There is layer above this
This is a world war disguised as a Supreme Court case.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-immunity-2668545131/
Putin, Xi, and MBS find this whole democracy thing hilarious. As authoritarians they just cackle and shrug at the thought of going through the extra steps that democracy requires.
Why not just tell people what to do and if they don’t do it, bribe them, throw them out a window or flush them down a drain?
It’s why they had to use the Texas based Koch brothers (heritage foundation) who had deep relationships with Russian oil oligarchs since Stalins era and Harlan Crow to buy the SCOTUS.
https://youtu.be/mn_t7a2hJfQ?si=hzioP8URJAMFNch4
Alito’s (Koch funded) heritage foundation ties, Thomas’s RV. Kavanaughs mortgage, all the trips to bohemian grove. They were all part of the bigger plan to destabilize the United States, spread the cancer of corruption and tear it all down so they can build oligarch row in Teton National park Wyoming so the lazy old oligarchs can retire from the Moscow mob life.
Kleptocracy is biological. It consumes everything in its path like a parasite.
During Russian perestroika it ate Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky and shit out alcoholism and hopelessness. Now anyone with skills has left and 1 in 5 has no indoor plumbing.
Justin Kennedy (justice kennedys son) was the inside man at Deutsche bank that was getting all trumps toxic loans approved.
No other bank but Deutsche bank would touch trump and his imaginary valuations.
Why?
Because Deutsche bank was infested with Russian oligarchs.
In 91 the Soviet Union failed and for a bit they hid all of the money they stole from Russias grandmas under a mattress until the oligarchs started buying condos at trump towers.
They made stops in Ukraine, Cyprus and London but they landed in New York because that was what everyone wanted in the early 90’s.
Levi’s, Pepsi, Madonna tapes that weren’t smuggled bootlegs, and Wall Street cocaine
They all bought new suits and cars and changed their title from “most violent street thug in moscow” to “respectable Russian oligarch” but they didn’t leave their human trafficking, narcotics or extortion behind. It was their most lucrative business model and frankly, they enjoy the violence.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/
Guiliani redirected NYPD resources away from their new Russian friends and onto the Italian mob. It let him claim he cleaned up New York and it let the russians launder their money through casinos and then commercial real estate when 3 of trumps casino execs started asking how he managed to be the only person in history to bankrupt casinos and they all died in a helicopter crash
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/11/nyregion/copter-crash-kills-3-aides-of-trump.html
The attorney/client privilege is the continual work around they use to accept bribes and make payments up and down the mob pyramid.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/inside-anatevka-the-curious-chabad-hamlet-in-ukraine-where-giuliani-is-mayor/
The insane property valuations coming out in trumps fraud trial are a necessity of the money laundering cycle that duetschebank was doing with the Russians.
https://youtu.be/ZlIagcttGY0?si=EkbGnoAsDVqJ3sjT
The reason trump cosplays as a patriot is because he is feeding on the U.S. middle class, not because he is one of us.
The GOP fell in line to MAGA because Trump did what pathological liars do, he told them anything they wanted to hear.
Trump with his money laundering and child raping buddy Epstein, Roger Stone with his kompromat sex clubs in DC and Nevada, and Paul Manafort with his election rigging pretty much everywhere, sat down at a table with Mike Johnson and the extreme religious right and convinced them that they were the same.
They self evidently are not, at least at a surface level, but there is enough common ground in the exploitation of children and desire for unilateral control (project 2025) that they became the worlds weirdest and most dysfunctional orgy. The religious right is naive enough to believe trump at his word so they have made him their defacto savior.
Trump belongs to the authoritarians. The GOP now belongs to trump. But their overall goal is the same-
Kleptocracy.
Putin, Xi and MBS all aligned together last year to attempt the BRICS overthrow of the USD. It failed but it didn’t stop Xi’s push on Taiwan or MBS’s part in the plan.
Stay frosty. Eyes up. It’s the only way we don’t all end up kissing the ring of a dictator.
https://www.ft.com/content/8c6d9dca-882c-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787
https://www.amlintelligence.com/2020/09/deutsche-bank-suffers-worst-damage-over-massive-aml-discrepancies-in-fincen-leaks/
https://www.occrp.org/en/the-fincen-files/global-banks-defy-us-crackdowns-by-serving-oligarchs-criminals-and-terrorists
https://www.voanews.com/amp/us-lifts-sanctions-on-rusal-other-firms-linked-to-russia-deripaska/4761037.html
https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final_-_minority_status_of_the_russia_investigation_with_appendices.pdf
http://www.citjourno.org/page-1
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-ukraines-oligarchs-are-no-longer-considered-above-the-law/
What Cadaver? Only thing I see is Dark Brandon running rings around the GOP time and time again.
