The conservatives on the Supreme Court -- yet again, it is not "both sides" [sometimes it is] -- are abusing their discretion. The proper response must partially address personnel. At least, that is why people specifically talk about that, instead of just talking about general reforms. Those who oppose "packing" the Court, etc., need to explain why 6-3 splits like this are not a matter of personnel.
I appreciate Justice Jackson's continuing openness to speak her mind. When liberals dissent in these cases, they should explain why. The prudential reasons for not doing that are questionable. SCOTUS via the shadow/emergency/whatever docket made new law. Why dissent without opinion?
DOGE is the greatest HEIST in human history, and ‘waste, fraud, & abuse’ is the staged diversion across town. This is OUR fucking data, entrusted with the government, OUR government, not Musk’s, not Trump’s, not Thiel’s, OURS! The People! DOGE is an abomination of American values and beliefs and these two SCOTUS shadow docket ‘decisions’ are also an abomination. DOGE is so clearly both illegal and unconstitutional. And that’s a true conservative position, DOGE is illegal and unconstitutional, full stop.
Brave SCOTUS: Looks down from on high - within its gated courtroom? - and allows the lessers to be probed without being able to probe back … and all on the shadow docket where justification is insufficient.
The first case giving DOGE access to SSN data makes my blood figuratively boil. The second case denying access of DOGE data to the public through FOIA requests, makes it explode into steam. Has DOGE's legal status ever been determined? Is it or is not an agency and if so under what department and what happens to it after 180 days and after that period can FoIA requests be made?
I should add that not all agencies if the executive branch are required to respond to FOIA requests under several exceptions, but usually those are pressing matters of national security etc. none such were claimed here or do I have that wrong? Chris, help!!
I do NOT call them the Fascist Six of the U.S. Kangaroo Court for nothing! Their job is to interpret the U.S. Constitution NOT make bullshit rulings giving the Orange Monster “immunity” when the only time the Founding Fathers put the word “immunity” in the constitution was to give members of Congress the immunity to discuss any topic! Now, we have an ILLEGITIMATE bunch of clowns called DOGE who are disciples of Musk that now have my social security data and the Fascist Six made it to where we the people have no recourse! When the Democrats gain control of Congress it is way past time to revise the U.S. Kangaroo Court!!!
Good God man, Obama was not president when the Fascist Six made up their immunity decision during Biden’s term!! QUIT WATCHING FAUX PROPAGANDA ALL THE TIME!!!
First, Justice Brown Jackson demonstrates once again why she is clearly the brightest and most powerful justice on the Court, despite being in the minority. Her dissent is stinging.
So, my question is why does the majority pretend to send the DOGE data matter back to the lower courts? It's not like they can put the data genie back in the bottle.
The answer: They have no intention of doing ruling against DOGE and Trump. The majority are part of the plot against America. They continue to use the Shadow Docket to maim the lower courts and the rule of law.
Leaving the legal “niceties” aside—Justice Jackson’s dissent is crushing—the sheer obtuseness of the majority is jaw dropping. Do they not care that their own data and that of their near and dear ones are now a shady transaction away from the public domain? And for what, to give Musk a win? Good god.
Thank you for keeping us informed, Mr. Geidner--though part of me wants to stop looking at the current reality. This relentless combination of despair and murderous rage can't be good for my health.
I wrote a lengthy reply on Judge Luttieg's stack, last night, but I did it as a note and my notes don't get seen.
To summarize my issues, with these two rulings, along with praise for KBJ for always taking the time to explain, not exploit, her judicial reasoning, go something like this.
1. This is why Alito, I believe, wrote the dissent, of sorts, while siding with the majority, in Garcia. He wants business as usual and their court to be court of last review. However, this information is so highly sensitive and that information, belonging to persons with an SS number or receiving benefits will be used in what manner, yet we can't ask, as the admin works at warp speed, incorrectly and has proven untrustworthy and has erred in numerous cases.
These aren't normal times, normal court of anything and as such if granting DOGE access what do they base their decision "of DOGE's duties" on? We don't know how DOGE defines "waste, fraud, or inefficiency" or "duties" as they have not been transparent in any way. They have proven to be the opposite.
Trump uses national security threat to define everything and both of these, in these novel times, need an explanation. Trump is the biggest national security threat we face. This information is being given to an agency created by an EO, correct? Vought is now undertaking its "work" but the people prior were not vetted, given security clearance, appointed or confirmed, etc.
