"The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act."
"The Supreme Court ALLOWS the Biden administration to terminate the controversial Trump-era asylum policy known as "remain in Mexico." Red states argued that Biden was obliged to keep the policy, but SCOTUS says in a 5-4 ruling that the administration can end it."
Now that all the cases are done, it is sad to say that Kavanaugh continues to cuck out on very important cases.
He fucked us on the vaccine mandates for health professionals alongside Roberts but he stayed strong on Dobbs against Roberts so I thought he somewhat changed.
Now he betrays the nation on immigration with this.
Roberts has always been the worst "Republican" justice but sadly Kavanaugh is only barely better than him.
Unbelievable that Biden can now say that he "legally" ended Trump's Remain in Mexico policy and that he is allowed to flood the nation with illegal aliens. 🤬
Also now that Breyer retired today, the tier list of Supreme Court Justices is now officially
Thomas
Alito
Gorsuch
Barrett
Kavanaugh
A flaming dumpster
Roberts
Kagan
Sotomayor and Jackson
You missed the second dumpster fire above kagan
I wanted the list to have only nine spots but yes I can agree with second dumpster separating Roberts and the three leftists.
roberts should be the lowest, say what you want about the dem judges, they stick to party line all the time
Only reason Roberts is not in the lowest spot is that even though he is generally a spineless sack of shit, he still voted against the OSHA vaccine mandate.
For that he gets to be very slightly above the leftists.
Sotomayor is literally a diversity hire.
She won't be alone starting today. She now has Ketanji Brown Jackson as a fellow diversity hire.
Yes and so is Jumanji Jackson Five and so is Kagan who was picked for being a jewish woman and Amy Coney was also picked FOR BEING A WOMAN to replace RGB. Why did a woman have to replace RGB? Why was Breyer being replaced by a woman and not a man?
Barrett is better than the wretch Gorsuch, who gave away half of Oklahoma to an Indian tribe and pretended that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives homosexuals and troons special rights.
I also hate the Bostock ruling and the tribal rulings but Gorsuch is much stronger when it comes to individual liberties and fighting the administrative state.
Gorsuch always tries to grant cert alongside Thomas and Alito for every single vaccine mandate case including the state imposed ones.
Barrett always joins Kavanaugh and Roberts and refuses to grant cert on state imposed vaccine mandate cases.
She did it again today when she joined Kavanaugh and Roberts to deny cert to New York health care workers suing against the state vaccine mandate.
Barrett is somewhat better than Kavanaugh but not Gorsuch.
I see vaccine mandates (where it is definitely arguable that the state does have the authority to impose it) as far less of a problem than LGBTP nonsense invading everything.
Vaccine mandates including state imposed mandated are the ultimate infringement of the 1st amendment as they infringe on freedom of religion.
Every single shitty COVID vaccine was tested or produced using fetal cells.
This violates the faith of not just Christians but people from other religious backgrounds such as Muslims, Jews and Hindus.
I despise LGBTQ ideology invading life but letting the government force vaccines on any group people is much more egregious.
No matter how much I despise Bostock, I still give Gorsuch credit for always granting cert alongside Thomas and Alito for every vaccine mandate case.
The First Amendment argument cannot be applied to those of us who aren't religious but don't want the vaccine though. I'd argue the 14th Amendment - aka the same fucking amendment this trash heap called RoeVWade was made off of would actually be 100% applicable to vaccine mandates.
The First could be used as a good backup to that IMO.
Not produced, at least according to the ND health officials.
If there is a compelling interest in requiring vaccines, I disagree. Mind you, I don't think that there is, because here, they do not actually require COVID vaccines for health workers - they just use masks and test a lot. But suppose that a vaccine was actually necessary to protect the health of workers, then it is fine with me.
Violations of bodily autonomy when it comes to medical treatment and violation of religious freedom when it comes to fetal cells are never justifiable.
The New York healthcare law is just like the federal mandate for federal workers/contractors and the mandates for the military.
There is no option given to test and mask.
You are forced to take the vaccine or you are just fired.
These are disgustingly tyrannical laws.
For not granting cert to these kind of cases, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts rightfully belong on the bottom 3 of the Republican Justice tier list.
I disagree. The state has more authority than the federal government has over contractors, which does not mean that it necessarily passes constitutional muster.
