US US Politics General 2: Hope Edition - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

​

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

 

[shekelshoah666]

How are these not contradictory, exactly?

Uhhh something something limited scope something something ongoing litigation basically that is the reasoning for every dumb ruling

 

[WelperHelper99]

If anyone wants a summary on the circumstances of that ruling:
Wyświetl załącznik 9207652

Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch and in part by Kavanaugh.

Justice Barrett writes that the "election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked after election day yet received afterward."

GARBAGE

Appears to be about "geoforce warrants" and the legality of them.

Wyświetl załącznik 9207678

The court holds that police conducted a "search" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment "when they gained access to Location History data." "An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone's location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information."

Cautiously optimistic (not really, cops are never putting the geofence genie back in the bottle, they will just be sneaky about it now)

Two more Supreme Court opinions. One is Trump v. Cook and the other is Trump v. Slaughter.

Reporting from SCOTUSBlog:
For Trump v. Cook:
In Trump v. Cook, the vote is 5-4. Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson join the chief justice.

At issue in this case is the Trump administration’s efforts to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, based on allegations of mortgage fraud (which she strenuously disputes). The lower courts required Trump to allow Cook to stay at the Fed while litigation continued, and the Supreme Court heard argument in January on whether to pause the lower court’s decision.

The court today turns down the government's request to pause the lower court's decision -- e.g., Lisa Cook can continue to stay in office while the litigation continues.

Thomas has a dissenting opinion; Alito has a dissenting opinion joined by Gorsuch; Barrett also has a dissenting opinion.

"To accept any one of [the Trump administration's arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference. We therefore deny the Government’s application."

"Having rejected the Government's view that the courts are to play no role in assessing the validity of a Governor's removal, we may decide this application on narrow grounds. No matter the precise definition of cause, or the scope of our review of any such determination, the President failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute."

For Trump v. Slaughter:
This was Rebecca Slaughter’s challenge to her removal from her position as a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Under federal law, the president could only remove her for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” but he did not cite any of the grounds in firing her. The lower courts ordered Trump to reinstate Slaughter. They pointed to Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 case in which the Supreme Court had upheld the FTC’s removal provision.

The court in Slaughter holds that the "for cause" removal provision for the FTC is contrary to the Constitution's separation of powers.

The court also overrules Humphrey's Executor.

What the fuck nigger?

 

[mandatorylurk]

This sums it up well:



I can only think with this level of both sides faggotry, maybe they will actually end birthright citizenship but make it go into effect Jan 1, 2027 so we'll have a flood of retarded inbred foreigners try and get in ASAP.

Or, they just have the gayest opinion written on Birthright where Jackson writes it and she's just saying "I'm black, I'm immigrants n' sheeeeeeiiiit, das why we needs this like we needs cornstarch, ya hurrrrr"


edit: this is what Barrett looks like now, you can tell the injection of liberalism just rots the soul:

 

[Breadbassket]

SCOTUSBlog reports that we could have opinion days tomorrow, or tomorrow and Wednesday, or just Wednesday. There are 4 opinions left to be decided and they are related to birthright citizenship, transgender athletes and campaign finances.

 

[X Prime]

Justice Barrett writes that the "election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked after election day yet received afterward."

The most absolutely generous interpretation of this is that they're saying Congress has to set a limit via statute. Never mind that I am pretty sure it's implied by the mere existence of a thing called Election Day.

I am not inclined to be generous to the opinions of a nigger adopter.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

SCOTUSBlog reports that we could have opinion days tomorrow, or tomorrow and Wednesday, or just Wednesday. There are 4 opinions left to be decided.

SCOTUS has not yet announced new opinion days as far as I'm aware

 

[shekelshoah666]

This sums it up well:

Wyświetl załącznik 9207727

I can only think with this level of both sides faggotry, maybe they will actually end birthright citizenship but make it go into effect Jan 1, 2027 so we'll have a flood of retarded inbred foreigners try and get in ASAP.

Or, they just have the gayest opinion written on Birthright where Jackson writes it and she's just saying "I'm black, I'm immigrants n' sheeeeeeiiiit, das why we needs this like we needs cornstarch, ya hurrrrr"

Birthright is almost certainly going to be some sort of extremely limited scope ruling that maybe kinda does something in very specific situations at best. There is no way they make a straight up ruling against it sadly anyone besides Thomas or Alito are too scared of the backlash.

 

[Betonhaus]

"


edit: this is what Barrett looks like now, you can tell the injection of liberalism just rots the soul:

Wyświetl załącznik 9207738

Jeeze, if you told me that she has been disappeared and replaced with a lookalike I would believe it.

 

[northstar747]

One thing I think would help our system is if the SC had a mechanism that forced congress into session to clarify their own laws. Basically make them do their job.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Never mind that I am pretty sure it's implied by the mere existence of a thing called Election Day.

Election day is when you celebrate your elections. Counting of the votes can take up to months later. That makes perfect sense. After all, America is just a quirky gal, is all.

 

[Potion_Time]

I can't wait for Trumps unhinged truth social post calling SCOTUS godless communists instead of listening to the reasoning and then actually attempting to change the law that prevented him from winning.

 

[Conan]

Ok NOW I get why my mother and grandmother hate women

To quote my grandmother: "I would never vote for a woman, ever."

 

[Korpon]

You can tell Barrett and Roberts don't just go by the case in front of them, they think "oh gee we ruled 75% for Trump in the past few cases, we need to bring that down to 55/45 or 50/50, oh gee it's just about decency oh gee"

They really wish to prove the "cuckservative" label correct, these niggers never want to truly win.

 

[X Prime]

Or, they just have the gayest opinion written on Birthright where Jackson writes it and she's just saying "I'm black, I'm immigrants n' sheeeeeeiiiit, das why we needs this like we needs cornstarch, ya hurrrrr"

It's this one.

As for ACB, clearly menopause is at least partially at fault.

 

[Nod Flenders]

Birthright is almost certainly going to be some sort of extremely limited scope ruling that maybe kinda does something in very specific situations at best. There is no way they make a straight up ruling against it sadly anyone besides Thomas or Alito are too scared of the backlash.

You're probably right. They aren't going to fully strike it down, but will probably strike down portions of it. I'm not going full doomer on it.

 

[Korpon]

Ok NOW I get why my mother and grandmother hate women

To quote my grandmother: "I would never vote for a woman, ever."

My mother has always said "a woman should never be in a position of power" and she gets proven right time and time again.

 

[X Prime]

I can't wait for Trumps unhinged truth social post calling SCOTUS godless communists instead of listening to the reasoning

The "reasoning" is a smokescreen for ACB going "aw shucks, these dumb darkies like the ones I adopted can't possibly be expected to mail things in on time."

In other words, Trump would be more or less right to rant.

 

[Professor Donger]

And of course, Republicans in the Senate will still whine about how they don't need to pass the SAVE Act at all because our elections are just so fair and not cheated at all, guys. Fucking disgusting.

 

[Korpon]

I despise this democracy

 

[Betonhaus]

One thing I think would help our system is if the SC had a mechanism that forced congress into session to clarify their own laws. Basically make them do their job.

There are a few mechanisms that need to be in place, but it’s difficult to balance a system in a way where if enough corruption takes control of a mechanism that it cannot override the entire system.

One thing that could be good is that whenever a court case gets appealed to SCOTUS, the lower court has to justify their decision in front of the supreme court directly and spell out their reasoning. But there needs to be some framework for a “failure to legislate” mechanism where if a judge has been unable to rule in compliance with the constitution on a repeated bases with quantifiable metrics they can be removed.