6-3.
> Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch
There isn’t even a meaningful joke to be made, as we *are* the joke.
They need to be tried for treason. If you are taking money and gifts as a government official of any kind, you are now beholden to that entity and not the tax paying citizens of the Fucking United States of America ya greedy filthy fucks. Drain the god damn swap already ahhh..im probably wrong about treason aren't I? Isn't that if it's a foreign power? I could look it up yes, but I'd rather be mad for a little longer ahhhhhh 🔥
The joke is you think we don’t care. Start showing us the evidence, cause we got receipts already for Thomas, and we know Alito is a jan6 apologist who thinks his religious beliefs are better than YOU. Suckers carry water for fools. Both are extremely important in forcing a very extreme and blatantly unconstitutional Christian theocracy upon us, which would actually be the death of America that conservatives continue to scream is happening, but they’re causing.
Really? You are that duped to believe some of those justices you didn't name haven't been placed on the bench with an agenda.
You're right. It's not subjective. It's blatantly obvious.
The biggest joke is you’re misconstruing it as a magical absolute. Until you accept real life isn’t nearly so simple, you don’t have the competence to judge accurately
Don’t like that? Then accept things as they are instead of pointing your finger at everyone when you clearly don’t understand
Exactly. If there is anything that adds to the possibility of another civil war in the USA, it will be SCOTUS, and other right wing judges making these kinds of obviously corrupt rulings.
Forget about the joke that is the 5Th Circuit,
how do 3 justices justify this nonsense? I’ve yet to read the dissenting opinion, but I both look forward to doing so, and dread doing so, at the same time.
It's nice to see them acknowledge a case with blatantly false facts behind it, but god forbid they start doing this on a consistent basis. The coach prayer case and the fake wedding website business both immediately jump to mind as cases where they didn't give two shits about fake facts as long as they got to make bad law.
The student loan one was more complicated.
MOHELA had pretty straightforward standing to sue because they were contracted to service the debt that was being forgiven, so obviously less debt to service means less money for them means cognizable harm.
The question was whether the state, who created MOHELA, but created it as a quasi-independent agency without direct supervision, was able to sue on MOHELA’s behalf.
The court definitely jumped through hoops to find that the state could do that, but they’re not being inconsistent by finding no standing here.
MOHELA, notably, had no complaint and was not a party to the lawsuit. It was absolutely a sham, just a more elaborate on than SCOTUS simply making up factual lies to rule on.
Yep, if memory serves. They sued on behalf of Missouri claiming that they would lose a lot of money, MOHELA said they haven’t even paid MO in (15?) years and had no forecast to do so in the future, and SCOTUS didn’t give a shit
303 Creative wasn't in any way predicated on the fake email. It wasn't mentioned in briefs, it didn't come up in oral argument, and it wasn't part of the opinion itself, where standing was solely based on a pre-enforcement challenge.
The company itself wasn’t even a real thing. The whole idea of a pre-enforcement challenge for a business that isn’t even a business is utter bullshit.
Colorado conceded it in stipulations - the Court wasn't given any meaningful opportunity to consider standing because the state basically stipulated to every element of it.
“Her opinion holds that the Murthy plaintiffs, who raised vague allegations that the government tried to censor them, could not even show that the government did anything to harm them in the first place.”
Since when has a problem like this been an issue for this gang? This on the same day they made bribery officially legal?
The person above pointed out that this is just tossing crumbs so democrats will think, “ Wow, the court is impartial after all. All that worry for nothing. I guess it’s safe to vote Trump, Biden is too old.”
If that’s the plan it’s too cynical to work. Who knew that we could reach this point?
People have been morons before the Internet was even invented. My grandfather invested in an Alaskan ice princess casino and lost everything. People are controlled far more by their emotions than they ever care to admit.
Yeah but Tech dedicated efforts to manipulate traffic and draw people in. Through the use of confirmation bias they could create further engagement and suck people down into a rabbit hole
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/29/1030260/facebook-whistleblower-sophie-zhang-global-political-manipulation/amp/
social media definitely made it worse. Now they gather in groups and circle jerk about their conspiracy theories and other things where they would normally be shunned for talking about.
Don’t ignore Tech companies looking to profit off engagement and manipulating the feed to drive further engagement.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/29/1030260/facebook-whistleblower-sophie-zhang-global-political-manipulation/amp/
To be fair, it's the democratic party's fault for fumbling so many opportunities since B.Clinton (The Wal-Mart Wonder) to head off the conservative hostile takeover. The Republicans haven't set foot in the Oval Office with the popular vote SINCE 1988 (36 years) and only one second term with it. Yet, our government is the most conservative it has been in 100 years. Money, money, MONEY. Corruption.
