SCOTUS Decisions

[pixy0stix]

Incoming in 3... 2... 1...


www.politico.com/news/2024/06/26/supreme-court-decisions-guide-00165003

[pixy0stix]

Biden admin can’t be sued for pressuring social media companies to remove misinformation, Supreme Court rules - www.politico.com/news/2024/06/26/biden-admin-cant-be-sued-for-pressuring-social-medias-to-remove-misinfo-00165051

[erbear]

They appear to be ready to strike down Idaho’s law!

edition.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/supreme-court-abortion-idaho-bloomberg/index.html

[neverfstop]

Duplicate

[msmerymac]

Jun 26, 2024 12:45:14 GMT -5 erbear said:

They appear to be ready to strike down Idaho’s law!

edition.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/supreme-court-abortion-idaho-bloomberg/index.html

I do think it was a glitch (someone accidentally setting it live) rather than intentional, like the Dobbs draft. But God bless whoever was responsible for leaking the Dobbs decision early.

[pixy0stix]

I was really hoping there would be more today. Tomorrow, and probably the rest on Friday.

[rubytue]

Jun 26, 2024 16:31:13 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I was really hoping there would be more today. Tomorrow, and probably the rest on Friday.

A post article said “By the end of this week, or in early July, the court is poised to decide cases…” and I’m so confused. I would have thought everything by Friday. 
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/supreme-court-cases-abortion-trump-guns/

also, WTF did the gift link button move to? I’m not out of gifts, but I can never find it anymore. 

[nsl]

Jun 26, 2024 12:45:14 GMT -5 erbear said:

They appear to be ready to strike down Idaho’s law!

edition.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/supreme-court-abortion-idaho-bloomberg/index.html

This won't truly strike down anything if the leaked opinion is real, though it will temporarily allow for emergency abortions in some cases. Justice Jackson's alleged leaked dissent lays it out: “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay,” she wrote in a partial dissent. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”

From reading legal Bluesky, what this appears to be is a DIG (dismissed as improvidently granted) which you can read about here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissed_as_improvidently_granted

Essentially, what I'm gathering is that people who are legally knowledgeable about this case and the Supreme Court in general expect that, like the mifepristone case, this kicks the can to the next session when more decisive opinions are likely based on the cases that will likely be brought vs. the ones that were thrown into the court's lap this term.

[mrsslocombe]

I need someone to explain this Purdue Pharma ruling to me. Judge Jackson joined with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett. What an odd split. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf

[elleblue]

Jun 27, 2024 9:29:13 GMT -5 mrsslocombe said:

I need someone to explain this Purdue Pharma ruling to me. Judge Jackson joined with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett. What an odd split. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf

This piece from December might help explain. link

[pixy0stix]

The Idaho ruling was officially released - www.politico.com/news/2024/06/27/idaho-must-provide-life-saving-abortions-after-supreme-court-declines-to-rule-on-case-00165308

[mrsslocombe]

Jun 27, 2024 9:37:30 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Jun 27, 2024 9:29:13 GMT -5 mrsslocombe said:

I need someone to explain this Purdue Pharma ruling to me. Judge Jackson joined with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett. What an odd split. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf

This piece from December might help explain. link

Thanks.

I still don't understand why Alito and Thomas, in particular, sided against Purdue Pharma. Letting rich people escape liability is what gets them out of bed in the morning. 

[rubytue]

As someone who has built a successful career at a regulatory agency, the SEC and EPA decisions are devastating. On the plus note, I can take a gratuity for my work now 🙄

From the Post

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned of a “massive sea change” for federal agencies.
“The constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress,” wrote Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Rather than acknowledge the earthshattering nature of its holding, the majority has tried to disguise it.”

[karinothing]

Well courts Overturned Chevron. Chevron Deference was a doctrine that stated that courts across the country are required to defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of a statute that is ambiguous.

This is going to be a mess for agencies

[pixy0stix]

I was watching City of Grants Pass vs Johnson, I didn't think that camping bans for the unhoused would be struck down and it wasn't.

[karinothing]

Jun 28, 2024 9:41:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I was watching City of Grants Pass vs Johnson, I didn't think that camping bans for the unhoused would be struck down and it wasn't.

Yeah, I didn't think it would be struck down either. 

[ny96]

Jun 28, 2024 9:41:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I was watching City of Grants Pass vs Johnson, I didn't think that camping bans for the unhoused would be struck down and it wasn't.