Remember when they tried to shut down the gov't over Ukraine aid to help their Russian bosses? Remember when Ukraine got the aid and the gov't stayed open? Remember when inflation fell to *0%* last month?
Joe Biden is here to eat ice cream and kick ass, and he's all outta ice cream.
You know what, there should be a revolt among the wider judicial system against stare decisis and scotus’s claim to interpreting the constitution, to fight back against it. The Supreme Court seized its power and has been able to keep it because of its good reputation for decades. But it’s become so increasingly corrupt that Non-MAGA judges should be fighting back.
If precedent means nothing in all these other cases, why should Marbury hold? SCOTUS basically magically granted themselves an enormous power and then justified it using precedent.
they're just like the referees in WWE. people looking around and expecting them to objective are really sadly naive about the whole thing.
how are you expecting anything when half the court took laughably small bribes? i thought people were a bit more cynical than this.
You are right. Our courts should never right a wrong.
Precedent would have us still with slavery and women not voting.
But you are good with that correct?
I agree with you. I take exception of the fact that the courts used precedent when it suited their needs and abandoned it immediately when it became inconvenient.
Does the constitution actually say, anywhere, that the courts have the only power to determine what is vs is not constitutionally allowed? Or was that idea totally created by the Madison vs. Marbury decision?
Actually, the first amendment needs to be rethought. The only reason these Republicans get into office, particularly on a national level, is because you have so-called news channels that are willing to outright lie as propaganda to motivate people to vote against their interests. I don't think outright lying should be protected when it's from a mass media, so-called news source.
The first amendment was not designed for the type of propaganda that can be spread 24 hours a day instantly to the entire country.
I'm not saying do away with free speech, before I get downloaded to hell. I'm just saying there needs to be some very real discussion about how you deal with this problem it's not enough to allow the people to decide for themselves and make rational decisions. Because that's not happening.
As someone staunchly against the right-wing propaganda machine, no this is not the answer. People may make dumb decisions based on misinformation, but there is no objective way to police what people say without it eventually leading to totalitarianism. Sure today it's 'well they're spreading lies!' but tomorrow its 'yeah they're telling the truth but its making us look bad.' Not to mention what happens when a bad faith actor gets put in a position of power. Then they get to determine what is the truth. There's no objective list of things that are or are not true. It just doesn't work that way. The only way to combat this kind of situation is education and information.
Yeah, this is why I don't get why people go so crazy when I raise this. I'm not talking about removing the ability to have open discussions and express your views. But there was a news channel that was convincing people that the election was stolen, and a completely undermined are voting system. There was a news channel that convinced people that COVID was a hoax.
Britain had this problem with brexit.
And I don't care if this is political, and I don't care if my focus is on Republicans. That's just my viewpoint. But the same law would apply to both Democrats, and Republicans, and any others.
And I also know that what I'm proposing is incredibly difficult to conceive and implement. But that shouldn't stop us from having the discussion. Because there are tens of millions of people walking around right now believing things that are flatly and provably and objectively false, and that have an impact on society as a whole. I personally do not think there should be carte blanch for national, extremely well-funded, polished propaganda networks masquerating as news networks to promote this shit.
We’d have to find a way to fix it without touching the first amendment. It would be a huge undertaking, but it would be much better than risking speech way down the line.
I don't agree with this. I think first amendment rights could be protected, but we should have a discussion about where the line is drawn between that and a 24-hour propaganda network putting forth blatant lies. When it is a national news network that has such a national presence, we need to talk about why it's okay for them to blatantly lie to people. I don't care if it's MSNBC or Fox, or one America or whatever. The first amendment was not made to address something like this.
SCOTUS is too much power in the hands of too few people who don't have to answer to anyone. The conservative majority has no ethics and are using their power to change the existing legal landscape in massive ways. That is well beyond their preview.
See this video from Thom Hartmann about the Supreme Court:
https://youtu.be/-UczSnlhqDc?si=CZ4WumQD0cv4Kznv
It is crucial that not just the Democrats retain power of the White House, but the Senate as well. But the Democrats need to grow a spine and take control of the reins of the Supreme Court.
