Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Law and Crime)   The Biden Administration agrees with Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions, leading to Justice Jackson siding with Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts   (lawandcrime.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme court, Court, Rulemaking, Administrative law, Court systems, Chief JusticeJohn Roberts  
•       •       •

4192 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Nov 2022 at 9:46 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



44 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-11-30 3:28:10 PM  
"...the legal concept of vacatur is not appropriate or lawful under the APA's §706, the same part of the statute that has given birth to the concept of "arbitrary and capricious," that legal term of art which has been transmogrified into a part of the common American lexicon."

y.yarn.coView Full Size
 
2022-11-30 9:50:52 PM  

The Headless Horseman's Headless Horse: "...the legal concept of vacatur is not appropriate or lawful under the APA's §706, the same part of the statute that has given birth to the concept of "arbitrary and capricious," that legal term of art which has been transmogrified into a part of the common American lexicon."

[y.yarn.co image 400x225] [View Full Size image _x_]


This is why all lawyers etc as per Shakespeare ibso facto a la kazaam.

/ Bleah!
 
2022-11-30 9:57:02 PM  
If a federal regulation is unlawful anywhere, it's unlawful everywhere and the courts have every right and duty to slap it down nationwide.
 
2022-11-30 10:00:46 PM  

Arumat: If a federal regulation is unlawful anywhere, it's unlawful everywhere and the courts have every right and duty to slap it down nationwide.


I wish we were using judges (particularly appointed by Rapepublicans) who were ruling on laws based on precedent and jurisprudence, as opposed to feefees.

Sadly, here we are, and with the judge shopping Rapepublicans are cool with, hell I kinda get if.
 
2022-11-30 10:01:08 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


It's not /oblig yet, but it is.
 
2022-11-30 10:10:03 PM  
"Your position on vacatur, that sounded to me to be fairly radical and inconsistent with, for example, those of us who were on the D.C. Circuit," Roberts told Prelogar. "You know, five times before breakfast, that's what you do in an APA case. And all of a sudden, you're telling us, no you can't vacate it, you do something different. Are you overturning that whole established practice under the APA?"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA farking now Roberts is suddenly concerned with precedents and we can't just go ripping out the wiring?

Fark that, fark off, and fark you.
 
2022-11-30 10:11:30 PM  
The hang ups in the student loans forgiveness is directly tied to this bullshiat in TFA.

The injunction should only apply to the district/  circuit where the case is being heard, and the loans should be processed for every other state.
 
2022-11-30 10:15:39 PM  
Dammit, I thought that said Bill Burr.
 
2022-11-30 10:22:09 PM  
transmogrified into a part of the common American lexicon.

nicepng.comView Full Size

 
2022-11-30 10:22:13 PM  
Boy, lawyer type people really love to type and talk.
 
2022-11-30 10:32:15 PM  

Arumat: If a federal regulation is unlawful anywhere, it's unlawful everywhere and the courts have every right and duty to slap it down nationwide.


I am not a lawyer, but I've understood the legal meaning of 'set aside' in reference to a court decision to be something akin to 'this decision is unjust in this specific instance, therefore ignore it for this specific instance'.

Is that not correct?
 
2022-11-30 10:39:21 PM  

Majin_Buu: [Fark user image image 817x734]

It's not /oblig yet, but it is.


Why is there a sex toy in the middle of that?
 
2022-11-30 10:41:47 PM  

The Headless Horseman's Headless Horse: "...the legal concept of vacatur is not appropriate or lawful under the APA's §706, the same part of the statute that has given birth to the concept of "arbitrary and capricious," that legal term of art which has been transmogrified into a part of the common American lexicon."

[y.yarn.co image 400x225] [View Full Size image _x_]


Americans have opposed arbitrary executive orders since the 17th century.
 
2022-11-30 10:46:23 PM  
i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2022-11-30 10:50:13 PM  

Arumat: If a federal regulation is unlawful anywhere, it's unlawful everywhere and the courts have every right and duty to slap it down nationwide.


I think its adorable that you think judges give a damn about what's lawful or unlawful. They get appointed to lifetime positions to further their ideology, then they do that.
 
2022-11-30 10:51:46 PM  

RandomInternetComment: Majin_Buu: [Fark user image image 817x734]

It's not /oblig yet, but it is.

Why is there a sex toy in the middle of that?


You mean the guns?
 
2022-11-30 11:04:24 PM  

RandomInternetComment: Majin_Buu: [Fark user image image 817x734]

It's not /oblig yet, but it is.

Why is there a sex toy in the middle of that?


Firearm enthusiasts like to be "ready for anything." I'm assuming he's got the sex toy there in case of an emergency need to get someone off.
 
2022-11-30 11:09:17 PM  
FTFA ...
"But I'm just gonna push back pretty strongly on those three pages for -  just toss out decades of this court's law, of circuit law"

Didn't they *just* fucking "toss out decades of this court's law" with Dobbs?
 
