What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[grumbler]

I assume one reason Biden didn't plead to the charge is that he has a decent constitutional appeal which is going to cause real headaches for the 2nd amendment crowd in the judiciary.

He's just Standing His Ground!

[Valmy]

That's what corporate boards are for.  Influence peddling and CEOs putting their cronies in to wave through comp packages.  I don't know why we would start singling out Bidens and Trumps for that practice when no objection is raised when anyone and everyone else does it.

Yeah well that is how we have a situation where the Board of Tesla wants to steal billions from its investors to pay a big bonus to Elon, and low and behold the board is packed with his family members and buddies.

Corporate America is getting so corrupt that I now think fondly of the days they were trying to maximize shareholder value at the expense of customers and employees. Better some pension plans than just one guy.

[Josquius]

I suppose with the Trump kids and all their dodgy dealings there's the partial defence that this is nepotism from Trump the big famous businessman rather than Trump the corrupt politician.

The HB case and the reaction is quite funny. Its being celebrated by the Trumpies despite giving evidence against their claims of the system being biased and really HB's stance being the one that is more 'their side', 2nd amendment et al.
But then Trumpies don't care about facts and reality. Your side can do a thousand bad things but when the other side potentially does something remotely similar the once? Well thats a scandal.

[Syt]

SCOTUS puts bump stocks back on the menu.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6pp5xl13wlo

[...]

The court, quoting part of the legal definition of machine guns, said rifles with a bump stock "cannot fire more than one shot 'by a single function of the trigger', and even if they could, they would not do so 'automatically'".

[...]

The bump stock harnesses a rifle's recoil to rapidly fire multiple rounds. It replaces the weapon's stock, which is held against the shoulder, and allows the gun to slide back and forward between the user's shoulder and trigger finger. That motion - or bump - lets the gun fire without the user having to move their finger.

The attacker in the Las Vegas shooting had attached bump stocks to 12 of his semi-automatic rifles which allowed him to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, the same rate as many machine guns. He killed 60 people and wounded hundreds more who had gathered for a music festival.

[...]

[viper37]

He comes from Yale and Georgetown, he is politically well connected, it's natural that people would think having him on the board is an asset.

It's the politically well connected part that is the problem.

Kinda not different than many board appointments.  You don't get there because you have a nice resume and a ton of accomplishments.  In Quebec and Canada, serving the Liberal Party will get you to the board of any public or private institution, qualified or not.

[Syt]

Bunch of SCOTUS decisions (abridging all but the last one):


Communities can fine homeless people for sleeping outside:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-backs-anti-camping-laws-used-against-homeless-people-2024-06-28/

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld on Friday anti-camping laws used by authorities in an Oregon city to stop homeless people from sleeping in public parks and public streets - a ruling that gives local and state governments a freer hand in confronting a national homelessness crisis.

The justices ruled 6-3 to overturn a lower court's decision that found that enforcing the ordinances in the city of Grants Pass when no shelter space is available for the homeless violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishments. Various jurisdictions employ similar laws.

The court's conservative justices were in the majority, while its three liberal members dissented.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote, "Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not."

Homelessness remains a multifaceted problem for public officials in the United States as many municipalities experience chronic shortages of affordable housing. On any given night, more than 600,000 people are homeless, according to U.S. government estimates.

[...]

Cases in which SEC seeks penalties for fraud have to go before federal court:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-faults-secs-use-in-house-judges-latest-curbs-agency-powers-2024-06-27/

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional the Securities and Exchange Commission's in-house enforcement of laws protecting investors against securities fraud, dealing a blow on Thursday to the agency's powers in a ruling that could reverberate through other federal regulators.

The decision, a setback for President Joe Biden's administration, upheld a lower court's ruling siding with a Texas-based hedge fund manager who contested the legality of the SEC's actions against him after the agency determined he had committed securities fraud.

The 6-3 decision was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, with the court's conservative justices in the majority and the liberal justices dissenting. The court ruled that agency proceedings seeking penalties for fraud that are handled by SEC itself instead of in federal court violate the U.S. Constitution's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

"The SEC's anti-fraud provisions replicate common law fraud, and it is well established that common law claims must be heard by a jury," Roberts wrote.

It was the latest decision curbing the authority of U.S. agencies powered by the Supreme Court's conservatives, who have indicated skepticism toward expansive federal regulatory power.

Thursday's ruling opens the door to challenges to other federal agencies in-house enforcement schemes, as the liberal justices expressed doubt that the decision can be limited only to fraud actions pursued by the SEC.

[...]

State and local officials accepting "tokens of appreciation" for offical acts are not breaking federal law (guess that means you should pay out bribes only after services rendered ):
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-narrows-reach-federal-corruption-law-2024-06-26/

The U.S. Supreme Court sided on Wednesday with a former mayor of an Indiana city who was convicted in a case in which he was accused of taking a bribe, in a ruling that could make it harder for federal prosecutors to bring corruption cases against state and local officials.

The justices ruled 6-3 to reverse a lower court's decision that had upheld the corruption conviction of former Portage mayor James Snyder for accepting $13,000 from a truck company that received more than $1 million in contracts during his time in office.

