#unelected courts

[reasoningdaily]

US APARTHEID 2023- HELLO MISSISSIPPI WE WATCHING YOU: Mississippi GOP passes ‘apartheid’ bill to create unelected courts system in majority-Black capital of Jackson

Mississippi’s Republican-controlled House voted on Tuesday to create a separate court system composed of unelected leaders and an expanded police force in the capital of Jackson.

The proposal, HB 1020, has been put forth by its GOP backers as a measure to increase public safety and reduce backlogs in the courts, but local leaders have argued the measure is a power grab from the state’s largely conservative, white legislature against the majority Black population of Jackson.

“Only in Mississippi would we have a bill like this … where we say solving the problem requires removing the vote from Black people,” Rep Ed Blackmon, a Democrat, said at the legislature on Tuesday.

He added that the measure, which would allow state officials to appoint judges and prosecutors instead of the usual local process of electing them, wouldn’t do anything to reduce crime.

"I notice that this bill does not address part of the problem, which is lack of funding at that crime lab. You’re blaming Jackson because they can’t process their cases fast enough because the crime lab is not operating at capacity because we won’t give them the money," he added.

Last week, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, the mayor of Jackson, said HB 1020 "reminds me of apartheid."

The Jackson City Council, including the sole Republican present, Ashby Foote, voted on Saturday for a resolution opposing the bill, according to the Mississippi Clarion Ledger.

Rep Trey Lamar, a Republican from Senatobia, 175 miles outside of Jackson, defended the bill on Tuesday, saying it would make the capital safer.

"I don’t know what you’ve heard, I’ll say that, but this bill is designed to help make our capital city of Mississippi a safer city,” he said. “This bill is designed to assist the court system of Hinds County, not to hinder it. It is designed to add to our judicial resources in Hinds County, not to take away. To help, not to hurt.”

The capital has indeed struggled with public safety.

According to a 2022 report from the state auditor, Mississippi has had the highest homicide rate of any state in the country since 2018, with more homicides per capita in Jackson than any other major metropolitan area in the country in 2021.

The state, like numerous other cities, has also struggled with what community residents argue is excessive police force.

Last month, family members of Jaylen Lewis, who was killed by police last fall during a traffic stop, called for a federal investigation into the Capitol Police, who would get millions in new funding under HB 1020.

Few details have been released about the shooting, but the officers involved are on administrative leave and the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation is probing the case

As WLBT reports, the Capitol Police have fired on civilians four times in the last five months, more than any other Mississippi law enforcement agency in the last year.

[anotherpapercut]

I love how every election season establishment dems just like scream "VOTE" over and over again without ever presenting a plan for how they'll actually fix anything once we've voted for them or even bothering to do anything at all ever to protect voting rights???? like saying "vote" isn't super helpful when people are not being ALLOWED to vote

[windmill-ghost]

I’m not and don’t want to be a “vote blue no matter who” mfer but the idea of having an even more conservative supreme court does fucking terrify me. I don’t think it’s necessarily invalidating people who are already being oppressed by the government to also believe that it can get worse than this.

[canichangemyblogname]

What obligation does a citizen have to a government that makes it clear they are not obligated to serve the citizenry? How long does a citizenry put up with a state that asks its citizens to obey the law but doesn’t give them equal benefit from fulfilling the duties of the law? How long when the citizenry derives no benefit from its participation in this system? How long when only the citizenry has responsibilities to a government, but the government believes it has no responsibility to its citizens? How long when it's clear this is not a two-way street? How long?

[wilwheaton]

Donald Trump threatens the entire existence of the American republic. He is able to do this because the Supreme Court he created is assisting him in doing so. It is a corrupt Court – on which more later. It overturned a central right for half of our population. It routinely mixes and matches rationales, jurisprudences, logics to arrive at the end point of transforming America into their extremist vision. We’ve heard that yesterday’s decision was a terrible decision, an extremist decision, that it changes the American experiment fundamentally. No disagreement with any of those points. Most importantly, in my mind, it’s a fake decision. Yes, it will now be controlling within the federal courts. But it doesn’t change the constitution any more than a foreign army occupying New England would make Massachusetts no longer part of the United States. That may seem like a jarring analogy. But it’s the only kind that allows us to properly view and react to this Supreme Court.

The rationale for the decision yesterday has literally no basis whatsoever in the US constitution.

Josh Marshall is correct, but I don’t think it matters. This corrupt, activist, fascist SCOTUS does not care. The majority has decided that the Constitution, 250 years of precedent, popular opinion, and the foundational ideas that have made America what it is since 1787 are what they say they are.

I live in a country of three hundred and forty million people.

In this country, six unelected christian nationalists, five of whom were placed on the court by presidents who lost the popular vote, who are opposed by SEVENTY PERCENT of the population, are making up laws out of whole cloth because their power is unchecked. A country that allows this to impose their regressive authoritarianism on that entire population is not a free country. It is not a Democracy.

America has not been attacked like this since 9/11. Six unelected people forcing their christian nationalist agenda on a population of three hundred and forty million is not a Democracy. It is tyranny.

