[above image] : Abortion rights advocates protested the Supreme Court’s attack on women’s rights when it ended Roe. The Court is expected to intensify its attacks on democracy in the new term. Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP
One day the headline will actually explain something instead of being a vague proclamation of doom
One day the headline will actually explain something instead of being a vague proclamation of doom
Yeah, wouldn’t that be great?
Ugh. I hate yellow journalism.
One of the cases involving “more of our rights being targeted” is this one:
The arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America set for Tuesday…
…That’s October 3rd of this year, based on what I’m reading…
…so, like, two days ago. I’ll have to go see if anything has come of it yet a bit later on.
…will focus on whether the CFPB’s funding through the Federal Reserve violates the Constitution’s appropriations clause.
The blockbuster case threatens to subject the agency to Congress’s annual spending fights, which could in turn upend the funding process for the Federal Reserve and other key financial regulators. Created in the Dodd-Frank Act following the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB regulates larger banks, mortgage and student loan companies, and payday lenders, among others, and has been a frequent target of challenges from Republicans and industry trade groups.
So…this one is going to be the supreme court saying banks, lenders for student loans, and the for-profit shitholes that prey on the poor known as payday lenders can do whatever they want so long as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and no federal regulatory board or agency should be (edit for clarity – ) able to stop them, in this case due to lack of funding if this passes.
Just your typical “deregulate everything because all regulations that are bad for us rich folks are ‘government over-reach’, obvs” claptrap.
Then there’s:
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The outcome could overturn the landmark 1984 Chevron vs. National Resources Defense Council, which compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute.
The goal of Loper is to severely limit or strip the authority of federal agencies like the EPA, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Elections Commission to issue regulations in areas ranging from the environment, labor, and consumer protection and transfer their authority to the courts.
and let’s not forget:
Moore vs. U.S. – This case centers on the 16th Amendment and the right of the federal government to tax foreign earnings that corporations don’t distribute to U.S. investors but instead reinvest into the foreign company.
Both Roberts and Alito have investments in companies that stand to benefit from a ruling. Corporate and judicial financial disclosures show Roberts and Alito own individual shares in 19 corporations that could see combined tax relief of $30 billion
There’s a whole bunch more reeaaallly interesting information in the article about who benefits from which cases and why a bunch of the supreme court justices should be recusing themselves from these things.
Good find, OP.
(edit again – All in all an EXCELLENT article. Very well written, informative, and engaging. I’m just not a fan of the headline. Not sure I could do better though, so my apologies to the journalist who wrote it for critiquing a vague headline with a vague stance.)
…That’s October 3rd of this year, based on what I’m reading…
…so, like, two days ago. I’ll have to go see if anything has come of it yet a bit later on.
Generally how the Supreme Court operates is they hear a bunch of cases throughout their term and then give verdicts at the end.
That explains why I wasn’t able to find the verdict. Thank you for this explanation!
Why would it? The point of a headline is to get you to read the article. If it explained it will enough, you wouldn’t need to read the rest.
Also, it would be WAY too long for a headline.
Honestlu surprised nobody has simply driven a truck into the supreme court at this point.
Removed by mod
When the KKK marches through streets with tiki torches, no state tried to stop them. Same for burning crosses in Alabama. Because the cops are in those the white robes and tacticool vests.
When the Black Panthers protected voters 1st amendment rights with the 2nd amendment, that’s when laws were passed to stop gun ownership.
If the left was anywhere as close as protective and expressive of their rights as the right, we would have had nationwide gun control established decades ago.
And perhaps more protections federally too, as Congress only passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 under duress of activists and black panthers. If feminists and queer people did the same, we would have had amendments by now.
we have been cowed
sorry had to repost i forgot the link before
You can actually edit posts in just about all Lemmy apps as well as the non-app browser version. It’s one of the many things that make Lemmy better than The Other Place…
ok thanks ill try next time later
No problem, have a nice day 🙂
That’s why the Second Amendment was made!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…
Literally. It’s necessary to the security of our free state.
Except for the fact that those militias were protection FOR the government rather than FROM the government and acting as an alternative to the standing army that the founders were vehemently opposed to and today’s right wing politicians worship.
Nobody seems to understand this simple fact while they’re too busy misinterpreting the 2A.
Yeah, some people tend to ignore sentences, historical context and reality itself in order to maintain that their near-religious obsession with guns is justified and about freedom and safety.
But at the time it literally was about freedom and safety. The colonists needed guns in every house to be ready to fight any empirical powers.
Now days it makes no sense considering the military and political might of the USA, but you can’t disregard Jeffersons words as out of context wrt to guns. Yes in those times they absolutely wanted everyone (white) armed.
Again: even assuming that, there’s a world of difference between the collective ownership and use of a militia’s weapons and personal ownership for personal use.
This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson,
“…The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants…”
No mention of guns or arming everyone. He was likely thinking of something like the French Revolution, which did NOT involve arming everyone with a gun.
You must really know what you’re talking about huh
Apparently to a higher degree than you do if you honestly believe those to be pro-gun statements or directly applicable to a world where the country has the most powerful standing army in the history of humanity 🤷
Let them take arms
Yeah I’m sure he just meant like swords and sticks and stuff. Cuz that’s how we won the Revolutionary War!
Everyone knows that.
I never said that, but you ascribing scenarios that a long dead man had in mind as opposed to taking their words at face value really tells me that you really, really know what you’re talking about, a lot.
The militias are a protection for a free state, just as it says. Not “the government” but a set of institutions that are built by the people, that work to preserve their liberty, that exist only so long as they continue that mission in good faith. “The government” may or may not be a part of that equation, many would argue, including people that are on your side of the spectrum politically, that the government no longer represents the people or protects their freedom at all, so protecting them would not serve the goal of preserving a free state.
Either way, regular people being armed with guns don’t realistically stand a chance in an armed rebellion against the most bloated military and police force in the history of humanity and having a gun makes you MORE likely to be the victim of government tyranny in the form of police murdering you (especially if you’re black), so the point is moot.
OK, well, maybe. if they’re so harmless in the face of a standing army then why not let them have their guns?
Because their guns are extremely harmful to themselves and their fellow people. Gun violence is the number one cause of death in children and it’s way up there for adults too.
I’ve looked at those stats and I’m not really convinced.
Half of gun deaths are suicides. In those cases, a desire to die is the cause of death. Something is deeply wrong in our society if children want to kill themselves in epidemic numbers, and we need to figure out what that is and fix it.
Out of the rest, it’s almost entirely violence from organized crime. That violence doesn’t go away if you ban guns, at best other weapons get used, at worst criminals just don’t obey the gun laws. When two rival groups are fighting over a crack dealing monopoly in a neighborhood, if you blame the result of that on the tools used you’re ignoring another real problem. Why is America so addicted to drugs. Just like with suicide, I think we need to figure out what’s driving that.
Something in our society is very very wrong, our society is sick and the symptoms are teen suicide (and veteran suicide and suicide as a result of divorce…) and widespread drug addiction. Guns show up in those dynamics simply because there are a lot of guns in America.
And that post got me permaband from r/politics
No it isn’t.
who are you going to murder? All the Supreme Court Justices? So long as they’ve already passed the legislation it wouldn’t make a difference.
Obviously not, killing all of them would be irresponsible and unethical.
Liberals can be perfectly fine allies against fascism, as long as they don’t get cut too deeply.
deleted by creator