2022-11-30 11:23:47 PM  
Can someone explain it in plain English? Quoting lawyer speek to make a point isn't helping

Vactur? Is that like a vacation?
 
2022-11-30 11:27:23 PM  

Majin_Buu: [Fark user image image 817x734]

It's not /oblig yet, but it is.


Looks like he went rabbit hunting
 
2022-11-30 11:52:25 PM  
Suddenly Roberts and Beer Kavanaugh are worried about not upending precedents. That's precious.
 
2022-11-30 11:57:20 PM  

SomethingBetter76: Dammit, I thought that said Bill Burr.


it's amazing how much of a difference 1 letter makes
 
2022-11-30 11:58:54 PM  

ekdikeo4: Arumat: If a federal regulation is unlawful anywhere, it's unlawful everywhere and the courts have every right and duty to slap it down nationwide.

I am not a lawyer, but I've understood the legal meaning of 'set aside' in reference to a court decision to be something akin to 'this decision is unjust in this specific instance, therefore ignore it for this specific instance'.

Is that not correct?


that's what they are arguing about

thus far no one has thrown dishes or flipped a tablet, yet, so it's still been pretty friendly.
 
2022-11-30 11:59:27 PM  

RandomInternetComment: Majin_Buu: [Fark user image image 817x734]

It's not /oblig yet, but it is.

Why is there a sex toy in the middle of that?


why are you surprised?
 
2022-12-01 12:05:33 AM  

kkinnison: Can someone explain it in plain English? Quoting lawyer speek to make a point isn't helping

Vactur? Is that like a vacation?


the DoJ lawyer is arguing that when an Executive agency's policy is "set aside" by a judge, it's not entirely nullified.

that the Judge's ruling only applies to the specufic case they are ruling on and doesnt apply everywhere.

eg: if the Texas Federal Judge rules you cant build a wall on Texas-Mexico border, the ruling doesn't apply to the Arizona-Mexican border
 
2022-12-01 12:06:49 AM  
So... Calvinball
 
2022-12-01 12:14:40 AM  

Go'zirra: FTFA ...
"But I'm just gonna push back pretty strongly on those three pages for -  just toss out decades of this court's law, of circuit law"

Didn't they *just* farking "toss out decades of this court's law" with Dobbs?


Yes, but the key difference is that they wanted to.
 
2022-12-01 12:17:42 AM  
Something about three equal branches of government, I guess.
 
2022-12-01 12:27:59 AM  

kkinnison: Can someone explain it in plain English? Quoting lawyer speek to make a point isn't helping

Vactur? Is that like a vacation?


More like vacant, nothing there, never was.

Federal agencies do not have the authority to pass laws, only congress can do that. However, a long long time ago, congress passed laws allowing those agencies to create rules to actually make the laws work in practice. For those rules to be treated as laws, they have to follow extensive and extremely detailed procedures.

For decades, courts have ordered that when the agency failed to follow the procedures in creating the rule, the rule was vactur, never existed, can't be used against anyone. Biden Administration is trying to get  SCOTUS to change that to the rule is only tossed out for the current plaintiff only and not everyone else.
 
2022-12-01 12:31:23 AM  
Jesus, Biden's administration is really on a roll these last couple weeks. Declare that the Prince of Saudi Arabia should be immune from prosecution for dismembering and murdering an American citizen, sh*tting directly on the faces of unions, and now this horsesh*t. What else do they have up their sh*tty sleeves?
 
2022-12-01 12:42:14 AM  

austerity101: Jesus, Biden's administration is really on a roll these last couple weeks. Declare that the Prince of Saudi Arabia should be immune from prosecution for dismembering and murdering an American citizen, sh*tting directly on the faces of unions, and now this horsesh*t. What else do they have up their sh*tty sleeves?


Marriage equality.
 
2022-12-01 12:55:04 AM  

Ishkur: austerity101: Jesus, Biden's administration is really on a roll these last couple weeks. Declare that the Prince of Saudi Arabia should be immune from prosecution for dismembering and murdering an American citizen, sh*tting directly on the faces of unions, and now this horsesh*t. What else do they have up their sh*tty sleeves?

Marriage equality.


...Via a bill that does nothing to stop states from banning it (as almost half the country will if/when the SCOTUS overturns Obergefell), just says the federal government will still recognize marriages performed in states that didn't ban it. Which isn't exactly much help for non-LGBTQ couples who live in red states.

Democrats keep passing half-assed measures, and banking on those and the Republicans' awfulness being enough to keep people voting for Democrats. We cannot count on that lasting forever; it bit us in the ass in 2010, 2014 and 2016, just for the most recent examples.

Next time, America might not get as lucky as we did when Trump turned out to be too incompetent to have a successful coup.
 
