SCOTUS

I enjoy seeing the Court rule correctly on the law instead of cheating and passing legislation. None of these decisions are tough if you follow the law. I notice the news ignored the ruling that USPS cannot force a Christian to work on Sunday. Probably because it was a 9-0 decision. Th3 student loan decision was just as clear but the left still wants to use taxpayer money to buy votes. Lastly, the 10th amendment always meant Roe was a bad decision. Preventing retarded comments from tards I am not a Christian, never have been, not pro-life and don;t care if we have post birth abortion for the children of those who want it. Its a decision to be made by the states, period. Also applies to when stupid Trump calls for a national law outlawing abortion. Nope, unconstitutional under the 10th.

IMO, all three of these rulings correctly interpreted the law. If someone doesn’t agree, they need to get Congress to pass a law. The mainstream media is responding with the normal emotional accusations. The Supreme Court is racist, homophobe, and doesn’t care about college students ! Those on the left think the court’s job is to rule in favor of Democrat policies, without considering the law.

We’re in a new world now, I thought this country was founded on the concept of freedom from religion, all of the courts recent rulings are based on religion as interpreted by government overreach

If you look at history you understand that the people who escaped here, escaped a government sponsored and mandated religion. We live in the real world again, the one that existed before the past 55 years. No Democrat would ever think it unfair for a halal restaurant could ban pork etc. and not be forced by the state to cook it, but when it comes to Christians the vicious alphabet lobby wants to force them to do things against their religion. The decision that you cannot make a Christian work on Sunday was 9-0; overturning affirmative action was 6-2 and 6-3; 6-3 on stopping Biden from buying votes with taxpayer money. Best court I have seen in my 41 years of law practice, by far. Only those thinking whatever they believe is right and that the law is wrong disagree,

^ so religion that is mandated by governmental regulation in the old world is wrong, but the religious mandates that are mandated by government officials in America are legitimate, got it, now I understand, new boss good old boss bad. LOL

I find it amazing that there was a dissent in the loan cancellation case. Everyone agreed that the President didn't have the power to do this until Biden tried it. There are quotes and videos of Pelosi saying that this would have to come from Congress. It's so obviously not legal. Yet the three left judges would have upheld it.

^^ Those decisions are the exact opposite of mandates. They allow those with sincerely held religious beliefs to practice their religion free of government interference. The left has always been big fans of the Establishment Clause. Not so much the Free Exercise Clause. As for Dobbs, I am pro choice, but Roe was and always was among the most shoddily reasoned and indefensible opinions in the long history of the Supreme Court. Not that it's going to change things one iota where I live in Massachusetts in any event.

There are two basic concepts that underly our constitution. 1. We have freedom to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t harm another person. 2. The government’s power is limited to those powers specifically granted under the constitution. The three rulings are consistent with these principles.

Well if didn’t waste so much money on wars that didn’t concern us cancelling student loan debt would be an issue.

"1. We have freedom to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t harm another person." No, we do not. Look at all the people incarcerated for simple possession - not selling, but *using* drugs - that aren't harming anyone but themselves. There is no reason to criminalize people for personal drug use itself, beyond the fact that we have a "war on drugs" that was created to mass incarcerate blacks, Latinos, and poor whites and take more money from communities to line government pockets with. That is fascism, that's not something a "free country" does, and it does way more harm than good. That is just one example of the complete bullshit that comes out of people's mouths when they try to say America is some free country. It's not, it's a police state. Cops will go out of their way to find drugs on your person, vehicle, (etc) and promptly jail you for it.

“Look at all the people incarcerated for simple possession - not selling, but *using* drugs - that aren't harming anyone but themselves” — That is a very narrow-minded, short-sighted view. The economic impact of illicit drug use is in the hundreds of billions of dollars - primarily from loss of productivity, over-burdening the health care system and even environmental impact. To say drugs only harm the user is an extremely false narrative

I was referring to the Constitution when I said a foundation of our country is personal freedom. As someone who leans libertarian, I’d support an end to criminal penalties for personal use. The severe drug laws can be traced back to Joe Biden when he was a Senator. It’s another example of government going beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Under the concept of Federalism, drug laws should be the purview of State government. Each State could, and should, decide the criminality of drugs. Citizens could then decide in which State they want to reside. The laboratory of democracy. That’s the same way abortion law is being handled in a post Roe world.

