Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
SBG said:
Been a few things I've seen argued.
  • Doing abortions on army bases (which would run into trouble with Hyde amendment)
  • Transporting preggos to abortion states
  • Doing abortions on federal land (because state laws don't count on federal land?)
  • Federal government mailing people abortion pills (Hyde)
The transportation thing seems most doable for them since they could just put up a website featuring links to a charity that would provide bus fare to an abortion state. They can then pat themselves on the back that they're getting around the abortion laws without spending money or really violating the law. While it may sound retarded, it'd just take some political commentators like Jon Oliver or Jon Stewart praising it to get Dems to feel they and the DNC were fighting against The Man or whatever.
Click to expand...

The things you described are all misappropriation of federal funds and have nothing to do with Dobbs v. Jackson. It's a crime, sure, but not a "let the court enforce it" moment. If the Biden administration were to flagrantly break federal embezzlement laws, sure, AG Garland would do nothing, but if a Republican wins in 2024, he could have everybody involved prosecuted and, at minimum, purged from the federal government. Ten years in prison at worst.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Autistic Joe, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, LurkNoMore and 3 others
F1C91233-45B0-4B9E-819B-9E242DE2D798.jpeg
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Autistic Joe, Male Idiot, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 24 others
Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
Click to expand...

Seems like they're building the bedrock to fuck other agencies as well here.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: Autistic Joe, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Activelo and 11 others
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Autistic Joe, Johnny Salami, LurkNoMore and 2 others
SaidNoOneEver said:

Shit, upheld?

"The Court holds that the Biden administration's decision to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocol, also known as the Remain in Mexico policy, did not violate federal immigration law, and the October memorandum was a final agency action."
Click to expand...
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined as to all but the first sentence
Click to expand...
Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the leftists.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Autistic Joe, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Activelo and 4 others
JambledUpWords said:
View attachment 3442287
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has been dropping white pills left and right these past couple of weeks, and (to borrow zoomer lingo) I am here for it. Shame about the Mexico ruling, but doesn't the EPA one kinda render that moot, anyway? (:optimistic:) Correct me if I'm wrong,
 
  • Informative
  • Mad at the Internet
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Male Idiot, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Hollywood Hulk Hogan and 1 other person
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back