home.social

#supremecourt — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #supremecourt, aggregated by home.social.

  1. I've said before that a Democratic-majority House should be impeaching Trump, over and over again.

    The same goes for the corrupt Supreme Court justices. Every one of the 6-member majority should be impeached by the House, and the evidence should be bundled up and ready to hand off to a Nuremberg-style tribunal in 2029.

    This was the wife's idea, and it's a good one.

    #Democratic #Congress #Impeach #SupremeCourt #SCOTUS #NurembergCaucus

  2. In June, #SCOTUS fully endorsed the Unitary Executive theory of the #Constitution, which says that the #president can fire any federal official whenever he wants, without justification, regardless of the law. The #SupremeCourt upheld the firing of an FTC commissioner by #Trump. Then, the #Court blew a hole in the Unitary Executive by holding in Trump v. Cook that the President could not removal Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve without cause. #law #constitution

    senatormoobs.substack.com/p/th

  3. In June, #SCOTUS fully endorsed the Unitary Executive theory of the #Constitution, which says that the #president can fire any federal official whenever he wants, without justification, regardless of the law. The #SupremeCourt upheld the firing of an FTC commissioner by #Trump. Then, the #Court blew a hole in the Unitary Executive by holding in Trump v. Cook that the President could not removal Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve without cause. #law #constitution

    senatormoobs.substack.com/p/th

  4. The Great Tariff Loophole: How a Policy Meant to Help Working Americans Ended Up in Corporate Hands

    How Trump's Illegal Trade Duties Transformed Into a Multibillion-Dollar Corporate Windfall by Winston Wendell When President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, he promised a new set of tariffs would fix the damage caused by his own 2017 tax cuts. He said regular folks wouldn’t notice the extra charges on imported goods, American manufacturers would see a boom, and those millions in profits that used to flow to the national elite would finally go away. That’s not what […]

    bluepress.blog/2026/09/05/the-

  5. The Great Tariff Loophole: How a Policy Meant to Help Working Americans Ended Up in Corporate Hands

    How Trump's Illegal Trade Duties Transformed Into a Multibillion-Dollar Corporate Windfall by Winston Wendell When President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, he promised a new set of tariffs would fix the damage caused by his own 2017 tax cuts. He said regular folks wouldn’t notice the extra charges on imported goods, American manufacturers would see a boom, and those millions in profits that used to flow to the national elite would finally go away. That’s not what […]

    bluepress.blog/2026/09/05/the-

  6. The Great Tariff Loophole: How a Policy Meant to Help Working Americans Ended Up in Corporate Hands

    How Trump's Illegal Trade Duties Transformed Into a Multibillion-Dollar Corporate Windfall by Winston Wendell When President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, he promised a new set of tariffs would fix the damage caused by his own 2017 tax cuts. He said regular folks wouldn’t notice the extra charges on imported goods, American manufacturers would see a boom, and those millions in profits that used to flow to the national elite would finally go away. That’s not what […]

    bluepress.blog/2026/09/05/the-

  7. The Great Tariff Loophole: How a Policy Meant to Help Working Americans Ended Up in Corporate Hands

    How Trump's Illegal Trade Duties Transformed Into a Multibillion-Dollar Corporate Windfall by Winston Wendell When President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, he promised a new set of tariffs would fix the damage caused by his own 2017 tax cuts. He said regular folks wouldn’t notice the extra charges on imported goods, American manufacturers would see a boom, and those millions in profits that used to flow to the national elite would finally go away. That’s not what […]

    bluepress.blog/2026/09/05/the-

  8. The Great Tariff Loophole: How a Policy Meant to Help Working Americans Ended Up in Corporate Hands

    How Trump's Illegal Trade Duties Transformed Into a Multibillion-Dollar Corporate Windfall by Winston Wendell When President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, he promised a new set of tariffs would fix the damage caused by his own 2017 tax cuts. He said regular folks wouldn’t notice the extra charges on imported goods, American manufacturers would see a boom, and those millions in profits that used to flow to the national elite would finally go away. That’s not what […]

    bluepress.blog/2026/09/05/the-

  9. Supreme Court President Isaac Amit warns against attacks on judges, lawyers

    Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit warned on Wednesday that verbal attacks by public officials and on social…
    #Israel #News #court #IsaacAmit #IsraelBarAssociation #lawyer #murder #NoamSohlberg #SupremeCourt #telaviv
    europesays.com/3233537/

  10. Trump’s Mail Ballot Order Puts the Constitution on the Clock

    rump's mail ballot order is now before the Supreme Court, testing whether a president can control who receives a mail-in ballot ahead of the midterms.

    thedemocracyadvocate.com/elect

  11. Legal Expert Warns of Election Chaos as Trump DOJ Appeals Court Ruling

    📰 Original title: We're going to have chaos': Expert sounds the alarm after Trump DOJ's election appeal

    🤖 IA: It's clickbait ⚠️
    👥 Users: It's clickbait ⚠️

    View full AI summary en.killbait.com/legal-expert-w

    #politics #electionlaw #supremecourt

  12. #Republicans face MAJOR losses in their redistricting attempts to ELIMINATE congressional districts represented by #BlackDemocrats in #Alabama and #SouthCarolina as first BIG failures for #GOP favored maps since the #SupremeCourt decision. #JohnIadarola and #SharonReed react youtu.be/XaH5tteZZdQ?...