While I would support decriminalizing drug use at a federal level, I would also support employers right to drug test, conditioning welfare benefits on drug testing, and strongly enforcing DUI laws for all substances.

As long as you have AT LEAST 3 justices "on the take", this court will not be seen as "legit"...

I don’t think I would go so far as to say America is a police state, the Supreme Court has morphed into a third legislature by design, trying to compensate the pseudo conservatives, with more extreme power over their respective legislative branches, than they have earned by the voters. It’s an anomaly for our system , it will change, and the pendulum will swing back the other way. Our system is designed for compromise not this one way bullshit.

^ one last point for all of you states righters let me point out immigration law, drug law, abortion rights, and gun laws just to make a case in point, will never be settled by a single state or group of states, not as long as this country allows free expression and trade across state borders, and any laws attempting to restrict those rights will be quickly defeated.

"That is a very narrow-minded, short-sighted view. The economic impact of illicit drug use is in the hundreds of billions of dollars - primarily from loss of productivity, over-burdening the health care system and even environmental impact." No, it's an "aware" view. The negative impacts are because it's illegal and unregulated, creating a black market. Much like how prostitution being illegal and unregulted here in [almost all of] the US creates a black market that makes it more dangerous to everyone it impacts; are you suggesting that both drugs AND prostitution stay criminalized?

"The severe drug laws can be traced back to Joe Biden when he was a Senator." They actually can be traced back to decades before then, and before he was even born. The pioneer for severe drug laws was a man named Harry J Anslinger, and if you want to be educated on that subject, you should look him up.

When alcohol was made illegal an amendment to the Constitution was passed. When it was made legal again, another amendment was passed. It was understood back then that the Constitution limited what the federal government could do. There was nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government the power to ban alcohol so it had to be amended first so that could be done. The same thing is true with drugs. Federal drug laws are unconstitutional, since there were never any amendments passed in that area.

"immigration law, drug law, abortion rights, and gun laws just to make a case in point, will never be settled by a single state or group of states" @25 I completely agree. Being a gun owner in NJ I often get into debates over the onerous regulations we have to tolerate here. I win the argument when I say I'd be willing to let it all be settled at the Federal level. Either all guns are confiscated, or every state must allow constitutional carry. The anti-gunners HATE that concept because they know it would be a lost cause. Case in point: I've lived my whole life with little or no hope that carry licenses in NJ would ever be a reality. Finally, the Bruen ruling came down and within a few months I had my card.

On another note... The student loan decision, while I wholeheartedly agree with the SC ruling from a legal and moral standpoint, I must admit I was disappointed. My daughter has about 14,000 in student loans and knocking off 10 grand would have really helped her out. The way I figure it, as long as Biden's in office they're gonna piss away shit-tons of money we don't have and can't afford anyway. If they don't help out my daughter, they'll just spend it on junkies and illegal aliens.

“are you suggesting that both drugs AND prostitution stay criminalized?” No - I think you missed the crux of my argument. I never suggested drug use should be a crime. You stated that drug use only harms the person using the drugs - no one else. I just pointed out that’s false. Drugs, alcohol, smoking all do harm to the greater good of society - but I never suggested they be made illegal

@25: I don't really understand the mental gymnastics you're going through to interpret the SC's rulings as the imposition of any particular religion upon others. It's freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* any exposure to religious concepts in a public facing venue. Indeed even our money has "In God We Trust" on it. This equally benefits people of all religious persuasions, whether Christian, Jewish (whether observant or more like you), Muslim, etc. Using the Christian Colorado cake baker as one example, if he was uncomfortable crafting a custom cake for a carpet muncher wedding, why should he be forced to? How is not forcing one baker to create custom messaging that he does not agree with an imposition of his religion on the general public? Was he the only wedding cake baker in Colorado? Same questions apply for the website designer who did not want to custom create a website celebrating a shemale transition.