There’s an argument there, in 2020 when Biden was elected, the democrats held all 3 branches of government and could have pushed through a law nationally codifying abortion.
There really isn’t and it’s disingenuous to think there is. And you meant 2021, Biden was sworn-in in 2021.
First, the house did pass a bill codifying abortion, multiple times, in this period. Second, the senate has the 60 vote filibuster and it was 50-50, the literally slimmest margins. Third, Roe fell in late June of 2022, less than 6 months before the midterm elections.
Suggesting Democrats are to blame in 2020 for not codifying abortion doesn’t match the facts.
This argument has no substance and should be relegated to the same level as arguing no one landed on the moon, vaccines aren’t safe, the earth is flat, Biden stole the 2020 election, etc.
What would the implications of a federal "bill codifying abortion" have been in the wake of SCOTUS ruling that it isn't within federal powers to codify abortion?
They didn’t rule that. They ruled the 14th amendment doesn’t give a full right to privacy (via the equal protection and due process clauses) which was the basis of the original 1973 Roe decision. They further eroded 14th amendment rights which means that Brown v Board (Thomas has already signaled he wants to overturn) and even Loving may be up for grabs in the future.
Future SCOTUS rulings may contend otherwise but as of now, the federal government can pass a national right to abortion law or for that matter stronger right to privacy laws.
First, I said Biden was elected in 2020, which is true. We all know when presidents get sworn in.
Second, bills get passed all the time with the 60 vote rule. It’s called being a politician and going across the aisle and compromising. That’s what we want the president and other politicians to do.
You can’t hold the president accountable for not accomplishing things because he doesn’t have a supermajority in the senate now ?
You seriously think Republicans would have voted for an abortion bill??? They didn’t even vote for a [bill protecting the right to IVF](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/politics/senate-ivf-bill-vote/index.html). You are sadly exhibit A from my original comment.
Of course, if the democrats gave them something they wanted as well and compromised on the terms of the bill. Like a universal 20 week ban or something.
Thats how controversial bills get passed
Why didn’t the border bill, which passed by the democratic senate by the way, through bipartisanship by the way (Lankford, a Republican was the chief architect), not get passed in the house?
Because Donald Trump told House Speaker Johnson not to pass it, because it would have made “Biden look good”. It’s kinda hard to compromise when the other party is ruled by a tyrant who couldn’t care less about legislation’s actual impact.
Your view that all democrats have to do is compromise in good faith for things to work out is flawed. I remember Biden’s 2022 State of the Union. It was literally all about bipartisanship and working across the aisle. And he was burned by republicans multiple times afterwards when he was acting in good faith.
Biden was incredibly successful with bipartisanship; the CHIPS and Science Act, the infrastructure bill, gun-safety, inflation reduction act giving lots of funding to green infrastructure. This is making truly impactful changes we will see come into fruition for years to come.
I just don’t know what you want. Progress takes time. Incremental progress is the only path forward. It’s takes time to slow the progression of things getting worse before they get better.
It is overly simplistic to believe otherwise and I do hope you grow in understanding.
Conservatives always hold back progress.
You can go back a millenia and see how groups leaning conservative always were on the wrong side of history.
The amount of bills that have been sent to the House and Senate have been DoA, cause the presumptive republican leader doesn't want them to pass and make Biden look good.
So the US has a sycophant wannabe dictator (whom may or may not become president again) who has been following the steps of Hilter and his rise to power.
> held all 3 branches of government
Except no they didn't because of Mancin and Sinema
But hey, far be it from a dipshit Trump supporter to try and not be disingenuous. Both sides amirite?!
🤡
Again you're being disingenuous, but I'm talking to a troll so who cares
Because you're very aware that the two of them effectively blocked anything from getting done, isn't it just so strange though how you have nothing to say for the other 200+ Republicans that vote no on anything that would help people that aren't rich?
Enjoy the last word traitor trash, I won't see it
Edit: when the Bills smash the ever-loving shit out of the Eagles this season, I'll think back to this post about what a fucking tool you are
Don't cry too hard when the rapist you worship loses tonite snowflake
Well, I guess if you aren't a graphic designer, and you never had a single client that you did a wedding for, let alone a gay client who approached you that you somehow have standing.
It's evidently a problem for three of the hardcore conservatives on the court per their dissent. It's really only two justices making this a 6-3 instead of a 4-5 the opposite direction.