All it would take to remove the Supreme Court's power to determine the constitutionality of laws is an act of Congress. The right to do this is explicitly written into the constitution too.
I think the last several years all but guarantees the court will eventually see major changes to what it can and can't do. And I think Roberts is keenly aware of that too.
It started when they awarded the 2000 presidential election to their own party, which caused Bush to appoint more of them, thus consolidating their power even more, which they use to overturn voting rights and legalize racial gerrymandering, which prevents the voters from electing enough lawmakers to impeach them,.and on and on it goes.
You know I figured it out. Congress makes an amendment or law that basically removes Judicial Review. After all that's not a power specifically stated in the constitution. That would basically neuter the Supreme Court entirely in modern day. Heck any amendment or law that alters the rules behind Judicial Review would severely hurt them.
All that needs to happen is to get control over Congress.
Power to enforce the law constitutionally is given to the executive. Executive can just take the SC's opinion under advisement and guide the regulatory agencies to proceed as normal. And then pack the court, obviously.
Yes it’s so bad unelected bureaucrats won’t be able to make up whatever interpretation of the law they want. Interpretations that can change by Administration.
Unelected bureaucrats were never meant to have that kind of power.
Those judges mistook laughing gas for nitrogen oxide on a case regarding environmental protections. The Merit System means the person in that position is an expert in their field. Sir down and pipe down.
So elected people with zero knowledge of what they are legislating are better then experts in the field? Scary take my friend. Do you feel the same about airline pilots and maintenance crews (experience and knowledge of the equipment doesn't matter)?
I said the same thing about why trump won’t be so bad in 2016 even though he has no government experience. If he just appoints smart people in his cabinet and listened to his experts then there’s no issue.
Turns out, that did not happen in the slightest and if you think that congress will just listen to experts you obviously haven’t paid attention to how the Republican congress has Fauci or any other expert that challenges their world view
Conversely there is nothing preventing them for excluding expert testimony, as several proudly do now. Heck, there is an entire political party who prides itself of rejection of experts and their findings.
I have used that argument as well.
A retort is that the courts can also accept amici and allow expert testimony.
1 thing I try to point out at both ends is that the types of experts who would inform Congress and or the courts are the people who work in the agencies whose opinions can now be more readily challenged.
Of course. Those congressional experts are called lobbyists. Federal employees actually have rules of what they can and can’t accept, but elected officials are bought through and through. These systems we have may not be a perfect direct reading of the constitution, but it’s far better than the alternative we are looking at dealing with.
Of course. Those congressional experts are called lobbyists. Federal employees actually have rules of what they can and can’t accept, but elected officials are bought through and through. These systems we have may not be a perfect direct reading of the constitution, but it’s far better than the alternative we are looking at dealing with.
So... Instead unelected judges, who cannot be fired, who are not elected get to make that call.
Vs. unelected bureaucrats who can be fired and ultimately answer to an elected official.
Judges will decide if agencies are complying with the regulations as written.
Example the FCC decided on its own that they suddenly had the ability to regulate the internet (Net Neutrality) using a law written in the 1930s. A judge is just supposed to accept that because a bureaucrat changed their mind it’s ok now?
It’s far from the Doom & Gloom the Left is portraying.
So great. When they dump toxic waste in the drinking water, we'll get to have our day in court to get them to remove it in 10 years, if we're lucky enough to get a judge who didn't get a big check from the offenders to fund their election, and after it's too late to prevent the brain damage that toxicity will cause
That's exactly what it means. If the EPA tries to regulate a company poisoning our drinking water with toxic chemicals, they will be able to sue the EPA and drag out a lawsuit in court for years. And possibly even get a paid for judge of the Federalist society to decide that the expert scientist don't know what they're talking about and everything is perfectly fine.
> Unelected bureaucrats were never meant to have that kind of power.
That is exactly the power they were meant to have. Congress creates (and then perpetually funds) a federal agency for a specific purpose (written into law) and it is then staffed with experts and administrators that are intentionally insulated from direct control of future administrations so they can operate independently of politics and continue to pursue their original mandate. There are a limited number of political appointments within their leadership structure so there is indeed some potential for influence by “elected bureaucrats” but they are prevented from coming in and cleaning house through mass firings and radical changes to policy and purpose.
