Supreme Court Anyone?

Might as well leave it open for other soon to be appealed cases?

Three in Texas sued for wrongful death after allegedly helping woman obtain abortion pills
Three women in Texas have been sued for wrongful death over allegations that they helped a friend obtain abortion pills to receive an abortion, the first case of its kind since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June.

A complaint filed Thursday states that Marcus Silva alleges three women helped his ex-wife obtain abortion pills to have an abortion, which he states violates Texas law prohibiting someone from helping a pregnant woman obtain an abortion themselves.

The complaint states that two of the women helped Silva’s ex-wife receive an abortion through illegally obtained abortion pills in July 2022. It alleges they received the pills from a third woman, who is also being sued for wrongful death.

Silva, who was the father of the unborn fetus, also filed a charge of conspiracy against the women, alleging that they told his ex-wife to not tell him about their actions.

The case comes as the Food and Drug Administration is battling a lawsuit from a conservative Texas group arguing that an abortion pill should not be allowed for national distribution.

The complaint states Silva’s ex-wife became pregnant in July 2022, but she did not tell him about it. They divorced last month.
The Texas Tribune reported that the ex-wife filed for divorce in May 2022, two months before becoming pregnant, and the couple have two daughters together.
The lawsuit includes screenshots from a group chat that the ex-wife had with her two friends, showing that they said Silva would “snake his way into your head,” the Tribune reported.

“Delete all conversations from today. You don’t want him looking through it,” one of the women allegedly told her at one point.
The Tribune reported that the state of abortion law in Texas in July 2022 was uncertain, as the state’s trigger law did not go into effect until August. That law means someone who performs an abortion can face life in prison.

But Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and other Texas politicians have said laws that were passed before Roe was handed down in 1973 immediately made abortions illegal in the state once Roe was overturned.

A law from the 1850s made it illegal for anyone who performs an abortion or “furnishes the means” for one and allowed for them to face a prison sentence of up to five years.
The Tribune reported that Silva is requesting $1 million in damages and for an injunction to prevent the women from providing abortion pills in Texas. His attorneys, former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell and state Rep. Briscoe Cain (R), told the outlet that they plan to name the manufacturer of the pills in the lawsuit once they learn the name.

Mitchell was involved in crafting the Texas law that banned abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, the Tribune reported.

printer said:

Might as well leave it open for other soon to be appealed cases?

Three in Texas sued for wrongful death after allegedly helping woman obtain abortion pills
Three women in Texas have been sued for wrongful death over allegations that they helped a friend obtain abortion pills to receive an abortion, the first case of its kind since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June.

A complaint filed Thursday states that Marcus Silva alleges three women helped his ex-wife obtain abortion pills to have an abortion, which he states violates Texas law prohibiting someone from helping a pregnant woman obtain an abortion themselves.

The complaint states that two of the women helped Silva’s ex-wife receive an abortion through illegally obtained abortion pills in July 2022. It alleges they received the pills from a third woman, who is also being sued for wrongful death.

Silva, who was the father of the unborn fetus, also filed a charge of conspiracy against the women, alleging that they told his ex-wife to not tell him about their actions.

The case comes as the Food and Drug Administration is battling a lawsuit from a conservative Texas group arguing that an abortion pill should not be allowed for national distribution.

The complaint states Silva’s ex-wife became pregnant in July 2022, but she did not tell him about it. They divorced last month.
The Texas Tribune reported that the ex-wife filed for divorce in May 2022, two months before becoming pregnant, and the couple have two daughters together.
The lawsuit includes screenshots from a group chat that the ex-wife had with her two friends, showing that they said Silva would “snake his way into your head,” the Tribune reported.

“Delete all conversations from today. You don’t want him looking through it,” one of the women allegedly told her at one point.
The Tribune reported that the state of abortion law in Texas in July 2022 was uncertain, as the state’s trigger law did not go into effect until August. That law means someone who performs an abortion can face life in prison.

But Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and other Texas politicians have said laws that were passed before Roe was handed down in 1973 immediately made abortions illegal in the state once Roe was overturned.

