Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 30,090]

3 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

him fucking Stormy Daniels when Melania was pregnant

it was 4 months after she gave birth to Barron (born March 20, 2006)

Biden fucked up and said 'whilst she was pregnant'
 

Quote

 

In July 2006, Stormy Daniels, an American pornographic film actress, met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada. At the time, Trump was married to Melania Trump (who gave birth to their son Barron four months prior) and was the host of the reality TV series The Apprentice.

 

 

[robsblubot 3,595]

7 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Hillary would get CRUSHED in a general election

she still has the lowest approval ratings in modern history (roughly 80 to 90 years of scientifically conducted polling) for any failed general election Presidential candidate

Agreed.

She's a very unlikable person who struggles connecting to people; she is terrible on stage, which happens to be Trump's strength.

Newsom would be a tough one for Trump to beat IMO; he's very articulate and his looks would help esp against trump 😉.

Biden is pulling a Ginsburg and will fuck the dems all the same.

Edited June 28, 2024 by robsblubot

[Vesper 30,090]

2 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

Because they are jealous of her,

no, it is because she is a neoliberal war monger and obsessed with power far beyond all but Trump

I would of course support her over the monster that is Trump, but my dog, what a low bar

[Vesper 30,090]

2 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

Biden is pulling a Ginsburg and will fuck the dems all the same.

agree, it is a distinct possibilty

btw, Harris, IMHO, cannot win a general election (hell I do not think she can even win a Democratic primary despite being VP for 4 or 8 years.)

[Vesper 30,090]

Sir Keir Starmer would delay recognition of a Palestinian state because of fears it could undermine Britain’s special relationship with the US

[robsblubot 3,595]

9 minutes ago, Vesper said:

agree, it is a distinct possibilty

btw, Harris, IMHO, cannot win a general election (hell I do not think she can even win a Democratic primary despite being VP for 4 or 8 years.)

Yup another very unlikable person in politics... akin to Hilary on how poor she is on stage.

Klobuchar, who was running in 2020 was likable and a centrist who would be competitive, I think. I'm not sure how she'd fare in confrontations, which is what debates are tho.

[Fulham Broadway 17,300]

20 minutes ago, Vesper said:

it was 4 months after she gave birth to Barron (born March 20, 2006)

Biden fucked up and said 'whilst she was pregnant'
 

 

All the more reason to replace Biden - but apparently he has to initiate it doesnt he ?

[Fulham Broadway 17,300]

10 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Sir Keir Starmer would delay recognition of a Palestinian state because of fears it could undermine Britain’s special relationship with the US

Two state solution is down the shit chute - it will have to be one state where Palestinians, Jews, Christians, Muslims all live together in the Holy land in perfect harmony 😉

[cosmicway 1,333]

7 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Two state solution is down the shit chute - it will have to be one state where Palestinians, Jews, Christians, Muslims all live together in the Holy land in perfect harmony 😉

That would be NSDAP, Peenemunde, Y2 rockets and Jews living in perfect harmony in Germany.
 

 

[Vesper 30,090]

US Supreme Court narrows law used in hundreds of January 6 cases

Obstruction charge was interpreted too broadly, court rules

 

https://www.ft.com/content/99dc5a87-b1d9-4713-87eb-2b89e23de584

 

The US Supreme Court has narrowed the use of an obstruction charge brought against hundreds of individuals in connection with the attack on the US Capitol on January 6 2021, in a decision that poses a new legal hurdle to prosecutors pursuing those cases.

 

The decision centres on a criminal charge — obstruction of an official proceeding — that the US Department of Justice has used against more than 350 defendants who stormed the Capitol in a bid to halt the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.

 

The obstruction charge in question stems from a section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act enacted in 2002 in response to several accounting scandals, including Enron.

 

In a 6-3 opinion, the high court on Friday endorsed a more limited application of that law, saying that a lower court had erred in construing it more broadly.

 

“It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress created a catch-all provision that reaches beyond the scenarios that prompted the legislation,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

 

To prove a violation of the law, federal prosecutors “must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so”, the majority held.