@RD This is a completely hypothetical case, as the events described, never actually happened, proving this was a complete waste of time and energy I'll provide you with a link you can read this crazy story yourself https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-website-385ec911ce0ca2f415966078eddb66da

^ 25, whether she had actual standing to sue or not, which is a separate matter of law, is not the point. How does this ruling impose her religion upon anyone else? It's also important to understand the backdrop. For years now Colorado's so-called "Civil Rights Commission" has been zealous in pursuing public facing creative designers who refuse to create custom content with homosexual and gender fluidity messaging, using hefty fines and assorted threats to bludgeon them into submission. Even after they lost the Colorado baker case, they STILL kept going. Perhaps the SC, understanding that some children are too stupid to understand a clear message the first time, felt motivated to reiterate the point.

To the broader point, overall I am thrilled by what the SC has been doing. It feels like common sense and sanity are finally being restored. Presidents may not behave like kings, states may not use politicized ideological agendas to stomp on freedoms of religion and speech, education and other institutions are no longer allowed to discriminate against disfavored groups and unaccountable administrative agencies can no longer usurp the rightful role of Congress. We may not be free to do anything we want, but we are one of the freest countries in the world. Our Constitution is the reason for that and SCOTUS enforcing it as it is written will help keep it that way.

I’m not sure what the issue is but if she was never asked to design such a website then how is there anything to be done for her, my opinion is irrelevant about her designing websites for whoever she wants to, I just don’t care if she does or not, this is purely a publicity stunt and the SCOTUS should stick to their assigned task and leave the legislating to the folks that were actually elected by the American people. All this is nothing more than another political stunt and attempting to make an end run around the will of the people.

Our system of checks and balances is primarily intended to prevent the President from acting like a King. Congress controls the purse strings. The Supreme Court assures that Congress and the President adhere to the Constitution. By dividing power in this way, it is more likely the government will act in ways that reflect the will of the people. Since FDR, the Court has too often allowed Congress and the President to take on powers not enumerated in the Consitution. In fact, in cases like Roe, the Court has acted more like a legislature than a court. These 3 cases help move us back to a proper system of checks and balances as wisely intended by the founders.

^ actually if you read the federalist papers you’ll see that the court was intended to advise the congress, not make legislation, considering your argument about checks and balances what is the check on the power of the court, or do you think they are infallible?

Our society is based on the rule of law. The Constitution explains the framework for our law and Federalism is the key component. Federalism says that the federal government has very limited and specific powers. These include foreign affairs, resolving issues between States, and assuring individual rights listed in the Constitution were followed, but not much else. Most governmental powers are reserved for the States. The intent was to allow the people of each State to decide how they would be governed. Citizens would be free to live in whatever State they preferred. Unfortunately, the federal government found ways to take on more and more power not allowed in the constitution. And, the power centralized in Washington resulted in just the sort of corruption the Founders were trying to prevent. That’s where we find ourselves today.

^That’s your misinterpretation not what is actually happening

===> "All this is nothing more than another political stunt and attempting to make an end run around the will of the people." Wrong 25. The SC is there to protect the Constitutional rights of *all* people, both the majority AND the minority. This includes preventing momentary cultural fads and mob passions, which change dramatically over time, from creating a tyranny of the majority which strips these protections from disfavored groups. If you actually read the rulings, you'd see that, far from legislating, the Court has in many cases pushed issues BACK to legislators and out of the hands of unelected bureaucrats and judges. This includes abortion (to the States), a string of sweeping environmental and other rulemaking attempted by unelected administrative agencies and, of course, a few attempts by Biden to end-run the legislature (most notably a half trillion dollar student loan bailout). And yes, in a few instances, the Court has struck down some rules/laws as un-Constitutional. In other words, the Court is finally, after many years of legislating by judicial fiat, doing what it's supposed to do.

The majority of spending done by the federal government is income redistribution. Taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security. Welfare. None of this is specified as a power allotted to the federal government under the Constitution. The States could each choose to redistribute as they see fit, but not the federal government. The money used for these benefits doesn’t magically appear. It comes out of the pockets of other people. Some would call that theft. This system of redistribution is the mechanism by which Congressmen and Senators become multi millionaires while in office as “ public servants”. Every time they pass legislation to reward a group of people, or corporations, they find a way to get rewarded by those who benefit.