A law from the 1850s made it illegal for anyone who performs an abortion or “furnishes the means” for one and allowed for them to face a prison sentence of up to five years.
The Tribune reported that Silva is requesting $1 million in damages and for an injunction to prevent the women from providing abortion pills in Texas. His attorneys, former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell and state Rep. Briscoe Cain (R), told the outlet that they plan to name the manufacturer of the pills in the lawsuit once they learn the name.

Mitchell was involved in crafting the Texas law that banned abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, the Tribune reported.

Click to expand...

It's a very strange lawsuit, something about it just doesn't sit right, and not just the fact that it's a fucked up law that makes the blood boil. Filed for divorce and two months later got pregnant? While that alone wouldn't be surprising, not typical but understandable, but all together it almost feels fake - like trying to force a case through the system. It's quite possible that I just can't comprehend that it's real because it's so disturbing.

Other details noted in Rolling Stone:

“Delete all conversations from today. You don’t want him looking through it,” words the lawyers declare is proof the defendants sought to “destroy evidence of their crimes, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 37.09(d).”

"Three months later, the women dressed up for Halloween — as handmaids from the TV show based on Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel — an act Mitchell and Cain say qualified as “celebration” of the “murder.” "

"Mitchell has filed dozens of petitions under S.B. 8, the abortion bounty law he helped conceive, seeking information about abortions he suspects Texas residents have obtained."

Man Seeks $1 Million Each From Ex-Wife's Friends After They Allegedly Helped Her Find Abortion Pills

The man’s lawsuit accuses the women of “involvement in the murder of his child” and looks to sue them for “wrongful death and conspiracy”

www.rollingstone.com

They call themselves the "Texas Freedom Caucus", but they truly are the "Texas Taliban". Gross.

CANON_Grow said:

It's a very strange lawsuit, something about it just doesn't sit right, and not just the fact that it's a fucked up law that makes the blood boil. Filed for divorce and two months later got pregnant? While that alone wouldn't be surprising, not typical but understandable, but all together it almost feels fake - like trying to force a case through the system. It's quite possible that I just can't comprehend that it's real because it's so disturbing.

Other details noted in Rolling Stone:

“Delete all conversations from today. You don’t want him looking through it,” words the lawyers declare is proof the defendants sought to “destroy evidence of their crimes, in violation of Texas Penal Code § 37.09(d).”

"Three months later, the women dressed up for Halloween — as handmaids from the TV show based on Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel — an act Mitchell and Cain say qualified as “celebration” of the “murder.” "

"Mitchell has filed dozens of petitions under S.B. 8, the abortion bounty law he helped conceive, seeking information about abortions he suspects Texas residents have obtained."

Man Seeks $1 Million Each From Ex-Wife's Friends After They Allegedly Helped Her Find Abortion Pills

The man’s lawsuit accuses the women of “involvement in the murder of his child” and looks to sue them for “wrongful death and conspiracy”

www.rollingstone.com

They call themselves the "Texas Freedom Caucus", but they truly are the "Texas Taliban". Gross.

Click to expand...

Their use of the word freedom indicates their wanting its opposite. That is general among the freedomers. I have a conditioned distrust of those who lead with that word.

cannabineer said:

Their use of the word freedom indicates their wanting its opposite. That is general among the freedomers. I have a conditioned distrust of those who lead with that word.

Click to expand...

Yep, It is weird; same as someone that identifies as a "Patriot" - instantly questionable until proven otherwise.

CANON_Grow said:

Yep, It is weird; same as someone that identifies as a "Patriot" - instantly questionable until proven otherwise.

Click to expand...

Indeed. “Patriots” correlate tightly with maga, who are on board with the program of dismantling the republic, and replacing it with a state of, for, by only the right people.

As a Canadian I find it all very entertaining in a slightly terrifying kind of way. This maga crap is finding it's way north as witnessed by the truck convoys that paralyzed Ottawa for weeks and the Coutts border crossing here in Alberta that cost the Canadian economy billions and helped make the supply chain worse.

The federal Conservative party is leaning hard right and tho I didn't vote for Trudeau just 'cause he was gonna legalize pot like so many did I'm thinking I'll be voting Liberal the next federal election if there is a liberal running in our area. If not then the NDP like usual. ABC, Anybody But Conservatives.

