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

 

[Rambunctious]

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

 

[xband]

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

Start a Joe Biden tip jar and see how much money he gets.

 

[wamose]

This Garland asshole keeps proving what an excellent move it was to keep him off the SC. He's the ultimate Marxist, especially the way he is trying to prevent state election audits under the bullshit guise of preventing voter suppression. All he really wants to do is cover up the fraud and preserve Biden's, and other Democrats, stolen election. Audit the Pa. election now.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Another 9 to zero ...

They are sending a message

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This Garland asshole keeps proving what an excellent move it was to keep him off the SC. He's the ultimate Marxist, especially the way he is trying to prevent state election audits under the bullshit guise of preventing voter suppression. All he really wants to do is cover up the fraud and preserve Biden's, and other Democrats, stolen election. Audit the Pa. election now.

It's scary how closely the Biden Reich is copying Hitler's rise to power

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Obama got away with it because of his black privilege.
I'm just remembering Obama's refusal to enforce immigration laws was never challenged.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mac1958 have you reported a Republican to the authorities yet? You have a quota

 

[Mac1958]

Mac1958 have you reported a Republican to the authorities yet? You have a quota

 

[pknopp]

What does it take to find an article without the political commentary. I'll come back after I find one.

 

[L.K.Eder]

What does it take to find an article without the political commentary. I'll come back after I find one.

Justices reject sentencing reductions for some crack-cocaine offenders - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that people convicted of certain low-level crack-cocaine offenses are not eligible for sentencing reductions under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[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.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurrence while Anita Hill farted in both their general directions.

 

[Nostra]

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.

The 9-0 decision was against Biden, not those who wrote the law.

 

[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.

The 9-0 decision was against Biden, not those who wrote the law.

It was against his interpretation of the law. Clearly the court ruled you can't interpret the law,, you have to go with what it actually says and I have no issue with that.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurrence in which she called on Congress to pass a new law providing a chance for sentencing reductions to people convicted under Tier 3. She noted that the bipartisan sponsors of the First Step Act had urged the court to interpret the law to provide broad retroactive relief to Terry and potentially hundreds of similarly situated prisoners who were convicted of low-level crack offenses. “Unfortunately,” Sotomayor wrote, “the text will not bear that reading. Fortunately, Congress has numerous tools to right this injustice.”

 

[Votto]

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

So who is going to make Biden listen to the ruling?

I say he flips them the bird

And if they get out of line and make a big stink about him flipping them the bird, Biden will simply pack the courts.

 

[Nostra]

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.

The 9-0 decision was against Biden, not those who wrote the law.

It was against his interpretation of the law. Clearly the court ruled you can't interpret the law,, you have to go with what it actually says and I have no issue with that.

Exactly. The Biden regime ignored the law and got bitchslapped by the SC.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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..

 

[pknopp]

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.