Azz [TotalFark]
2022-12-01 12:55:30 AM  

austerity101: Jesus, Biden's administration is really on a roll these last couple weeks. Declare that the Prince of Saudi Arabia should be immune from prosecution for dismembering and murdering an American citizen, sh*tting directly on the faces of unions, and now this horsesh*t. What else do they have up their sh*tty sleeves?


Well aren't you a tumbleweed of misery
 
2022-12-01 12:55:38 AM  

LordJiro: Ishkur: austerity101: Jesus, Biden's administration is really on a roll these last couple weeks. Declare that the Prince of Saudi Arabia should be immune from prosecution for dismembering and murdering an American citizen, sh*tting directly on the faces of unions, and now this horsesh*t. What else do they have up their sh*tty sleeves?

Marriage equality.

...Via a bill that does nothing to stop states from banning it (as almost half the country will if/when the SCOTUS overturns Obergefell), just says the federal government will still recognize marriages performed in states that didn't ban it. Which isn't exactly much help for non-LGBTQ couples who live in red states.

Democrats keep passing half-assed measures, and banking on those and the Republicans' awfulness being enough to keep people voting for Democrats. We cannot count on that lasting forever; it bit us in the ass in 2010, 2014 and 2016, just for the most recent examples.

Next time, America might not get as lucky as we did when Trump turned out to be too incompetent to have a successful coup.


FTFMy sleep-deprived brain.
 
2022-12-01 1:10:00 AM  
I mean... the fact that our administration being mildly skeptical about the judicial branch's completely not-legally-supported assertion that any low-level court can arbitrarily rule us all with dictatorial powers by issuing unquestionable ex cathedra statements unbound by any internal accountability or duty to the other branches of government like god-kings who can do with us peasants as they will is something that a farking law blog is reacting to with "ha ha, get a load of this idiot" is maybe a sign that we kind of need to put all lawyers back on the cultural list of people who'll all hang first when the revolution comes.

Like... I get the position that the way judicial review is handled is a delicate balancing act and that we need to be cautious in adjusting who has the authority to do what, but that's not what this blog is advocating or what the justices are taking as their position.  Their position is some farking Mussolini shiat, and we had enough of that from the last administration so they can all fark right off on this one.  Lower court ability to arbitrarily halt national-level programs should be sharply curtailed, at minimum any such order should need to be bounced to a circuit court before taking effect, in addition to the normal appeals process as it exists.

// I'm fully aware that this would also have allowed some right-wing shiat to get moving more efficiently, maybe two miles of Trump's wall would have been built instead of zero point zero miles of it.  But y'know what?  Elections have consequences, man, it's the responsibility of congress to do their farking job and not authorize shiat, not judges to retroactively legislate from the bench.
 
2022-12-01 2:07:11 AM  

austerity101: Jesus, Biden's administration is really on a roll these last couple weeks. Declare that the Prince of Saudi Arabia should be immune from prosecution for dismembering and murdering an American citizen, sh*tting directly on the faces of unions, and now this horsesh*t. What else do they have up their sh*tty sleeves?


Midterm elections are over. Masks are off.

He's the same piece of shiat who authorized the invasion of Iraq. I'm sure he'll denounce his recent monstrous decisions years after it not longer matters.
 
2022-12-01 2:30:59 AM  

LurkerSupreme: RandomInternetComment: Majin_Buu: [Fark user image image 817x734]

It's not /oblig yet, but it is.

Why is there a sex toy in the middle of that?

Firearm enthusiasts like to be "ready for anything." I'm assuming he's got the sex toy there in case of an emergency need to get someone off.


All i see are Penis Substitutes. So, the sex toy isn't out if place, besides being hot pink next to gunmetal black.
 
2022-12-01 5:48:18 AM  

RandomInternetComment: Majin_Buu: [Fark user image image 817x734]

It's not /oblig yet, but it is.

Why is there a sex toy in the middle of that?


One way or the other, somebody gonna get farked
 
2022-12-01 8:37:11 AM  

RandomInternetComment: Majin_Buu: [Fark user image image 817x734]

It's not /oblig yet, but it is.

Why is there a sex toy in the middle of that?


A gun for every occasion.
 
2022-12-01 9:50:48 AM  

mistahtom: The hang ups in the student loans forgiveness is directly tied to this bullshiat in TFA.

The injunction should only apply to the district/  circuit where the case is being heard, and the loans should be processed for every other state.


Substitute literally any shiatty administrative rule the Trump issued in place of "student loans forgiveness" and then read your post again. Rescinding DACA? Deportations would have occurred nationwide except for the 9th circuit until SCOTUS ruled. Adding a citizenship question to the Census to depress Latino response rate? Nationwide rollout except for the 2nd circuit. ICE arrests at federal courthouses for unrelated cases? Forbidding migrants from declaring asylum if apprehended between declared points of entry? "Remain in Mexico"? All would have gone forward except in the singular jurisdiction where the injunction was issued.

