#Order of Supreme Court

[megayogiposts]

RTI Request Successfully Filed: Key Details

Your RTI Request filed successfully. Please note down the following details for further references. Registration NumberUPICM/R/2024/60674NameYogi M P SinghDate of Filing11-11-2024RTI Fee Received   10Online Reference NumberCPAELFCED8Transaction StatusSuccessRequest filed withUttar Pradesh Information Commission Contact Details of Nodal Officer  Telephone Number9415021746Email-ID  Contact…

[tanadrin]

The latest 5-4 episode, on Hans v Louisiana, highlights a big problem with the history of the Supreme Court in the U.S., which is that a lot of Supreme Court decisions are the product of really specific political pressures--in this case, the lack of political will by the federal government in 1890 to enforce federal power against the Southern states thirteen years after the Compromise of 1877--for which the Court often acts as a release valve. But, because of the nature of the court and the structure of American law, these high-context political decisions have to be framed as eternal and general principles of law, which exert a heavy influence on later decisions of the Court. Sometimes, as with Hans (which made enforcement of civil rights more difficult) this might be consonant with the political outlook of the original decision, but sometimes it's just complete chaos. Cases like Bush v Gore that have no systematic principle behind them, but nevertheless have to be framed that way, to the detriment of future case law.

I don't know that this is a fully solvable problem! Certainly the small size of the Supreme Court introduces more variability into its decisions; that plus its highly politicized system of appointments makes it a really obvious place to fight for power; and the lack of a clean separation between its role as an appellate court and its role as a constitutional court muddles things further. But even if you could go back in time to expand the court massively, have cases heard by randomly-selected panels, split off the constitutional function into a separate court, and try to implement some kind of non-partisan appointment commission (all of which would require significant constitutional changes), I don't think you would necessarily get a different outcome in Hans, just because of how fundamentally apathetic the federal government was at the time to political dysfunction in the South, and how clearly they had demonstrated an unwillingness to actually follow through with the premise of Reconstruction.

I'd say that the thing that might help most in preventing decisions like Hans becoming millstones around the neck of future generations would be a willingness to call out obviously political bullshit masquerading as timeless legal principles, but I think nowadays people are pretty willing to do that. Bush v Gore, DC v Heller, Merrick Garland, Clarence Thomas's corruption scandals, and various other cases and stories have been a sharp reminder in recent years to anyone who was laboring under the illusion that SCOTUS really was an impartial machine of law, and even people who think it could or should be that are not very likely to claim it is right now.

But if the Supreme Court is going to be an ordinary political organ, I sort of think we should treat it like one, and just directly elect justices for fixed terms. Would that introduce grubby, messy electoral politics into the august body? Of course. But grubby, messy electoral politics is already there, the augustness is a sham, and presently the way that the court functions makes it a weird, tiny, by-appointment-only, members-serve-for-life third chamber of Congress, an American version of the Guardian Council, which is really bad for the coherent functioning of the political system.

[voidcharms]

very tired of ppl on this site using the boar's head recalls as justification for voting against trump when biden's admin was Also directly responsible in cutting USDA testing ahead of the listeria outbreaks

im not gonna discourage anyone from voting for harris tomorrow esp those in swing states, but this is why it's important for your politics to be about policy rather than blindly trusting politicians bc theyre "blue." if we only fight back on bad policies when it's a republican pushing it, but not when it's a democrat, we will never be able to stop our government's continuous ratcheting towards fascism

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How (and why) Biden should overcome the Supreme Court to end the debt showdown

’m coming to the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in HAY-ON-WYE with my novel Red Team Blues:

Sun (May 28), 1130AM: The AI Enigma

Mon (May 29), 12PM: Danger and Desire at the Frontier

I’m at OXFORD’s Blackwell’s on May 29 at 7:30PM with Tim Harford.

Then it’s Nottingham, Manchester, London, Edinburgh, and Berlin!

Is it legal for Congress to default on the US national debt? It depends on who you ask. There are a ton of good legal arguments for and against, so perhaps it comes down to what the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, partisan) Supreme Court says?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/opinion/biden-administration-debt-republican.html

Put in those terms, it seems like the game was over before it began. Biden should just surrender, hand the most extreme wing of the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, authoritarian) Republican Party whatever it wants, even if doing so will push Biden’s approval rating even lower, dangerously close to the next federal election.