    Republicans Suffer MAJOR Losse...

  13. Demonstrator Arrests: Prosecutors Cannot Appeal Demonstrators’ Acquittal, Legal Expert

    Prosecutors Cannot Appeal Delpedro’s Acquittal, Legal Expert Bivitri Susanti

    By Amelia Rahima Sari for Tempo.co, April 9, 2026

    Senior law professor at Jentera Indonesian Law College, Ms. Bivitri Susanti, believes public prosecutors should not be able to appeal the acquittal of Delpedro Marhaen and his co-defendants. The Executive Director of the Lokataru Foundation, along with Syahdan Husein, Muzaffar Salim, and Khariq Anhar, was charged with inciting nationwide demonstrations in August 2025 and was acquitted on March 6, 2026.

    “According to Article 299, paragraph (2), letter (a) of Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal cannot be filed against an acquittal. This is very clear,” Bivitri told Tempo.co on Wednesday, April 8, 2026.

    Article 299, paragraph (2), letter (a) of Law No. 20/2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code states: “A superior court (cassation) appeal, as referred to in paragraph (1), cannot be filed against: (a.) an acquittal…”

    Bivitri explained that the acquittal for Delpedro and his co-defendants was handed down after Indonesia’s new Criminal Procedure Code came into force. Therefore, post-verdict proceedings must refer to the new provisions in accordance with the transitional clauses.

    She also cited Article 361, letter (d) of the new Criminal Procedure Code, which states: “In the matter of a criminal case that has been transferred to the court but the examination of the defendant has not yet commenced, the case shall be examined, tried, and decided in accordance with the provisions of this Law.”

    “In my opinion, the prosecutor’s legal efforts should be viewed as actions initiated after the district court’s decision was made, not as starting from the time Delpedro and his co-defendants were indicted at the District Court,” Bivitri stated.

    She deemed the comments made by Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections Yusril Ihza Mahendra—who expressed respect for the prosecutor’s appeal—as inappropriate. This is because Article 361, letter (d) of the new Criminal Procedure Code must be interpreted as a legal action that commenced only when the prosecutor files its appeal.

    “Even though these cases share the same principle, interpretations of criminal law should not be applied; however, when differing interpretations arise, interpretation is allowed under the legal principle exceptio firmat regulam,” Bivitri stated. This means that criminal law may be interpreted in a manner that benefits the accused or the convicted.

    According to Bivitri, the Supreme Court should throw out the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of Delpedro Marhaen and his associates. She hopes the Supreme Court employs reasoning that applies the principle exceptio firmat regulam.

    “The Supreme Court has the best understanding of procedural law and its principles, along with the formal authority to resolve differences of interpretation,” she remarked.

    Coordinating Minister Yusril’s Statement

    Coordinating Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra said that he respected the public prosecutor’s decision to appeal. Although the Prosecutor’s Office is part of the government, he claimed that prosecutors remain independent in fulfilling their duties and exercising their authority as law enforcement officials.

    “From the beginning, I have stated that court decisions must be respected out of deference for judicial independence,” Yusril said in a written statement on Tuesday, April 7, 2026.

    He argued that in the case of Delpedro Marhaen and his fellow defendants, the investigation, inquiry, prosecution, and trial processes have all been governed by the old Criminal Procedure Code. Conversely, the verdict was delivered after January 2, 2026, when Indonesia’s new code came into effect.

    Based on the transitional provisions of the new Criminal Procedure Code, Yusril said all trial proceedings and subsequent processes continue under the old Criminal Procedure Code. However, if the legal principles related to changes in the law are followed, the law most favorable to the defendant will be applied.

    The new Criminal Procedure Code indicates that in cases of acquittal, the verdict is final and the prosecutor cannot appeal. According to Yusril, whether the prosecutor can appeal remains an academic debate since the case commenced under the old Criminal Procedure Code.

    “So, in my opinion, if the prosecutor does file an appeal, the Supreme Court will decide on the permissibly of the appeal,” Yusril said. “Delpedro and his lawyers can assert the argument related to legal change in their counter-motion to the Supreme Court.”

    The Supreme Court could declare the prosecutor’s appeal inadmissible (NO or niet ontvankelijke verklaard), thereby excluding the case material from consideration. Alternatively, the Supreme Court might still hear the appeal (cassation) application, and the decision will rest with the panel of justices hearing the matter.

    “Since the prosecutor has filed an appeal, we will simply await the Supreme Court’s decision. The government will respect any decision made by the Supreme Court as the highest judicial authority in our country,” Yusril stated.

    He stressed that moving forward, if the investigation and trial processes utilize the new Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecutor will no longer be able to file further legal proceedings. This will ensure legal certainty as stipulated by Article 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to Yusril, legal certainty is an integral aspect of justice that must be upheld.