I have very mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand I absolutely believe that homelessness is not a crime and should never be treated as such with people being put in jail and belongings confiscated. However, something has to happen. There are too many tents on the street. I don’t feel safe walking in parts of my neighborhood, there is one particular guy who has lived in a giant tent that for 9 years. The tent takes over the whole sidewalk at a busy intersection and blocks the view of oncoming cars making it pretty dangerous.

[pixy0stix]

Fuck. SCOTUS says prosecutors improperly charged 100s Jan 6 rioters - wapo.st/4eLGLVF

[neverfstop]

Yet more devastating blows to democracy…. We need to burn it down and do whatever we need to do to fix the court. Starting with a winning POTUS candidate..

[pixy0stix]

Heh. SCOTUS denies Steve Bannon's request to delay prison sentence - thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4746426-supreme-court-steve-bannon-prison-sentence/

[wildrice]

Jun 28, 2024 9:57:30 GMT -5 ny96 said:

Jun 28, 2024 9:41:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I was watching City of Grants Pass vs Johnson, I didn't think that camping bans for the unhoused would be struck down and it wasn't.

I have very mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand I absolutely believe that homelessness is not a crime and should never be treated as such with people being put in jail and belongings confiscated. However, something has to happen. There are too many tents on the street. I don’t feel safe walking in parts of my neighborhood, there is one particular guy who has lived in a giant tent that for 9 years. The tent takes over the whole sidewalk at a busy intersection and blocks the view of oncoming cars making it pretty dangerous.

But... what? Where are these people supposed to go? Being fined or arrested certainly isn't going to help them find stable housing. Now they're even further away from having the money to put on a deposit and could potentially end up with a criminal record if this happens multiple times and/or they can't pay.

A lot needs to happen regarding homelessness, but this ain't it. If anything it's going to make the problem worse. The solution can't be "get these people out of my sight so I don't have to deal with them" which is essentially what this is trying to do.

I do think it's reasonable that someone with a large tent creating an unsafe situation could be asked to move elsewhere though. Even ticketed if they refused to comply with relocating, but they should be offered an alternative location. This ruling means that people literally sleeping on a park bench can be ticketed.

[ny96]

Jun 28, 2024 14:00:32 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Jun 28, 2024 9:57:30 GMT -5 ny96 said:

I have very mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand I absolutely believe that homelessness is not a crime and should never be treated as such with people being put in jail and belongings confiscated. However, something has to happen. There are too many tents on the street. I don’t feel safe walking in parts of my neighborhood, there is one particular guy who has lived in a giant tent that for 9 years. The tent takes over the whole sidewalk at a busy intersection and blocks the view of oncoming cars making it pretty dangerous.

But... what? Where are these people supposed to go? Being fined or arrested certainly isn't going to help them find stable housing. Now they're even further away from having the money to put on a deposit and could potentially end up with a criminal record if this happens multiple times and/or they can't pay.

A lot needs to happen regarding homelessness, but this ain't it. If anything it's going to make the problem worse. The solution can't be "get these people out of my sight so I don't have to deal with them" which is essentially what this is trying to do.

I do think it's reasonable that someone with a large tent creating an unsafe situation could be asked to move elsewhere though. Even ticketed if they refused to comply with relocating, but they should be offered an alternative location. This ruling means that people literally sleeping on a park bench can be ticketed.

I work in homeless services. I know that for a lot of people they are on the streets because they have nowhere else to go, but for a lot of other people including the person in the tent nearby they have been offered housing again and again and have refused (I’ve heard this directly from service workers). I’m totally conflicted, but public streets and parks are not a safe place to live and make those resources unsafe for others, and in California we are treating them like a viable alternative to shelter.

[wildrice]

Jun 28, 2024 14:28:26 GMT -5 ny96 said:

Jun 28, 2024 14:00:32 GMT -5 wildrice said:

But... what? Where are these people supposed to go? Being fined or arrested certainly isn't going to help them find stable housing. Now they're even further away from having the money to put on a deposit and could potentially end up with a criminal record if this happens multiple times and/or they can't pay.

A lot needs to happen regarding homelessness, but this ain't it. If anything it's going to make the problem worse. The solution can't be "get these people out of my sight so I don't have to deal with them" which is essentially what this is trying to do.

I do think it's reasonable that someone with a large tent creating an unsafe situation could be asked to move elsewhere though. Even ticketed if they refused to comply with relocating, but they should be offered an alternative location. This ruling means that people literally sleeping on a park bench can be ticketed.