In this telling, the Republicans have already won. The decision to let the GOP steal three Supreme Court seats, combined with the decision not to end the debt ceiling charade when Dems had the majorities to do so, means that from now on, we live in the GOP’s shithole country, where the only “freedoms” that matter are the freedom to control others’ bodily autonomy and gender expression; the freedom to exploit labor; the freedom to censor ideas that challenge white nationalist, imperialist messages; and the freedom to menace with open-carry assault weapons:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/opinion/republican-legislatures-abortion-trangender-education.html

In other words, we’re screwed. Might as well dig a hole, climb inside, and pull the dirt in on top of us.

Fuck that.

There are clear majorities in support of the Build Back Better agenda, and even for the watered down Machin Synematic Universe version we got through the Infrastructure Bill. If the Dems could mobilize voters — by convincing them that they were committed to doing things rather than capitulating — they could win strong majorities in 2024. Even in the gerrymandered, antimajoritarian America, electoral wins are possible — they just require overwhelming turnout, rather than the 50.00001% “victories” favored by “data-driven” Democratic consultants (victories that leave the party incapable of governing, and let monsters like Joe Manchin hold the entire nation hostage).

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe doing things won’t mobilize voters. But if we’re already going to stipulate that without significant majorities, the real President of the United States is the three-headed monster (Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts), and the billionaires who yank their chains, then what do we have to lose?

There are a lot of things that Biden could try to get through the debt ceiling crisis without giving up on the promises he made to the American people and the programs the American Congress passed. Here’s a couple interesting ones, courtesy of Brad DeLong:

���The Federal Reserve might simply record a negative balance in the Treasury account,” then create an “overdraft” account and pay the US’s obligations out of it;

The Fed could tell retail banks trying to clear government checks that the checks didn’t clear, and the banks could tell their depositors, “ your Treasury check has bounced, but do not worry, we have credited your account, anyway, and will handle this, and please be very grateful to us.”

https://braddelong.substack.com/p/debt-ceiling-what-are-e-fallback

Of course, there are lots of other possibilities: Biden could issue an Executive Order to the effect that the Debt Ceiling violates the 14th Amendment. Or that it violates the Contracts Clause. Or he could order the Treasury to start issuing coupon-free bonds. Or he could just mint the coin:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/23/23734654/government-debt-default-trillion-dollar-platinum-coin

Yes, each of these would end up in front of the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, partisan) Supreme Court, who would very likely strike them down.

But writing for The American Prospect, Ryan Cooper argues that this could still be sound tactics:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-05-25-democrats-fear-supreme-court/

If Biden does something about the debt default, and the Supremes block it, then the default is their fault. What’s more, it’s a mess they absolutely do not want to get into, like deciding which of the US’s creditors will and won’t get paid when they sue over the default. And if the court won’t do it, will they give the president the power to “just pick and choose what gets paid? That would give him a de facto line-item veto over the entire budget, and the Court has already ruled that a law explicitly giving him that power is unconstitutional”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Basically, if the Supreme Court kills Biden’s attempt to resolve the budget crisis, then it becomes the Supreme Court’s problem, as everyone owed a federal payment “say, Social Security beneficiaries or military contractors,” brings a case — “There would be tens of millions of such potential litigants.”

So what should Biden do?

Call their bluff.

First, mint the coin. If the court strikes that down, issue coupon-free bonds. If the court strikes that down, declare debt ceilings to violate the 14th Amendment. If the court strikes that down, declare it to violate the Contracts Clause. Keep doing it. Throw in every solution including the kitchen sink — but never give into the GOP’s demand for Biden to violate his promise to the American people and unilaterally tear up laws establishing programs that make our lives better.

This is what Lincoln did when the Supreme Court blocked his attempts to end slavery. It’s what FDR did when they blocked the New Deal. The court doesn’t have an army, it can’t force its decisions on the American people. It doesn’t have a bureaucratic workforce and it can’t take over the administrative branch — hell, they don’t even have the keys to the office buildings.

The Supreme Court’s power comes from its legitimacy, not force of arms, and while they may not act like it, the Supremes know in their bones that without legitimacy, they are nothing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes

The justices in stolen seats have made it clear that they consider themselves to be “a de facto super-legislature that rules in favor of its own partisan policy objectives based on tendentious up-is-down reasoning or no reasoning at all.” This is an illegitimate proposition.