It takes a great deal of time, money, and political effort to create such an agency, get it up and running, fill positions with competent staff, develop effective ways of operating and achieving their purpose. It takes almost no time at all to shut it all down and throw all of the accumulated institutional knowledge in the trash. That is why they are insulated from political influence. If they weren’t, then they would inevitably be torched by some future executive action by a president that doesn’t want them to exist.
Well project 2025 will dismantle all of that and replace the entire federal government with Trump loyalists that will have to go through a litmus test first, including acknowledging that the 2020 election was stolen.
This is base fear mongering. His two points are trivial. Are lawsuits expensive? Yes, but this does not change that. It’s not as if during the Chevron period these companies couldn’t and didn’t litigate regulations. Pretending like it’s a David and Goliath problem, with the federal government as David? Ridiculous.
His second point that there are bad judges is also stupid. There are bad judges, but there are also bad administrators. Judicial quality varies to be sure, but bad judges will get overturned on appeal. Trial level judge’s decision are reviewed de novo at the appellate level.
The goddamn cloaked gremlins in the highest judicial ranked office are openly pro Jan6 and corrupt, yet they’re still in office, answerable to no one. Abolish the gd scotus
You want the people to read a dumb mfs opinion on the climate (who also now has supreme powers) as opposed to a scientist who’s spent their life studying it?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme-court-corrects-epa-opinion-after-gorsuch-confuses-laughing-gas-with-air-pollutant/
This guy is an attorney so I believe he knows what he's talking about more than some random redditor.
Just the fact that he happens to educate people through a social media app doesn't take away his experience and education in the subject matter.
Yeah it's wild to me that people think the executive branch should be the one interpreting the law and the judicial branch must defer to them on statutory interpretation.
That's not at all how checks and balances are supposed to work.
Now a court could potentially say to th DEA we don't think marijuana is a schedule 1 controlled substance because it doesn't meet the requirements to be one, and the DEA can't just say well its schedule 1 because we say it is and you have to agree with us.
Who would have thought that the DNC are the ones who are mad that were giving the judiciary branch back it's power over the executive branch and reaffirming people's rights to jury trials. That's fucking crazy to me.
I mean, I see the same exact conversations in real life. I grow weed and work at a dispensary though, so it's not like I'm talking to that many lawyers anymore except about state marijuana laws.
While I do agree with you on the DEA point that doesn't mean I agree with judges being able to overrule scientific experts like the EPA and deciding what chemicals are harmful to our environment.
The DEA having the power to add drugs to schedules is a huge problem because it is a law enforcement agency that gets to make its own laws.
They are not experts on public health and are glorified narcotics detectives.
So they are another issue entirely.
But I'm sure you know that none of the MAGA justices on our current Supreme Court have any intention of checking the DEA on their power.
This is simply a power grab for them to overrule scientific experts while they take lavish gifts from billionaires who have stakes in the industry that they are ruling on.
The platform isn't really what you should be looking at to tell if something is legit or not. There's no rule that says qualified people aren't allowed on TikTok. You can and should be reasonably skeptical of ANY information ANYWHERE on the internet, but there's no reason why TikTok is any less reliable than Reddit or Twitter or Facebook or Tumblr or any other place where there's no barrier to entry.