    Amelia Rahima Sari is an anthropology graduate from Airlangga University and began her journalism career at Tempo.co in 2021.

    This post is based on https://www.tempo.co/hukum/bivitri-jaksa-tidak-bisa-kasasi-putusan-bebas-delpedro-2127631. Featured image credit: The defendants accused of incitement of demonstrations, Delpedro Marhaen (left), Muzaffar Salim (second left), Syahdan Husein (second right), and Khariq Anhar (right) prepare to hear verdicts at Central Jakarta District Court, Jakarta, Friday, March 6, 2026. The panel of judges handed down acquittals for all four defendants, Lokataru Executive Director Delpedro Marhaen, Lokataru Foundation staff member Muzaffar Salim, admin @gejayanmemanggil Syahdan Husein, and Riau University student Khariq Anhar. ANTARA FOTO/Bayu Pratama S/tom https://www.antaranews.com/berita/5515660/kejagung-ajukan-kasasi-atas-vonis-bebas-delpedro-dan-kawan-kawan.

    In related news:

    Rate this:

    #Courts #criminalLaw #Democracy #History #HumanRights #Indonesia #Law #MahkamahAgung #News #Politics #StudentDemonstrations #SupremeCourt
  14. Supreme Court says Trump’s attempt to use the military on Americans went too far – Vox

    Supreme Court justices stand during President Donald Trump’s second inauguration
    Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images.

    The Supreme Court just handed Trump a rare — and very significant — loss

    Even some of the Court’s Republicans ruled that his attempt to use troops against US citizens went too far.

    by Ian Millhiser, Dec 23, 2025, 1:50 PM PST

    Supreme Court justices stand during President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

    Ian Millhiseris a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.

    The same Supreme Court that ruled that President Donald Trump is allowed to use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes finally placed a meaningful limit on Trump’s authority on Tuesday.

    In Trump v. Illinois, three Republican justices joined all three of the Court’s Democrats in ruling that Trump violated federal law when he deployed a few hundred members of the National Guard to squelch protests outside of an immigration detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, which is about 12 miles west of Chicago.

    SCOTUS, Explained

    Notably, however, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion saying he would have ruled against Trump on very narrow grounds. So, it appears that only a bare majority of the justices voted to place significant limits on Trump’s authority to deploy the military against Americans located on US soil.

    Trump attempted to use the military against a small number of protesters outside of the Broadview facility. According to Judge April Perry, a federal district judge who previously heard this case, “the typical number of protestors is fewer than fifty,” and “the crowd has never exceeded 200.”

    Nevertheless, Trump claimed the authority to use National Guard members against this minor protest under a federal law that permits the federal government to take command of the Guard (which is ordinarily controlled by states) if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” or if “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

    The Supreme Court’s Tuesday order does not even engage with Trump’s implausible claim that several dozen people protesting an immigration facility (some of whom have been charged with crimes) constitute a “rebellion.” Instead, it focuses largely on Trump’s claim that he could deploy the Guard because he is “unable” to execute US law without it.

    The first part of the Court’s response to Trump is a bit alarming. The Court’s order explains that the words “regular forces,” as it is used by the relevant statute, “likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military.” Thus, Trump cannot use the National Guard unless he is somehow unable to enforce the law by using the full might of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

    This argument could be troubling, because it seems to goad Trump into actually attempting to use the regular Army or Marines on political protesters. But, the Court’s Illinois order also contains some language suggesting that his power to use the regular military is also limited.

    The circumstances when Trump may do so, the Court explains, are “exceptional.” That is because a separate federal law prohibits the military from “execut[ing] the laws” outside of “cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” And, as the Court’s brief order notes, Trump “has not invoked a statute” that permits him to use the regular military to execute the laws.

    That said, the Illinois order is unlikely to be the end of this conflict. As Kavanaugh notes in his separate opinion, Trump might attempt to deploy regular troops under the Insurrection Act, which permits the military to “suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” — but only in limited circumstances.

    The Justice Department has long interpreted these circumstances very narrowly. A 1964 memorandum signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, for example, indicates that the Insurrection Act may only be invoked when “those engaging in violence are either acting with the approval of state authorities or have, like the Klan in the 1870s, taken over effective control of the area involved.”

    Continue/Read Original Article Here: Supreme Court says Trump’s attempt to use the military on Americans went too far | Vox

    Tags: Ice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Limit Trump's Authority, On Americans, Republicans, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Too Far, Trump, Trump Loss, Unconstitutional, Use of Military, Vox
    #Ice #ImmigrationAndCustomsEnforcementICE #LimitTrumpSAuthority #OnAmericans #Republicans #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #TooFar #Trump #TrumpLoss #Unconstitutional #UseOfMilitary #Vox
  15. South Carolina Doctors Challenge #Abortion Ban on Free Exercise Grounds buff.ly/40gIQlQ

    If the Supreme Court happily grants conservative Christians exemptions from health care laws on religious liberty grounds (which they do all the time), then progressive Christians and nonChristians ought to be able to eligible for them too

    #Law #FediLaw #FediProf #abortion #ReligiousLiberty #SupremeCourt #exemptions