The Supreme Court can’t get any less legitimate. If Biden were to ignore the Supremes and make good law in the teeth of their pronouncements, it couldn’t make the situation any worse than it is today. The Supremes have set themselves against labor law, against climate resiliency, against bodily autonomy, against political accountability, against the rule of law itself. We should not — we must not — cede the power to overrule democratically elected lawmakers and the will of the people.

As Cooper says, Biden should tell the Supremes to go pound sand and then “raise holy hell in speeches and the press to make clear the grotesque irresponsibility of what is happening”:

Here’s an institution trying to cause a completely pointless national default, destroying untold jobs, businesses, and the credit rating of the country, whose elite members are all unelected, where five members of the majority were appointed by a president who took office after losing the popular vote, and one of whom occupies a blatantly stolen seat. Here’s an institution that has struck down anti-corruption laws by the bushel and is openly rolling in oligarch graft like Scrooge McDuck, while declaring itself to be immune from oversight. All that would add to the political pressure on the justices.

If Biden can’t do well for the American people they they will not turn out in the massive majorities that Democrats need to get minimal majorities. If Biden can’t do well for the American people, then Biden — who would lose an election to either Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump if it were called today — will turn America’s predators loose on its people for at least four more years:

https://jacobin.com/2023/05/2024-presidential-election-2016-donald-trump-joe-biden/

And let’s face it, it’ll be Trump. DeSantis is dead in the water. The GOP is the party of out-of-control, swivel-eyed loons who’ve been whipped into a terrorized frenzy by an evil, crapulent senescent Australian billionaire and his freak henchmen, like the taint-tanning frozen food failson. They aren’t going to elect “smart Trump.” They like “stupid Trump” (AKA “Trump”) too much.

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Hay-on-Wye, Oxford, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

[Image ID: A kitchen sink. The Supreme Court building protrudes from it. Behind the sink is a window. Joe Biden grins from the other side of the window.]

Image: Joe Ravi (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[thegaybiochemist]

Alright Biden, you know what to do

[princesssarcastia]

mostly i'm cool with the american focus on protecting individual rights and liberties, but fuck I wish the judicial branch would just say "hey, I know we normally like to give people more rights and longer trials, but actually the rights of over 300 million people to make an informed decision about their next president outweigh your single individual rights to a lengthy due process, mr. trump!"

[ryan-sometimes]

Twitter is about to be banned in Brazil, why?

Have you seen the news about Twitter (now X, but I refuse to call it that) being banned in Brazil? Have you been wondering why that is? I’m Brazilian, and here I am to explain things to you.

You’ve likely noticed that since Elon Musk took over the social media network, hate speech on the platform has skyrocketed. White supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups have been using Twitter to disseminate racist propaganda and hate speech. And although the United States might not be doing anything about this, other countries are not so indulgent. Brazil being one of them.

Racism and incitement of hate (including speech) are crimes in Brazil. So is political disinformation, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism. Hate speech of any kind is a CRIME in Brazil.

The Brazilian Supreme Court ordered Elon Musk to do something about the political fake news and hate speech on his platform, and Elon responded by shutting down all offices in Brazil.

The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) then ordered Elon Musk to appoint a legal representative in Brazil, as NO BUSINESS can operate in the country without a legal representative that can be held responsible to crimes and answer to them in a court of law. The STF gave Elon 24 hours to appoint this legal representative, and now that the deadline has passed and Elon has not complied, it seems that Twitter will be shut down in Brazil.

TL;DR: Elon is salty that he’s not above Brazilian law.

[2mo3cm-man]

The police are an occupying army.

