Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Jan. 6 Capitol Rioters 

My advice is jump

100% this. It's so hard trying to process the current news and then another bomb drops...

I recommend you should, as a practicing lawyer, read the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States given SCOTUS' opinions are binding and Strict Scrutiny's opinions are not binding. I happen to think Strict Scrutiny is wrong, but that is to do with a view of the Constitution (The legislature writes the law. The executive enforces the law. The judiciary interprets and upholds the law) which you may agree or disagree with.

@@jonathandnicholson Yes, obviously if I am using the opinion in a case I will read it. But I don't need most of these opinions for anything but information as to where the general trend is in the courts, as my practice rarely involves the kinds of cases that the Supreme Court actually hears.

@@jessicagreenberg9060 I get lawyers have their areas of expertise and specialty, but I suggest you read the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States with rigour on a regular basis because you may find something useful. What is your next case? Whatever the problem your next client has. Do you think Chief Justice Roberts or the associate Justices resort to ideological priors of: "American law is my opinion or preference" or do you think they do (or did) more than the bare minimum when they were lawyers? Roberts was a highly respected litigator (by people of various political hues) at SCOTUS before becoming Chief Justice. Strict Scrutiny has interesting views of politics, but I think their view of actual United States law is somewhat lacking. Clearly neither of them have read the Constitution of the US, but with their ideological point of view that does not surprise me because the people who also come out with some of the drivel they do also support disregarding the rule of law or that rule of law is a synonym for their opinion(s). Still, good and interesting to consider views not of your own perspective.

@@jonathandnicholson SCOTUS opinions are binding? Not according to this court. They clearly have no respect for the precedents set by previous SCOTUS rulings.

Law is not written in some special code. The legislature writes the law. The executive enforces the law. The judiciary interprets and upholds the law.

Hopelessness is the enemy of justice. Injustice prevails where hopelessness persists. - Bryan Stevenson

It is very apparent that this Court is setting up the stage for The Republican Fascist manifesto- the Project 2025 to be a better fit, if the Fascist GOP can pull it all off.

@@no-cv4dxActually rule-making is law until determined otherwise by legislation or decree. Codifying rules is both inefficient and often unnecessary since agencies have to adapt laws to input from stakeholders and the reality that policy directives change and laws sunset.

@@no-cv4dx The power grab is _for the judiciary._ They're not saying Congress has more power, they're saying the judges get to decide the validity of every rule. The things Congress clearly stated in the laws were always the law, obviously. The interpretations of the unclear or unstated bits was, for the most part, left up to the agencies who employ experts in those fields. Overruling Chevron means that now the courts, who, for the most part, have no expertise in _any_ technical areas, now decide which rules are allowable and which aren't. It's a transfer of power from the executive to the judiciary, and it's highly unlikely the judiciary is suddenly going to employ a bunch of physicists, agronomists, traffic engineers, etc., but they'll be making all the final decisions anyway, because they say they should.

If only it was that simple

@@jgray2718 yes, power grabbed by the Supreme Court and all a part of the project 2025 Manifesto

Just what Jesus wanted!

The legislature writes the law. The executive enforces the law. The judiciary interprets and upholds the law.

@@jonathandnicholson ⁠I am not sure what you are trying to argue here? Federal agencies are executing congressional legislation. They just fill in what congress did not specify due to the lack of knowledge. For example, congress may mandate certain cleanliness in restaurant, but what does cleanliness mean? This is when FSIS comes in and give the definition of what a clean restaurant should look like, wiped counter, no expiration food, hair net for workers etc etc. Maybe some will say congress need to simply write those things into the law. My counter to that is the US currently has the least productive congress in history. They take summer and winter vacation continuously. They are not going to bother with listening to multiple experts on what constitute safe restaurant to make the best decision. On top of that, technologies come up everyday that requires law reinforcement to catch up. For example, you might have a new method to heat up the food from a novel machine. Who is to say if the machine is safe if there is no federal agency? Who is to say if a restaurant can or cannot use it if certain level of food cook in this method pose dangerous for human health? Between congress hearing about the machine, plenty of individuals might have already been seriously harm due to lack of legislation. In many ways, federal agencies’ ability to make detail regulations are what makes law enforceable. I work in science. I am not sure how any clinical trial will go if without FDA. What’s the line that determines if an experimental drug can be used? The requirements are very dependent on the data on toxicity, the specific disease and the patient’s progression. I am pretty sure that congress do not have the science level and orientation to details to make a finesse law. Look at abortion. No matter if you are pro or against abortion, we can all agree that if the fetus is already dead ( no heart beat/ possibility of grow into a baby due to lack of development in organs and etc), abortion should be permitted. However, it seems like a lot of states’ legislation fail to make a clear guideline that permit the most simple and necessary abortion cases. The result is such law put the pregnant women in danger because doctors or hospitals simply refuse to admit them till they are on death’s door.