This was a very odd Americanism. Because basically everywhere else, if you had a previous infection, that would count as protection. Only in America did they say: you have to get n vaccines as well.
I agree, I am just not sure if they are unconstitutional. If you asks me, yes I would like them to be, but I also don't want to be like the left that does not know to distinguish between what it considers desirable and what is in the C.
So we can push for maternity leave to be banned for violating their rights?
How I wish I had tons of money and my own lawyer, I would just keep filing cases against women's organizations until they go bankrupt.
Biden can in fact legally end the policy. Just because it's a retarded fucking thing to do doesn't mean it's illegal. Kavanaugh ruled correctly.
It is not SCOTUS job to legislate or politic no matter how much you desire the outcome. You sound like the whiny abortionist rn
This is naive. View the judicial system under the lense of game theory. If Republicans make rulings based on only principle and Democrats make them based on activism then the Democrats will steadily stack up more "wins" than the Republicans. This is part of the reason we are where we are.
Republican justices need to be as big of partisan hacks as the leftist judges currently are.
Asymmetric warfare is destroying the nation.
Being principled in defeat is useless.
The next judges appointed by Republicans should be partisan Republicans who will always rule in favor of the right wing position when it comes to gutting the administrative state, protecting individual liberties and stopping the march of leftism.
Leftism must be fought with rightism not principled originalism.
You're right. Biden's executive orders shouldn't not be able to be overturned. Also we should destroy our society to own the libs instead of using the adequate means actually given by the law to push back because the average conservative politician is an optics cuck.
Being principled is the only thing that brings meaning to defeat or victory. Cheating your way to victory is a hollow victory.
The only time it's appropriate to throw out the rules and revolt is when facing an existential threat. Acting like every little set back is an existential threat is what the lefty activists do, and I hate them for it. I have no problem hating you for the same. You will live through this set back, and we will be back and stronger.
Feel free to hate me or whoever you want for wanting to preserve America from the deathmarch of leftism.
I completely disagree with your assessment of the current situation.
Things have gotten this bad because we had people like you who care about principles leading the right while the left continued to demolish everything we love and cherish.
The nation is flooded with illegal aliens and I should be happy that two Republicans were "principled" and cucked out.
No thanks, I am not an establishment conservative cuck.
If you don't want to do what it takes to truly stand up to the left, then get out of the way and sit down.
Being principled is great, and it makes for an especially poignant obituary. Being principled only works when your opponent plays by the rules. Since that is clearly impossible, pragmatism is more important.
They view and treat this conflict as a war, therefore it IS one (whether it suits your ideals or not). The overly principled lose wars unless they possess overwhelming force. We do NOT possess overwhelming force so all tactics are acceptable unless we reach an agreement with the enemy to discontinue them. We once had such tacit agreements but they have long since violated them, so reciprocation is in order. Imagine one of the sides in WW1 refusing to use machine guns because they went against their principles.
The left isn't playing by the rules dude. They haven't for a good 20-30 years. FFS we lost an election because of it.
You can't have a proper game if your opponent refuses to play by the same rules you do.
Ding ding ding. The problem with leftists vs anyone who is a centrist or right wing is that WE play by the rules, the LEFTISTS don't. Fuck them.
Yeah we're not going to destroy the constitution and contort our system of government even more to own the libs. If the ruling went the way you wanted nothing Biden has used executive orders for could be reversed. I'm not going to kill myself to own the libs
All leftist judges act as a Dem super legislature.
Meanwhile 2 Republican appointed judges constantly cuck out and join the leftists as a "compromise".
You trying to equate my statements with leftists whining about abortion is asinine.
There is no constitutional right to abortion. That is a ruling based on originalism.
This is not a ruling based in originalism.
This same Supreme court minus Amy Barrett ruled that Trump can't end DACA yet Biden can now end Remain in Mexico?
This is completely inconsistent on the boundaries of the power of the executive.
Not saying I agree, but it makes sense in a way. As a government, you can't create expectations among people and then revoke it based on a whim. The greater issue is that the whole original DACA was probably illegal.
Whole original DACA is definitely illegal.
They are ruling inconsistently when they limit Trump but reaffirm Biden when it comes to right of immigration enforcement.
This is a disgusting lack of consistency.
Like I just said, I'm not saying I support it (I'm hardly an expert on Murican law), but the difference is that a promise made by the government cannot be easily revoked.