The court's conservative justices were in the majority in the ruling authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while its liberal members dissented.

Federal prosecutors charged Snyder with corruptly soliciting a payment in connection with the government contracts, a crime that carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. A jury convicted him, and a judge sentenced him to one year and nine months in prison.

"The question in this case is whether (federal law) makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities - for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like - that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act," Kavanaugh wrote. "The answer is no."

In 2013, while Snyder was mayor, Portage awarded two contracts to local truck company Great Lakes Peterbilt for the purchase of five trash trucks, totaling around $1.1 million.

The next year, while Snyder was still in office, Peterbilt paid him $13,000, which Snyder said was a consulting fee for his work with the company. Kavanaugh wrote that Portage, a city in northwest Indiana with some 38,000 residents, apparently allows local public officials to obtain outside employment.

[...]

Court blocks EPA law regulating air pollution crossing state borders while litigation in lower courts continues:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-blocks-epas-good-neighbor-air-pollution-plan-2024-06-27/

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked an Environmental Protection Agency regulation aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states, handing a victory on Thursday to three Republican-led states and the steel and fossil-fuel industries that had challenged the rule.

The 5-4 decision granted requests by Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, as well as U.S. Steel Corp (X.N), opens new tab, pipeline operator Kinder Morgan (KMI.N), opens new tab and industry groups, to halt enforcement of the EPA's "Good Neighbor" plan restricting ozone pollution from upwind states, while they contest the rule's legality in a lower court.

It was the latest ruling by the conservative-majority court restricting the powers of the EPA.

The EPA issued the rule at issue in March 2023 intending to target gases that form ozone, a key component of smog, from power plants and other industrial sources in 23 upwind states whose own plans did not satisfy the "Good Neighbor" provision of the Clean Air Act anti-pollution law, requiring steps to reduce pollution that drifts into states downwind.

The agency said the rule would result in cleaner air for millions of people, saving thousands of lives.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling, said the court granted the challengers' request because they are likely to ultimately prevail in the litigation, saying the EPA did not reasonably explain its actions.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by the court's three liberal justices.

"The court today enjoins the enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits," Barrett wrote.

The EPA said it was disappointed with the ruling but looked forward to defending the plan as the matter is further litigated. Thursday's action by the court "will postpone the benefits that the Good Neighbor Plan is already achieving in many states and communities," an EPA spokesperson said.

[...]

SCOTUS raises bar for applying obstruction charge to Jan 6 insurrectionists:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-boosts-jan-6-rioters-bid-challenge-obstruction-charge-2024-06-28/

The U.S. Supreme Court raised the legal bar on Friday for prosecutors pursuing obstruction charges in the federal election subversion case against Donald Trump and defendants involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

The justices ruled 6-3 to throw out a lower court's decision that had allowed a charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding - congressional certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 victory over Trump that the rioters tried to block - against defendant Joseph Fischer, a former police officer.

The court, in the decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, took a narrow view of the obstruction statute, saying that prosecutors must show that a defendant "impaired the availability or integrity" of documents or other records related to an official proceeding - or attempted to do so.

Roberts was joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Roberts rejected the Justice Department's more expansive reading of what constitutes obstruction, calling it "a novel interpretation (that) would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison."

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissent, joined by liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Fischer had challenged the obstruction charge, which federal prosecutors brought against him and hundreds of others - including Trump - in Jan. 6-related cases.

The lower court was directed to reconsider the matter in light of Friday's ruling.
[...]

And probably the biggest this week: SCOTUS overturns SCOTUS 1984 decision and rules that interpretation of "ambiguous" federal laws should be left with the courts, not the executive.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-curbs-federal-agency-powers-overturning-1984-precedent-2024-06-28/

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to federal regulatory power on Friday by overturning a 1984 precedent that had given deference to government agencies in interpreting laws they administer, handing a defeat to President Joe Biden's administration.

The justices ruled 6-3 to set aside lower court decisions against fishing companies that challenged a government-run program partly funded by industry that monitored overfishing of herring off New England's coast. It marked the latest decision in recent years powered by the Supreme Court's conservative majority that hemmed in the authority of federal agencies.

The precedent the court overturned arose from a ruling involving oil company Chevron that had called for judges to defer to reasonable federal agency interpretations of U.S. laws deemed to be ambiguous. This doctrine, long opposed by conservatives and business interests, was called "Chevron deference."

"Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision.

The court's conservative justices were in the majority, with the liberal justices dissenting. The ruling will make it easier for judges to second-guess actions by regulators, empowering challengers to regulations across federal agencies.

Business, conservative and libertarian groups cheered the decision, saying it eliminates a rule that requires courts to favor the government in all manner of challenges to regulation. The litigation was part of what has been termed the "war on the administrative state," an effort to weaken the federal agency bureaucracy that interprets laws, crafts federal rules and implements executive action.

The decreasing productivity of Congress - thanks to its gaping partisan divide - has led to a growing reliance, especially by Democratic presidents, on rules issued by U.S. agencies to realize regulatory goals.

