A Court Supreme

"Justice Thomas asked “what academic benefits” come from diversity, other than “feeling good and all that stuff”.“I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” he said."
Clarence Thomas says he doesn’t have a ‘clue’ what diversity means as Supreme Court takes aim at affirmative action (yahoo.com)

Derrida said- Il n'y a pas de hors-texte! But even he would be baffled by what Thomas has claimed. And he understood English, unlike the learned Justice, or maybe Clarence is just 'taking the piss', as they might say in The Nag's Head, Dalston.

Here is a law, in a manner of speaking, that is plain enough, in 'black and white':

"The US supreme court turned away a case on Friday challenging Mississippi’s rules around voting rights for people with felony convictions, leaving intact a policy implemented more than a century ago with the explicit goal of preventing Black people from voting.
Those convicted of any one of 23 specific felonies in Mississippi permanently lose the right to vote. The list is rooted in the state’s 1890 constitutional convention, where delegates chose disenfranchising crimes that they believed Black people were more likely to commit. “We came here to exclude the negro. Nothing short of this will answer,” the president of the convention said at the time. The crimes, which include bribery, theft, carjacking, bigamy and timber larceny, have remained largely the same since then; Mississippi voters amended it remove burglary in 1950 and added murder and rape in 1968."

The legal argument being


"Challengers to the law argued that the policy was unconstitutional because it bore the “discriminatory taint” from the 1890 constitution."

But

"Both a federal district judge and the US court of appeals for the fifth circuit upheld Mississippi’s policy. The modifications to the policy in 1950 and 1968, the fifth circuit noted, got rid of any discrimination in the original policy."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sotomayor describes this an an 'analytical error' for while the list of crimes that stops felons voting has changed, in its substance the law retains the motive that was stated explicitly in 1890, with statistics that show the extent to which Black citizens of the USA living in Mississippi cannot vote.

Anyone get that 1619 feelin' all over again?

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the Supreme Court (Sponsors to be declared?) may be about to interpret the Constitution so literally that most Government agencies will have to shut down, or something like that.

It is a long read on a complex legal subject, but worth it when the consequences are so profound for Americans. The case is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau vs Community Financial Services Association, and the right of Federal Agencies to be funded without the permission of Congress, which de-regulation advocates argue cannot be allowed to continue:

" “If taken seriously, moreover, this argument would invalidate most federal spending, and it would make it impossible for benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare to even exist.” ".
How the Supreme Court's corruption could end Social Security — and America | Opinion (msn.com)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the Supreme Court (Sponsors to be declared?) may be about to interpret the Constitution so literally that most Government agencies will have to shut down, or something like that.

---

It doesn't seem likely. I think even this Supreme Court can figure out that ending Social Security and Medicare would lead to very serious blowback.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/3...anaugh-barrett

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

It doesn't seem likely. I think even this Supreme Court can figure out that ending Social Security and Medicare would lead to very serious blowback.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/3...anaugh-barrett

---

And those new Justices who, when questioned in the confirmation hearings said they would not vote to repeal Roe -vs- Wade? Maybe they are in the mood to be Disruptive, and who can stop them?

Latest from the Supreme Court: We have given you the guns, we have given you the ammo -what are you waiting for? Go kill Americans!

Kamala Harris after supreme court ruling: ‘Weapons of war have no place on the streets of a civil society’ – live (theguardian.com)

From Justice Clarence Thomas (Sponsored by Harlan Crow)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQCiKeCW...jpg&name=small

I nominate this to be the worst Supreme Court decision in the past 50 years, or more. Here, we have talk of 'civil war' being thrown about. We have a top contender for president saying something, 'We will wipe out the vermin...'. I can't come up with an appropriate analogy. 58 killed, 500 injured using bump stocks in Las Vegas. We have internet trolls; foreign and domestic, whose job it is to stir up and and distrust. We have other sites who business model is simply promote anger. I recently learned a new word of this. It's called "rage farming." Their motive seems to mostly for driving up engagement click for thier bottom line profit.