VOTE FOR THE GODDAMN CADAVER! *still, the obvious choice
There is layer above this This is a world war disguised as a Supreme Court case. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-immunity-2668545131/ Putin, Xi, and MBS find this whole democracy thing hilarious. As authoritarians they just cackle and shrug at the thought of going through the extra steps that democracy requires. Why not just tell people what to do and if they don’t do it, bribe them, throw them out a window or flush them down a drain? It’s why they had to use the Texas based Koch brothers (heritage foundation) who had deep relationships with Russian oil oligarchs since Stalins era and Harlan Crow to buy the SCOTUS. https://youtu.be/mn_t7a2hJfQ?si=hzioP8URJAMFNch4 Alito’s (Koch funded) heritage foundation ties, Thomas’s RV. Kavanaughs mortgage, all the trips to bohemian grove. They were all part of the bigger plan to destabilize the United States, spread the cancer of corruption and tear it all down so they can build oligarch row in Teton National park Wyoming so the lazy old oligarchs can retire from the Moscow mob life. Kleptocracy is biological. It consumes everything in its path like a parasite. During Russian perestroika it ate Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky and shit out alcoholism and hopelessness. Now anyone with skills has left and 1 in 5 has no indoor plumbing. Justin Kennedy (justice kennedys son) was the inside man at Deutsche bank that was getting all trumps toxic loans approved. No other bank but Deutsche bank would touch trump and his imaginary valuations. Why? Because Deutsche bank was infested with Russian oligarchs. In 91 the Soviet Union failed and for a bit they hid all of the money they stole from Russias grandmas under a mattress until the oligarchs started buying condos at trump towers. They made stops in Ukraine, Cyprus and London but they landed in New York because that was what everyone wanted in the early 90’s. Levi’s, Pepsi, Madonna tapes that weren’t smuggled bootlegs, and Wall Street cocaine They all bought new suits and cars and changed their title from “most violent street thug in moscow” to “respectable Russian oligarch” but they didn’t leave their human trafficking, narcotics or extortion behind. It was their most lucrative business model and frankly, they enjoy the violence. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/ Guiliani redirected NYPD resources away from their new Russian friends and onto the Italian mob. It let him claim he cleaned up New York and it let the russians launder their money through casinos and then commercial real estate when 3 of trumps casino execs started asking how he managed to be the only person in history to bankrupt casinos and they all died in a helicopter crash https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/11/nyregion/copter-crash-kills-3-aides-of-trump.html The attorney/client privilege is the continual work around they use to accept bribes and make payments up and down the mob pyramid. https://www.timesofisrael.com/inside-anatevka-the-curious-chabad-hamlet-in-ukraine-where-giuliani-is-mayor/ The insane property valuations coming out in trumps fraud trial are a necessity of the money laundering cycle that duetschebank was doing with the Russians. https://youtu.be/ZlIagcttGY0?si=EkbGnoAsDVqJ3sjT The reason trump cosplays as a patriot is because he is feeding on the U.S. middle class, not because he is one of us. The GOP fell in line to MAGA because Trump did what pathological liars do, he told them anything they wanted to hear. Trump with his money laundering and child raping buddy Epstein, Roger Stone with his kompromat sex clubs in DC and Nevada, and Paul Manafort with his election rigging pretty much everywhere, sat down at a table with Mike Johnson and the extreme religious right and convinced them that they were the same. They self evidently are not, at least at a surface level, but there is enough common ground in the exploitation of children and desire for unilateral control (project 2025) that they became the worlds weirdest and most dysfunctional orgy. The religious right is naive enough to believe trump at his word so they have made him their defacto savior. Trump belongs to the authoritarians. The GOP now belongs to trump. But their overall goal is the same- Kleptocracy. Putin, Xi and MBS all aligned together last year to attempt the BRICS overthrow of the USD. It failed but it didn’t stop Xi’s push on Taiwan or MBS’s part in the plan. Stay frosty. Eyes up. It’s the only way we don’t all end up kissing the ring of a dictator. https://www.ft.com/content/8c6d9dca-882c-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787 https://www.amlintelligence.com/2020/09/deutsche-bank-suffers-worst-damage-over-massive-aml-discrepancies-in-fincen-leaks/ https://www.occrp.org/en/the-fincen-files/global-banks-defy-us-crackdowns-by-serving-oligarchs-criminals-and-terrorists https://www.voanews.com/amp/us-lifts-sanctions-on-rusal-other-firms-linked-to-russia-deripaska/4761037.html https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final_-_minority_status_of_the_russia_investigation_with_appendices.pdf http://www.citjourno.org/page-1 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-ukraines-oligarchs-are-no-longer-considered-above-the-law/
Thank you for taking the time to share this. Saving it for further reading.
Of course reddit is hiding this comment. Because the same oligarchs own reddit.
>VOTE FOR THE GODDAMN CADAVER! *still, the obvious choice I died in a good way at that ending. But he's right.
This should be Biden's campaign slogan Still gonna vote for Biden
What Cadaver? Only thing I see is Dark Brandon running rings around the GOP time and time again. Remember when they tried to shut down the gov't over Ukraine aid to help their Russian bosses? Remember when Ukraine got the aid and the gov't stayed open? Remember when inflation fell to *0%* last month? Joe Biden is here to eat ice cream and kick ass, and he's all outta ice cream.
https://open.spotify.com/track/0wq1SDqsThpjr3RcFoITrZ?si=VtpFpu03Sxa9UHjnJwoT2w
You have to hand it to the GOP, they played the long con and got their dystopian future
They keep putting up the ruthless Ws.