Biden's administration had defended the National Marine Fisheries Service regulation at issue and the Chevron doctrine. The fish conservation program was started in 2020 under Republican former President Donald Trump.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, said the ruling elevates the Supreme Court's power over other branches of the U.S. government.

"A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies," Kagan wrote.

Democrats and groups favoring regulation, including environmental groups, said the ruling will undermine agencies, whose officials use scientific and other expertise to ensure safe food and drugs, clean air and water, stable financial markets and fair working conditions.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the ruling "another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards."

"Republican-backed special interests have repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court to block commonsense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard our financial system and support American consumers and workers. And once again, the Supreme Court has decided in the favor of special interests," Jean-Pierre said.

The challenge by the fishing companies was supported by various conservative and corporate interest groups including billionaire Charles Koch's network.

Roman Martinez, an attorney for one of the companies, Rhode Island-based Relentless Inc, called Friday's ruling a win for individual liberty that vindicates the rule of law.

"By ending Chevron deference, the court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach," Martinez said.

The regulation at issue called for certain commercial fishermen to carry aboard their vessels U.S. government contractors and pay for their at-sea services while they monitored the catch.

Beth Lowell of conservation group Oceana said monitors help prevent overfishing, and without them limits become irrelevant.

"Some fishers want to operate in the dark, unmonitored, and return to a Wild West of fishing in U.S. waters, but these companies are fishing on a public resource and making profits," Lowell added.

Kagan wrote: "Who should give content to a statute when Congress's instructions have run out? Should it be a court? Or should it be the agency Congress has charged with administering the statute? The answer Chevron gives is that it should usually be the agency, within the bounds of reasonableness."

"That rule has formed the backdrop against which Congress, courts and agencies - as well as regulated parties and the public - all have operated for decades. It has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds - to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe and financial markets honest," Kagan added.

The companies - led by New Jersey-based Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless - in 2020 sued the fisheries service, claiming the monitoring program exceeded the Commerce Department agency's authority.

The conservation program aimed to monitor 50 percent of declared herring fishing trips in the regulated area, with program costs split between the federal government and the fishing industry. The cost to commercial fishermen of paying for the monitoring was an estimated $710 per day for 19 days a year, which could reduce a vessel's income by up to 20 percent, according to government figures.

The Biden administration said the program was authorized under a 1976 federal law called the Magnuson-Stevens Act to protect against overfishing in U.S. coastal waters.

The Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the government.

The Supreme Court has signaled skepticism toward expansive regulatory power, issuing rulings in recent years to rein in what its conservative justices have viewed as overreach by various agencies.

For example, the court on Thursday rejected the Securities and Exchange Commission's in-house enforcement of laws protecting investors against securities fraud and blocked an Environmental Protection Agency regulation aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states.

Read elsewhere that the original EPA policy that was ruled on in 1984 was enacted by Neil Gorsuch's mom who worked at the EPA, and that Scalia at the time hailed it as a strike against liberal laws.

[Valmy]

Man conservative judges love bribes.

[Oexmelin]

Not just judges. Congress representatives, senators, state representatives, CEO, enabling lawyers... the rot has been there for some time.

[Razgovory]

So can government employees have a tip jar or just elected officials?

[grumbler]

The Supreme Court session is over.  Why hasn't Sonia Sotomayor announced her retirement?  The chances of her dying in the next presidential term are low, but the consequences of that happening are so dire as to make any identifiable risk at all unacceptable.  She's earned a quiet rest of her life.

[Grey Fox]

She's 70, that's prime years for one of the  US head of one of the 3 branches.

[crazy canuck]

She's 70, that's prime years for one of the  US head of one of the 3 branches.

lol

[Barrister]

So it seems increasingly likely that Joe Biden is just doubling down on running for President and trying to shut down any criticism that he might be too old.

May Heaven help us all.

[Valmy]

So it seems increasingly likely that Joe Biden is just doubling down on running for President and trying to shut down any criticism that he might be too old.

May Heaven help us all.

It was probably wishful thinking that he would see sense, as he hadn't over the past couple years.

I still don't know what happened. He was talking about being a bridge to the next generation and all that back in 2021. He never had a Teddy Roosevelt moment where he outright said he wouldn't run again (which Teddy famously did anyway in 1912), but it was heavily implied in the 2020 campaign and in statements made in 2021. What happened between now and then to convince him he was some kind of indispensable person and that the next generation of Democratic leaders could suck it?

I don't know man. The fact that it all seems so inexplicable is making conspiracy theories run wild. It is Jill Biden making him do it, it is presidential staffers fearful for their jobs, it is some kind of fascist conspiracy by billionaire donors to make the Democrats adopt shitty candidates to deliver Trump and Project 2025 so they can destroy America and on and on.

Never has such a huge risk been taken and so much been sacrificed for so little reason in American history that I can think of. Well maybe the Kansas-Nebraska act but at least that was desperation, the Democrats had an obvious and easily doable alternative in this case.

[DGuller]

Old people sometimes really hate admitting they're old.