Humiliated by the Supreme Court

[Thinker101]

A unanimous Supreme Court just dealt a well-deserved and humiliating defeat to the Biden administration. The central question was: Should the executive branch uphold the law or flout it? President Joe Biden chose the latter.

All nine justices agreed Biden’s Justice Department had no business shredding legal norms and abandoning the rule of law by refusing to enforce or defend it in court. The fact all nine justices agreed demonstrates just how deeply disturbing and flagrant the administration’s action in this case was.

It's a sad reminder the administration that ran on "restoring norms" intends to do nothing of the sort.

Joe Biden's deserved, humiliating loss at the Supreme Court

Would you characterize Trumps unanimous denial of his election fraud case by SCOTUS in the same manner as you’re characterizing this one or is it different?

Marvin addressed your question, now try to focus, I know it may be difficult for you, on the subject of the thread.

 

[postman]

I reject the characterization of the Biden DOJ being "humiliated". Their attempt to bring compassion based on the spirit instead of the letter of the law was already rejected by the 11th circuit.

 

[jc456]

Instead, the Supremes could have declared "what it actually says" unconstitutional due to it clearly providing for unequal protection under the law, citing the many widely recognized and long discarded100 : 1 crack to powder cocaine penalty discrepancies. But no, once you've made a joke of government by injecting narcissistic dopes like Trump into the WH and Thomas onto the SC, one can anticipate lots of garbage out. Lowered Expectations..

This was a 9-0 ruling.

Yep. Pathetic.

Says it all

 

[jc456]

I reject the characterization of the Biden DOJ being "humiliated". Their attempt to bring compassion based on the spirit instead of the letter of the law was already rejected by the 11th circuit.

Violation of laws is never good

 

[Slade3200]

A unanimous Supreme Court just dealt a well-deserved and humiliating defeat to the Biden administration. The central question was: Should the executive branch uphold the law or flout it? President Joe Biden chose the latter.

All nine justices agreed Biden’s Justice Department had no business shredding legal norms and abandoning the rule of law by refusing to enforce or defend it in court. The fact all nine justices agreed demonstrates just how deeply disturbing and flagrant the administration’s action in this case was.

It's a sad reminder the administration that ran on "restoring norms" intends to do nothing of the sort.

Joe Biden's deserved, humiliating loss at the Supreme Court

Would you characterize Trumps unanimous denial of his election fraud case by SCOTUS in the same manner as you’re characterizing this one or is it different?

Once you learn the difference between what happens when the SCOTUS hears a case versus what happens when they don't, ask that question again.

HINT: you won't, because you'll realize how stupid it was.

I think the fact the SCOTUS wouldn’t even hear Trumps case highlights how ridiculous it was. How stupid the whole fake stolen election narrative was and is.

 

[marvin martian]

A unanimous Supreme Court just dealt a well-deserved and humiliating defeat to the Biden administration. The central question was: Should the executive branch uphold the law or flout it? President Joe Biden chose the latter.

All nine justices agreed Biden’s Justice Department had no business shredding legal norms and abandoning the rule of law by refusing to enforce or defend it in court. The fact all nine justices agreed demonstrates just how deeply disturbing and flagrant the administration’s action in this case was.

It's a sad reminder the administration that ran on "restoring norms" intends to do nothing of the sort.

Joe Biden's deserved, humiliating loss at the Supreme Court

Would you characterize Trumps unanimous denial of his election fraud case by SCOTUS in the same manner as you’re characterizing this one or is it different?

Once you learn the difference between what happens when the SCOTUS hears a case versus what happens when they don't, ask that question again.

HINT: you won't, because you'll realize how stupid it was.

I think the fact the SCOTUS wouldn’t even hear Trumps case highlights how ridiculous it was. How stupid the whole fake stolen election narrative was and is.