@@floralee1645 What am I trying argue? The legislature writes the law. The executive enforces the law. The judiciary interprets and upholds the law. That is entirely the point. Read the Constitution of the United States. What does cleanliness mean? The state or quality of being clean. What does clean mean? Without blemish. Does the Federal Congress have to make food standards? Well, for interstate commerce, yes, but not for intrastate commerce (eating at a restaurant happens in a single subsidiary legislative location unless you order take out and eat across city and/or state lines). Also, a degree of common sense can be used: do not go the restaurant which chops meat etc on the floor or allows customers to use the toilet wherever. Those are extreme examples, but give an idea of what I mean. Are you legally required to wash your cutlery etc? Do you still do so? I do not believe Congress has to legislate everyday on food standards. A reasonable compromise might be to legislate an initial set of standards and Congress giving the authority to the Executive to make changes of degree rather than the Executive simply assuming that authority. However, some might as a matter of principle believe Congress should have the sole authority to write Federal laws. Either is a reasonable point of view other than your unconstitutional view. Your point of view (that the Executive should enforce and write law) is not unreasonable as a matter of principle and practiced in the United Kingdom ..., but change the Constitution of the United States. If you do not want to compromise, do not compromise. I am not sure why you put the thing about abortion in. Am I some kind of anti-abortion activist? Surgery to remove a dead fetus is not an abortion. What are you aborting? The baby's life and the pregnancy have been sadly aborted by the death of the baby. Do you really think I care about the surgical procedure more than the baby's life? In the situation you mentioned no baby's life exists to care about, sadly. Legislation whether through Congress or whatever other institution I cannot vote in or out is about applied morality not about whatever the latest science journal article claims. Let me know if the most recent scientific research is instructive of moral policy. For example an ought cannot be derived from an is.

Appalling. Justice Thomas' 'existence' is in no sense 'anomaly'. You may well also be incorrect on the law.

@@jonathandnicholson I mean in the realm of his takes on legal precedent, and, no, I don't. He's literally owned by Harlan Crowe. Your complacency is appalling.

@@cpa2132 How is Justice Thomas 'literally owned' by Harlan Crowe - did Crowe write a book in which Crowe his ownership of Thomas? I thought slavery is unconstitutional.

The legislature writes the law. The executive enforces the law. The judiciary interprets and upholds the law.

@@jonathandnicholsonthe “judiciary” that is the Supreme Court only have credentials in law. None of them have a major science degree, but they should be clarifying regulations better understood by scientists and experts who’ve gone thru years of training and studying to be where they r??

@@CoryclemmingsI do not need a chemistry degree to rule on whether Congress did or did not pass: Any water within the borders of the United States of America shall not contain any Butatriene. If Congress did not pass a bill of Congress and the bill was not signed into law by the President of the United States the rule and any punishment attached to that rule is void. What is difficult to understand, let alone is scientific, about this? The Constitution of the United States is a good place to start learning about American law. Best to study law and read authoritative legal texts. However, I do not even need a law degree to understand the due process of legislation, The ability to comprehend words is sufficient. If you did want to include scientists in the law-making process best to include scientists at the legislative end not the judicial end. Not that a Congressman has to agree with a scientist. The scientist is subject to the science when writing his scientific study. A Congressman is subject subject to writing law in accordance with law (and other considerations) because the science is not the summon bonum of legislation and ought not to be the summon bonum of legislation. For example how do you derive an ought from an is?

The legislature writes the law. The executive enforces the law. The judiciary interprets and upholds the law.

I agree with your point about politics from a Democrat perspective. However, their legal understanding leaves much to be desired.

@@jonathandnicholsonHilarious. Do tell all about your legal bona fides and understanding of constitutional law.

@@stevecrim4249 1) I can understand words 2) I can research to fill in gaps in knowledge 3) I can make prudential judgement Although, the Constitution of the United States is involved in any criminal proceeding the dispute of Fischer v United States was about the word 'otherwise' of 18 USC 1512 (c)(2).