The legislative branch and executive branch in the U.S. have made promises over the years and have subsequently revoked them. It is not like it never happened before.
That is no justification for how differently the Supreme Court ruled when it comes to Trump versus when it comes to Biden.
Never said that this was the first time. But I'm just pointing out that there is a difference. Just to give you an example: in my country, if the prosecutor erroneously sends you a letter informing you that he is not going to prosecute you, he will not be allowed to prosecute you afterwards. Just because the principle is that the people should be able to rely on the words of government officials.
Please bear in mind that I am not saying that this decision is correct, because in my semi-educated opinion, the DACA decision itself was illegal (as I believe Obama thought).
It's almost as if the rulings share some other commonality, like they're intentionally flooding the country with immigration and they make rulings based on what would increase ethnic displacement of Americans.
Yup, it was exactly the same concept behind the overturning of RvW. The law is the law, and matters of what should be law are reserved for Congress, with the executive being a filter. SCOTUS must only be able to uphold the law, not change it.
I already knew leftists couldn't fathom the rule of law and why the ruling happened but now short sighted right wingers also are incapable of seeing why it would be a bad idea to a. Legislate from the bench and b. Make it illegal to overturn previous admins executive orders
They already did make it illegal to overturn previous orders. They prevented trump from rounding up the daca criminals.
And now that has been overturned you moron just like it should have been
Oh so DACA is in fact gone? Or does that illegal policy still persist?
Did I miss when they made it illegal to overturn a previous administration's executive orders? What are you talking about?
Did you miss that they just overturned that
Well basically Kavanaugh is a wildcard. Remember he was marketed as a "moderate" to try to shut the fucking leftists up.
It's not surprising he'd cuck on something. If it wasn't RoevWade or Guns, it would've been immigration. He cannot be relied on.
The fact we pretend illegal immigrants are seeking “asylum” goes to show how the corrupt liberal court system destroyed our country in the 70s and the neocon snakes have been carrying their legacy ever since. There is one Justice who has had the balls to tackle these massive tears in the constitution. Republicans did not win the courts because we allow the uniparty to make our choices.
What the fuck is Kavanaugh even thinking about the remain in Mexico policy?? Fucking traitors man.
It was an executive order policy.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court during Trump's term prevented him from ending DACA which was an executive order policy by Obama.
The composition of the court during the DACA case was less favorable to Republicans since Ginsberg was still alive and Barrett was not appointed yet.
Now even after an extra R Justice, the left still gets the win on their terrible immigration policy. It is so infuriating that Obama and Biden are allowed to exercise executive control over immigration but Trump wasn't allowed the same.
The Supreme Court should not have prevented the end of DACA and with the current court would not have.
As a miserable denizen of the EU, I am quite happy about this, because this makes it more difficult for our tyrants to impose ever greater climate insanity on us.
I hope so but so far the EU always finds a way to destroy the national sovereignty of member nations and subvert the wishes of the populace.
I still think the creation of the EU was a huge mistake.
Free travel and trade is good. A political union is very, very bad.
I disagree on free trade.
Neocons and neoliberals in America touted NAFTA and it destroyed US manufacturing.
Free trade is not a universal good.
I also disagree on free travel since it forces uniform laws on every member nation limiting national sovereignty.
I agree that a political union is extremely bad.
To be clear, I meant free trade within Europe. We have not had the devastation of industry as bad as the American rust belt. Regular people have generally benefited from it.
Free travel does not necessarily limit national sovereignty. I do not even mean the right of permanent settllement (which it also allows) - just being able to go to a place for a few weeks without a visa.
What does any of this have to do with either Kavanaugh or Robert's deriving pleasure from watching their significant other engage in sexual activities with other people?
Yes it is a good thing for us and it is a big deal.
Sadly they didn't gut Chevron deference like I wanted.
Chevron deference is the idea that courts should defer to federal administrative agencies on any persistent issues concerning their area of expertise.
This ruling focuses on using the major questions doctrine which says that administrative agencies can't regulate on major issues without specific authorization to do so on that issue from Congress.
This is significant but the ruling was sadly narrower than what I desired.
If they gutted Chevron we could have completely crippled the CDC, EPA, DOE and every other out of control adminstrative agency.
Today's ruling definitely restricts them all somewhat but it doesn't cripple them.
It took us 14 years to go from Heller to Bruen.
I just hope they manage to gut Chevron deference sooner.