We got the same crap here in Alberta with the UCP, United Conservative Party. Their current leader, Danielle Smith wasn't elected to the job. The last premier, Jason Kenney, called a confidence vote and quit because it was barely over 50%. After 7 votes Ms. Smith was chosen as party leader and on May 29th we have our provincial election. Luckily for them oil prices have shot way up since the NDP was in power for 4 short years with nothing coming in. She's tossing money around like a drunken sailor on his first shore leave after 6 months at sea sitting ringside at a peeler bar.

Playing nice now but if she wins the other face will show and it will be fugly as hell.

Texas and abortion again?

Federal judge blocks abortion pill approval
In an unprecedented decision, a federal judge in Texas has issued a stay that will shut down the prescribing and distribution of mifepristone in seven days, one of two drugs used for medication abortions that has been on the market in the U.S. for more than two decades.

District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Trump, gave the government a weeklong window to appeal and seek emergency relief before his ruling goes into effect.

The FDA appealed the decision to the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals later on Friday.

Separately on Friday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice, an appointee of former President Obama who sits in the Eastern District of Washington, blocked the FDA from “altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone” in 17 states and Washington, D.C. that filed a lawsuit saying the drug was too tightly regulated.

The dueling rulings could have far-reaching implications for access to abortion nationwide, as well as the authority of the entire Food and Drug Administration. The dispute could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Kacsmaryk sided with the antiabortion group that brought the lawsuit and said the agency’s approval process was improperly rushed, and resulted in an unsafe drug regimen getting on the market.
\
Kacsmaryk said that FDA violated federal standards when it first approved mifepristone 23 years ago.
“The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly. But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions.”

He also hinted the agency bowed to political pressure, and deliberately “stonewalled” any challenges to the drug’s approval.
“Why did it take two decades for judicial review in federal court? After all, Plaintiffs’ petitions challenging the 2000 Approval date back to the year 2002, right? Simply put, FDA stonewalled judicial review — until now,” he wrote.

The drug was first approved in 2000, a process that took more than four years. It is indicated for use in abortions up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy. Mifepristone is also used by OB-GYNs to manage early miscarriages.

But the stay means FDA’s longstanding approval has been blocked, a move that the Justice Department argued was “extraordinary and unprecedented.” In court filings ahead of the March 15 hearing, the government said the lawsuit was based on false claims of severe complications from the drug.

The lawsuit was initially filed in November by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerhouse conservative legal group that has helped author states’ anti-abortion laws and defended Mississippi in the case that led the Supreme Court to overturn the abortion protections granted in Roe v. Wade.

The lawsuit claims the drug is unsafe and alleges that the FDA failed to study it carefully enough. Legal experts said the argument was purely political and had no merit, but the lawsuit was strategically filed in the Northern District of Texas so that Kacsmaryk was guaranteed to hear it.

Medication abortion is the most common method for terminating a pregnancy, and ever since the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade in June, pregnant Americans have increasingly turned to abortion pills.

Many of the country’s leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said medication abortion is safe and effective.

Despite arguments from anti-abortion advocates, the medical groups said years of clinical evidence has shown there is a greater risk of complications or mortality for procedures like wisdom tooth removal, cancer-screening, colonoscopy, or the use of Viagra.

Medication abortion in the U.S. is a two-step process. The first step involves taking mifepristone, which is followed up 24 hours later by a dose of misoprostol, a drug first approved in the 1970s for stomach ulcers. In the absence of mifepristone, medical providers have said they would offer misoprostol only, though studies have shown it to be less effective

Now another judge, in WA I think, has ruled it can't be taken off the market so let the games begin!

Really starting to look like the rebubs have given up on winning in '24 and just letting the crazy hang right out there for everyone to see.

Countdown to meltdown is what it seems like to me.

OldMedUser said:

Now another judge, in WA I think, has ruled it can't be taken off the market so let the games begin!

Really starting to look like the rebubs have given up on winning in '24 and just letting the crazy hang right out there for everyone to see.

Countdown to meltdown is what it seems like to me.

Click to expand...

in the final anal ysis

their efforts will have bern
abortive

Supreme Court pauses abortion pill restrictions from taking effect during appeal
Access to the common abortion pill mifepristone will remain unchanged, for now, after the Supreme Court sided Friday with the Biden administration and paused a lower court ruling.

The justices, in a brief order, said they will put on hold a ruling from a Texas federal judge while the Biden administration’s appeal proceeds.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court’s conservatives, said they would have denied the request for a pause.

