The Roberts Court's remaking of America.

Insuring there is more gun violence (Heller)..........approved.

Putting a woman's pregnancy in the hands of the state (Dobbs)...........approved.

Insuring a return to racial discrimination in college admissions, employment, and voting laws.........approved.

Paving the way for other voter suppression techniques (Crawford)..........approved.

Insuring discrimination based on sexual identity (Hobby Lobby).........approved.

Overturning a century of campaign finance law, sparking the growth of super PACs and dark money in politics (Citizens United).........approved.

Undermining unions by ruling public-employee unions may not collect “fair-share” fees to help pay for the costs of collective bargaining benefiting no-union employees (Janus)......approved.

Insuring continued corruption of elections by holding that issues of partisan gerrymandering are outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts (Rucho)...........approved.

Making it much harder for consumers to file class action lawsuits against corporations (AT&T)...........approved.

In a grotesque act of cruelty, ruling the 8th A does not require that a method of execution be pain free (Glossip)..........approved.

Upheld a president’s ability to discriminate against immigrants based on their religion (Hawaii)...........approved.

Insuring more air pollution by ruling the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA broad authority to limit carbon emissions from power plants (Kennedy)...........approved.

Ruling a violation of the Miranda rule does not provide a basis for a civil rights lawsuit for police abuse (Vega)..........approved.

No Court has done more damage to personal freedom, election law, individual rights, the environment, and democracy.

 

Insuring or ensuring?

 

Kagan Decries Use Of Right-Wing ‘Doctrine’ In Student Loan Decision As ‘Danger To A Democratic Order’

In knocking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, the right-wing Supreme Court majority does more than keep millions of American saddled with debt — it continues to shift enormous power away from Congress and the executive branch to itself.

The majority — “as is becoming the norm,” Justice Elena Kagan narrates in her dissent — relies heavily on the major questions “doctrine,” a theory in vogue in right-wing legal circles. It dictates that when executive branch agencies take action of major “economic and political significance,” they lose the usual judicial deference they enjoy. That standard of significance is wholly in the eye of the beholder — an amorphousness the majority has continually taken advantage of. That has usually translated, in the hands of this conservative Court, into various Biden administration actions meeting their doom.

While the Court often protests that it’s really shifting power back to Congress when it knocks down agency actions, it does so knowing that Congress is usually stalemated by various factors (split party control, the Senate filibuster) that make it extremely difficult for the legislature to pass many major laws.

It also disrupts the usual separation of powers balance: Congress writes broad laws authorizing agencies to deal with issues (letting the Environmental Protection Agency regulate air pollution or the Education Department deal with federal student debt), passing on the responsibility of crafting the specifics to the expert-staffed agencies. But this Court continues to impose itself on that process, deciding that Congress didn’t meet some vague standard of specificity in its delegation and knocking down agency actions it doesn’t like.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kagan-major-questions-roberts-student-debt

After years of complaints from the Right flank accusing the Court of "legislating from the bench," conservatives are not so strangely silent as the Roberts court upsets the balance of power among the 3 branches of government by usurping the power of the executive.

 

A prescient piece from TPM.

The Supreme Court Is Poised To Shift Executive Branch Power To Itself

The Supreme Court conservatives, exuding the heady self-confidence of a team that knows it cannot lose, haven’t been coy about the jurisprudence they want to reshape or tear down.

Religious liberty, abortion, guns — the Court has recently taken up and dispensed with a whole swath of cases at astonishing speeds, often dramatically changing the bench’s long-held posture in relative silence through the shadow docket.

But perhaps on no topic has the Court telegraphed its intent more clearly than the administrative state, the power of federal agencies to regulate and make rules. The dry name belies a system absolutely critical to every corner of American life.

“If I want to dump chemical waste in a swamp, I’d prefer that the federal government not have power to regulate that,” Julian Davis Mortenson, professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told TPM. “If I want to pay people working in my factory a miserably tiny wage, or employ 12 year-olds, I’d rather the federal government not have the power to make a rule against that.”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/supreme-court-administrative-state-agency-power-conservative

 

This one^^^, the biggest threat to voters and to democracy. It's legalized oligarch/corporate corruption of Congress, candidates and political appointees. Transparency be damned.