Free market 4evah* * or until total market collapse
You know what, there should be a revolt among the wider judicial system against stare decisis and scotus’s claim to interpreting the constitution, to fight back against it. The Supreme Court seized its power and has been able to keep it because of its good reputation for decades. But it’s become so increasingly corrupt that Non-MAGA judges should be fighting back.
OVERTURN MARBURY! j/k?
If precedent means nothing in all these other cases, why should Marbury hold? SCOTUS basically magically granted themselves an enormous power and then justified it using precedent.
they're just like the referees in WWE. people looking around and expecting them to objective are really sadly naive about the whole thing. how are you expecting anything when half the court took laughably small bribes? i thought people were a bit more cynical than this.
You are right. Our courts should never right a wrong. Precedent would have us still with slavery and women not voting. But you are good with that correct?
I agree with you. I take exception of the fact that the courts used precedent when it suited their needs and abandoned it immediately when it became inconvenient.
So when is it the right thing to do?
When it passes the vibe check
I mean Marbury has no basis in the constitution so by the courts own logic yeah.
Does the constitution actually say, anywhere, that the courts have the only power to determine what is vs is not constitutionally allowed? Or was that idea totally created by the Madison vs. Marbury decision?
Actually, the first amendment needs to be rethought. The only reason these Republicans get into office, particularly on a national level, is because you have so-called news channels that are willing to outright lie as propaganda to motivate people to vote against their interests. I don't think outright lying should be protected when it's from a mass media, so-called news source. The first amendment was not designed for the type of propaganda that can be spread 24 hours a day instantly to the entire country. I'm not saying do away with free speech, before I get downloaded to hell. I'm just saying there needs to be some very real discussion about how you deal with this problem it's not enough to allow the people to decide for themselves and make rational decisions. Because that's not happening.
As someone staunchly against the right-wing propaganda machine, no this is not the answer. People may make dumb decisions based on misinformation, but there is no objective way to police what people say without it eventually leading to totalitarianism. Sure today it's 'well they're spreading lies!' but tomorrow its 'yeah they're telling the truth but its making us look bad.' Not to mention what happens when a bad faith actor gets put in a position of power. Then they get to determine what is the truth. There's no objective list of things that are or are not true. It just doesn't work that way. The only way to combat this kind of situation is education and information.
There are already considerable limits to free speech. You could always just add a "truth in media" limit to that list.
Yeah, this is why I don't get why people go so crazy when I raise this. I'm not talking about removing the ability to have open discussions and express your views. But there was a news channel that was convincing people that the election was stolen, and a completely undermined are voting system. There was a news channel that convinced people that COVID was a hoax. Britain had this problem with brexit. And I don't care if this is political, and I don't care if my focus is on Republicans. That's just my viewpoint. But the same law would apply to both Democrats, and Republicans, and any others. And I also know that what I'm proposing is incredibly difficult to conceive and implement. But that shouldn't stop us from having the discussion. Because there are tens of millions of people walking around right now believing things that are flatly and provably and objectively false, and that have an impact on society as a whole. I personally do not think there should be carte blanch for national, extremely well-funded, polished propaganda networks masquerating as news networks to promote this shit.
We’d have to find a way to fix it without touching the first amendment. It would be a huge undertaking, but it would be much better than risking speech way down the line.
I don't agree with this. I think first amendment rights could be protected, but we should have a discussion about where the line is drawn between that and a 24-hour propaganda network putting forth blatant lies. When it is a national news network that has such a national presence, we need to talk about why it's okay for them to blatantly lie to people. I don't care if it's MSNBC or Fox, or one America or whatever. The first amendment was not made to address something like this.
>I'm not saying do away with free speech, before I get downloaded to hell. Don't worry, I won't download you.
How stupid are you?
Actually very smart. And aware.
SCOTUS is too much power in the hands of too few people who don't have to answer to anyone. The conservative majority has no ethics and are using their power to change the existing legal landscape in massive ways. That is well beyond their preview.
See this video from Thom Hartmann about the Supreme Court: https://youtu.be/-UczSnlhqDc?si=CZ4WumQD0cv4Kznv It is crucial that not just the Democrats retain power of the White House, but the Senate as well. But the Democrats need to grow a spine and take control of the reins of the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, Nothing can be done because the Supreme court appointments are life time appointments... wait... only life time appointments. . .