[elise-is-in-archenland]

[megayogiposts]

Compliance of Order of Apex Court: Digitalization Efforts

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> No OTP is being sent by the portal so could not proceed to register.1 message Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>16 December 2024 at 00:38To: cic@hry.nic.in, cmharyana@nic.inMost respected chief information commissioner of government of Haryana the applicant is sending OTP from the rti portal at the government of…

[paravnoorsinghsethifan-blog]

Murder Mystery Courtroom Drama

Hey guys I tried something very different this time. A murder mystery with courtroom drama thriller suspense MurderCase #courtroomdrama #murdermystery #mystery #suspense #thriller #killer #crime #lawyer #court #case #courtcase #whoisthekiller

[lawandlegal]

Advocate Narender Singh: A Leading Criminal Lawyer for Supreme Court of India

Introduction

When it comes to defending against criminal charges in India, having a seasoned legal expert on your side is crucial. Advocate Narender Singh stands as a beacon of trust and excellence in criminal law. With years of experience representing clients at the Supreme Court, he has built a reputation for skillful advocacy and relentless pursuit of justice. He is best criminal lawyer for Supreme Court of India.

Understanding the Role of a Criminal Lawyer

The Basics of Criminal Law

Criminal law deals with acts classified as offenses against the state or society. It involves prosecuting and defending individuals accused of crimes, ranging from theft to complex financial frauds. He is criminal lawyer for Supreme Court of India.

How Criminal Lawyers Influence the Justice System

A competent criminal lawyer not only defends clients but also ensures that the legal process upholds justice. They navigate intricate laws, challenge evidence, and argue persuasively to safeguard rights.

Who is Advocate Narender Singh?

Professional Background and Journey

Advocate Narender Singh’s career spans decades, marked by numerous victories and high-profile cases. His journey from a young legal practitioner to a trusted name in the Supreme Court showcases his dedication and expertise. He is advocate for Supreme Court of India.

Notable Milestones in His Career

He has contributed to several landmark judgments and helped redefine legal strategies in criminal cases, earning the respect of his peers and clients.

Expertise in Criminal Law

White-Collar Crimes and Corporate Fraud

Singh specializes in tackling white-collar crimes, including insider trading, corporate fraud, and breach of trust. His ability to decode complex financial evidence is unmatched.

Financial Fraud and Embezzlement Cases

With a deep understanding of financial regulations, he adeptly handles cases involving misappropriation of funds and large-scale scams.

Criminal Appeals and Supreme Court Advocacy

Navigating appeals in the Supreme Court requires an in-depth grasp of legal procedures and precedents. Singh’s strategic approach ensures the best outcomes for his clients.

What Sets Advocate Narender Singh Apart

Depth of Legal Knowledge

Singh’s comprehensive understanding of Indian penal laws and judicial processes makes him a formidable advocate.

Track Record of Supreme Court Successes

From high-stakes cases to sensitive legal matters, his consistent victories highlight his capability and dedication.

Client-Focused Strategies

Singh believes in creating tailored legal plans based on the unique needs of each case, ensuring effective representation.

Supreme Court Advocacy: A Challenging Landscape

Why Supreme Court Cases are Unique

Supreme Court cases often involve interpreting constitutional principles and setting precedents. They demand precision, expertise, and an ability to think on one’s feet.

Singh’s Approach to Managing Complex Cases

He employs a methodical process, combining in-depth research, compelling arguments, and tactical foresight to navigate these challenges.

Significant Cases Handled by Narender Singh

Advocate Singh has played a pivotal role in numerous high-profile cases, many of which have influenced legal precedents and contributed to the evolution of Indian criminal law.

A Client-Centric Approach

Personalized Legal Strategies

Singh invests time in understanding his clients’ concerns and goals, crafting bespoke legal defenses that resonate in court.

Commitment to Justice and Fairness

His dedication goes beyond winning cases; he ensures that every client receives fair treatment under the law.

Addressing Challenges in Indian Criminal Justice

Issues Faced in the Judiciary

Delays, procedural inefficiencies, and resource constraints often hinder the legal process. Singh addresses these issues with strategic planning and proactive measures.

Singh’s Solutions and Proactive Methods

He leverages his experience and a strong legal team to ensure timely resolutions and justice for his clients.

Teamwork and Collaboration

Behind every successful advocate is a skilled team. Singh’s legal assistants, researchers, and paralegals play a vital role in building watertight cases.

Commitment to Ethical Practices

Upholding Integrity in Criminal Defense

Singh maintains the highest ethical standards, ensuring that his methods are both effective and morally sound.

Balancing Aggressive Representation with Fairness

While fiercely advocating for his clients, Singh ensures that justice and integrity remain at the forefront of his practice.