On April 7, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk suspended the Food and Drug Administration’s 23-year-old approval of mifepristone. Kacsmaryk ruled the agency’s approval process was improperly rushed and resulted in an unsafe drug regimen getting on the market.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week paused part of Kacsmaryk’s ruling until it considers the government’s appeal, temporarily preserving the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone. But it left in place another part of the ruling that blocked steps the FDA has taken since 2016 to ease access to mifepristone.

The high court’s emergency order pauses those remaining portions, which would have otherwise gone into effect Friday night.
Those preserved changes include allowing mifepristone to be sent through the mail, lifting a requirement for three in-person visits, approving a generic, and approving the drug’s use up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, rather than seven weeks.

The 5th Circuit has scheduled an oral argument in the government’s appeal for May 17. Access to mifepristone will remain unchanged at least until the three-judge panel issues its ruling, but a party could then again appeal to the Supreme Court.

printer said:

Supreme Court pauses abortion pill restrictions from taking effect during appeal
Access to the common abortion pill mifepristone will remain unchanged, for now, after the Supreme Court sided Friday with the Biden administration and paused a lower court ruling.

The justices, in a brief order, said they will put on hold a ruling from a Texas federal judge while the Biden administration’s appeal proceeds.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court’s conservatives, said they would have denied the request for a pause.

On April 7, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk suspended the Food and Drug Administration’s 23-year-old approval of mifepristone. Kacsmaryk ruled the agency’s approval process was improperly rushed and resulted in an unsafe drug regimen getting on the market.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week paused part of Kacsmaryk’s ruling until it considers the government’s appeal, temporarily preserving the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone. But it left in place another part of the ruling that blocked steps the FDA has taken since 2016 to ease access to mifepristone.

The high court’s emergency order pauses those remaining portions, which would have otherwise gone into effect Friday night.
Those preserved changes include allowing mifepristone to be sent through the mail, lifting a requirement for three in-person visits, approving a generic, and approving the drug’s use up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, rather than seven weeks.

The 5th Circuit has scheduled an oral argument in the government’s appeal for May 17. Access to mifepristone will remain unchanged at least until the three-judge panel issues its ruling, but a party could then again appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court pauses abortion pill restrictions from taking effect during appeal

Access to the common abortion pill mifepristone will remain unchanged, for now, after the Supreme Court sided Friday with the Biden administration and paused a lower court ruling. The justices, in …

thehill.com

Click to expand...

in a decent just world, kacsmaryk would be slapped the fuck down for making a blatant power play with people's lives.
He decided, out of the blue, that a ruling that has stood for 23 years, was made in haste? and for that entire 23 years, NO ONE ELSE noticed that error? fucking lying piece of trump shit judge...And thomas and alito wouldn't have granted the stay? well no motherfuking shit, the two biggest fucking fascist pieces of filth on the bench want to use it to take away rights that don't fit into their fucking gilead version of America...I'm just amazed that the handmaiden didn't join in that dissent...fucking kavanaugh was probably too busy being drunk and feeling up teenage girls to notice the whole thing.

Roger A. Shrubber said:

in a decent just world, kacsmaryk would be slapped the fuck down for making a blatant power play with people's lives.
He decided, out of the blue, that a ruling that has stood for 23 years, was made in haste? and for that entire 23 years, NO ONE ELSE noticed that error? fucking lying piece of trump shit judge...And thomas and alito wouldn't have granted the stay? well no motherfuking shit, the two biggest fucking fascist pieces of filth on the bench want to use it to take away rights that don't fit into their fucking gilead version of America...I'm just amazed that the handmaiden didn't join in that dissent...fucking kavanaugh was probably too busy being drunk and feeling up teenage girls to notice the whole thing.

Click to expand...

Alito: ‘Legitimate doubts’ Biden admin would have obeyed unfavorable abortion pill ruling
In a dissent from the Supreme Court’s order pausing mifepristone restrictions from taking effect, Justice Samuel Alito said there were “legitimate doubts” that the Biden administration would have followed a court decision that went the other way.

“Here, the Government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases, much less that it would choose to take enforcement actions to which it has strong objections,” Alito, one of the court’s conservatives, wrote.