Yet both you and postman tried to lie about it, despite the fact that 10 seconds of googling debunks your sad attempt. LOL

 

[postman]

Would you characterize Trumps unanimous denial of his election fraud case by SCOTUS in the same manner as you’re characterizing this one or is it different?

Marvin addressed your question, now try to focus, I know it may be difficult for you, on the subject of the thread.

Once you learn the difference between what happens when the SCOTUS hears a case versus what happens when they don't, ask that question again.

HINT: you won't, because you'll realize how stupid it was.

The USSC only needs to "hear" a case, that there are some questions needing to be answered. When the Trump appeal was such a "slam dunk" with no oral argument that could change their unanimous opinion to reject his request for injunctive relief.

 

[postman]

Violation of laws is never good

Remember that when they start releasing indictments against Trump.

 

[BlackSand]

So it would seem that the Biden Administration sided with an interpretation the authors of the law intended.

In March, after President Joe Biden took office, the Justice Department reversed its position in the case and argued that the law does allow sentence reductions for lower-level offenders. Authors of the law and drug-sentencing reform advocates also endorsed that interpretation.

So it would seem that the argument boiled down to the idea that the law should have been more clear.

Supreme Court: First Step Act snubs some drug offenders

Leave it to politicians to try and fix something they broke in the first place.

.

Well that ... And the fact The Administration and Justice Department cannot disregard the law as written or executed because they don't think it is adequate.
Any further adjustments to the law, would have to go through the Legislative Branch and not the Executive Branch.

Attorney General Eric Holder, under President Obama's Administration
attempted to circumvent the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing requirements when prosecuting minorities
with a Justice Department Directive that requested not weighing the drugs on arrest, to avoid the the requirements.

Here's a copy of the memo, on his letterhead ...

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/ag-memo-department-policypon-charging-mandatory-minimum-sentences-recidivist-enhancements-in-certain-drugcases.pdf

.​

 

[jc456]

Violation of laws is never good

Remember that when they start releasing indictments against Trump.

Hahaha obsessed still

 

[postman]

I think the fact the SCOTUS wouldn’t even hear Trumps case highlights how ridiculous it was. How stupid the whole fake stolen election narrative was and is.

They rejected Trumps request for injunctive relief 9-0.

They didn't need to hear from the parties, they had already received all the pleadings, motions, and briefs on the case, and they saw nothing in them that gave the case any merit.

 

[pknopp]

So it would seem that the Biden Administration sided with an interpretation the authors of the law intended.

In March, after President Joe Biden took office, the Justice Department reversed its position in the case and argued that the law does allow sentence reductions for lower-level offenders. Authors of the law and drug-sentencing reform advocates also endorsed that interpretation.

So it would seem that the argument boiled down to the idea that the law should have been more clear.

Supreme Court: First Step Act snubs some drug offenders

Leave it to politicians to try and fix something they broke in the first place.

.

Well that ... And the fact The Administration and Justice Department cannot disregard the law as written or executed because they don't think it is adequate.
Any further adjustments to the law, would have to go through the Legislative Branch and not the Executive Branch.

.​

I don't disagree. If they had intended for all to be eligible that is how it should have been written. I would have liked to have seen them do that but it seems they did not.

 

[marvin martian]

Violation of laws is never good

Remember that when they start releasing indictments against Trump.

You've been promising that for five years. What's taking so long?

 

[Slade3200]

A unanimous Supreme Court just dealt a well-deserved and humiliating defeat to the Biden administration. The central question was: Should the executive branch uphold the law or flout it? President Joe Biden chose the latter.

All nine justices agreed Biden’s Justice Department had no business shredding legal norms and abandoning the rule of law by refusing to enforce or defend it in court. The fact all nine justices agreed demonstrates just how deeply disturbing and flagrant the administration’s action in this case was.

It's a sad reminder the administration that ran on "restoring norms" intends to do nothing of the sort.

Joe Biden's deserved, humiliating loss at the Supreme Court

Would you characterize Trumps unanimous denial of his election fraud case by SCOTUS in the same manner as you’re characterizing this one or is it different?