I work in homeless services. I know that for a lot of people they are on the streets because they have nowhere else to go, but for a lot of other people including the person in the tent nearby they have been offered housing again and again and have refused (I’ve heard this directly from service workers). I’m totally conflicted, but public streets and parks are not a safe place to live and make those resources unsafe for others, and in California we are treating them like a viable alternative to shelter.

Interesting. It is my understanding that most advocacy organizations concerned with homelessness were against this ruling, including the one that I work for.

Although certainly every person is going to have their own individual experience, it is unlikely that most people offered private housing options would still prefer to live on the streets. Most people who refusing "housing" are really refusing beds in shelters, typically because they've had a bad experience in a shelter in the past and feel they have more control over their situation or better community outside of one. 

It actually kind of bums me out that someone working in homeless services would be in favor of this ruling. 

[ny96]

Jun 28, 2024 14:47:17 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Jun 28, 2024 14:28:26 GMT -5 ny96 said:

I work in homeless services. I know that for a lot of people they are on the streets because they have nowhere else to go, but for a lot of other people including the person in the tent nearby they have been offered housing again and again and have refused (I’ve heard this directly from service workers). I’m totally conflicted, but public streets and parks are not a safe place to live and make those resources unsafe for others, and in California we are treating them like a viable alternative to shelter.

Interesting. It is my understanding that most advocacy organizations concerned with homelessness were against this ruling, including the one that I work for.

Although certainly every person is going to have their own individual experience, it is unlikely that most people offered private housing options would still prefer to live on the streets. Most people who refusing "housing" are really refusing beds in shelters, typically because they've had a bad experience in a shelter in the past and feel they have more control over their situation or better community outside of one. 

It actually kind of bums me out that someone working in homeless services would be in favor of this ruling. 

I never said I was in favor of it. I said I have mixed feelings about it. I work with quite a few people who do prefer to live on the streets as that is their community. Most of these people have major mental health issues or substance use issues. I’ve been in my organizations policy meetings. We are all conflicted and concerned about what this might mean for the people we serve, and in the end my organization chose not to take a position.

[idahome]

Jun 28, 2024 10:08:10 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Fuck. SCOTUS says prosecutors improperly charged 100s Jan 6 rioters - wapo.st/4eLGLVF

This is the one that worries me.

[rubytue]

Jun 28, 2024 9:29:14 GMT -5 karinothing said:

Well courts Overturned Chevron. Chevron Deference was a doctrine that stated that courts across the country are required to defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of a statute that is ambiguous.

This is going to be a mess for agencies

Well this just adds to my existential dread. At least I transferred from a position where I was literally managing projects promulgating those reasonable technical interpretations of vague statues. 

[basilosaurus]

Jun 28, 2024 14:47:17 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Jun 28, 2024 14:28:26 GMT -5 ny96 said:

I work in homeless services. I know that for a lot of people they are on the streets because they have nowhere else to go, but for a lot of other people including the person in the tent nearby they have been offered housing again and again and have refused (I’ve heard this directly from service workers). I’m totally conflicted, but public streets and parks are not a safe place to live and make those resources unsafe for others, and in California we are treating them like a viable alternative to shelter.

Interesting. It is my understanding that most advocacy organizations concerned with homelessness were against this ruling, including the one that I work for.

Although certainly every person is going to have their own individual experience, it is unlikely that most people offered private housing options would still prefer to live on the streets. Most people who refusing "housing" are really refusing beds in shelters, typically because they've had a bad experience in a shelter in the past and feel they have more control over their situation or better community outside of one. 

It actually kind of bums me out that someone working in homeless services would be in favor of this ruling. 

Exactly. There are myriad legitimate reasons to prefer the streets to shelter rules. These range from strict curfews to limits on substance use or dependence, not allowed to bring their pet. Many also have requirements like attendance to AA or religious services. Those are rules that each shelter also has legitimate reasons to enforce. 

If I were, just as a for instance, self medicating for bipolar, I could choose to stay in a shelter without such aid, without medication (because no healthcare because 'murca) and abandon my dog who's been by my side through everything. Or, I can park my ass on the street, drunk and/or high when I want or need to, with my puppers, and face all the shit, sometimes literal, that passersby feel entitled to throw my way, risking violence and theft. At least I'll have that "medication" and the freedom to come and go as I please. And my companion.

I'm guessing that "worth in homeless service" means doing some paperwork job, not actually interacting with the people. When you've worked in psychiatric healthcare, that really qualifies as working in homeless services. I heard so many stories that have altered the way I think and act in the world. 