 

Oh man, that's my favorite part. Get Congress back to having to actually legislate instead of just funding agencies and letting them do what they want with no controls.

Really excited to see Looper Bright Industries v. Raimondo knock some sense into EPA and the renegade "global warming" deep state next year at this time.

 

Regrettably, I've have grown accustomed to the rejection of irrefutable science and conspiratorial nonsense from the Right.

 

That appears to be just the opposite. College admissions were based on race. The SC eliminated that by saying race could not be considered.

It did just the opposite. It said the executive branch could not obligate funds without the approval of congress.

 

Insuring in the U.S. Ensuring in the UK. Same word.

 

Funny isn't it how Trump is getting his policies implemented by the Supreme Court after having survived two Democrat impeachment attempts and all these fake charges being brought by Biden and his lackey Jack Smith.

 

Nope.

 

"Irrefutable science". You're all in on the KoolAid, aren't you?

 

I hold no illusions about the outcome of the case. The conservatives are no doubt chomping at the bit to overturn another precedent, this time the Chevron Deference Principle, which gave deference to the expertise of government agencies. As in all things this court thinks it knows best.

 

No, I just accept the overwhelming evidence and observational proof.

 

No, it's not a commentary on anyone's expertise. It's about making Congress do their jobs- legislating. A concept they abandoned in the mid-60s in favor of the career longevity that not legislating offers them.

If the EPA loses their ability to regulate a non-pollutant like CO2, you and all the other screaming ninnies on the left should be able to pass a proper amendment to the Clean Air Act to restore their authority.

Particularly if it truly is irrefutable science.

Oh, and Federal agencies including EPA are far from experts on anything.

 

So you really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

At least you can admit that they are implementing policy after being hand picked for this purpose. The impartiality of the USSC has been unequivocally destroyed by the party that destroys all they touch.

As two the two bipartisan impeachments, they were both successful and the court cases are winding their way through now so any celebration isn’t grounded in reality.

 

Irrefutable science will not stop Repubs from blocking that kind of legislation if it interferes with the profits of the legacy energy companies that contribute to their campaigns.

 

A "non-pollutant" responsible for an existential threat to our existence.

 

That's how the Congress is intended to work. Keeps stupid people from forcing stupid things on the rest of us.

If it were truly irrefutable, it would be easy for you.

 

Might want to bone up on some junior high school science. The non-pollutant CO2 is responsible for all life on this planet.

 

Democrats are paying a steep price for naming the worst possible candidate for the Presidency in 2016.

Hillary Clinton had an enormous amount of unwanted baggage from her marriage to Bill Clinton, her involvement in the Clinton administration and impeachment, her unpopularity, and, finally, an FBI investigation of her use of a private server containing classified information while she was President Obama's secretary of state. The FBI investigation of her continued throughout most of the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Note: Despite her unpopularity, Clinton still won the popular vote over Donald Trump.

As President, Trump, vowing to overturn Roe vs. Wade, was able to name three conservative Supreme Court Justices. The three Supreme Court justices he appointed – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – are the most by any President since Ronald Reagan (who appointed four) and the most by any one-term President since Herbert Hoover.

On June 24, 2022, In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), which guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion, creating consternation and flag-waving protests from coast to coast and turning the "red tide" election to become red stain on the Republican Party.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a divided ruling on affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The court ruled against the programs, and the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Today, the Supreme Court issued two monumental 6-3 decisions on the final day of its current term. The conservative court blocked President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program and limited LGBTQ protections in which the justices ruled in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado, who refused to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections. The ruling represents the latest victory for religious conservatives at the high court and encourages discrimination based on religion, race, and ethnicity.

These rulings with more to follow from Trump's court are devastating to the liberal cause, and it is all because -- in an election they should have won over the scandal-ridden, indecisive Trump -- Democrats chose a highly vulnerable and undesirable candidate that lost.

The fact that Trump's popularity is growing with each criminal indictment and is the leading Republican candidate for President tells one a great deal about the Republican base that chose our President in 2016.

As is their custom, these same Republicans will remain silent on the issues.

 

Whack-jobs gonna whack.

The RWNJs have proven that in spades lately.

 

Sadly, A scathingly accurate analysis.

 

That just seems to be sour grapes. You need to hide under your bed and have a good cry.