Marvin addressed your question, now try to focus, I know it may be difficult for you, on the subject of the thread.

Happy to discuss the topic of the thread I just wanted to know if you would characterize Trump unanimous rejection in the same way as you did this one… would you?

Regarding the Terry case… I’m not seeing where this big deal is coming from. Terry thought he could get his sentences reduced via the first step act, lower courts disagreed, trumps DOJ agreed with the lower courts, Bidens DOJ did not, it went to scotus and the rule of law prevailed… that’s how our system works. Bravo.

I didn’t see a massive campaign or even a comment by Biden regarding this case. I don’t see pushback to the courts decision. Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill?

 

[Slade3200]

A unanimous Supreme Court just dealt a well-deserved and humiliating defeat to the Biden administration. The central question was: Should the executive branch uphold the law or flout it? President Joe Biden chose the latter.

All nine justices agreed Biden’s Justice Department had no business shredding legal norms and abandoning the rule of law by refusing to enforce or defend it in court. The fact all nine justices agreed demonstrates just how deeply disturbing and flagrant the administration’s action in this case was.

It's a sad reminder the administration that ran on "restoring norms" intends to do nothing of the sort.

Joe Biden's deserved, humiliating loss at the Supreme Court

Would you characterize Trumps unanimous denial of his election fraud case by SCOTUS in the same manner as you’re characterizing this one or is it different?

Once you learn the difference between what happens when the SCOTUS hears a case versus what happens when they don't, ask that question again.

HINT: you won't, because you'll realize how stupid it was.

I think the fact the SCOTUS wouldn’t even hear Trumps case highlights how ridiculous it was. How stupid the whole fake stolen election narrative was and is.

Yet both you and postman tried to lie about it, despite the fact that 10 seconds of googling debunks your sad attempt. LOL

Haha, what did I lie about?! This should be good… please explain

 

[BlindBoo]

The war on Free American citizens who choose to use non government approved recreational substances is a travesty. President Biden should commute his sentence. The career criminal label can be attained with two minor non violent offenses.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't disagree. If they had intended for all to be eligible that is how it should have been written. I would have liked to have seen them do that but it seems they did not.

.

President Trump requested Congress address all The Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Requirements in Legislation ... And they did.
The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case was not sentenced in regards to the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Requirements
as stated in legislation prior to, or after it was adjusted.

I am not saying that the District Attorney that prosecuted the case or the Judge were not overzealous in their sentencing.
I am saying that the Fair Sentencing Act did not apply to the plaintiff's argument ...
and that the Executive Branch and Justice Department cannot exceed the powers they are granted,
and just make stuff up because they think it would be nice.

Their job is to execute the law as written, not pretend it means something it doesn't.

.​

 

[toobfreak]

Biden has been losing in court since he fraudulently took up residency in white house....

Seems the only courts so far to see things Joe's crooked way are all the courts last year who simply refused any part at all in revisiting the lawfulness of the election!

 

[easyt65]

A unanimous Supreme Court just dealt a well-deserved and humiliating defeat to the Biden administration. The central question was: Should the executive branch uphold the law or flout it? President Joe Biden chose the latter.

All nine justices agreed Biden’s Justice Department had no business shredding legal norms and abandoning the rule of law by refusing to enforce or defend it in court. The fact all nine justices agreed demonstrates just how deeply disturbing and flagrant the administration’s action in this case was.

It's a sad reminder the administration that ran on "restoring norms" intends to do nothing of the sort.

Joe Biden's deserved, humiliating loss at the Supreme Court

No surprise here...

 

[pknopp]

Biden has been losing in court since he fraudulently took up residency in white house....

Seems the only courts so far to see things Joe's crooked way are all the courts last year who simply refused any part at all in revisiting the lawfulness of the election!

They did take part. They said there is nothing there, there.