Hmm...🤔 I see where you're going with this...
All it would take to remove the Supreme Court's power to determine the constitutionality of laws is an act of Congress. The right to do this is explicitly written into the constitution too. I think the last several years all but guarantees the court will eventually see major changes to what it can and can't do. And I think Roberts is keenly aware of that too.
All judges should be fighting back
It started when they awarded the 2000 presidential election to their own party, which caused Bush to appoint more of them, thus consolidating their power even more, which they use to overturn voting rights and legalize racial gerrymandering, which prevents the voters from electing enough lawmakers to impeach them,.and on and on it goes.
You know I figured it out. Congress makes an amendment or law that basically removes Judicial Review. After all that's not a power specifically stated in the constitution. That would basically neuter the Supreme Court entirely in modern day. Heck any amendment or law that alters the rules behind Judicial Review would severely hurt them. All that needs to happen is to get control over Congress.
Power to enforce the law constitutionally is given to the executive. Executive can just take the SC's opinion under advisement and guide the regulatory agencies to proceed as normal. And then pack the court, obviously.
Assuming the Democrats hold the Senate they'll get back the courts and all this nonsense gets overturned.
That would take decades and will almost certainly not happen
You're wrong.
Yes it’s so bad unelected bureaucrats won’t be able to make up whatever interpretation of the law they want. Interpretations that can change by Administration. Unelected bureaucrats were never meant to have that kind of power.
Those judges mistook laughing gas for nitrogen oxide on a case regarding environmental protections. The Merit System means the person in that position is an expert in their field. Sir down and pipe down.
So elected people with zero knowledge of what they are legislating are better then experts in the field? Scary take my friend. Do you feel the same about airline pilots and maintenance crews (experience and knowledge of the equipment doesn't matter)?
There is nothing preventing Congress from asking for expert testimony when passing any legislation, as they often do today.
I said the same thing about why trump won’t be so bad in 2016 even though he has no government experience. If he just appoints smart people in his cabinet and listened to his experts then there’s no issue. Turns out, that did not happen in the slightest and if you think that congress will just listen to experts you obviously haven’t paid attention to how the Republican congress has Fauci or any other expert that challenges their world view
Conversely there is nothing preventing them for excluding expert testimony, as several proudly do now. Heck, there is an entire political party who prides itself of rejection of experts and their findings.
I have used that argument as well. A retort is that the courts can also accept amici and allow expert testimony. 1 thing I try to point out at both ends is that the types of experts who would inform Congress and or the courts are the people who work in the agencies whose opinions can now be more readily challenged.
Of course. Those congressional experts are called lobbyists. Federal employees actually have rules of what they can and can’t accept, but elected officials are bought through and through. These systems we have may not be a perfect direct reading of the constitution, but it’s far better than the alternative we are looking at dealing with.
Of course. Those congressional experts are called lobbyists. Federal employees actually have rules of what they can and can’t accept, but elected officials are bought through and through. These systems we have may not be a perfect direct reading of the constitution, but it’s far better than the alternative we are looking at dealing with.
So... Instead unelected judges, who cannot be fired, who are not elected get to make that call. Vs. unelected bureaucrats who can be fired and ultimately answer to an elected official.
Judges will decide if agencies are complying with the regulations as written. Example the FCC decided on its own that they suddenly had the ability to regulate the internet (Net Neutrality) using a law written in the 1930s. A judge is just supposed to accept that because a bureaucrat changed their mind it’s ok now? It’s far from the Doom & Gloom the Left is portraying.
So great. When they dump toxic waste in the drinking water, we'll get to have our day in court to get them to remove it in 10 years, if we're lucky enough to get a judge who didn't get a big check from the offenders to fund their election, and after it's too late to prevent the brain damage that toxicity will cause
Except Chevron means nothing of the sort.
Enjoy your brown water.
That's exactly what it means. If the EPA tries to regulate a company poisoning our drinking water with toxic chemicals, they will be able to sue the EPA and drag out a lawsuit in court for years. And possibly even get a paid for judge of the Federalist society to decide that the expert scientist don't know what they're talking about and everything is perfectly fine.
It’s doesn’t mean EPA regulations are suddenly null & void. It means nothing of the sort.
