Humiliated by the Supreme Court

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

Yeah exactly. Obama sure knew the inner character and jelly spine of the person he was nominating.

 

[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..

This was a 9-0 ruling.

Yep. Pathetic.

 

[TNHarley]

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..

Yeah because the SC has a history of not being a bunch of activists, right? TRUMP RUINED THE SC!!!!!!
Dumbass hack

 

[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.

Yep. Pathetic.

So it was hardly some partisan thing as you try to make it out to be.

 

[danielpalos]

...a difference of opinion. The judicature simply has the delegated social power on this issue.

 

[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..

This was a 9-0 ruling.

Yep. Pathetic.

So it was hardly some partisan thing as you try to make it out to be.

Oh, so you wish to make my take partisan now. Thanks. Jesus, you can be desperate and thick sometimes.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Justice Thomas was quick to point out the legislative history of the harsh drug law that prescribed Terry’s sentence. “The Act passed the Democratic-controlled House,” “then passed the Republican-controlled Senate 97 to 2,” recounted Thomas. He continued, explaining that harsh sentences for crack offenses may have been intended to support racial equality under the law:

A majority of the Congressional Black Caucus cosponsored and voted for the bill. Many black leaders in that era professed two concerns. First, crack was fueling crime against residents in inner cities, who were predominantly black. For example, the president of an NAACP chapter in the D. C. region called crack “‘the worst thing to hit us since slavery,’” a sentiment echoed by the leading black newspaper in Los Angeles. J. Forman, Jr., Locking Up Our Own 158 (2017). Second, there were concerns that prosecutors were not taking these kinds of crimes seriously enough because the victims were disproportionately black.
In the words of John Ray, a D. C. councilmember who spearheaded a successful effort to create mandatory minimum penalties: “‘Black crimes against blacks get very low sentences,’” unlike crimes against whites.

This is a black man stating this though that crap making sense to some opportunistic uncle toms like him and Cosby back then remains relevant and all that still matters today. Sorry, it isn't and doesn't. We've moved on, but someone forgot to tell the Supremes amongst others.

 

[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.

Yep. Pathetic.

So it was hardly some partisan thing as you try to make it out to be.

Oh, so you wish to make my take partisan now. Thanks. Jesus, you can be desperate and thick sometimes.

I saw you condemn Trump and Thomas.............

 

[marvin martian]

Another 9 to zero ...

They are sending a message

Very true. Unanimous decisions from the Supreme Court are usually reserved for the most egregiously fascist attempts to deprive us of our civil rights; something the Biden regime specializes in, sadly.

 

[postman]

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

Actually the question was whether or not 841(b)(1)(C) be considered for sentence reduction, while the act specifically granted it to 841(b)(1)(A) and 841(b)(1)(B)

 

[postman]

Very true. Unanimous decisions from the Supreme Court are usually reserved for the most egregiously fascist attempts to deprive us of our civil rights; something the Biden regime specializes in, sadly.

the USSC ruled 9-0 that Trump had to turn over his taxes.

So... You're right.

 

[surada]

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.

Obama deported more illegals than any other president. Check your facts.

 

[marvin martian]

Very true. Unanimous decisions from the Supreme Court are usually reserved for the most egregiously fascist attempts to deprive us of our civil rights; something the Biden regime specializes in, sadly.

the USSC ruled 9-0 that Trump had to turn over his taxes.

So... You're right.

Why would you lie about something that can so easily be debunked? Do you have some sort of public humiliation fetish?

U.S. Supreme Court sets the stage for release of Trump tax returns

Donald Trump suffered a major setback on Monday in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the former president's tax returns and other records as part of an accelerating criminal...

www.reuters.com

 

[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 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.

 

[postman]

This was a 9-0 ruling.

Because the justice department wanted to apply the spirit of the Fair Sentencing Act which applied 841(b)(1)(A) and 841(b)(1)(B), but didn't include 841(b)(1)(C).
The USSC upheld that they could only resentence according to the strict text of what the law allowed. But as Sotomayer noted, the act was deficient in it's omission of 841(b)(1)(C)

There is no apparent reason that career offenders sentenced under subparagraph (C) should be left to serve out sentences that were unduly influenced by the 100-to-1 ratio. Indeed, the bipartisan lead sponsors of the First StepAct have urged this Court to hold that the Act “makes retroactive relief broadly available to all individuals sentencedfor crack-cocaine offenses before the Fair Sentencing Act.”

 

[Nostra]

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.

Obama deported more illegals than any other president. Check your facts.

RACIST!

 

[postman]

Why would you lie about something that can so easily be debunked? Do you have some sort of public humiliation fetish?

U.S. Supreme Court sets the stage for release of Trump tax returns

Donald Trump suffered a major setback on Monday in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the former president's tax returns and other records as part of an accelerating criminal...

www.reuters.com

Donald Trump suffered a major setback on Monday in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the former president’s tax returns and other records as part of an accelerating criminal investigation.

The Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three Trump appointees, had already ruled once in the subpoena dispute, last July rejecting Trump’s broad argument that he was immune from criminal probes as a sitting president.

 

[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?

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.

It wasn't just the US supreme court that rejected Trumps claims. It was also the state Supreme Courts. And all courts below that, both state and federal.

 

[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..

They didn’t. All of them!!! Hmmm