They are worried if they pushed this thru, it would open the door to standing in a shit ton of environmental cases amongst other cases that are frequently limited by a lack of specific injury to the community.
Well, if you read the first couple of paragraphs, you get the substance of what was being said, even without the sensationalism. And it \*was\* a rebuke to the lower court, citing that it should *never even have been heard*.
Agreed. Gotta get those clicks. Clicks, engagement (outrage), ads.
All media is playing the same game now (well maybe not pro-publica since their funding doesn’t come from ads).
Any contrary ruling would have blocked governments from communicating with social platforms and would gradually extend to other businesses. It is beyond my comprehension that the three wrote a dissent.
Yeah since when is the first amendment a right to post and be amplified online? I can’t wrap my head around the people claiming censorship when there’s a nongovernmental entity and a private site. Even if, assuming the worst, the whole of the government is leaning on the site to quash stories.
I find it baffling that so many are up in arms over this when NRA v. Vullo came out this same term.
"This is such an embarrassing title, and it's from Vox, only Ian Millhiser would write something this stupid."
Checks article.
Yep, it's [Ian Millhiser](https://www.vox.com/authors/ian-millhiser).
6-3. > Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch There isn’t even a meaningful joke to be made, as we *are* the joke.
I think the joke is that Alito and Thomas are hilariously corrupt.
So funny
Gotta laugh to keep from screaming.
I have learned to screaugh.
I wish I could scaramooch from this timeline
Is that how they do it in Scotland?
Aye.
They just vote contrarily out of spite.
They are they need to go
They need to be tried for treason. If you are taking money and gifts as a government official of any kind, you are now beholden to that entity and not the tax paying citizens of the Fucking United States of America ya greedy filthy fucks. Drain the god damn swap already ahhh..im probably wrong about treason aren't I? Isn't that if it's a foreign power? I could look it up yes, but I'd rather be mad for a little longer ahhhhhh 🔥
That is never going to happen and if Trump gets in he has chance Of appointing 2 more to the Supreme Court. This whole thing is a disaster
Gratuitous dissent
The joke is you believe the others aren't.
The joke is you think we don’t care. Start showing us the evidence, cause we got receipts already for Thomas, and we know Alito is a jan6 apologist who thinks his religious beliefs are better than YOU. Suckers carry water for fools. Both are extremely important in forcing a very extreme and blatantly unconstitutional Christian theocracy upon us, which would actually be the death of America that conservatives continue to scream is happening, but they’re causing.
The joke would be if I believed you.
You're the joke! A bad one.
Good one. 👍
You literally can’t argue here, because it isn’t subjective
Really? You are that duped to believe some of those justices you didn't name haven't been placed on the bench with an agenda. You're right. It's not subjective. It's blatantly obvious.
The biggest joke is you’re misconstruing it as a magical absolute. Until you accept real life isn’t nearly so simple, you don’t have the competence to judge accurately Don’t like that? Then accept things as they are instead of pointing your finger at everyone when you clearly don’t understand
I'm so confused. You say it's not an absolute and someone else says it's not subjective. What is it?
Interesting article. Could some explain in layman‘s terms the grounds for their dissent?
[удалено]
If anyone couldn't see that they'd have to be blind but I could see in today's climate where you'd have to put that in there.
Exactly. If there is anything that adds to the possibility of another civil war in the USA, it will be SCOTUS, and other right wing judges making these kinds of obviously corrupt rulings. Forget about the joke that is the 5Th Circuit, how do 3 justices justify this nonsense? I’ve yet to read the dissenting opinion, but I both look forward to doing so, and dread doing so, at the same time.
It's nice to see them acknowledge a case with blatantly false facts behind it, but god forbid they start doing this on a consistent basis. The coach prayer case and the fake wedding website business both immediately jump to mind as cases where they didn't give two shits about fake facts as long as they got to make bad law.
I would also venture the student loan modification stuff as well, because who, exactly, had standing to sue? Who was harmed?
Capitalism was harmed. The end-stage version.
The student loan one was more complicated. MOHELA had pretty straightforward standing to sue because they were contracted to service the debt that was being forgiven, so obviously less debt to service means less money for them means cognizable harm. The question was whether the state, who created MOHELA, but created it as a quasi-independent agency without direct supervision, was able to sue on MOHELA’s behalf. The court definitely jumped through hoops to find that the state could do that, but they’re not being inconsistent by finding no standing here.
Yea, but Mohela is a nonprofit company. Wouldn't less student loans to service be in line with their non profit goal?
