...is-at-war-withThe conservative majority knows exactly what it's doing. These same justices would never have allowed a Democratic administration to take similar actions, like abolishing federal agencies by executive order or federalizing national guards without state approval and deploying the military against peaceful protesters. Yet when Trump bulldozes through cons utional limits, the Court waves him on.
We are witnessing something without precedent: a Supreme Court that appears to be at war with the federal judiciary's core cons utional function. It has chosen to bless the administration's actions, and in doing so, systematically dismantles the authority of any court that stands in its way. The courts can't protect the Cons ution because the Supreme Court won't let them. The Supreme Court has chosen a side, and it isn’t the rule of law.
This is Medina
The question was whether South Carolina can defund Planned Parenthood by withholding Medicaid funds
SCOTUS ruled it can, below is the beginning of Justice Jackson's dissent
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...pg.pdf#page=43JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was an exercise in grand ambition. It had to be. In the wake of the Civil War, the American South was consumed by a wave of terrorist violence designed to disenfranchise and intimidate the country’s newly freed citizens and their allies. The threat was existential—not just for the newly liberated, but for democracy itself—and required bold intervention. It was precisely because the goals of the 1871 Act were so ambitious that those most committed to the structures it targeted, including many in South Carolina, opposed the measure so vehemently.
A century and a half later, the project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws continues. In this latest chapter, South Carolina urges our Court to adopt a narrow and ahistorical reading of the 1871 Act’s first section, which is codified today at 42 U. S. C. §1983. That venerable provision permits any citizen to obtain redress in federal court for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Cons ution and laws” of the United States. South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that 2 MEDINA v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC JACKSON, J., dissenting the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors. The Court abides South Carolina’s request. I would not. For that reason, I respectfully dissent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