So, how much damage will this cost the average American, in terms of false accusations, assumptions, incorrect AI modeling, or incorrect search parameters by some untrained, unvetted individual or group of individuals, as the erring in facial recognition software, is doing in falsely arresting US citizens? This is one of those cases I'd like to be able to motion on my own, as I have standing, and will be damaged or most likely will be damaged.
2. The deference issue is making me sick to my ever living stomach. This is domestic policy being used for the domestic policy of immigration under the false guise of an invasion by a non nation or non government gang. They are here, he wants them out, no invasion, domestic. These agency responsibilities are shared with Congress and from my POV, this is not absolute immunity, and he and the admin and whomever he directs may be breaking laws that I guess don't matter any longer. Do we now not recognize the rule of law or the constitution? It seems as if the late, Scalia, in stating, the justices should interpret the laws not make them, is being thrown out to pasture. Deference is owed when deference is earned. Perhaps, not in foreign policy but this isn't foreign policy, to track migrants, so how does an American citizen fight back?
Trump just pardoned/commuted the sentence of the man who is serving 6 terms, awaiting a murder state trial and formed the Gangster Disciples, in Chicago. Are we still to believe we are being invaded by some cooked up narrative? It appears that if your gang was formed in the US you've got the stamp of approval.
The new indictment, against Garcia, reads like a ten year old wrote it. It has sticking power due to the ambiguity, which I realize, is the point, and why the SSA giving information to a non agency, agency is dangerous, violating their Oaths, and I'd like to ask what was the price paid for this?
3. These definitions, questions to understand underlying methodologies, to be concerned the judiciary is as KBJ defines them, firefighters, on the scene immediately, as a partisan chopping block, and aren't unreasonable items to expect, in a novel time, to ask, even the laziest of people, who should be recusing himself, to buck up. We know how much it took for him. Collectively, I wonder.
4. Religion isn't in the constitution, but to say NO national religion shall be established blah, blah, but certainly is an agenda, as you know, Chris, and so ignoring the role Trump played in J6, per CO's determination by their Supreme Court, giving retroactive immunity, for criminal activity, which is not a requirement of an energetic Executive, nor is that what Hamilton meant, while laughing during oral arguments, is insulting and worthless with no integrity whatsoever.
Mr. D. J. Sauer uses the same arguments against, US citizens as he did with Trump, personally. Didn't he and Barrett both clerk for Scalia?
This court should be deferential to those they owe their OATH to, as they allowed for no accountability for what voters were expected to decide versus jurors.
They need to include this narrative, novel as it is, in any agenda, dealing with a convicted felon, who did what he did to influence the 2016 election, has proven untrustworthy, hasn't shown respect to courts by way of threats, that is constitutional not the opposite. They glaringly aren't interested.
They need to let the lower courts do their job. What has Trump threatened? What has Leo paid them?
The scales have tipped so far to the unethical that I am nearly certain we aren't to reference the constitution any longer. It has become moot in its relevance.
Wouldn't it be fun if, as the bromance spat escalates, Elon released all the info he's got on Thomas, Alito, and ilk? I'm sure he has a thumb-drive full.
Unbelievable! I have tried very hard for years to believe the Court was ruling on the basis of law, w/o succeeding, but this is the straw that breaks my metaphorical back. They are, quite simply, complicit. These 6 justices are part of the long, & deeply deceptive plan Republicans have worked on since the 40s or 50s to destroy the "liberal" state & return us to the antebellum. I cannot conceive of how these people, all of whom consider themselves Christian, can convince themselves this is either moral, respectful of citizens' rights or what the founders would have had in mind. Nor can I believe, although I must, such breathtaking arrogance. As Bruce Springsteen said "It's gonna be a long walk home." If we ever get there.
This is why it is sad that the supreme Court judges is only 9 to represent all of the US, that number should be bigger and can't be for life due to situations like this where judges are more political then for the law and constitution but that's my opinion from someone who ain't knowledgeable about the law besides the basics learn in HS and Uni for basic requirements
The conservatives on the Supreme Court -- yet again, it is not "both sides" [sometimes it is] -- are abusing their discretion. The proper response must partially address personnel. At least, that is why people specifically talk about that, instead of just talking about general reforms. Those who oppose "packing" the Court, etc., need to explain why 6-3 splits like this are not a matter of personnel.
