Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Because there were not enough justices for a quorum—the court needs at least six and only Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson remained—the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Clever. Appearing to do the right thing at face value coincides nicely with getting the case against you dropped. It's likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don't care to be sued.
Also sounds like a good justification for Biden to increase the number of Justices.
Statement could go like this:
"There are not enough sitting justices to adjudicate important issues before the court as demonstrated by the recent actions of honorable recusals. Therefore I calling for the addition of new seats on the court to supplement the body so it can carry out its important work as a check on Legislative and Executive branches of our government, just as the framers intended. We will begin confirmation hearings for new justices next week"
Nothing will fundamentally change.
Joe Biden to donors during the election campaign
It's one of the few promises Biden will make that he actually intends to follow through with if he wins, but he won't, not with how much people are struggling economically.
If a lower court ruled against them, they wouldn't excuse themselves and rule in their own favor.
And claim nothing hypocritical about it.
This is a tactic Oregon representatives use quite often. So we voted on a bill stating that if you miss 10 or more sessions you're in eligible to run for office again.
They're already trying to weasel out of it by claiming that the language of the law means they still get to serve one more term.
It's a frivolous troll lawsuit and this is a clickbait article
https://casetext.com/case/mactruong-v-abbott
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is an inventor of “Tele-Sex or Tele-Mining on Jupiter and other planets of the Solar System,” and appears to assert a claim for copyright infringement and constitutional violations.
In his brief, Plaintiff makes fantastical allegations, stating, for example, that “Defendants are dangerous liars, criminals, traitors and co-conspirators.” Dkt. 18 at 31. He further states that Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett “deserve the death penalty or at least to be disbenched from the U.S. Supreme Court.” Dkt. 18 at 40.
It's likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don't care to be sued.
Only as long as you have the majority. If this had been a case against the liberal minority, they would not have been able to do the same.
Not even a majority.
They need six for quorum. And there's 9 total.
So any four justices can do this. And it's not a coincidence they didn't pull this out of their sleeves until there was only 3 non conservative justices.
Conservatives can make their own quorum, and they don't expect to lose that majority for a very long time even worst case scenario.
The whole system is broken. One party exploits it and one tries to ignore it's broken.
One party exploits it and one tries to ignore it's broken.
Why are you "both sides"-ing this? One party is exploiting the flaws of the system...full stop. The system is flawed, one side doesn't want it to work, and the other doesn't have the numbers to change the system.
The lower court's decision was upheld. A lower court that didn't have the issue of defendants being asked to preside over their own case.
Sure, but do you think if the lower court decided that the case could move forward, the justices would've sat out? I doubt it.
The six justices were named as defendants in the case.
Makes sense they sat out then. Presiding over your own trial doesn't make much sense.
Nope that's not it.
They have the majority, so if they all sit out the SC can't hear the case.
So it's more of a pocket veto than anything else.
Especially since the lower courts decision was to dismiss the case against the Justices who vetoed the SC case
If you read the article, it says that the justices are following the code of ethics that they agreed to, which precludes a justice from judging a case against them.
The decision of the lower court also was sound as the plaintiff did not have standing to sue, being a NJ resident suing over TX law.
These are simple facts, easy to understand, and hatred of the justices won't change that. It's important to take an objective look at facts to be fair to your own mind.
They deserve the scrutiny and criticism regardless of their legal status. Anything they do at this point is suspect. If it was reversed and it was a court of all democrats, you better believe that a bunch of redneck fucktard assholes would be using their second amendment rights in an attempt to "fix" the court. With lifetime appointments, it doesn't leave much room for options.
So it’s more of a pocket veto than anything else.
"the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit"
They upheld the judgment from the lower court. Should they instead preside over their own case? That hardly seems like a better choice than upholding the lower court's judgement.
They could have provided enough SC justices to have a quorom but not provided any input into the quorom. Essentially, be present and go along with whatever the other justices decide.
There's nothing in the Constitution about how many justices there has to be. I would argue that if the Supreme Court can't get quorum we need to nominate Justices until they get it.
There does appear to be some law on the books stipulating the rules around a quorum and such a law is considered valid unless struck down by said court.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Same way the court technically is not limited in headcout by the constitution, either. In that case, it's set by congress.
This statute and earlier versions were upheld by the Supreme Court. Congress may change the size of the court and set its non-original jurisdiction.
Just my opinion, but that sounds janky af.
Because it’s vastly different if the four to maintain quorum were Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett versus Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett.
Basically you can stack justices to fit an outcome and that’s kind of what we don’t want.
They got the outcome they wanted though.
