Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Uh huhReport: Harlan Crow Has a Stake in 4 SCOTUS Cases
View attachment 968097
Truthout
https://truthout.org › News
Oct 11, 2023 — One key case that Crow has a stake in is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the High Court could rule to overturn nearly 40 years of ...
Federal courts have used the Chevron doctrine for decades to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. However, the doctrine is undergoing challenges in two cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that will likely be ruled on by early July 2024.
www.scotusblog.com
These are all issues for Congress to handle, not the court.
It’s the conservative SCOTUS that is changing laws because they don’t like them.
The law wasn’t struck down. Read the decision before you say dumb shit.Congress did something stupid, and the court called them on it.
The law isn't changed, it's being struck down in the case of In State corruption issues that should be handled by the State.
Why don't you get this worked up over insider trading done by Pelosi and her gang?....According to trump’s supreme Court Justices, it’s now perfectly legal to give large sums of money and elaborate trips or damn near anything else to officials, including judges, as long as the gift comes after the ruling instead of before. In more precise terms, they just gave themselves a hall pass to accept lavish gifts from rich folks who happen to like their rulings. It’s obvious that this new ruling was custom designed to justify Clarence Thomas’s elaborate gifts from Harlan Crow. Think about that. Can you expect a fair ruling from a court when the judge knows he will receive gifts, and all he has to do is rule in favor of what ever the gift giver wants? Just another example of the unethical behavior of trump and his appointees are forcing on the American Public.
Since when do you guys give a shit about insider trading?Why don't you get this worked up over insider trading done by Pelosi and her gang?....
The law wasn’t struck down. Read the decision before you say dumb shit.
It’s a huge damn difference.Struck down, narrowed, whatever.
In the end Congress can fix it via legislation, but to me it should have gone further because this is a State issue, not a federal one.
It’s a huge damn difference.
It’s clear that SCOTUS believes that Congress shouldn’t have made this a federal issue but they couldn’t say that the law is unconstitutional.
So instead they just pretended that the law doesn’t say what the law says.
It’s just pretext.
The statute isn’t vague, the conservative justices had to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to come up with a plausible excuse to say that getting kickbacks isn’t illegal because the word reward doesn’t mean getting money for giving them government contracts.It's interpreting and telling congress to do a better fucking job.
I would go further and say the Feds need to stay out of State issues and let the States handle State bribery, or corruption, or whatever.
And even THEY need to be clear what is being made illegal is described as detailed as possible.
Are you kidding?... the people are fed up with lifetime elected officials getting rich with underhanded stock market trades... Pelosi wouldn't sign the GOP bill making it illegal for congressmen and women to do this....Since when do you guys give a shit about insider trading?
It already is illegal and two members of Congress were convicted of it during the Trump administration. But when Trump pardoned them, we didn’t hear shit about it from you.Are you kidding?... the people are fed up with lifetime elected officials getting rich with underhanded stock market trades... Pelosi wouldn't sign the GOP bill making it illegal for congressmen and women to do this....
Rules for thee, but not for me.According to trump’s supreme Court Justices, it’s now perfectly legal to give large sums of money and elaborate trips or damn near anything else to officials, including judges, as long as the gift comes after the ruling instead of before. In more precise terms, they just gave themselves a hall pass to accept lavish gifts from rich folks who happen to like their rulings. It’s obvious that this new ruling was custom designed to justify Clarence Thomas’s elaborate gifts from Harlan Crow. Think about that. Can you expect a fair ruling from a court when the judge knows he will receive gifts, and all he has to do is rule in favor of what ever the gift giver wants? Just another example of the unethical behavior of trump and his appointees are forcing on the American Public.
The statute isn’t vague, the conservative justices had to jump through hoops and bend over backwards to come up with a plausible excuse to say that getting kickbacks isn’t illegal because the word reward doesn’t mean getting money for giving them government contracts.
It’s only vague if you come into it really wanting the federal government to stay out of the issue, which is why the decision sucks.
Why do you only care about Pelosi?Why don't you get this worked up over insider trading done by Pelosi and her gang?....
Getting a $13k check from the company you gave $1 million in contracts doesn’t seem like it might be corrupt?"corrupting"
He went through 6 valid points about the law. It's called strict construction.
It already is illegal and two members of Congress were convicted of it during the Trump administration. But when Trump pardoned them, we didn’t hear shit about it from you.
Or are you only sick of it when you are accusing Democrats?
apnews.com
money.com
Pelosi defends lawmaker stock trades, citing 'free market'
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending lawmakers' right to trade stocks. The practice has come under scrutiny because it offers members of Congress the potential to profit off of insider information gained through their official duties.
Members of Congress Are Getting Rich Trading Stocks. Should That Be Illegal?
Meanwhile, two ETFs have emerged that allow regular people to mirror the investments made by federal lawmakers.
nypost.com
Getting a $13k check from the company you gave $1 million in contracts doesn’t seem like it might be corrupt?
If this were a Dem you guys would be all over this.
There’s a huge difference between campaign contributions and handing money over for personal use.Yet getting a $50k campaign contribution to your PAC is just fine?
Not the issue. And state laws apparently DIDNT handle this.State law can handle this, and can be much clearer on what is corrupt and not corrupt.
Conservative justices gutted campaign finance laws so we are twice as fucked because of you losers.In the US we take care of our kickbacks via campaign contributions, and no one says boo.
