Supreme Court targets more of your rights as it begins a new term
Supreme Court targets more of your rights as it begins a new term
The U.S. Supreme Court begins a new term amidst a collapse of legitimacy, historic corruption and scandal, conflict of interest, and efforts to obstruct investigations into right-wing billionaire purchasing of influence over the High Court.
[above image] : Abortion rights advocates protested the Supreme Court's attack on women’s rights when it ended Roe. The Court is expected to intensify its attacks on democracy in the new term. Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP
One day the headline will actually explain something instead of being a vague proclamation of doom
One day the headline will actually explain something instead of being a vague proclamation of doom
Yeah, wouldn't that be great?
Ugh. I hate yellow journalism.
One of the cases involving "more of our rights being targeted" is this one:
The arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America set for Tuesday...
...That's October 3rd of this year, based on what I'm reading...
...so, like, two days ago. I'll have to go see if anything has come of it yet a bit later on.
...will focus on whether the CFPB’s funding through the Federal Reserve violates the Constitution’s appropriations clause.
The blockbuster case threatens to subject the agency to Congress’s annual spending fights, which could in turn upend the funding process for the Federal Reserve and other key financial regulators. Created in the Dodd-Frank Act following the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB regulates larger banks, mortgage and student loan companies, and payday lenders, among others, and has been a frequent target of challenges from Republicans and industry trade groups.
So...this one is going to be the supreme court saying banks, lenders for student loans, and the for-profit shitholes that prey on the poor known as payday lenders can do whatever they want so long as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and no federal regulatory board or agency should be (edit for clarity -- ) able to stop them, in this case due to lack of funding if this passes.
Just your typical "deregulate everything because all regulations that are bad for us rich folks are 'government over-reach', obvs" claptrap.
Then there's:
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The outcome could overturn the landmark 1984 Chevron vs. National Resources Defense Council, which compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute.
The goal of Loper is to severely limit or strip the authority of federal agencies like the EPA, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Elections Commission to issue regulations in areas ranging from the environment, labor, and consumer protection and transfer their authority to the courts.
and let's not forget:
Moore vs. U.S. -- This case centers on the 16th Amendment and the right of the federal government to tax foreign earnings that corporations don’t distribute to U.S. investors but instead reinvest into the foreign company.
Both Roberts and Alito have investments in companies that stand to benefit from a ruling. Corporate and judicial financial disclosures show Roberts and Alito own individual shares in 19 corporations that could see combined tax relief of $30 billion
There's a whole bunch more reeaaallly interesting information in the article about who benefits from which cases and why a bunch of the supreme court justices should be recusing themselves from these things.
Good find, OP.
(edit again -- All in all an EXCELLENT article. Very well written, informative, and engaging. I'm just not a fan of the headline. Not sure I could do better though, so my apologies to the journalist who wrote it for critiquing a vague headline with a vague stance.)
Why would it? The point of a headline is to get you to read the article. If it explained it will enough, you wouldn't need to read the rest.
Also, it would be WAY too long for a headline.
That's why the Second Amendment was made!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…
Literally. It’s necessary to the security of our free state.
who are you going to murder? All the Supreme Court Justices? So long as they've already passed the legislation it wouldn't make a difference.
Obviously not, killing all of them would be irresponsible and unethical.
Liberals can be perfectly fine allies against fascism, as long as they don't get cut too deeply.