 

It resisted what it described as an overly broad reading that would transform an “evidence-focused statute” into a “one-size-fits-all solution to obstruction of justice”.

 

US attorney-general Merrick Garland in a statement said he was “disappointed” by the ruling, “which limits an important federal statute that the department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for [the January 6] attack face appropriate consequences”.

 

The “vast majority” of the more than 1,400 defendants linked to January 6 “will not be affected by this decision”, Garland added, stressing that none of the defendants had been charged solely with the offence featured in the Supreme Court case.

 

Prosecutors may now have to reconsider a large number of cases brought against January 6 rioters as a result of the decision, while defendants convicted of the charge in question may seek resentencing.

 

The vote was not split along ideological lines, with liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining the conservative majority.

 

Conservative Amy Coney Barrett penned the dissent, backed by liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 

 

Barrett wrote that the legal provision in question was “very broad” and Congress would not have targeted an event like January 6 when writing the statute.

 

“Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?” she asked.

 

“But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway,” she said, adding that the majority “does textual backflips to find some way — any way — to narrow the reach of” the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

 

The obstruction charge in question was also used against Donald Trump in a federal criminal indictment accusing him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

 

Trump may attempt to leverage Friday’s decision to argue for dismissing that charge — which, if successful, would weaken one of the most serious criminal cases against him.

 

He is still awaiting a decision on his attempt to claim presidential immunity in that case, which will probably be handed down by the Supreme Court next week.

 

The January 6 cases have become a political talking point for Trump on the campaign trail as he seeks another four years in the White House as the Republican candidate.

 

He has pledged to pardon those imprisoned in connection with the riot, whom he has described as “hostages”.

 

A senior campaign adviser for Biden, the Democratic candidate in the 2024 general election, in a statement said the ruling “does not change the fundamental truth that Donald Trump will always put himself over our democracy”, pointing to Trump failing to condemn the January 6 rioters during Thursday’s presidential debate.

[Fulham Broadway 17,300]

6 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

That would be NSDAP, Peenemunde, Y2 rockets and Jews living in perfect harmony in Germany.
 

 

Like they do now

[Fulham Broadway 17,300]

45 minutes ago, Vesper said:

it was 4 months after she gave birth to Barron (born March 20, 2006)

Biden fucked up and said 'whilst she was pregnant'
 

 

He was probably fucking someone else though 

[Vesper 30,090]

The Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, overturning decades-old Chevron decision

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-5173bc83d3961a7aaabe415ceaf8d665

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday upended a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the federal government to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections, delivering a far-reaching and potentially lucrative victory to business interests.

The court’s six conservative justices overturned the 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron, long a target of conservatives who have been motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion. The liberal justices were in dissent.

The case was the conservative-dominated court’s clearest and boldest repudiation yet of what critics of regulation call the administrative state.

Billions of dollars are potentially at stake in challenges that could be spawned by the high court’s ruling. The Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer had warned such a move would be an “unwarranted shock to the legal system.”

The heart of the Chevron decision says federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details when laws aren’t crystal clear. Opponents of the decision argued that it gave power that should be wielded by judges to experts who work for the government.

“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Roberts wrote that the decision does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron decision.

But in dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the assurance rings hollow. “The majority is sanguine; I am not so much,” she wrote.

Kagan called the latest decision “yet another example of the Court’s resolve to roll back agency authority, despite congressional direction to the contrary.” Just a day earlier, the same lineup of justices stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission of a major tool used in fighting fraud.

The court ruled in cases brought by Atlantic herring fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island who challenged a fee requirement. Lower courts used the Chevron decision to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for government-mandated observers who track their fish intake.

Conservative and business interests strongly backed the fishermen’s appeals, betting that a court that was remade during Republican Donald Trump’s presidency would strike another blow at the regulatory state.

The court’s conservative majority has previously reined in environmental regulations and stopped the Democratic Biden administration’s initiatives on COVID-19 vaccines and student loan forgiveness.

