SCOTUS Watch--Chevron Deference Doctrine overturned; Administrative State takes a HUGE hit.

Presidential Immunity Trials:


Won:
17_andrew_johnson.jpg





Lost:
images




???:
images
 
Did y'all see that SCOTUS ruled against the State of Texas saying we have to let the invasion continue indefinitely unabated?

Sooo... that Trump SCOTUS isn't looking as good anymore.
 
I wish They explained why. They have to know what illegals are doing to entire country
And to a ordinary citizen it looks like a state can defend itself
 
I think Texas should protect its' borders. F the ruling. Save our state.

Interesting btw that Jackson hasn't tried to explain away her clueless remark,
 
Horn6721 said:
I think Texas should protect its' borders. F the ruling. Save our state.

Interesting btw that Jackson hasn't tried to explain away her clueless remark,
Click to expand...

Texas should ignore the Feds. They are our enemies. If Trump get elected I will be interesting to see what he does on the subject. Anything less than radical change isn't good enough.
 
Maybe I am not reading it right But when I see Barrett asking if the FBI did ask media to censor
"In one example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed surprise when Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga questioned whether the FBI could call Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to encourage them to take down posts that maliciously released someone’s personal information without permission, the practice known as doxxing."

And this vague statement with no actual quote means zippo
"Justice Brett Kavanaugh also signaled that a ruling for the states would mean that “traditional, everyday communications would suddenly be deemed problematic.”"

That doesn't make sense.

I think AP is trying hard and proving nothing
 
Horn6721 said:
Maybe I am not reading it right But when I see Barrett asking if the FBI did ask media to censor
"In one example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed surprise when Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga questioned whether the FBI could call Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to encourage them to take down posts that maliciously released someone’s personal information without permission, the practice known as doxxing."

And this vague statement with no actual quote means zippo
"Justice Brett Kavanaugh also signaled that a ruling for the states would mean that “traditional, everyday communications would suddenly be deemed problematic.”"

That doesn't make sense.

I think AP is trying hard and proving nothing
Click to expand...
There is a balance between a government agency calling a media company for information and the media company interpreting that call as a call for censorship.
 
Monahorns said:
I saw that just now on the news feed. Looks like a 180 degree turn around from yesterday. I think I have whiplash.
Click to expand...
First of all, this was a ruling on the stay order issued by the DoJ appeals court. So far now Texas can begin to apply its law. This can still drag on for weeks/months. There was no need for Paxton to stir the pot, but he did.
 
So obviously New Mexico and Arizona can pass the same. But what about all other states? This might be the answer to illegal immigration.
 
I couldn't find who the 3 Fifth Circuit judges were. There are 17 judges 12 appointed by a Repub POTUS and 5 by a Demx POTUS.
i also couldn't find how it is decided when 3 judges can rule
Or who decides which 3.
And in the original ruling wax it only 3? Or whole court?
 
Thanks SN
Then Garmel asking for en banc is right.
That could mean a more favorable ruling from the entire roster of judges.
 
I hate to add another topic since the current issue is so critical to us here
But I really don't get the reasoning here. There are 2 cases where city commissioners used their personal accounts to share information. Each identified themselves as commissioners or school board members and shared personal AND government info. When citizens replied and criticized them on their personal email the pols blocked them
Amy C. Barrett
S]tate officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights—including the First Amendment right to speak about their jobs and exercise editorial control over speech and speakers on their personal platforms,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for a unanimous Court."

How can they openly comment on government issues on their personal accounts and then whine when citizens respond??
The Court remanded both cases to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the newly announced rule.
Supreme Court Issues Guidelines As To When Public Officials Can Block Constituents on Social Media
 
Horn6721 said:
I hate to add another topic since the current issue is so critical to us here
But I really don't get the reasoning here. There are 2 cases where city commissioners used their personal accounts to share information. Each identified themselves as commissioners or school board members and shared personal AND government info. When citizens replied and criticized them on their personal email the pols blocked them
Amy C. Barrett
S]tate officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights—including the First Amendment right to speak about their jobs and exercise editorial control over speech and speakers on their personal platforms,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for a unanimous Court."

How can they openly comment on government issues on their personal accounts and then whine when citizens respond??
The Court remanded both cases to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the newly announced rule.
Supreme Court Issues Guidelines As To When Public Officials Can Block Constituents on Social Media
Click to expand...

Because it's their personal account. They can comment as individuals and ban trolls just like anyone else. On a government account it's a different matter.
 
Mr D
But they listed their creds as govt employees and then went on to comment on govt business so citizens commented on Their comments on govt biz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top