Impact on Indian Criminal Law

Through landmark judgments and innovative legal strategies, Singh has left a lasting imprint on the Indian judicial system, advocating for reforms and efficiency.

Awards and Recognition

Prestigious Accolades

Advocate Narender Singh has been honored with numerous awards that reflect his contributions to criminal law.

Testimonials from Clients and Peers

Clients commend his professionalism and empathy, while peers admire his legal acumen and courtroom prowess.

How to Contact Advocate Narender Singh

Steps to Consult Him

Reaching Singh is straightforward, starting with an initial case assessment to understand the client’s needs.

Considerations When Hiring a Criminal Lawyer

Experience, expertise, and a proven track record are key factors—qualities that Singh exemplifies.

Conclusion

Advocate Narender Singh has cemented his position as one of India’s leading criminal lawyers. His dedication to justice, combined with his unmatched legal expertise, makes him a trusted name in the Supreme Court.

FAQs

What are Advocate Narender Singh’s primary areas of specialization? White-collar crimes, financial fraud, and criminal appeals.

How does he manage complex criminal cases? By leveraging detailed research and crafting strategic arguments.

What makes him a standout Supreme Court lawyer? His deep legal knowledge, experience, and focus on ethical advocacy.

Can he handle individual legal matters? Yes, Singh takes on cases based on their merit and the client’s requirements.

What should clients prepare before consulting him? Clear documentation and an overview of their legal concerns.

[whatstheusgovernmentdoing]

11/18/24 - Supreme Court

The Court is releasing an order list today

[rightnewshindi]

डीवाई चंद्रचूड़ के आदेशों पर सर्वोच्च अदालत ने न्याय की देवी की आंखों से हटाई पट्टी, तलवार की जगह थामा संविधान

डीवाई चंद्रचूड़ के आदेशों पर सर्वोच्च अदालत ने न्याय की देवी की आंखों से हटाई पट्टी, तलवार की जगह थामा संविधान #News #NewsUpdate #newsfeed #newsbreakapp

Supreme Court: देश की सर्वोच्च अदालत में बुधवार को ‘न्याय की देवी’ की नई प्रतिमा लगाई गई है। इसमें कई बदलाव किए गए हैं। नई प्रतिमा की आंखों से पट्टी हटा दी गई है। इसके अलावा एक हाथ में अब तलवार की जगह संविधान थमाई गई है। ताकि यह संदेश दिया जा सके कि देश में कानून अंधा नहीं है और न ही यह दंड का प्रतीक है। देश के मुख्य न्यायाधीश (CJI) जस्टिस डी वाई चंद्रचूड़ के निर्देश पर ये बदलाव किए गए हैं।…

[granonine]

Saturday Soliloquy: The Right to Vote

Last week I emphaized that we are NOT a pure democracy here in America. Pure democracy rapidly deteriorates into screaming matches that accomplish nothing. Instead, we are a Republic, which simply means we are governed by a body of law created by representatives of the people. These representatives are elected by the people. They populate the House of Representatives, whose membership now stands…

[vaspider]

I cannot stress enough how important it is that whatever you think of anything else, Trump Cannot Be President Again.

The "rip apart democracy and install an autocrat" group was not Ready for him in 2016. They didn't think he'd win.

They're ready now. They're teeing up for a second Trump president. Whatever your favorite current Thing, it would be worse under Trump, and it is not an exaggeration to say that they're going to try to make sure that they stay in power forever, by any means necessary.

SCOTUS basically just said, "If Trump sends the Army in to murder protestors, that's okay. If Trump assassinates a political rival with the armed forces of which he is the Commander In Chief, that's an official act, and there's no recourse."

Anything he can even vaguely justify as "an official act" - including installing people in the Justice Department to support his coup, including pressuring his VP to support his coup - is no longer a crime.

This isn't just me saying this, btw. Here's Robert Reich, lifelong public servant (and yes, dad of @samreich, since I know what's important to y'all):

Finally, the Republican-appointed justices have given a dangerous amount of discretion to presidents — broad enough, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent, to protect presidents from prosecution for bribes and assassinations. A president already has the authority under the Insurrection Act to order troops into American streets. After today’s ruling, those troops would be under the command of a person who would almost certainly enjoy absolute immunity for the orders he gives them.

This is unbelievably terrifying.