End of Chevron doctrine

[GB Warrior]

Indeed!
https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023

Ok but what about the states with bans. "There are at least some states who are caretakers of freedoms" isn't quite the republican (lowercase) utopia the founders were gunning for.

[rocky_warrior]

Ok but what about the states with bans. "There are at least some states who are caretakers of freedoms" isn't quite the republican (lowercase) utopia the founders were gunning for.

I feel bad that women have to travel in those circumstances. Don't take my views on the recent immunity decision as some absolute box that needs to fit into political paradigms. I really think we all need to understand where to pick our battles.  This isn't one of those cases (IMO).

[Pakuni]

Well, the majority knew Sotomayor's opinion, and didn't give it another thought.  And from what you've shared from the majority opinion (I still haven't read more), I always ask the legal question of "should I reasonably assume that gives me permission to ____". And the answer is always NO when "murder" is the ____.

So, that's my opinion.  Subject to being wrong when the heart attacks start happening...

Respectfully, that wasn't my question.
You're being very generous here. As a good and decent person, you're assuming that the ruling couldn't possibly allow murder because murder is wrong and "What kind of ruling would allow murder?!?!?!?"
The problem isn't that the ruling explicitly allows murder. The problem is that it says "Well, maybe the president could murder. Depends on the circumstances. Tell us when it happens and we'll let you know."
It shouldn't take an actual murder happening to see why that's troublesome.

[brewcity77]

She was wrong, but that also wasn't the end of abortion, was it?

Roe was overturned, so no, she wasn't.

And in 17 states, there are total or 6-week bans which is before many women know they're pregnant, so for them, yes, it was.

Project 2025 outlines how the Comstock Act will be used to implement a federal abortion ban if Trump wins.

And you'll note I said "a president willing to take it." I don't think Biden is that president. But if he loses in November, Trump absolutely would be.

[rocky_warrior]

Roe was overturned, so no, she wasn't.

[clip]

And you'll note I said "a president willing to take it." I don't think Biden is that president. But if he loses in November, Trump absolutely would be.

Sorry, I don't actually pay attention to what politicians say, so I misunderstood what you meant about what Hillary said.

Biden is the perfect guy to test your theory.  Already suffers from the public opinion of mental fitness, put out the hit jobs and say you didn't understand!  I'm sure the SC will clear him because of immunity! lol.

[rocky_warrior]

Respectfully, that wasn't my question.

Ok.  I'll back off.

[Lennys Tap]

Sorry, I don't actually pay attention to what politicians say, so I misunderstood what you meant about what Hillary said.

Biden is the perfect guy to test your theory.  Already suffers from the public opinion of mental fitness, put out the hit jobs and say you didn't understand!  I'm sure the SC will clear him because of immunity! lol.

Joe's celebrating - no longer criminally responsible for Afghanistan, the border, etc.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

I feel bad that women have to travel in those circumstances. Don't take my views on the recent immunity decision as some absolute box that needs to fit into political paradigms. I really think we all need to understand where to pick our battles.  This isn't one of those cases (IMO).

Mmmhm

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252218618/interstate-travel-becomes-a-target-for-the-anti-abortion-movement-with-texas-fil

Also get fucked if you can't afford to travel but get SA'd in some states aina

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Joe's celebrating - no longer criminally responsible for Afghanistan, the border, etc.

No president has been held criminally responsible for war crimes like, ever.

[rocky_warrior]

Mmmhm

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252218618/interstate-travel-becomes-a-target-for-the-anti-abortion-movement-with-texas-fil

Also get unnatural carnal knowledgeed if you can't afford to travel but get SA'd in some states aina

I'm going to politely request we don't continue the abortion conversation (because it WILL go off the rails).  But even according to your article:  "DAVID NOLL: Most courts, even in Texas, are ultimately going to end up dismissing it. But that doesn't mean these petitions don't have an effect."

