The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#9,753
#9,753
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...


This is a great rebuke of the neo-liberal racists. Oddly enough the 3 progressive reprobates on the court voted for structural racism and racial balancing. There is a reason Brown was added to the court. They want to create policy instead of interpreting the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, VOLS INC., ButchPlz and 1 other person
#9,754
#9,754
BreatheUT said:
This is a great rebuke of the neo-liberal racists. Oddly enough the 3 progressive reprobates on the court voted for structural racism and racial balancing. There is a reason Brown was added to the court. They want to create policy instead of interpreting the constitution.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
#9,756
#9,756
After he stumbles through this press meeting, the biden cult members will get their talking points memo to assist in their thinking.
 
#9,758
#9,758
Elected Democrats just do whatever the F they want & damn it to hell for everybody else ...
They'll just make up their own rules to live by no matter if the SC rules they should follow.

 
#9,761
#9,761
"Sotomayor’s staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children’s books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009."

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s staff prodded colleges and libraries to buy her books (nypost.com)

... related from May:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M

"Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according to a report. "

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving book publisher that paid her $3M: report (nypost.com)
 
Last edited:
#9,762
#9,762
CobbVol said:
"Sotomayor’s staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children’s books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009."

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s staff prodded colleges and libraries to buy her books (nypost.com)

... related from May:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M

"Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according to a report. "

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving book publisher that paid her $3M: report (nypost.com)
Click to expand...
Dishonest and shady at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and Vol since 77
#9,764
#9,764
How left-wing radical professors are calling for Biden to simply defy the Supreme Court ....
They want Authoritarians (like Biden) to rule the land without laws being set forth to live by.

 
Last edited:
#9,767
#9,767
OrangeBoro said:
The dementia patient and his fellow communists having another rough week
Click to expand...

Not so fast folks. Read the article before popping off. The SCOTUS slapped down the lower court and that's exactly when the Biden Administration wanted them to do:

In a short, unsigned order issued Thursday morning, the Supreme Court vacated the July 10 stay orders from the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the lower court sided with plaintiffs — environmental groups Wilderness Society and Appalachian Voices, which had sued to stop the pipeline construction. The 4th Circuit ruling was opposed by the Biden administration, bipartisan lawmakers and the fossil fuel industry.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#9,770
#9,770
hog88 said:
This is another example of why the Supreme Court must reverse the Chevron ruling and remove the lawmaking powers from our regulatory agencies. Congressional review is not enough to reign in these (well lets just call them what they are) economic terrorist within our federal agencies.

Board Issues Final Rule on Joint-Employer Status
Click to expand...
In adopting this new standard, the final rule rescinds the 2020 final rule that was promulgated by the prior Board. The new final rule more faithfully grounds the joint-employer standard in established common-law agency principles. In particular, the 2023 rule considers the alleged joint employers’ authority to control essential terms and conditions of employment, whether or not such control is exercised, and without regard to whether any such exercise of control is direct or indirect. By contrast, the 2020 rule made it easier for actual joint employers to avoid a finding of joint-employer status because it set a higher threshold that a putative joint employer must “possess and exercise . . . substantial direct and immediate control” over essential terms and conditions of employment, which has no foundation in common law. The new rule also provides extensive guidance to parties regarding their rights and responsibilities in situations where joint-employer status has been established.

So let's put the additional burden on the American workforce by changing the rules every 4 years...
 
#9,771
#9,771
Wireless1 said:
In adopting this new standard, the final rule rescinds the 2020 final rule that was promulgated by the prior Board. The new final rule more faithfully grounds the joint-employer standard in established common-law agency principles. In particular, the 2023 rule considers the alleged joint employers’ authority to control essential terms and conditions of employment, whether or not such control is exercised, and without regard to whether any such exercise of control is direct or indirect. By contrast, the 2020 rule made it easier for actual joint employers to avoid a finding of joint-employer status because it set a higher threshold that a putative joint employer must “possess and exercise . . . substantial direct and immediate control” over essential terms and conditions of employment, which has no foundation in common law. The new rule also provides extensive guidance to parties regarding their rights and responsibilities in situations where joint-employer status has been established.

So let's put the additional burden on the American workforce by changing the rules every 4 years...
Click to expand...

It will be a millstone around the neck of franchises and franchisors.
 
#9,775
#9,775
Grand Vol said:
Nope lol

Click to expand...


Never charged? I'm quite sure countless protestors, in all sorts of settings, have been arrested and charged over the years. I assume there is a legal
distinction between entering a building legally and then disrupting a proceeding versus breaking and entering--which is what the Jan. 6 protestors
did. They also destroyed public property, assaulted police officers in various ways.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top