[basilosaurus]

Jun 28, 2024 20:44:34 GMT -5 idahome said:

Jun 28, 2024 10:08:10 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Fuck. SCOTUS says prosecutors improperly charged 100s Jan 6 rioters - wapo.st/4eLGLVF

This is the one that worries me.

If there was even one improper charge, they'll use that as an excuse to call the entire thing fraudulent. I don't want injustice, and I do think if you were physically even in the general vicitiny you're a terrible person and are probably guilty of something. But if I were a prosecuter I'd make sure all t were cross and i dotted just to prevent even an illusion of impropriety.

[ny96]

Jun 29, 2024 0:05:36 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Jun 28, 2024 14:47:17 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Interesting. It is my understanding that most advocacy organizations concerned with homelessness were against this ruling, including the one that I work for.

Although certainly every person is going to have their own individual experience, it is unlikely that most people offered private housing options would still prefer to live on the streets. Most people who refusing "housing" are really refusing beds in shelters, typically because they've had a bad experience in a shelter in the past and feel they have more control over their situation or better community outside of one. 

It actually kind of bums me out that someone working in homeless services would be in favor of this ruling. 

Exactly. There are myriad legitimate reasons to prefer the streets to shelter rules. These range from strict curfews to limits on substance use or dependence, not allowed to bring their pet. Many also have requirements like attendance to AA or religious services. Those are rules that each shelter also has legitimate reasons to enforce. 

If I were, just as a for instance, self medicating for bipolar, I could choose to stay in a shelter without such aid, without medication (because no healthcare because 'murca) and abandon my dog who's been by my side through everything. Or, I can park my ass on the street, drunk and/or high when I want or need to, with my puppers, and face all the shit, sometimes literal, that passersby feel entitled to throw my way, risking violence and theft. At least I'll have that "medication" and the freedom to come and go as I please. And my companion.

I'm guessing that "worth in homeless service" means doing some paperwork job, not actually interacting with the people. When you've worked in psychiatric healthcare, that really qualifies as working in homeless services. I heard so many stories that have altered the way I think and act in the world. 

This is so insulting. You do realize that you are interacting with real people on these boards, right? I don’t do a paperwork job and care very deeply about the people that I work for. What do you do? I also live in a city that is overwhelmed by the number of people living on the street. We see thousands of those individuals come through our doors every year and I want them off the streets in safe and stable housing, and yes that means what feels safe and stable to them which is at the heart of the original Grants Pass case.

[wildrice]

Jun 29, 2024 9:30:02 GMT -5 ny96 said:

Jun 29, 2024 0:05:36 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Exactly. There are myriad legitimate reasons to prefer the streets to shelter rules. These range from strict curfews to limits on substance use or dependence, not allowed to bring their pet. Many also have requirements like attendance to AA or religious services. Those are rules that each shelter also has legitimate reasons to enforce. 

If I were, just as a for instance, self medicating for bipolar, I could choose to stay in a shelter without such aid, without medication (because no healthcare because 'murca) and abandon my dog who's been by my side through everything. Or, I can park my ass on the street, drunk and/or high when I want or need to, with my puppers, and face all the shit, sometimes literal, that passersby feel entitled to throw my way, risking violence and theft. At least I'll have that "medication" and the freedom to come and go as I please. And my companion.

I'm guessing that "worth in homeless service" means doing some paperwork job, not actually interacting with the people. When you've worked in psychiatric healthcare, that really qualifies as working in homeless services. I heard so many stories that have altered the way I think and act in the world. 

This is so insulting. You do realize that you are interacting with real people on these boards, right? I don’t do a paperwork job and care very deeply about the people that I work for. What do you do? I also live in a city that is overwhelmed by the number of people living on the street. We see thousands of those individuals come through our doors every year and I want them off the streets in safe and stable housing, and yes that means what feels safe and stable to them which is at the heart of the original Grants Pass case.

For what it's worth, i didn't intend my post as an insult. As with anything there are going to be different opinions even within the advocacy community about what is best. Based on what i have learned about this case, I thought it was pretty clearly harmful to people experiencing homelessness, especially since we are taking about a broad ruling that impacts people all throughout the US, not just specific individuals in cities with massive numbers of unhoused people. But even if I don't understand, it's ok if not everyone agrees.

I am a paper pusher anyway, lol. I work in HR, but one thing I appreciate about my organization is that we do a good job of education for all staff (and as the training manager I'm even more exposed to it). But I am certainly not an expert. Folks I work with who are experts and whose experience I trust are pretty upset about this, though.

Working with this population is tough, emotionally laborious work that should not be minimized.