"This system of redistribution is the mechanism by which Congressmen and Senators become multi millionaires while in office as “ public servants”. Every time they pass legislation to reward a group of people, or corporations, they find a way to get rewarded by those who benefit." also applies to supreme court justices and proves my points beyond all doubt.

“what is the check on the power of the court” 1. Naming new Justices/Judges 2. Impeachment 3. Legislation 4. Amendments to the Constitution

Can the market work out these issues? I mean if you’re a bigoted baker and everyone knows it, maybe everyone stops going to that bakery. Or if you’re an inclusive baker who bends over backwards to appease whatever need your protected class has, maybe more of the clients with those needs patronize said bakery? Alls I know is that fat middle aged white men aren’t a protected class and can be hated for just being white, business owner or not. Those who belong to a federally labeled protected class can find unlimited ways to bring lawsuits to the courts. The SC has decided to constitutionally allow this overreach of protected class to rein it in a bit. Bacon!!

Why do gay men keep asking Christian bakers to bake wedding cakes ? I’m guessing there are a few gay bakers out there who would like the business.

In London, environmental protesters have disrupted the gay pride parade because of corporate sponsors. Hilarious.

booty, why should students who took out loans be granted payments from the government, while not others? Why don't we send $10k payments to people who want to buy a home, or a car, or a boat, or to start a business? Before students took out loans, perhaps they should have considered whether the degree they were seeking would have a suitable level of job prospects and compensation? How many attorneys, engineers, software developers, accountants, nurses, etc, do to know who cannot find work adequate to repay loans? Perhaps they should not have chosen to pursue degrees without high level of job prospects. I also wonder how many of the whiny student loan borrowers who were crying "im broke" have recent versions of $1k iPhones, or eat at restaurants, or have taken vacations,etc.

I'm one of those weirdos who believes in student loan forgiveness but thinks it has to come from Congress. As dysfunctional as congress has been for decades, the Executive branch has been gobbling up power for decades. I don't think a gay business should be forced to make a "god hates fags" website, so it cuts both ways. Plus gay couples really should give their business to those who actually support them. I don't really care for religion in general, but the 9-0 ruling is basically correcting a mistake made in the 70s. Perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court effectively is forcing Louisiana to redraw it's districts in a way that is more fair to black people. My positions definitely make me feel like a moderate. Despite being a "conservative" I think Roberts is a good justice and he seems to really care about balance and fairness.

The Supreme Court made many correct decisions this term. The constitution was correctly interpreted and applied to correct injustices being done against American citizens. 1) Stopping state government from forcing private business to promote state messages instead of the religious beliefs of the individual 2) Stopping executive overreach. The president is not an omnipotent monarch 3) sending laws not expressly written or amended in the Constitution back to the states It seems that many posters and pundits have forgotten that SCOTUS is a SEPARATE and CO-EQUAL branch of our government. Their existance is an important part of our system of checks and balances. SCOTUS does not write laws. It forces the other two branches to write legislation which follows the constitution. All of these decisions were illustrations that the executive branches and state governments were attempting to pre-empt Consitutional freedoms or bypass checks and balances endorsed by the Constitution. Crybabies don't like it because they didn't their way, and they don't give a damn about your Consitutional freedoms.

Here’s an interesting historical table of federal government spending as a percent of GDP. It tells a tale of how government has gotten more involved in all our lives. From 3% in the 1930s to 25% in recent years. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z2_fy2024.xlsx

I believe after the civil war was the highest debt to gdp ratio we’ve had, which this report only goes back to depression era.

Federalism works: “New York state is reeling from a COVID-era exodus to low-tax locales as revenue during this fiscal year is down nearly 20%, according to a report. New York and California saw the steepest drops in tax-generated revenue this fiscal year while Florida and Texas saw their coffers fill up thanks to a pandemic-fueled migration.”