I appreciate Justice Jackson's continuing openness to speak her mind. When liberals dissent in these cases, they should explain why. The prudential reasons for not doing that are questionable. SCOTUS via the shadow/emergency/whatever docket made new law. Why dissent without opinion?
DOGE is the greatest HEIST in human history, and ‘waste, fraud, & abuse’ is the staged diversion across town. This is OUR fucking data, entrusted with the government, OUR government, not Musk’s, not Trump’s, not Thiel’s, OURS! The People! DOGE is an abomination of American values and beliefs and these two SCOTUS shadow docket ‘decisions’ are also an abomination. DOGE is so clearly both illegal and unconstitutional. And that’s a true conservative position, DOGE is illegal and unconstitutional, full stop.
Brave SCOTUS: Looks down from on high - within its gated courtroom? - and allows the lessers to be probed without being able to probe back … and all on the shadow docket where justification is insufficient.
Just business as usual there nowadays it would appear.
Nasty business … barely in the daylight.
The first case giving DOGE access to SSN data makes my blood figuratively boil. The second case denying access of DOGE data to the public through FOIA requests, makes it explode into steam. Has DOGE's legal status ever been determined? Is it or is not an agency and if so under what department and what happens to it after 180 days and after that period can FoIA requests be made?
I should add that not all agencies if the executive branch are required to respond to FOIA requests under several exceptions, but usually those are pressing matters of national security etc. none such were claimed here or do I have that wrong? Chris, help!!
I do NOT call them the Fascist Six of the U.S. Kangaroo Court for nothing! Their job is to interpret the U.S. Constitution NOT make bullshit rulings giving the Orange Monster “immunity” when the only time the Founding Fathers put the word “immunity” in the constitution was to give members of Congress the immunity to discuss any topic! Now, we have an ILLEGITIMATE bunch of clowns called DOGE who are disciples of Musk that now have my social security data and the Fascist Six made it to where we the people have no recourse! When the Democrats gain control of Congress it is way past time to revise the U.S. Kangaroo Court!!!
The principal beneficiary of the immunity decision was Barack Obama.
Good God man, Obama was not president when the Fascist Six made up their immunity decision during Biden’s term!! QUIT WATCHING FAUX PROPAGANDA ALL THE TIME!!!
First, Justice Brown Jackson demonstrates once again why she is clearly the brightest and most powerful justice on the Court, despite being in the minority. Her dissent is stinging.
So, my question is why does the majority pretend to send the DOGE data matter back to the lower courts? It's not like they can put the data genie back in the bottle.
The answer: They have no intention of doing ruling against DOGE and Trump. The majority are part of the plot against America. They continue to use the Shadow Docket to maim the lower courts and the rule of law.
Now DOGE has access
not only to all of our SS
information but to every
member of SCOTUS as
well and their spouses.
Did they think about that
on their shadow docket?
When we reclaim our
democratic government,
there are a lot of loop
holes that need to be 1
closed and locked tight.
Leaving the legal “niceties” aside—Justice Jackson’s dissent is crushing—the sheer obtuseness of the majority is jaw dropping. Do they not care that their own data and that of their near and dear ones are now a shady transaction away from the public domain? And for what, to give Musk a win? Good god.
Thank you for keeping us informed, Mr. Geidner--though part of me wants to stop looking at the current reality. This relentless combination of despair and murderous rage can't be good for my health.
I wrote a lengthy reply on Judge Luttieg's stack, last night, but I did it as a note and my notes don't get seen.
To summarize my issues, with these two rulings, along with praise for KBJ for always taking the time to explain, not exploit, her judicial reasoning, go something like this.
1. This is why Alito, I believe, wrote the dissent, of sorts, while siding with the majority, in Garcia. He wants business as usual and their court to be court of last review. However, this information is so highly sensitive and that information, belonging to persons with an SS number or receiving benefits will be used in what manner, yet we can't ask, as the admin works at warp speed, incorrectly and has proven untrustworthy and has erred in numerous cases.
These aren't normal times, normal court of anything and as such if granting DOGE access what do they base their decision "of DOGE's duties" on? We don't know how DOGE defines "waste, fraud, or inefficiency" or "duties" as they have not been transparent in any way. They have proven to be the opposite.