The justices hadn’t invoked Chevron since 2016, but lower courts had continued to do so.

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled 6-0, with three justices recused, that judges should play a limited, deferential role when evaluating the actions of agency experts in a case brought by environmental groups to challenge a Reagan administration effort to ease regulation of power plants and factories.

“Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of government,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 1984, explaining why they should play a limited role.

But the current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas all had questioned the Chevron decision.

They were in Friday’s majority, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Roberts’ opinion took direct aim at what Stevens wrote 40 years ago. “That depends, of course, on what the ‘field’ is. If it is legal interpretation, that has been, ‘emphatically,’ ‘the province and duty of the judicial department’ for at least 221 years,” Roberts wrote, quoting from the Marbury v. Madison decision that established the Supreme Court as the last word in interpreting laws and the Constitution.

Kagan, though, said that in getting rid of Chevron “gives courts control over matters they know nothing about.” She read a summary of her dissent aloud in the courtroom to emphasize her disagreement with the majority.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kagan in dissent.

Opponents of the Chevron doctrine argue that judges applied it too often to rubber-stamp decisions made by government bureaucrats. Judges must exercise their own authority and judgment to say what the law is, the court said Friday, adopting the opponents arguments.

Bill Bright, a Cape May, New Jersey-based fisherman who was part of the lawsuit, said the decision to overturn Chevron would help fishing businesses make a living. “Nothing is more important than protecting the livelihoods of our families and crews,” Bright said in a statement.

Reacting to the decision, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the ruling “is yet another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards.

Republican-backed special interests have repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court to block common-sense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard our financial system, and support American consumers and workers.”

Federal agencies and the Justice Department had already begun reducing their reliance on the Chevron decision in crafting and defending new regulations.

Environmental, health advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, organized labor and Democrats on the national and state level had urged the court to leave the Chevron decision in place.

“The Supreme Court is pushing the nation into uncharted waters as it seizes it seizes power from our elected branches of government to advance its deregulatory agenda,” Sambhav Sankar, a lawyer with the environmental group Earthjustice, said after the ruling.

“The conservative justices are aggressively reshaping the foundations of our government so that the President and Congress have less power to protect the public, and corporations have more power to challenge regulations in search of profits.

This ruling threatens the legitimacy of hundreds of regulations that keep us safe, protect our homes and environment, and create a level playing field for businesses to compete on.” 

Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups were among the business groups supporting the fishermen. Conservative interests that also intervened in recent high court cases limiting regulation of air and water pollution backed the fishermen as well.

The fisherman sued to contest the 2020 regulation that would have authorized a fee that could have topped $700 a day, though no one ever had to pay it.

In separate lawsuits in New Jersey and Rhode Island, the fishermen argued that Congress never gave federal regulators authority to require the fisherman to pay for monitors. They lost in the lower courts, which relied on the Chevron decision to sustain the regulation.

The justices heard two cases on the same issue because Jackson was recused from the New Jersey case. She took part in it at an earlier stage when she was an appeals court judge. The full court participated in the case from Rhode Island.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

they have since 2020

that said

he is BY FAR the best communicator/debater the Democratic Party has atm

he is extraordinarily intelligent, focused, unflappable and quick on his feet

obviously the fact he is a gay white male cuts against him in theDem primaries (talking 2028 now) with a lot of balck and hispanic Dem voters (who tend, especially the blacks in the South, to be fairly conservative)

the US political scene/body politic and structural apparatus are hyper complex, to the point of nightmare scenarios now at damn near every major intersection

I'd imagine black people wouldnt support him more because of the fact that he behaved as a clear White supremacist when stopping black residents in South Bend from going after racist police more so than the fact he sleeps with a man. Theres a reason why gay black people in BLM shut him down during the last primary😂

After last night he'd be a massive improvement over what is left of Biden though.

[Vesper 30,090]

Just now, Sir Mikel OBE said:

he behaved as a clear White supremacist when stopping black residents in South Bend from going after racist police

pure lie

just stop