Octopus Overlords

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:39 pm Well it's not like these decisions have any consequences:

A month after the U.S. Supreme Court severely restricted the federal government’s power to oversee wetlands, the Republican-dominated North Carolina legislature handed state agencies an order: Don’t give the ecologically crucial waters any more protection than newly weakened federal rules provide.

...

The 5-4 ruling expanded the ability of farmers, homebuilders and other developers to dig up or fill wetlands, finding the federal government had long overreached in limiting such activities. It’s the latest decision by a conservative-dominated court to limit environment laws and agency powers. With little appetite in a divided Congress to pass environmental laws, the outcome is likely to endure.

...

“States will either enforce or adopt new protections. Others will roll back existing protections,” said Geoff Gisler, program director for the Southern Environmental Law Center. “The focus will shift from the federal to the state government.”

North Carolina offers an early example.

...

“We are going to see a lot of devastation,” said Gisler of the Southern Environmental Law Center. “People who bought new homes, moving to North Carolina to embrace the coastal lifestyle, at some point in the next few years are likely to see their homes flooded.”

There's a bit more and other states are mentioned, but yeah. Great stuff.

Our love is like water
Pinned down and abused

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Friday dismissed calls from Democratic senators that he recuse himself from an upcoming Supreme Court tax case because one of the attorneys in the matter interviewed the justice twice for articles that appeared on the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

When Washington lawyer David B. Rivkin Jr. co-authored the articles, “he did so as a journalist, not an advocate,” Alito wrote in a statement attached to a routine orders list issued by the court Friday.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:38 pm That Alito says he was acting as a journist and not an advocate... Hoo boy. What a crock of shit. The "interview" was pretty much rhetorical pitches in meatball for that Alito might as well written himself.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 10:35 am

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:38 pm That Alito says he was acting as a journist and not an advocate... Hoo boy. What a crock of shit. The "interview" was pretty much rhetorical pitches in meatball for that Alito might as well written himself.

Because of his well documented second career as part-time journalist, I'm sure.

Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:46 am No, Alito is referring to the WSJ reporter, not himself, I believe.

On Jan. 25, 2018, dozens of private jets descended on Palm Springs International Airport. Some of the richest people in the country were arriving for the annual winter donor summit of the Koch network, the political organization founded by libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch. A long weekend of strategizing, relaxation in the California sun and high-dollar fundraising lay ahead.

Just after 6 p.m., a Gulfstream G200 jet touched down on the tarmac. One of the Koch network’s most powerful allies was on board: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

During the summit, the justice went to a private dinner for the network’s donors. Thomas has attended Koch donor events at least twice over the years, according to interviews with three former network employees and one major donor. The justice was brought in to speak, staffers said, in the hopes that such access would encourage donors to continue giving.

That puts Thomas in the extraordinary position of having served as a fundraising draw for a network that has brought cases before the Supreme Court, including one of the most closely watched of the upcoming term.

Thomas never reported the 2018 flight to Palm Springs on his annual financial disclosure form, an apparent violation of federal law requiring justices to report most gifts. A Koch network spokesperson said the network did not pay for the private jet. Since Thomas didn’t disclose it, it’s not clear who did pay.

“I can’t imagine — it takes my breath away, frankly — that he would go to a Koch network event for donors,” said John E. Jones III, a retired federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush. Jones said that if he had gone to a Koch summit as a district court judge, “I’d have gotten a letter that would’ve commenced a disciplinary proceeding.”

“What you’re seeing is a slow creep toward unethical behavior. Do it if you can get away with it,” Jones said.

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:57 pm The fact that it was only 5-4 is super depressing. That should have been a slam dunk 9-0.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:07 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:57 pm The fact that it was only 5-4 is super depressing. That should have been a slam dunk 9-0.

Was it 5-4? Looks like Thomas simply denied it-

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_i425.pdf

There were no dissents.

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:28 pm I thought that's what I read. I'd be happy to be wrong.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:23 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:28 pm I thought that's what I read. I'd be happy to be wrong.

So far I haven't found any source that gives a breakdown of the vote, if there even was one.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:34 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:23 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:28 pm I thought that's what I read. I'd be happy to be wrong.

So far I haven't found any source that gives a breakdown of the vote, if there even was one.

It was just a denial of a stay. This is shadow docket and they don't typically publish a "vote". They usually are only notable is someone writes a dissent/affirmative attached to the order. In the end, this is not all that interesting. The case is still proceeding on multiple fronts.

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide if two laws crafted by Republicans in Florida and Texas run afoul of the First Amendment because the laws force platforms to explain all their content moderation decisions to users.