I mean, they could have just as easily voted to just not accept the case.
Recusal is literally the only ethical option available, and they had other perfectly routine ways of getting the same result.
Like, what would you have had them do instead? Vote to hear it and then decide their own guilt? Vote to hear a case and then recuse themselves from hearing it? Or just say "no, we believe the lower court ruled correctly/the case doesn't meet our criteria"?
Yeah, but this way they can pretend theyre taking the high road and also flex that they control the SC...
My point is when 6 members of the SC are all defendants in a case the Supreme Court has been asked to rule on, we've got some serious fucking problems with our system.
We've tried ignoring it for a decade now. And shit is clearly just getting worse
I think this was a message. "Don't sue the Supreme Court Justices for their official work, because we won't even dignifiy it with a response."
Supreme Court Justices are absolutely immune from suit for their official acts and decisions. All judges are. The remedy to a bad call by a judge is an appeal, not a collateral lawsuit.
In a vacuum, sure. But with the context they were able to get the result they wanted by doing sitting out.
Seriously, this isn’t the NYPD for cripes’ sake.
I think this was a clear message: "Don't sue the Supreme Court Justices for their official work, because we won't even dignifiy it with a response." Otherwise, they could have just voted not to hear it.
Supreme Court Justices are absolutely immune from suit for their official acts and decisions. All judges are. The remedy to a bad call by a judge is an appeal, not a collateral lawsuit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collateral_attack
The underlying case was dismissed on the papers by a district judge. It had no chance at trial and even less chance on appeal.
So. Ultimately a woman has no autonomy over her own body with deviant growths still? Is that what I'm reading?
SYAC:
"In a rare move, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all sat out deciding whether to hear MacTruong v. Abbott, a case arguing that the Texas Heartbeat Act (THA) is constitutional and that the state law violates federal law. The six justices were named as defendants in the case. They did not give a detailed justification as to why they chose not to weigh in, and are not required to do so."
The six justices were named as defendants in the case. They did not give a detailed justification as to why they chose not to weigh in, and are not required to do so.
As Hunter Thompson said: "To ask the question is to answer the question."
And that's the original meaning of "begs the question"
I guess I don't understand. Can you elaborate how that fits the meaning? wikipedia: "Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it."
So there's a bunch of different things going on.
Real historically, it meant to assert something without proving it, and base your logic on the unproved assertion and go on from there. "I couldn't have been driving drunk, because I wasn't driving." You can keep saying that any number of times, and insist that your logic is flawless (because in terms of the pure logic, it is), but if someone saw you driving, it's kind of a moot point.
Saying "begging the question" to mean that is weird. The phrase is a word-for-word translation of a Greek phrase into pretty much nonsensical English. Wikipedia talks about it more but that's the short summary.
So after that meaning came what Wikipedia calls "modern usage," which is where "begging the question" means not just something you haven't proved, but the central premise under debate. You assume it's true out of the gate and it's obviously true, and then go on from there. "We know God exists, because God made the world, and we can see the world all around us, and the world is wonderful, so God exists. QED."
In actual modern usage, no one cares about any of that, and just uses "begs the question" to mean "invites the question." Like you're saying something and anyone with a brain in their head is obviously going to ask you some particular question. It has nothing to do with the original meaning, but the original meaning never actually meant that in English, so pedants like myself that prefer the original meaning are engaged in a pure exercise in futility.
Thank you for your explanation! My head hurts but I think it's worth it.
I really wish I could “sit out” of my job and not get fired.
The dude that brought this case is absolutely insane and in need of mental treatment.
This is a nothing story. It's notable as a quirk.
This guy tried to sue Supreme Court justices to change a ruling. Every judge on the way up to the Supreme Court said, "no, that's not how law works."
He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, as is his right. The non-named justices affirmed that "no, that's not how law works."
Badas noted that MacTruong has other pending cases involving the same issue, but it is likely that they will end like this case, "with him losing and the courts issuing decisions arguing that he lacks standing."
I thought standing didn't mean anything anymore.
only if you're a student loan apparently
I wanna be a judge too!
who do these trolls work for
Sounds like we need to resize the court and add enough justices to get this decided.
6 of the worst human beings in the world. Dead women's and dead girls, for that matter, blood is on their hands. I do not understand how it has been one and a half years since they literally made women unequal in law and nothing has been done about the monopoly they have on the entire country.
They are not enacting the will of the people. They do not represent the common voice. Why should they be allowed to force disease death and suffering onto millions of women? Why should they be allowed to do that? What kind of democracy allows such a thing?
go to en evangelical church sometime you will see and hear some things