But this leads to a funny situation. I was with my daughter, and she took my blood pressure. For the first time in my life doctors raised concerns about it. The pressure number was reasonable when she took it, at my home. Then I was telling her about a site called Quora, and I read one of those hate filled letters. Right after that, I blurted that I bet my blood pressure has gone up 20 points. Then it came to me, to take my pressure again. Sure enough, it had gone up by twenty points! As I have gotten older now the doctors are concerned about potential issues, and I have several appts coming up. I think trolling is an intentional strategy these days. They sometimes call it, "owning the libs."

Legalizing bump stocks is the last thing in the world we need. Whereas Jesus said, according to scripture; "My peace I bring unto you." I take issue with the 'warrior Jesus portrayed in Revelations. This should not usurp the words coming directly from the mouth of Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

I nominate this to be the worst Supreme Court decision in the past 50 years, or more. Here, we have talk of 'civil war' being thrown about. We have a top contender for president saying something, 'We will wipe out the vermin...'. I can't come up with an appropriate analogy. 58 killed, 500 injured using bump stocks in Las Vegas. We have internet trolls; foreign and domestic, whose job it is to stir up and and distrust. We have other sites who business model is simply promote anger. I recently learned a new word of this. It's called "rage farming." Their motive seems to mostly for driving up engagement click for thier bottom line profit.

But this leads to a funny situation. I was with my daughter, and she took my blood pressure. For the first time in my life doctors raised concerns about it. The pressure number was reasonable when she took it, at my home. Then I was telling her about a site called Quora, and I read one of those hate filled letters. Right after that, I blurted that I bet my blood pressure has gone up 20 points. Then it came to me, to take my pressure again. Sure enough, it had gone up by twenty points! As I have gotten older now the doctors are concerned about potential issues, and I have several appts coming up. I think trolling is an intentional strategy these days. They sometimes call it, "owning the libs."

Legalizing bump stocks is the last thing in the world we need. Whereas Jesus said, according to scripture; "My peace I bring unto you." I take issue with the 'warrior Jesus portrayed in Revelations. This should not usurp the words coming directly from the mouth of Jesus.

---

The question might be, if there is a civil war, when will it start? But that is because the narrative over January 6th has been derailed, after all, on the most basic of definitions, it must be illegal to smash the windows of a building to gain entry, and then urinate and defecate on the floor of The Speaker's office. But then, when it comes to the Evangelical Christians and their second coming, if they were not more keen to take money out of people's pockets while telling them the Angels are coming, they might pause to remind Mr Trump that in The Lord's Prayer, Christians are told to forgive those who have wronged them. I read a while ago that Trump was brought up to never say sorry, or as his father is alleged to have said 'never fold'. Convicted of a crime? Never say sorry -and never be humble, as we are told Jesus was.

On guns, I think your country is doomed. Sorry about that.

As for blood pressure, yep, 'news' has been replaced by comment, a lot of it angry accusation, mostly lies, designed to fill that space where real politics, most of the time, is boring.

I take Amlodipine for my BP, which with dietary adjustments, has it stabilized. I get it for free on the NHS, not sure what it is marketed as in the US, or its cost.

Stay well! Stay clear of the crazies! Live a long life.

"In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices said for the first time that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.But instead of deciding for themselves, the justices ordered lower courts to work out precisely how to apply their decision to Trump's case.
The lower court must now decide whether he was acting officially or privately."
US Supreme Court sends Trump immunity claim back to lower court (msn.com)

So much for the 'Supreme' Court on so important a constitutional, and legal issue.

That said, is it the 'official business' of the President to effectively order his Vice-President to violate the Constitution with regard to the Certification of Elections in a joint session of Congress?

And does any State in the Union having verified and counted the votes in an election, become dependent on the President for his (or her) approval before announcing the result, and can a President change the vote to benefit himself (or herself) --?

Is playing Golf an 'official act' of the Presidency?

Are lower courts competent to make these decisions?

We made it just shy of 248 years without a king.