⁠​⁠@@jonathandnicholsonSaying these constitutional law professors legal knowledge “leaves much to be desired” calls your judgement into question in my view. You sound silly and childish. But I’m sure your google searching will “fill in gaps” between your “understanding” and their scholastic achievements and experience. Further, typing pedantic sentences about how the judicial system works doesn’t make you a scholar or particularly informed. But keep trying.

@@stevecrim4249 What was ‘pedantic’ about what I wrote? As in, which minor details am I overly concerned with? Law is not some secret code which can only be understood by people with pro-Democrat views. From the article The Meaning and Use of Otherwise by Catherine Suyin Lai: ‘Knott (1996) suggests a simple test for connectiveness: if a sentence containing the adverbial cannot be understood when it is isolated, then it is probably a connective.’ “I was rioting not otherwise ruining a piece of paper” is a legitimate defence against 18 USC 1512 (c)(2). I and Ben Meiselas have rare agreement on this point of law, so do not bother trying to claim I am some ideological contrarian. This is fairly basic stuff. What was the reaction of Strict Scrutiny? The title: ‘Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Jan. 6 Capitol Rioters’ gives a hint. I cannot remember what exactly was said. Well, rules in their favour in a legalistic way, but does not rule in their favour declaring the rioters to be good, just and righteous. If you are going to deny a rioter, alleged or convicted, the due process of law then declare that person is not a person because: ‘No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’ Constitution of the United States, Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment is involved too, but less directly. I hope you do not declare a person to not be a person because that would be bad, unjust and wrong, but that is the only way to deny the due process of law. The reaction of Strict Scrutiny on Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the case against is that she is allegedly corrupt etc not referring to the cited laws and precedent as to what is an officer or official/employee: United States v Hartwell, United States v Germaine, United States v Nixon (debatable as to how useful this precedent is given the legislative history), Buckley v Valeo, Morrison v Olsen (only useful as an expression of the principle being debated given the law is extinct) and Lucia v Securities and Exchange Commission. Jack Smith argued himself an officer and cannot be surprised to find he is ruled an officer. Still, good to listen to counterarguments in the hope of learning and at least contend with the possibility you may be incorrect. I do not listen to the podcast other than for cases I am interested in. I can tell the hosts have a similar world view as Alex Wagner on MSNBC.

The legislature writes the law. The executive enforces the law. The judiciary interprets and upholds the law.

Biden should direct all federal agencies to start seeking judicial review for every pencil they need to sharpen. Seriously, go ahead and shift the entire weight of federal regulatory authority onto judges right away. Want to add a new field to an application, we’ll need a ruling, and a full suite of appeals for that ruling. Nothing will ever get to the Supreme Court’s hatchet again, because federal courts will be frozen under their new self-granted authority.

You may have a point about President Donald Trump (Trump is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt), but not people who did not use paper. Prosecutors and judges can be wrong.

Yes!

The legislature writes the law. The executive enforces the law. The judiciary interprets and upholds the law.

@@jonathandnicholson how does one enforce something without interpreting it? Should not experts interpret complex things?

@@paulkenny105 The legislature would write a bill of Congress stating: Stealing in wrong. The act of stealing shall bring a prison term of x and the convicted shall be deprived of possession and use of that which was stolen or pay a fine to the equivalent. The President of the United States would then sign such a bill of Congress to make the bill an act of Congress and therefore law. The executive could use a dictionary to understand what constitutes stealing and arrest all people who did that act for stealing. The judiciary would then organise a trial to make sure the executive had arrested the right person, charged the person with the correct crime and the prosecution could show the required mens rea. Gosh, what a simple system. If a court made an error of law the aggrieved party could appeal the error of legal proceeding at the Supreme Court of the United States and that ruling, either way, would be law. SCOTUS' role is not to rule whether or which chemical substances etc, but whether a law banning a chemical is valid law (started in the legislature, signed by the President of the United States, enforced by the executive, checked, defined and/or refined legally by the judiciary). The judiciary can only settle a matter in law when a legal dispute arises.

Any previous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States can be overturned.

Read the First Amendment for a start.

@@leahcook1659 Next up: banning Ozempic because it hurts Frito-Lay.

The words of the statute were agreed to. Words have meaning. Congress can alter legislation by the normal due process of law.

@@jonathandnicholson Thanks, but I went to law school a long time ago and know how this works.

@@ashannon38 Good.

No-one has been charged with 18 USC 2883 Rebellion and Insurrection. Justices Alito and Thomas had no need to recuse themselves and Justice Jackson is allowed to rule the correct way. How were the six justices wrong?

this is all vibes, no substance

When did they exist? How can you perform an abortion on a woman who is no longer pregnant?

um no. you goofy doofus.