Both laws, passed in 2021 after several major platforms banned Donald Trump, seemingly were a way for Republicans to fight back and prevent supposedly liberal-leaning platforms from allegedly censoring conservative viewpoints.

The laws are designed to stop the most popular platforms from inconsistently censoring content by requiring platforms to provide detailed explanations to users whenever their posts are removed or their accounts are banned or "shadowbanned" (deprioritized or restricted from feeds by platforms' algorithms). The Texas law also requires platforms to provide clear paths to timely appeal censored content, and both laws require platforms to publicly disclose standards for when and why they censor users.

...

The Biden administration also urged SCOTUS to review the case but for different reasons. According to a brief filed by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, SCOTUS needs to answer two questions: "whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment" and whether the laws' requirements that platforms provide individualized explanations for every content moderation decision comply with the First Amendment.

Prelogar's brief argued that the answer to both of these questions is no, partly because "content moderation restrictions do not further any substantial governmental interest,” and "the sheer volume of content moderation actions taken by the major platforms" made it seem “substantially likely” that requirements that platforms "provide notice and a detailed justification” for each action would risk discouraging platforms' "exercise of editorial judgment."

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:56 pm I wonder how this will go?

THE PARTY GUESTS who arrived on the evening of June 23, 2022, at the Tudor-style mansion on the coast of Maine were a special group in a special place enjoying a special time. The attendees included some two dozen federal and state judges — a gathering that required U.S. marshals with earpieces to stand watch while a Coast Guard boat idled in a nearby cove.

Caterers served guests Pol Roger reserve, Winston Churchill’s favorite Champagne, a fitting choice for a group of conservative legal luminaries who had much to celebrate. The Supreme Court’s most recent term had delivered a series of huge victories with the possibility of a crowning one still to come. The decadeslong campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade, which a leaked draft opinion had said was “egregiously wrong from the start,” could come to fruition within days, if not hours.

Over dinner courses paired with wines chosen by the former food and beverage director of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., the 70 or so attendees jockeyed for a word with the man who had done as much as anyone to make this moment possible: their host, Leonard Leo.

Short and thick-bodied, dressed in a bespoke suit and round, owlish glasses, Leo looked like a character from an Agatha Christie mystery. Unlike the judges in attendance, Leo had never served a day on the bench. Unlike the other lawyers, he had never argued a case in court. He had never held elected office or run a law school. On paper, he was less important than almost all of his guests.

If Americans had heard of Leo at all, it was for his role in building the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. He drew up the lists of potential justices that Donald Trump released during the 2016 campaign. He advised Trump on the nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Before that, he’d helped pick or confirm the court’s three other conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But the guests who gathered that night under a tent in Leo’s backyard included key players in a less-understood effort, one aimed at transforming the entire judiciary.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 12:31 pm Am I wrong in thinking there would be an official review of the cases he presided over if this was a municipal or state judge? I know we've already established that they're held to higher standards, but I don't know how anyone could genuinely believe his decisions weren't influenced at this point.

...and yet, crickets.

It appears from the public information available that Thomas was likely only paying the interest on the loan (and there’s not even solid evidence that he did that). If that is so, then Welters stopping repayment after 2008 was far outside of the loan’s terms — and certainly not at all what would have happened under a traditional loan. If it’s not, and he paid off any substantial part of the principal, why is neither Thomas nor Welters saying so?

So, what is it? What happened? A justice who cared about ethics would want to resolve such questions immediately — particularly if there were an answer...

...Thomas’s handling of the R.V. loan questions makes clear that not only does he not care about the public’s view of his ethical standards — but he also doesn’t care about the effect that his behavior has on the rest of the court.

BREAKING — The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote as soon as next week to issue subpoenas as part of its Supreme Court ethics investigation, Chair Durbin announces.

Subpoena targets:
—Harlan Crow
—Leonard Leo
—Robin Arkley II

Significant escalation of Dem-led probe.

Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 9:25 pm We
have
decided to vote
for asking
for more information

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 9:45 pm Well, it is at least voting to *compel* information, not to "ask" for more information.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 11:56 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 9:45 pm Well, it is at least voting to *compel* information, not to "ask" for more information.

Compel by asking more strongly.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 11:59 am Well, no, it's compulsion by legally requiring them to produce information and/or materials under threat of contempt.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) warned Senate Democrats on Tuesday about issuing subpoenas to two prominent billionaires and a conservative activist because of their friendly ties to conservative members of the Supreme Court, calling such a move “totally inappropriate.”

McConnell essentially told Democratic colleagues to back off after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) announced this week that his committee will subpoena two businessmen who extended personal hospitality to conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

“What he’s targeting here is private citizens with no legislative purpose. I think it’s completely and totally inappropriate,” McConnell said at a press conference Tuesday.