All Things SCOTUS

GATTACA!

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,104
Reaction score
12,943
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,577
Reaction score
20,031
And Dems were crying foul when she was selected. lol

From what I read, it would take two on the conservative side to rule in favor of paying off the loans. They would need someone else along with Barrett. Didn't sound like that was going to happen, but who knows. Chief Justice Roberts noted that this is probably something that should go through Congress and not be made by an agency.
 
drayer54

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,379
Reaction score
5,805
I’d rather investigate Demand Justice and the dark money used to influence the most recent retirement and nomination.
 
Cackalacky2.0

Cackalacky2.0

Specimen
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
8,018
Irish#1 said:
And Dems were crying foul when she was selected. lol

From what I read, it would take two on the conservative side to rule in favor of paying off the loans. They would need someone else along with Barrett. Didn't sound like that was going to happen, but who knows. Chief Justice Roberts noted that this is probably something that should go through Congress and not be made by an agency.
Click to expand...
Eh one line of questioning on one case doesn’t a dessent make. We will see where they land.
 
drayer54

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,379
Reaction score
5,805
Cackalacky2.0 said:
Eh one line of questioning on one case doesn’t a dessent make. We will see where they land.
Click to expand...
Prob looking for the original constitutional provision not to pay back an accepted debt or the right of the President to unilaterally grant expensive favors to his preferred class. Both seem very constitutional.
 
Cackalacky2.0

Cackalacky2.0

Specimen
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
8,018
drayer54 said:
Prob looking for the original constitutional provision not to pay back an accepted debt or the right of the President to unilaterally grant expensive favors to his preferred class. Both seem very constitutional.
Click to expand...
Eh that’s not the only thing that matters when making determinations on standing and application of existing laws. If you read her questioning and one of the other justices questioning that is clear. The HEROES law and many many others like it give undefined discretion out of ease to be utilized. It’s undefined by intent by both parties. Defining the extent of these is the point of this lawsuit.
 
drayer54

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,379
Reaction score
5,805
Cackalacky2.0 said:
Eh that’s not the only thing that matters when making determinations on standing and application of existing laws. If you read her questioning and one of the other justices questioning that is clear. The HEROES law and many many others like it give undefined discretion out of ease to be utilized. It’s undefined by intent by both parties. Defining the extent of these is the point of this lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Don't worry. Clarence will help clear it up for you in a few months.
 
Cackalacky2.0

Cackalacky2.0

Specimen
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
8,018
drayer54 said:
Don't worry. Clarence will help clear it up for you in a few months.
Click to expand...
He was one of the ones I was talking about. His line of questioning wasn’t particularly convincing to me. The lawyers responses I thought were pretty good. He was focused on the rights of the state but wasn’t really accepting that the state had literally written down the entity they are claiming is being harmed is not a state entity but a private one which the state deals with. ACBs point was that this entity is the one that should be bringing the suit not the state.
 
NorthDakota

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,695
Reaction score
5,995
Irish#1 said:
Except this isn't the first time she's tilted to the left.
Click to expand...
Standing is historically a conservative legal issue, not a liberal one. <--- liberal legal theory will look for any excuse to allow someone in the courtroom.

There is a reason the administration has tried everything under the sun to use standing to keep this loan cancellation stuff out of court. That tells you a lot about what their own attorneys think about their actual legal position.
 
IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
Yeah nothing is going to come of this, but still pretty crazy:
 
Cackalacky2.0

Cackalacky2.0

Specimen
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
8,018
IrishLax said:
Not really, it’s a black and white ethics violation. And it’s potentially a crime.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS doesn’t have a code of ethics though. They should like all other judges in the land but they don’t. His wife is a literal political activist who participated in Jan6 and they do this kind of stuff too. No accountability. I mean I’ll probably get made fun of for saying this but the SCOTUS judges must be beyond reproach with no credibility issues. They must be held to higher than the highest standards of conduct. Their decisions impact 330million people. As of now they operate on the honor system.

Why would the only group of people who could institute the code of ethics do this to themselves when they so clearly profit off it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top