Trump uses national security threat to define everything and both of these, in these novel times, need an explanation. Trump is the biggest national security threat we face. This information is being given to an agency created by an EO, correct? Vought is now undertaking its "work" but the people prior were not vetted, given security clearance, appointed or confirmed, etc.
So, how much damage will this cost the average American, in terms of false accusations, assumptions, incorrect AI modeling, or incorrect search parameters by some untrained, unvetted individual or group of individuals, as the erring in facial recognition software, is doing in falsely arresting US citizens? This is one of those cases I'd like to be able to motion on my own, as I have standing, and will be damaged or most likely will be damaged.
2. The deference issue is making me sick to my ever living stomach. This is domestic policy being used for the domestic policy of immigration under the false guise of an invasion by a non nation or non government gang. They are here, he wants them out, no invasion, domestic. These agency responsibilities are shared with Congress and from my POV, this is not absolute immunity, and he and the admin and whomever he directs may be breaking laws that I guess don't matter any longer. Do we now not recognize the rule of law or the constitution? It seems as if the late, Scalia, in stating, the justices should interpret the laws not make them, is being thrown out to pasture. Deference is owed when deference is earned. Perhaps, not in foreign policy but this isn't foreign policy, to track migrants, so how does an American citizen fight back?
Trump just pardoned/commuted the sentence of the man who is serving 6 terms, awaiting a murder state trial and formed the Gangster Disciples, in Chicago. Are we still to believe we are being invaded by some cooked up narrative? It appears that if your gang was formed in the US you've got the stamp of approval.
The new indictment, against Garcia, reads like a ten year old wrote it. It has sticking power due to the ambiguity, which I realize, is the point, and why the SSA giving information to a non agency, agency is dangerous, violating their Oaths, and I'd like to ask what was the price paid for this?
3. These definitions, questions to understand underlying methodologies, to be concerned the judiciary is as KBJ defines them, firefighters, on the scene immediately, as a partisan chopping block, and aren't unreasonable items to expect, in a novel time, to ask, even the laziest of people, who should be recusing himself, to buck up. We know how much it took for him. Collectively, I wonder.
4. Religion isn't in the constitution, but to say NO national religion shall be established blah, blah, but certainly is an agenda, as you know, Chris, and so ignoring the role Trump played in J6, per CO's determination by their Supreme Court, giving retroactive immunity, for criminal activity, which is not a requirement of an energetic Executive, nor is that what Hamilton meant, while laughing during oral arguments, is insulting and worthless with no integrity whatsoever.
Mr. D. J. Sauer uses the same arguments against, US citizens as he did with Trump, personally. Didn't he and Barrett both clerk for Scalia?
This court should be deferential to those they owe their OATH to, as they allowed for no accountability for what voters were expected to decide versus jurors.
They need to include this narrative, novel as it is, in any agenda, dealing with a convicted felon, who did what he did to influence the 2016 election, has proven untrustworthy, hasn't shown respect to courts by way of threats, that is constitutional not the opposite. They glaringly aren't interested.
They need to let the lower courts do their job. What has Trump threatened? What has Leo paid them?
The scales have tipped so far to the unethical that I am nearly certain we aren't to reference the constitution any longer. It has become moot in its relevance.
Concerned in WI.
Jackson’s dissent was scathing. What’s the rush and where’s the harm, she asked.
Wouldn't it be fun if, as the bromance spat escalates, Elon released all the info he's got on Thomas, Alito, and ilk? I'm sure he has a thumb-drive full.
Unbelievable! I have tried very hard for years to believe the Court was ruling on the basis of law, w/o succeeding, but this is the straw that breaks my metaphorical back. They are, quite simply, complicit. These 6 justices are part of the long, & deeply deceptive plan Republicans have worked on since the 40s or 50s to destroy the "liberal" state & return us to the antebellum. I cannot conceive of how these people, all of whom consider themselves Christian, can convince themselves this is either moral, respectful of citizens' rights or what the founders would have had in mind. Nor can I believe, although I must, such breathtaking arrogance. As Bruce Springsteen said "It's gonna be a long walk home." If we ever get there.
What the actual fu*k is going on here?
This is why it is sad that the supreme Court judges is only 9 to represent all of the US, that number should be bigger and can't be for life due to situations like this where judges are more political then for the law and constitution but that's my opinion from someone who ain't knowledgeable about the law besides the basics learn in HS and Uni for basic requirements
damn this court for making you work on WorldPride weekend. so nasty