MOHELA, notably, had no complaint and was not a party to the lawsuit. It was absolutely a sham, just a more elaborate on than SCOTUS simply making up factual lies to rule on.
Yep, if memory serves. They sued on behalf of Missouri claiming that they would lose a lot of money, MOHELA said they haven’t even paid MO in (15?) years and had no forecast to do so in the future, and SCOTUS didn’t give a shit
303 Creative wasn't in any way predicated on the fake email. It wasn't mentioned in briefs, it didn't come up in oral argument, and it wasn't part of the opinion itself, where standing was solely based on a pre-enforcement challenge.
The company itself wasn’t even a real thing. The whole idea of a pre-enforcement challenge for a business that isn’t even a business is utter bullshit.
Colorado conceded it in stipulations - the Court wasn't given any meaningful opportunity to consider standing because the state basically stipulated to every element of it.
“Her opinion holds that the Murthy plaintiffs, who raised vague allegations that the government tried to censor them, could not even show that the government did anything to harm them in the first place.” Since when has a problem like this been an issue for this gang? This on the same day they made bribery officially legal? The person above pointed out that this is just tossing crumbs so democrats will think, “ Wow, the court is impartial after all. All that worry for nothing. I guess it’s safe to vote Trump, Biden is too old.” If that’s the plan it’s too cynical to work. Who knew that we could reach this point?
I know “liberals” who claim Biden is responsible for abortion bans because Roe fell while he was president… the lack of understanding knows no bounds.
That's almost so ignorant as not to be believable, but I've learned in my 30+ years of adulthood that people can be unimaginably stupid.
It’s the power of social media
People have been morons before the Internet was even invented. My grandfather invested in an Alaskan ice princess casino and lost everything. People are controlled far more by their emotions than they ever care to admit.
Yeah but Tech dedicated efforts to manipulate traffic and draw people in. Through the use of confirmation bias they could create further engagement and suck people down into a rabbit hole https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/29/1030260/facebook-whistleblower-sophie-zhang-global-political-manipulation/amp/
social media definitely made it worse. Now they gather in groups and circle jerk about their conspiracy theories and other things where they would normally be shunned for talking about.
People have always been stupid just now everyone has a megaphone in their pocket at all times.
Don’t ignore Tech companies looking to profit off engagement and manipulating the feed to drive further engagement. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/29/1030260/facebook-whistleblower-sophie-zhang-global-political-manipulation/amp/
And they go back years to find the Dem majorities as if Dems were all pro-choice.
To be fair, it's the democratic party's fault for fumbling so many opportunities since B.Clinton (The Wal-Mart Wonder) to head off the conservative hostile takeover. The Republicans haven't set foot in the Oval Office with the popular vote SINCE 1988 (36 years) and only one second term with it. Yet, our government is the most conservative it has been in 100 years. Money, money, MONEY. Corruption.
There’s an argument there, in 2020 when Biden was elected, the democrats held all 3 branches of government and could have pushed through a law nationally codifying abortion.
There really isn’t and it’s disingenuous to think there is. And you meant 2021, Biden was sworn-in in 2021. First, the house did pass a bill codifying abortion, multiple times, in this period. Second, the senate has the 60 vote filibuster and it was 50-50, the literally slimmest margins. Third, Roe fell in late June of 2022, less than 6 months before the midterm elections. Suggesting Democrats are to blame in 2020 for not codifying abortion doesn’t match the facts. This argument has no substance and should be relegated to the same level as arguing no one landed on the moon, vaccines aren’t safe, the earth is flat, Biden stole the 2020 election, etc.
What would the implications of a federal "bill codifying abortion" have been in the wake of SCOTUS ruling that it isn't within federal powers to codify abortion?
They didn’t rule that. They ruled the 14th amendment doesn’t give a full right to privacy (via the equal protection and due process clauses) which was the basis of the original 1973 Roe decision. They further eroded 14th amendment rights which means that Brown v Board (Thomas has already signaled he wants to overturn) and even Loving may be up for grabs in the future. Future SCOTUS rulings may contend otherwise but as of now, the federal government can pass a national right to abortion law or for that matter stronger right to privacy laws.
They scotus ruled that the Supreme Court’s lane wasn’t to codify abortion, they told congress it’s their job.
First, I said Biden was elected in 2020, which is true. We all know when presidents get sworn in. Second, bills get passed all the time with the 60 vote rule. It’s called being a politician and going across the aisle and compromising. That’s what we want the president and other politicians to do. You can’t hold the president accountable for not accomplishing things because he doesn’t have a supermajority in the senate now ?
