Fascists always win 6-3, when 6 of the 9 Justices who vote are Fascists. What is needed here is to decrease the proportion of power allotted to the Fascist wing by increasing the total number of Justices, while holding the number of Fascists constant. In other words, a little subtraction by addition would go a long way towards fixing this now-pressing problem.
17 Likes
It’s clear that legal theory has been made up out of whole cloth within the confines of the Federalist Society, without discussion by the broader legal community, then brought into play by FS judicial appointees as though they were established jurisprudence. This is legal sleight of hand.
31 Likes
Ketanji hit the ground running while Gorsuch hits the ground.
13 Likes
I believe the argument is that due diligence was not forced upon them, therefore it can’t have been expected. Because only what the government forces upon you is valid. Anything else does not conform to the unknown and unspoken specific necessity of textual accuracy and completeness.
How this relates to the desire to disempower government is interesting, but not worth the effort in untangling here today.
4 Likes
Shoutout to two great women involving this post: KBJ And KR (Kate Riga!)
Bravas!!!
23 Likes
The DOT was not specifically authorized to build bridges to nowhere through the ocean, a half mile away from solid ground, either. Maybe sue Florida for the cost of all their ridiculous destroyed causeways,
2 Likes
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: I like how that sounds!!
9 Likes
For all her right-minded reasoning, Justice Jackson’s eloquence simply amplifies the necessity to expand the court! There is really no other way.
23 Likes
I’m currently selling my house and had to provide copious info about it. It’s hard to imagine that undeveloped property doesn’t have the same requirement. Plus if there was already a lapsed finding that this was a protected site, wouldn’t you look even harder for the current status?
29 Likes
It’s spunk with a slow burn spice. The value of her dissents will come in the future (assuming the country survives long enough) when they will form the bases of more enlightened jurisprudence in a more enlightened age.
21 Likes
As I posted on another thread… who needs clean water anyway?.
Without protecting wetlands, which act as filtration for water down steam, pollution will get into the drinking water of even rich folk like conservative SCOTUS justices. One would think they’d care, but they don’t… really.
17 Likes
“Is there a process by which a homeowner can ask?” she inquired.
Brian Fletcher, deputy U.S. solicitor general, answered in the affirmative, that the Army Corp of Engineers will do a jurisdictional determination for free.
“So you’re not really facing criminal liability without the opportunity to get an assessment from the government regarding your particular circumstances?” Jackson concluded.
“I thought they went into it knowing this might be a wetland,” she said.
Schiff responded that there had been an assessment done by a prior owner determining that the land was a wetland, but said that the Sacketts didn’t know about it.
“Shouldn’t they have gathered information about the property prior to purchasing it?” Jackson asked with a wry chuckle.
Doing due diligence about your potential property and government requirements around any changes is apparently kryptonite to conservatives.
Still not going to stop the Fascist Five from bailing out their supporters for their poor decisions.
31 Likes
The facts of the case will mean nothing to the Fascist Five.
8 Likes
Yes, Judge Jackson, tell those willingly ignorant males the simple, easily obtained facts. Standing up to gaslighting and BS. You go, Girl.
11 Likes
Spunky? When was the last time you called a man acting in similar fashion ‘spunky’?
9 Likes
Excellent reporting. Would like to see more stories like this here. For me, all the stir the outrage pot stuff only goes so far.
9 Likes
She’s a billion times smarter than those jackasses and Mrs. Barrett.
23 Likes
Yeah, but that would mean he has ethics. C’mon, man…
2 Likes
What makes this whole regulation rollback philosophy an absolute nonsense is the sheer effort and egregious nature of any offense to even make it into law.
These laws were made on the back of overwhelming evidence, and against the wishes and profit-financed gambits of those who would perpetuate an offense to the law and people.
What, because nobody can remember anybody who was around when they passed these laws we have to litigate them again? Rubbish.
Capitalism won. This is a bought and paid for court groomed to one end - money - via another end - the church.
Only zealots can contort themselves into such facetious intellectual positions. Now watch them rain shit.
8 Likes
But calling them out during oral arguments, which are public and often widely reported, will be helpful to keep their shenanigans exposed.
That may have an effect over time, if not right away.
12 Likes