This is bigger than one policy proposal and the Solicitor's argument belies either complete ignorance of that fact or a ridiculously short-sighted view of the consequences of overturning the precedent. I expect that from Republicans. I'm disappointed that a Biden DOJ lawyer did something this stupid.
 
2022-12-01 9:56:36 AM  

LordJiro: Ishkur: austerity101: Jesus, Biden's administration is really on a roll these last couple weeks. Declare that the Prince of Saudi Arabia should be immune from prosecution for dismembering and murdering an American citizen, sh*tting directly on the faces of unions, and now this horsesh*t. What else do they have up their sh*tty sleeves?

Marriage equality.

...Via a bill that does nothing to stop states from banning it (as almost half the country will if/when the SCOTUS overturns Obergefell), just says the federal government will still recognize marriages performed in states that didn't ban it. Which isn't exactly much help for non-LGBTQ couples who live in red states.

Democrats keep passing half-assed measures, and banking on those and the Republicans' awfulness being enough to keep people voting for Democrats. We cannot count on that lasting forever; it bit us in the ass in 2010, 2014 and 2016, just for the most recent examples.

Next time, America might not get as lucky as we did when Trump turned out to be too incompetent to have a successful coup.


Is there another, stronger bill that you think would have defeated the filibuster in a 50-50 Senate? Have you come up with another magical way to get Manchin or  Sinema to kill the filibuster, even for this one bill?

Jesus Christ, how many times do you people have to be told that the Government, for better or worse, operates in a certain way and all the magical thinking in the world isn't going to change that.
 
2022-12-01 10:23:35 AM  

Icarus_Rising: LordJiro: Ishkur: austerity101: Jesus, Biden's administration is really on a roll these last couple weeks. Declare that the Prince of Saudi Arabia should be immune from prosecution for dismembering and murdering an American citizen, sh*tting directly on the faces of unions, and now this horsesh*t. What else do they have up their sh*tty sleeves?

Marriage equality.

...Via a bill that does nothing to stop states from banning it (as almost half the country will if/when the SCOTUS overturns Obergefell), just says the federal government will still recognize marriages performed in states that didn't ban it. Which isn't exactly much help for non-LGBTQ couples who live in red states.

Democrats keep passing half-assed measures, and banking on those and the Republicans' awfulness being enough to keep people voting for Democrats. We cannot count on that lasting forever; it bit us in the ass in 2010, 2014 and 2016, just for the most recent examples.

Next time, America might not get as lucky as we did when Trump turned out to be too incompetent to have a successful coup.

Is there another, stronger bill that you think would have defeated the filibuster in a 50-50 Senate? Have you come up with another magical way to get Manchin or  Sinema to kill the filibuster, even for this one bill?

Jesus Christ, how many times do you people have to be told that the Government, for better or worse, operates in a certain way and all the magical thinking in the world isn't going to change that.


Then maybe the Democrats should stop kneecapping progressive candidates, even in blue states/areas. Maybe Democrats should actually use the bully pulpit to whip people like Manchin and Sinema into line for the good of the party AND the country. Maybe the Democrats should stop acting like the Republicans are anything but a criminal syndicate, and stop expecting them to act in good faith.

Every cycle, Democrats gamble on the Republicans being so awful that people just HAVE to vote for them. And it's bitten the party, and the country, in the ass, repeatedly, but they keep farking doing it instead of aggressively standing for something. And eventually, something like the 2008 crash or COVID is going to hit during a Democratic administration, and 'Republicans being awful' is not going to be enough to save the party of complacency.
 
2022-12-01 10:29:40 AM  
During campaign season, Democrats like to talk a good game. But when push comes to shove, they keep letting conservatives pull the football away. The ACA got watered down until it was only a little better than what we'd had before, then it was sabotaged further after it passed. The infrastructure bill and the recent railroad strikebreaking shiat got split up with the promise that both parts would totally pass, and then surprise surprise, only the parts that primarily benefited corporations over the worker passed.

Democrats are on shaky farking ground, and they refuse to recognize it. And I say this as a consistent Democratic voter; I vote in every primary, and in when the general comes around, I vote straight-ticket Democrat, because the alternative is unthinkable. But there are millions of voters who aren't as consistent, and the Democrats' luck isn't going to hold forever.
 
2022-12-01 12:58:30 PM  

StatelyGreekAutomaton: RandomInternetComment: Majin_Buu: [Fark user image image 817x734]

It's not /oblig yet, but it is.

Why is there a sex toy in the middle of that?

A gun for every occasion.


Actually, after seeing the article about the camgirl who shot herself in the pussy, I'm gonna change my answer to a responsible gun owner.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.