The high court on Friday granted requests from the Biden administration and Danco Laboratories to preserve access to mifepristone, part of a two-drug regimen used in medication abortions, as its appeal of a lower court ruling proceeds.

When a federal judge in Texas originally revoked the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of mifepristone earlier this month, some lawmakers called on the administration to ignore the ruling.

Federal officials had been cool to the suggestion as their request for a pause worked its way up to the Supreme Court, although Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said all options remained on the table.

Alito suggested in his dissent that if the government failed in court, the FDA may have leveraged its practice of enforcement discretion, in which the agency sometimes chooses to not impose regulations and requirements on products and manufacturers, oftentimes to ensure an adequate supply will be available.

Danco Laboratories, which makes the brand name version called Mifeprex, had told the justices that the company would have needed to completely change the drug’s packaging and label and then ask FDA to approve it, typically a monthslong process.

“That would not take place, however, unless the FDA elected to use its enforcement discretion to stop Danco, and the applicants’ papers do not provide any reason to believe the FDA would make that choice,” Alito wrote.

He suggested that the federal government had not “dispelled legitimate doubts” that it would obey such an order entirely.
Alito, who authored the court’s majority opinion overturning the constitutional right to an abortion last year, ultimately decided to vote against granting the pause.

“Contrary to the impression that may be held by many, that disposition would not express any view on the merits of the question whether the FDA acted lawfully in any of its actions regarding mifepristone,” he continued. “Rather, it would simply refuse to take a step that has not been shown as necessary to avoid the threat of any real harm during the presumably short period at issue.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, another conservative, indicated that he would have denied the administration’s request, but he did not join Alito’s statement.

None of the other seven justices publicly dissented from the order, although it is possible more did so without disclosing their vote. At least five votes were required to grant the stay.

printer said:

Alito: ‘Legitimate doubts’ Biden admin would have obeyed unfavorable abortion pill ruling
In a dissent from the Supreme Court’s order pausing mifepristone restrictions from taking effect, Justice Samuel Alito said there were “legitimate doubts” that the Biden administration would have followed a court decision that went the other way.

“Here, the Government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases, much less that it would choose to take enforcement actions to which it has strong objections,” Alito, one of the court’s conservatives, wrote.

The high court on Friday granted requests from the Biden administration and Danco Laboratories to preserve access to mifepristone, part of a two-drug regimen used in medication abortions, as its appeal of a lower court ruling proceeds.

When a federal judge in Texas originally revoked the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of mifepristone earlier this month, some lawmakers called on the administration to ignore the ruling.

Federal officials had been cool to the suggestion as their request for a pause worked its way up to the Supreme Court, although Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said all options remained on the table.

Alito suggested in his dissent that if the government failed in court, the FDA may have leveraged its practice of enforcement discretion, in which the agency sometimes chooses to not impose regulations and requirements on products and manufacturers, oftentimes to ensure an adequate supply will be available.

Danco Laboratories, which makes the brand name version called Mifeprex, had told the justices that the company would have needed to completely change the drug’s packaging and label and then ask FDA to approve it, typically a monthslong process.

“That would not take place, however, unless the FDA elected to use its enforcement discretion to stop Danco, and the applicants’ papers do not provide any reason to believe the FDA would make that choice,” Alito wrote.

He suggested that the federal government had not “dispelled legitimate doubts” that it would obey such an order entirely.
Alito, who authored the court’s majority opinion overturning the constitutional right to an abortion last year, ultimately decided to vote against granting the pause.

“Contrary to the impression that may be held by many, that disposition would not express any view on the merits of the question whether the FDA acted lawfully in any of its actions regarding mifepristone,” he continued. “Rather, it would simply refuse to take a step that has not been shown as necessary to avoid the threat of any real harm during the presumably short period at issue.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, another conservative, indicated that he would have denied the administration’s request, but he did not join Alito’s statement.

None of the other seven justices publicly dissented from the order, although it is possible more did so without disclosing their vote. At least five votes were required to grant the stay.

Alito: ‘Legitimate doubts’ Biden admin would have obeyed unfavorable abortion pill ruling

In a dissent from the Supreme Court’s order pausing mifepristone restrictions from taking effect, Justice Samuel Alito said there were “legitimate doubts” that the Biden administration would have f…

thehill.com

Click to expand...