Yes, abortion is a hot topic for lots of people.  I'm a man, I shouldn't really get a say, but if I did I would allow women to do what they want.  Lots of people would disagree with me.  Tis the world.

[Lennys Tap]

No president has been held criminally responsible for war crimes like, ever.

No President has ever been held responsible for mishandling classified docs, paying off blackmailers, etc., etc. Going after one's political opponents criminally is kinda a new thing.

[rocky_warrior]

No President has ever been held responsible for mishandling classified docs, paying off blackmailers, etc., etc. Going after one's political opponents criminally is kinda a new thing.

Alright folks.  I don't mean for my participation to mean "lets go" on politics.  Really, just interested in this immunity decision by the court (and the backlash to it)...try to keep politics out of it.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Alright folks.  I don't mean for my participation to mean "lets go" on politics.  Really, just interested in this immunity decision by the court (and the backlash to it)...try to keep politics out of it.

Gotta flick those cigarette butts away from the dead grass. But noted and apologies

[rocky_warrior]

Gotta flick those cigarette butts away from the dead grass.

C'mon man.  You're just dehydrated grass.  You'll green up the next time the rain comes!

[jesmu84]

While the immunity decision is one that seems to against a founding principle that no man is above the law, Chevron is much worse for the American populace (until a legit autocrat becomes pres).

[Dickthedribbler]

Actually, in her dissent, Sotomayor said: "The President is now a king above the law."

Yet again demonstrating that when the U.S. Supreme Court convenes, Sotomayor is the stupidest person in the room.

[Skatastrophy]

nm

[Zog from Margo]

Congress still approved troop deployment in that case.

So you send the troops and then blame Congress for not including supplies in the budget. Not really a Constitutional hurdle. At the time I think they called it a police action, which now could be undertaken with full immunity.

[rocky_warrior]

So you send the troops and then blame Congress for not including supplies in the budget. Not really a Constitutional hurdle. At the time I think they called it a police action, which now could be undertaken with full immunity.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/tonkin-gulf-resolution

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

That was NOT an action the president acted on himself!  Sure it got around the "act of war" rules, but nobody could argue it wasn't an official act!

[Jockey]

Sorry, I don't actually pay attention to what politicians say, so I misunderstood what you meant about what Hillary said.

Biden is the perfect guy to test your theory.  Already suffers from the public opinion of mental fitness, put out the hit jobs and say you didn't understand!  I'm sure the SC will clear him because of immunity! lol.

He doesn't need to. He can put out a hit and say it is an official act because trump has already declared he will be a dictator on day 1. Hence, it would be an official act because it is done in the explicit case of losing our democracy.

We have one justice who has said he supports fully the overthrow of the US gov't. We have another who shows the same symptoms. They were the deciding votes.

This is the biggest hit to the existence and ideals of US democracy in our history.

[rocky_warrior]

This is the biggest hit to the existence and ideals of US democracy in our history.

If true...all hail king Biden.  How's the royal family working out for England?  Big tax drain.

We have one justice who has said he supports fully the overthrow of the US gov't. We have another who shows the same symptoms. They were the deciding votes.

In which case, according to you, their decision is in contrast to self preservation.  By your analysis, I'd expect them both "removed" in the next couple months.

[Pakuni]

Yet again demonstrating that when the U.S. Supreme Court convenes, Sotomayor is the stupidest person in the room.

Lol.
Sotomayor's not the one who's had to publicly an opion due to errors.
Nor is she the one caught publishing opinions with falsehoods.

[GB Warrior]

Sotomayor's opinion is eloquent, firm, and correct. And yet the only opinion from her I care about is that she develops the opinion she should retire this term so this president gets to seat the replacement

[rocky_warrior]

due to errors.
falsehoods.

These are good points.  Should SC opinions be subject to peer review before "decisions"?

https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find

[Skatastrophy]

These are good points.  Should SC opinions be subject to peer review before "decisions"?

https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find

Back to why we use to rely on agencies of experts to implement these things instead of relying on the coarse words of congress or the courts.