Tag Archives: SCOTUS

Court conflicted over Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that shields Sacklers from liability, SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe. Conflicted? There is nothing to be conflicted about with Purdue and the US Opioid Epidemic. As was pointed out repeatedly. The Supporting Facts Leading to the Cause of the Opioid Epidemic is pretty simple. Purdue promoted the use of opioids claiming it was nonaddictive. Indeed the usage was promoted by a simple one paragraph letter...

These people are the lowest of the scum. They were always a shady type of business. There efforts were to target low-income neighborhoods. There actions are to keep their customers victims on a never-ending cycle of dependence through predatory practices. The high-interest rates and fees makes it difficult for borrowers to repay the loan. It results in a cycle of debt. Accordingly, and more recent, states have banned the practice of payday loans....

I have been looking around for a simpler explanation of what the Shadow Docket is. This, before a deeper dive into it. It is more like a secret club where a bunch of judges get together and decide the fate of a particular subject without a formal presentation to the court or documentation open to review. No or few records cover the decisions. The number of decisions in 2022 outnumber the more formal decisions. It was a favorite of the trump...

A brief essay for July 4, 2023  – by New Deal democrat Selections from Brutus, the anti-federalist who argued against the Constitution’s institution of the Supreme Court: “When great and extraordinary powers are vested in any man, or body of men, which in their exercise, may operate to the oppression of the people, it is of high importance that powerful checks should be formed to prevent the abuse of it. “[T]hose who are to be vested with...

Some confounding SCOTUS decisions which do not have logical backing and are more partisan than normal. There is no standing on either of these cases. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis This SCOTUS ruling is puzzling to me in that it brings up the question in my mind of when is harm done? “303” was not asked to make a cake. It did not refuse to make a cake. It assumed the law would be enforced upon them, if they refused to make a cake for a same-sex...

This is a pretty good take on what happened at SCOTUS for 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Nebraska (which had no standing) v. Biden. Recently and along similar circumstance, the court rejected complainants’ cases due to not having standing. In this instance, the court changes its tune. Ankush explains the reasoning for the court’s decision being flawed better than I do. I resurrected an older post done by an attorney about Roberts which I will...

History Rhymes Again – Civil Discourse, Joyce Vance, substack.com. Just over 60 years ago, Alabama’s segregationist governor, George Wallace, made his infamous stand in the schoolhouse door, barring the path against court-ordered integration at the state’s flagship university. It was June 11, 1963. Wallace, in his inaugural address, had promised voters “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” But Wallace’s defiance...

One would have to be totally unknowing or have a ignorant disregard for wetlands near streams, rivers, and lakes. Wetlands purify our water by removing sediments and other pollutants including chemicals. Wetlands also filter and process excess nutrients that may runoff from agricultural and development sites. Wetlands hold on to the water long enough to allow the sediments and other pollutants to settle out and the purified water then enters...

Pretty good article on the environment and SCOTUS saying its ok to obliterate a wetland for a house. Except Alito suggests we should do more! Brett Kavanaugh: Supreme Court EPA Ruling Could Risk Water Quality, businessinsider, Kelsey Vlamis “the majority was ignoring precedent and jeopardizing water quality in the US.” Supreme Court ruling issued Thursday undercuts the EPA’s authority to regulate under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court...

The Atlantic’s Brooke Harrington has an article about Justice Thomas’s friendship with people outside the court which includes gift-giving. There is no reciprocation of “its my turn now to buy the dinner.” The gifts are far more than just a lunch or dinner at a much-desired restaurant. That there are no rules defining ethical behavior at the Supreme Court, there is still an aura of professional and legal behavior binding them. Are the scales tipped...