Perhaps if the court wasn't loaded with obvious perjurers, who go against the clear will of the majority of the people, the entire issue would have been moot. I have never in my lifetime had less confidence in the fairness of or even the law abiding-ness of the supreme court of it's members, and would be more than comfortable with the Administration ignoring ANYTHING it says until the criminals sitting on it are removed.

Supreme Court to consider overruling Chevron doctrine
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case that could roll back the Chevron doctrine, which gave more power to federal agencies. Their ruling could have major implications for environmental regulations going forward.

The doctrine holds that cases in which the text of laws are open to interpretation are largely at agency discretion. It derives its name from the high court’s 1984 decision Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

In cases of unclear statutory language, according to the precedent, the court defers to any “permissible construction” by the agency in question.

In the past, members of the conservative wing that now dominates the court have expressed skepticism about the latitude the ruling grants to the federal government.

Now, SCOTUS will take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn it, announcing the move on Monday in a brief, unsigned order indicating at least four justices agreed to take up the case.

Herring fishing company Loper Bright Enterprises is appealing a ruling that left in place a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulation based on the Chevron doctrine.

Loper Bright Enterprises is arguing the regulation by the NMFS requiring herring fishing boats to allow a federal observer aboard to oversee operations and compensate them for their time significantly decreases their profit margin. They also allege that agency had no authorization to impose it.

printer said:

Supreme Court to consider overruling Chevron doctrine
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case that could roll back the Chevron doctrine, which gave more power to federal agencies. Their ruling could have major implications for environmental regulations going forward.

The doctrine holds that cases in which the text of laws are open to interpretation are largely at agency discretion. It derives its name from the high court’s 1984 decision Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

In cases of unclear statutory language, according to the precedent, the court defers to any “permissible construction” by the agency in question.

In the past, members of the conservative wing that now dominates the court have expressed skepticism about the latitude the ruling grants to the federal government.

Now, SCOTUS will take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn it, announcing the move on Monday in a brief, unsigned order indicating at least four justices agreed to take up the case.

Herring fishing company Loper Bright Enterprises is appealing a ruling that left in place a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulation based on the Chevron doctrine.

Loper Bright Enterprises is arguing the regulation by the NMFS requiring herring fishing boats to allow a federal observer aboard to oversee operations and compensate them for their time significantly decreases their profit margin. They also allege that agency had no authorization to impose it.

Supreme Court to consider overruling Chevron doctrine

Welcome to The Hill’s Energy & Environment newsletter{beacon} Energy & Environment Energy & Environment   The Big Story Supreme Court to consider overruling Chevron …

thehill.com

Click to expand...

This court has to be curbed somehow. I'm not a fan of expanding the court, but it would be the fastest remedy...

Roger A. Shrubber said:

This court has to be curbed somehow. I'm not a fan of expanding the court, but it would be the fastest remedy...

Click to expand...

May the lice of a thousand camels nest in the underwear of Scrotus.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senators-probe-supreme-court-ethics-hearing-rcna82311

"When Roberts declined to attend Tuesday's hearing, suggesting it would threaten the independence of the judiciary, he attached a statement signed by all nine justices stressing their commitment to ethics principles. The statement was heavily criticized by ethics experts who said it did little to address recent concerns."
But the 7 thieves signed a statement stressing their commitment to ethical thievery....

"Roberts said he was "not aware" of any situations in which a justice had been subject to any penalties for failing to make relevant disclosures on the annual forms judges are required to file."
Which in no way makes the statement "there has never been a justice that deserved censure for failing to make relevant disclosures."...just that no one ever called one of them out publicly...before now.

The unethical long ago learned that you can use a decent person's ethics as a weapon in the proper situation....
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-justice-sit-out-high-stakes-case-1797660
If she doesn't participate, they get their way, if she does participate, they get to call her a hypocrite and use it as an excuse to keep being unethical perjurous pieces of shit...

Roger A. Shrubber said:

The unethical long ago learned that you can use a decent person's ethics as a weapon in the proper situation....
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-justice-sit-out-high-stakes-case-1797660
If she doesn't participate, they get their way, if she does participate, they get to call her a hypocrite and use it as an excuse to keep being unethical perjurous pieces of shit...

Click to expand...

Boy are you guys fucked.