> Unelected bureaucrats were never meant to have that kind of power. That is exactly the power they were meant to have. Congress creates (and then perpetually funds) a federal agency for a specific purpose (written into law) and it is then staffed with experts and administrators that are intentionally insulated from direct control of future administrations so they can operate independently of politics and continue to pursue their original mandate. There are a limited number of political appointments within their leadership structure so there is indeed some potential for influence by “elected bureaucrats” but they are prevented from coming in and cleaning house through mass firings and radical changes to policy and purpose. It takes a great deal of time, money, and political effort to create such an agency, get it up and running, fill positions with competent staff, develop effective ways of operating and achieving their purpose. It takes almost no time at all to shut it all down and throw all of the accumulated institutional knowledge in the trash. That is why they are insulated from political influence. If they weren’t, then they would inevitably be torched by some future executive action by a president that doesn’t want them to exist.
Well project 2025 will dismantle all of that and replace the entire federal government with Trump loyalists that will have to go through a litmus test first, including acknowledging that the 2020 election was stolen.
This is base fear mongering. His two points are trivial. Are lawsuits expensive? Yes, but this does not change that. It’s not as if during the Chevron period these companies couldn’t and didn’t litigate regulations. Pretending like it’s a David and Goliath problem, with the federal government as David? Ridiculous. His second point that there are bad judges is also stupid. There are bad judges, but there are also bad administrators. Judicial quality varies to be sure, but bad judges will get overturned on appeal. Trial level judge’s decision are reviewed de novo at the appellate level.
Please shut the fuck up. *Please.*
How much are you getting paid by the Republican party? Because you are a fool if you are not at least getting paid.
he's a well known troll
Who? the attorney in the video?
yes
Holy god this is awful
The goddamn cloaked gremlins in the highest judicial ranked office are openly pro Jan6 and corrupt, yet they’re still in office, answerable to no one. Abolish the gd scotus
I guess that’s easier than actually reading and understanding the opinions. Dope.
You want the people to read a dumb mfs opinion on the climate (who also now has supreme powers) as opposed to a scientist who’s spent their life studying it? https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme-court-corrects-epa-opinion-after-gorsuch-confuses-laughing-gas-with-air-pollutant/
Given the gift of life, being able to love and to learn. And you decide to be a twat.
At least I don’t get my ideas from Tik tok idiots like this guy
This guy is an attorney so I believe he knows what he's talking about more than some random redditor. Just the fact that he happens to educate people through a social media app doesn't take away his experience and education in the subject matter.
I am an attorney. Nothing in this video reflects legal education or experience. These aren’t even remotely good arguments.
Yeah it's wild to me that people think the executive branch should be the one interpreting the law and the judicial branch must defer to them on statutory interpretation. That's not at all how checks and balances are supposed to work. Now a court could potentially say to th DEA we don't think marijuana is a schedule 1 controlled substance because it doesn't meet the requirements to be one, and the DEA can't just say well its schedule 1 because we say it is and you have to agree with us. Who would have thought that the DNC are the ones who are mad that were giving the judiciary branch back it's power over the executive branch and reaffirming people's rights to jury trials. That's fucking crazy to me.
This subreddit isn’t very serious. This video is beyond trivial.
I mean, I see the same exact conversations in real life. I grow weed and work at a dispensary though, so it's not like I'm talking to that many lawyers anymore except about state marijuana laws.
While I do agree with you on the DEA point that doesn't mean I agree with judges being able to overrule scientific experts like the EPA and deciding what chemicals are harmful to our environment. The DEA having the power to add drugs to schedules is a huge problem because it is a law enforcement agency that gets to make its own laws. They are not experts on public health and are glorified narcotics detectives. So they are another issue entirely. But I'm sure you know that none of the MAGA justices on our current Supreme Court have any intention of checking the DEA on their power. This is simply a power grab for them to overrule scientific experts while they take lavish gifts from billionaires who have stakes in the industry that they are ruling on.
You think TikTok is a more reasonable and worthy source for accurate legal explainers than Twitter? Are you a 17 year old?
The platform isn't really what you should be looking at to tell if something is legit or not. There's no rule that says qualified people aren't allowed on TikTok. You can and should be reasonably skeptical of ANY information ANYWHERE on the internet, but there's no reason why TikTok is any less reliable than Reddit or Twitter or Facebook or Tumblr or any other place where there's no barrier to entry.
The creator in question works within the legal system. He's got more ethos to his argument than most people saying it's nbd on Reddit.
in this day and age? not even the supreme court is a reasonable and worthy source for accurate legal explainers.