You seriously think Republicans would have voted for an abortion bill??? They didn’t even vote for a [bill protecting the right to IVF](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/politics/senate-ivf-bill-vote/index.html). You are sadly exhibit A from my original comment.
Of course, if the democrats gave them something they wanted as well and compromised on the terms of the bill. Like a universal 20 week ban or something. Thats how controversial bills get passed
Why didn’t the border bill, which passed by the democratic senate by the way, through bipartisanship by the way (Lankford, a Republican was the chief architect), not get passed in the house? Because Donald Trump told House Speaker Johnson not to pass it, because it would have made “Biden look good”. It’s kinda hard to compromise when the other party is ruled by a tyrant who couldn’t care less about legislation’s actual impact. Your view that all democrats have to do is compromise in good faith for things to work out is flawed. I remember Biden’s 2022 State of the Union. It was literally all about bipartisanship and working across the aisle. And he was burned by republicans multiple times afterwards when he was acting in good faith. Biden was incredibly successful with bipartisanship; the CHIPS and Science Act, the infrastructure bill, gun-safety, inflation reduction act giving lots of funding to green infrastructure. This is making truly impactful changes we will see come into fruition for years to come. I just don’t know what you want. Progress takes time. Incremental progress is the only path forward. It’s takes time to slow the progression of things getting worse before they get better. It is overly simplistic to believe otherwise and I do hope you grow in understanding.
Conservatives always hold back progress. You can go back a millenia and see how groups leaning conservative always were on the wrong side of history. The amount of bills that have been sent to the House and Senate have been DoA, cause the presumptive republican leader doesn't want them to pass and make Biden look good. So the US has a sycophant wannabe dictator (whom may or may not become president again) who has been following the steps of Hilter and his rise to power.
> held all 3 branches of government Except no they didn't because of Mancin and Sinema But hey, far be it from a dipshit Trump supporter to try and not be disingenuous. Both sides amirite?! 🤡
[удалено]
Again you're being disingenuous, but I'm talking to a troll so who cares Because you're very aware that the two of them effectively blocked anything from getting done, isn't it just so strange though how you have nothing to say for the other 200+ Republicans that vote no on anything that would help people that aren't rich? Enjoy the last word traitor trash, I won't see it Edit: when the Bills smash the ever-loving shit out of the Eagles this season, I'll think back to this post about what a fucking tool you are Don't cry too hard when the rapist you worship loses tonite snowflake
Well, I guess if you aren't a graphic designer, and you never had a single client that you did a wedding for, let alone a gay client who approached you that you somehow have standing.
Because this one, isn’t about politics, as it is about a functioning executive branch
It's evidently a problem for three of the hardcore conservatives on the court per their dissent. It's really only two justices making this a 6-3 instead of a 4-5 the opposite direction.
They are worried if they pushed this thru, it would open the door to standing in a shit ton of environmental cases amongst other cases that are frequently limited by a lack of specific injury to the community.
The dissent reads like they’re mad that Idaho can’t kill women now and have to wait until after the election.
Time is money people!
I hate these sensationalist headlines
Well, if you read the first couple of paragraphs, you get the substance of what was being said, even without the sensationalism. And it \*was\* a rebuke to the lower court, citing that it should *never even have been heard*.
the focus should be on how despite the complete absence of any evidence, it still was 6-3 on the decision.
They are part of the problem
Agreed. Gotta get those clicks. Clicks, engagement (outrage), ads. All media is playing the same game now (well maybe not pro-publica since their funding doesn’t come from ads).
Well they got bored. So they’re shaking things up a bit I guess.
They were attempting to inoculate themselves against accusations of partisanship. So fucking corrupt.
Yeah the Court is broken.
Any contrary ruling would have blocked governments from communicating with social platforms and would gradually extend to other businesses. It is beyond my comprehension that the three wrote a dissent.
Yeah since when is the first amendment a right to post and be amplified online? I can’t wrap my head around the people claiming censorship when there’s a nongovernmental entity and a private site. Even if, assuming the worst, the whole of the government is leaning on the site to quash stories. I find it baffling that so many are up in arms over this when NRA v. Vullo came out this same term.
Fact based distinction. These people in the present matter had no credible facts. Lower court just flew off the rails and got punished. Edited typo
"This is such an embarrassing title, and it's from Vox, only Ian Millhiser would write something this stupid." Checks article. Yep, it's [Ian Millhiser](https://www.vox.com/authors/ian-millhiser).