204 Comments
User's avatar
Holiday Jen's avatar

What is up is they are about to drop the proverbial bombshell.

Last time they did not horrendous shit, we got Dobbs shortly after.

Expand full comment
Enter Ranting's avatar

You happy now libs? Are you gonna back off my free luxury vacations and complimentary RV now?

Expand full comment
DemoCat's avatar

Speaking of SCOTUS members with whom we have differences with, Thomas evidently isn’t the only justice who enjoys his wife’s maga wingnut extremism vicariously. Alito’s house evidently flew an upside down “stop the steal” flag on 1/17/21, a week and a half AFTER the failed coup on the Capitol and United States government revealed how dangerous The Big Lie really was. He’s throwing Mrs. Alito under the bus. “That was entirely Mrs. Alito” he explained. Plus, it was entirely self-defense, he claims, as lefty neighbors were being mean to them. So a sitting scotus justice had so little respect for his supposedly apolitical position, and for the gravity of the moment in time, that his wife flew a Big Lie flag that he condoned. Unless he knew nothing about it whatsoever.

Expand full comment
Enter Ranting's avatar

What an absolute dick.

Expand full comment
Zyxomma's avatar

Ta, Dok. Weird.

Expand full comment
Tza's avatar

Seriously. The fact that Thomas went against Alito AND wrote the opinion doing so stunned pretty much everyone I know, and many I don't. WaPo's comment section is in hysterics it's so funny.

Expand full comment
Russell Jones's avatar

"this case was brought . . . by two trade groups representing payday lenders."

A case like this brought by two stalwarts of the poverty industry? The hell you say!

Expand full comment
avidlurker's avatar

CFPB got me $1000+ from Citibank a few years ago. I'm a fan.

Wallet got stolen in Paris. Spent an hour or two in a cafe calling banks. Most of them were fine, cards cancelled, no problem. Citibank made me jump through hoops, but eventually "cancelled" the card. A few hours later $2500 in charges by the thieves were approved. I spent the next few days on the phone with them, trying not to let it ruin my European trip. But eventually they agreed that reporting a card stolen meant I wasn't liable for the charges. They'd reverse them and then investigate, making it final 90 days later.

90 days later I get a letter from them that they decided $1000+ of the charges were legit and I was on the hook for them.

I wasn't sure who to appeal to but somehow remembered Liz Warren and her CFPB, and I contacted them, creating a case file. A couple of days later Citibank allowed as how maybe a card reported as stolen should be treated as a stolen card, and they refunded the charges.

Expand full comment
Hank Napkin's avatar

SCOTUS tries out some of that there "throw 'em a bone" technique for to better implement the later "yeah, buts..."

Expand full comment
Hank Napkin's avatar

We can always "Cancel at Any Time."

-- "Just call me Uncle" Sam Alito

Expand full comment
JR's avatar

Looking like what this means after the CFBP & LA ~concessions? is.... IMMUNITY. Rationale - it won't make them look like partisan hacks. Sorry, too late.

Expand full comment
BecomingJenn's avatar

I think the strategy is 'hope the rubes will forget the absolute monsters that we showed everyone and really are'.

They think our memories are going to be that short. Thing is when humans give others pain, esp collectively and large enough, there is NO way to forget. Those who create the cruelty forget as it's just another day. We survivors don't ever get to forget.

May their downfall be swift and a learning experience for other humans in the future. You end up taking yourself down when you want to control and/or hurt other humans just cuz you can.

Expand full comment
Herr Snackmeier's avatar

Without question this is a case of the kind that the cliche quote a switch in time which saved nine unquote has been applied.

We know now through contemporary historical research that the supreme Court did not switch itself to prevent fdrs Court packing scheme. What really happened was that key justices saw the 1936 Landslide victory as public endorsement of the new deal and then voted to support labor regulations in the parish hotel case. That was before the court packing scheme was unpacked. But because of the illness of another Justice the finished parish case was released after the core packing scheme was announced, making it seem like one thing led to the other when in fact that was not true at all.

Regardless in this case I will apply factlessly or conspiracy theory that this case represents a quote saving switch unquote, because of the strangeness of the majority and certainly the utter weirdness of the Justice - author. The opinions author is a weird dude who spent the first two decades on the court doing and saying nothing. He has no specialty in financial or business law. And he is hardly any expert on foundational constitutional principles such as what constitutes in appropriation is outlined in the first article of the Constitution of the United States. And yet his brethren chose him to be listed at least is the first author. So strange. It can only be, to this skeptical and cynical observer, that in the infant minds of the courts quote conservative unquote majority, the decision that seems a quote win quote for quote liberals unquote gives their conspiracy some breathing room or Goodwill to spend when the next draconian and antifreedom rulings come down. One hopes that this ruling is not intended as a cracker Jack prize to somehow compensate for the loss of the Chevron rule, which protects the interests of the weakest Americans from exploitation by economic royalists.

Expand full comment
RSKPDX's avatar

I’m shocked they ruled this way.

Expand full comment
Colbert Thorenson's avatar

For some reason, Clarance didn't feel exactly comfortable on the the payday loan industry's yacht, The Stugots,

Expand full comment
Oblio's Cap's avatar

Since they really like screwing The Blacks, one would think Thomas would be a fan of payday lenders.

Expand full comment
Shire Jansen's avatar

Two correct decisions does not excuse the delay created in more urgent issues, while I am grateful they got these two correct, there is absolutely no need for them to hear the absolute immunity case as they already ruled against that in May '20, released July '20. The definition of absolute is total and when they ruled the sitting President had to abide by a lawful subpoena they rendered the absolute part null and void. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that one up himself, remind him of it DOJ.

Expand full comment
ReSister For Life Callyson's avatar

"Republicans and financial industry critics, many of whom have opposed the bureau since its inception, have long argued that the funding scheme allows the agency to escape being held hostage by tools of people who exploit the poor for profit"

/fixed

/FFS

Expand full comment
Oblio's Cap's avatar

The very definition of Crapitalism.

You must be some kinda Commie!

Expand full comment
SunMoonStars's avatar

Hey asshole SC rwnjs WE will NEVER FORGET ROE so GFY. We will also never forget HOW FUCKING CORRUPT YOU ARE. JFC we aren't all rwnjs like your cult that thinks criming is cool and every rich fuck should get away with it.

Nope, not buying it you will NEVER redeem yourselves EVER.

Expand full comment
ReSister For Life Callyson's avatar

I've been over SCOTUS since Bush v Gore FFS.

Expand full comment
SunMoonStars's avatar

Me too well actually mine was with the Uncle Thomas confirmation hearings and Anita Hill.

Expand full comment
Garbageman's avatar

They're just softening us up for that Trump decision in June 🙄 . . .

Expand full comment
tempusfugit's avatar

I dunno. This fascist corrupt SCROTUS *knows* it has no legitimacy and no police force.

They've been pirouetting around the edge of the abyss of COMPLETE blue-state civil disobedience for years now.

A Pussy Ass Bitch as God-Emperor 'decision' would twirl the bitches right over the edge, IMO.

Expand full comment