Why did government spending grow AFTER the Civil War ? Well, lots of reasons but I think it was mostly because spending expanded during the war and was allowed to continue after the War. Once established, government programs never die. Never let a crisis go to waste. https://fee.org/articles/the-economic-costs-of-the-civil-war/

^^ I believe it was due to reconstruction, for which the motherland (England) helped us recover financially until we could rebound to our feet. Not sure at what rates they were paying then, but now we’re paying over 5% on our debt compared to 2-3% last year. Powell us in a quandary but inflation is dropping hard and fast since summer of ‘22, saving Powells ass to stop raising . Oh, I told you so!

“I believe after the civil war was the highest debt to gdp ratio we’ve had” Not according to this: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/wartime-presidents-added-most-to-us-federal-debt-to-gdp-ratio

Thanks for posting this second article, Mark, which begs the question which article should we focus on? Both apparently report on debt/gdp spending, the first one states 3% to 25% spending to gdp, yet your latest article states above 100% of total debt on gdp. Different categories for sure. One thing for sure, Trump was always in the camp he was ready to have the US default on its debt. He was definitely a true modern day American politician. We let the fox in the hen house. Thank god they threw his ass out, as I voted for him twice. Not a fan of Biden, but forced to vote for him if trump is nominated.

One table shows spending/GDP. The other debt/GDP. These are different things only partially correlated. The first table about spending was chosen to support my contention that government has grown dramatically. The second table about debt was used in response to your unrelated statement about debt after the civil war.

One of the reasons we have inflation is all the “free” stuff provided by the government. It’s actually not free but the people who pay for it are different than the people who benefit. Imagine there were a grocery store where the person standing behind you would pay for your groceries. You’d fill your cart with steak and lobster. That’s our health care system. Medicare. Medicaid. No wonder we have the highest cost health care in the world.

The Obamas rage tweeting about Affirmative Action from a private yacht in the Mediterranean is probably the most out of touch and yet unsurprisingly on-brand thing they've done lately.

"No - I think you missed the crux of my argument. I never suggested drug use should be a crime. You stated that drug use only harms the person using the drugs - no one else. I just pointed out that’s false. Drugs, alcohol, smoking all do harm to the greater good of society - but I never suggested they be made illegal" Then you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Drug use itself only directly harms the user - of course people's actions have consequences that affect others. I was taken from the custody of my mother (twice) as a child because of her alcohol/drug addictions, and was placed into an emotionally and eventually physically abusive household; I have a heroin junkie for a twin sister; I know how much drug use can ruin the lives of the people around a person. Please do not presume to tell me my views on the legalities of drug use are "short-sighted." Furthermore, the consequences drug use has on innocent people is on par with gun use as well, but we don't ban all guns. Drug use itself directly harms no one but the user. The drug user should be given autonomy over their body in their choice to do drugs. It should not be the government's business to punish these people unless they do something indirect because of their drug use, like rob someone for their next fix, or drive drunk. Those things should have legal ramifications and they do - but drug use alone should not. As you know, because you read this, I was responding to the person who said, "We have freedom to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t harm another person." If I decide to be an idiot and shoot heroin into my veins, that is directly harming myself and no one else. It is not the government's place to tell me what I can and cannot ingest. If you don't disagree with that, why are we going back and forth about it?

Like pretty much everyone, I’ve had family members with drug and alcohol addictions. Every one of their addictions harmed other family members. No exceptions. In many cases, it destroyed lives.

To build a diverse class of students, the medical school at UC Davis ranks applicants by the disadvantages they have faced. That’s not how I want to select my doctor.

Need look no further than the binder-reliant White House Press Secretary to see what happens when people are chosen based on demographics and other non-job-related characteristics.

My feelings about affirmative action are mixed, I’d use this example about a kid I know about who had a hearing impairment from a birth defect, anyway when it came time to put the child in a school the parents refused to send him to a school for the deaf, opting instead to mainstream the kid and provide him with some tutoring. The logic those parents used was that the child would need to compete with people that were not disabled , so to prepare their child properly they opted to be sure that child whom they loved was able to get what he needed with no special privileges, and succeed in the world as it is, not the way they wished for it to be. That child grew up to found a multimillion dollar business and raise a family So yes I understand the desire for affirmative action and I get the need, but still I believe it holds as many back as it promotes, that is my conflict.