340 Comments
User's avatar
Marla's avatar

Cheer up.

The scumbag insurrectionists can still be charged with many other violations of the US Code, just not obstruction. Although, give the Supremes a minute and they'll void those, as well.

Expand full comment
Kira Thomsen-Cheek's avatar

I will drink. 🍷

In fact, I already am. 🍷

Expand full comment
Zen Gali's avatar

I can't help but think that the reason they are now taking this balls-out run at totalitarianism is because they finally have the ability to track every one of our movements, transactions, utterances, and thoughts. The Total Information Awareness program that Congress forbid and that was then broken up into sub-projects by the Bush Administration so as to continue unmolested, is ready for implementation. Combined with AI (former head of the NSA has just joined the board of OpenAI), we are well and truly fucked. 1984 and Big Brother, here we come.

Expand full comment
Matthew Bright's avatar

Speaking of crap, he's going to have to defecate in front of many of those despised negroes. I consider it a tiny victory, but I take my pleasures where I can.

Expand full comment
Megan Macomber's avatar

In Fischer, SCOTUS is enshrining the quirky (meaning: batshit) interpretation of circuit court judge Carl Nichols, who first obliterated the "or" in that obstruction statute.

Will it shock you to learn that Nichols was appointed by Trump? No? Didn't think so. The rot doesn't always start at the head; sometimes it goes both ways.

Expand full comment
Steve Haddon's avatar

Jesus fucking Christ America. Look, I'm not an American and don't live in America, but you guys are still scaring the shit out of me. America is on a runaway train of SCOTUS insanity - or maybe just simple corruption. Actually... probably both.

And it seems like all anyone, (sane), can do, is scream: "What the actual fuck!", whenever the Supreme Court adds to the pile of "stupid", with even more "stupid".

And let's not mention Judge Cannon, shall we!

Expand full comment
fair_n_hite_451's avatar

"Never ascribe to malice that which can simply be put down to greed".

SCROTUS this week has blatantly declared themselves both illegitimate AND "open for business"

Expand full comment
Nemo's avatar

With respect to dismantling rules against pollution: What the actual fuck?

Expand full comment
Viole Falusche's avatar

Thank you for wading through that shit, Marcie Jones. My mind boggles.

Expand full comment
Blanche de Shambles's avatar

Oh, Jesus Christ- they literally did an Anatole France.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

Expand full comment
Phried Ω's avatar

Oh boy, here comes leaded gasoline, asbestos, and open-cycle nuclear powered airliners.

Expand full comment
Sir David Chaillou, KSW's avatar

So where's Mucius Scaevola when you really, really need him?

Expand full comment
skinnercitycyclist's avatar

Out murdering Thomas à Becket, I guess.

Expand full comment
Louise Pattison's avatar

Can we officially call these right-wing so-called "judges" "activists legislating from the bench" now? Or is that label still reserved for liberals?

Expand full comment
Lucius's avatar

If we manage to hold on to the White House and flip Congress we need to rip those fuckers out of the court, disbar them, and ideally throw them in prison for corruption. They're all about being tough on crime right? Put them in time out in solitary for a couple decades or so.

Expand full comment
Zen Gali's avatar

They're going to fight any election loss in the courts.

Expand full comment
Lucius's avatar

That goes without saying

Expand full comment
John Gear's avatar

The Supremes, on the same day that they struck down Chevron deference, admit that judges have no special competence to deal with complex issues like homelessness. But they are suitable to decide all challenges to the vast array of highly technical federal rules and regulations without any deference to the relevant agencies that wrote them.

The federalist takeover -- all power to federal judges now that we have a factory for cloning and installing legal luminaries like Kacsmaryk and Loose Cannon into out of the way district courts where they can issue national injunctions (in between cruises and "seminars" in Aspen and Banff)

From: Legal Information Institute <news@lii.mail.cornell.edu>

Date: June 28, 2024 at 09:07:28 PDT

Subject: Supreme Court Bulletin for Friday, June 28, 2024

Reply-To: Legal Information Institute <news@lii.mail.cornell.edu>

Though doubtless well intended, the Ninth Circuit’s Martin experiment defied these lessons. Answers to questions such as what constitutes “involuntarily” homelessness or when a shelter is “practically available” cannot be found in the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Nor do federal judges enjoy any special competence to provide them. Cities across the West report that the Ninth Circuit’s involun tariness test has created intolerable uncertainty for them. By extending Robinson beyond the narrow class of pure status crimes, the Ninth Circuit has created a right that has proven “impossible” for judges to delineate except “by fiat.” Powell, 392 U. S., at 534. As Justice Marshall anticipated in Powell, the Ninth Circuit’s rules have produced confusion and they have interfered with “essential considerations of federalism,” by taking from the people and their elected leaders difficult questions traditionally “thought to be the[ir] province.” Id., at 535–536. Pp. 24–34.

Expand full comment
Judge Mental's avatar

I sure picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

Expand full comment
HulitC's avatar

Why didn’t Biden increase the number of SCOTUS judges??? Hes better than thump (& I’ll be voting BLUE across the board), but we need something more.

Expand full comment
Louise Pattison's avatar

Wouldn't have passed the Senate.

Expand full comment