Everyone is missing the central message of yesterday’s ruling: SCOTUS is going to install Trump as dictator for life, by any means necessary. Somehow, after he loses the popular vote again, and after he’s even lost the Electoral College again, these six Fascists will invent a reason to overturn the will of the electorate, again. Every single one of their rulings this term have been part of their coup. Now, just line them all up and connect the dots.

We are four months away from the likely end of what passes for freedom in America, and once it’s gone, it’s not coming back in my lifetime.

[fullhalalalchemist]

🚨🚨CONGRESS SECRETLY TRYING TO SNEAK IN EARN IT ACT COPYCAT INTO MUST PASS SPENDING BILL (PLEASE READ EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)

July 20, 2023 Congress is right now determining what is included in a must pass spending bill the NDAA. Often congress will sneakily add as amendments their bills that they can't pass in a normal setting.

If you remember, I made a previous post about EARN IT being reintroduced here.

The EARN IT Act and it's copycats are bipartisan bills that will greatly censor if not completely eliminate encryption and anything sexual and LGBTQ+ from the internet, globally. Anything the far-right doesn't like will be completely gone. The best way to stop them is to use https://www.badinternetbills.com/ to call your senators.

Following it's initial introduction earlier this year was massive opposition from human rights, LGBT, tech, political groups, and grassroots groups. Bc of this, the senators decided to remake the bill but give it a new name, so they can still pass Earn It without actually passing Earn It. Those bills are the Stop CSAM Act (yes really, they actually named it that), and the Cooper-Davis act.

The entire point of these bills is to mass surveil and censor everyone and I don't know why more people or senators speak out against it. There is a direct timeline from when the Attorney General Barr (under Trump) said he wanted to do this to it's initial introduction in 2019, and how the senators explicitly knew they couldn't actually say that so they lied and said it was about "stopping CSAM" or "stopping drugs" for Cooper-Davis Act.

These bills essentially do the following:

they gut encryption, the one thing actually protects you from having your data seen by anyone. Do you want republicans to know you're trans? that someone had an abortion? that they spoke out against the govt? to see your private photos you have uploaded to the cloud? to see what porn you watch? if youre a journalist, or an abuse survivor, any hacker or abuser can see your stuff and track you.

they gut parts of Section 230, the one thing that allows anyone to post online and birthed social media. Previous gutting into 230 gave us the tumblr nsfw ban and killed that site.

they create an unelected commission with some already established govt body (DOJ, FTC, etc) that will include law enforcement and people from NCOSE or other Christian conservative groups who will decide what is and isn't lawful to say. no citizen can vote who's on this commission, and the president gets to pick. it's like the supreme court, but for the internet.

lead to mass censorship and surveillance because of the above

We have until the end of the month to stop this, but this can be added literally any moment until then. It's literally code red. If this is added it goes into effect immediately. The BEST way to stop this is to drive calls and emails to the senate. https://www.badinternetbills.com/ connects you directly to your members of congress & gives you a call script.

It is ESSENTIAL to call the Senate leaders who can stop this. Here's a more precise call script you can use: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huD5Ldd1lPTECYTEb9Gg2ZzrqW6Y9tryHT-MdjOl8kY/edit

All these people expressed concern over Earn It, so we need to press them hard to not allow it's copycats Cooper-Davis or Stop CSAM into the NDAA. This is URGENT and needs all hands on deck. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (202) 224-6542 Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (202) 224-3441 Jon Ossof (D-GA) (202)-224-3521 Alex Padilla (D-CA) (202) 224-3553 Cory Booker (D-NJ) (202) 224-3224 Mike Lee (R-UT) (202) 224-5444

Please please please spread this message and blow up their phones.

TLDR; The Senate is trying to quietly push the Earn It Act's copycat bills into the must pass NDAA, which will lead to mass censorship and surveillance online by gutting Section 230 which is the entire reason you can even be on tumblr and why the internet exists, killing encryption which put everyone's lives in danger, and appointing far-right people to a supreme court-esque commission that the president has direct control over. They could be added in ANY DAY and we need to push hard to stop it before it gets to that point. CALL YOUR SENATORS **NOW** BY USING https://www.badinternetbills.com/ AND CALL THE SENATE LEADERSHIP AND SPREAD THE WORD!!!!

[simply-ivanka]

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government

Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we’ll reverse a decades long executive power grab.

By Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy

Wall Street Journal

November 20, 2024

Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.

This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. It imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.

President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.

We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies can’t impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the court overturned the Chevron doctrine and held that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law or their own rulemaking authority. Together, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law.

DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies. DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.

When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress. The president owes lawmaking deference to Congress, not to bureaucrats deep within federal agencies. The use of executive orders to substitute for lawmaking by adding burdensome new rules is a constitutional affront, but the use of executive orders to roll back regulations that wrongly bypassed Congress is legitimate and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent mandates. And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so.

A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose positions are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and DOGE’s goal is to help support their transition into the private sector. The president can use existing laws to give them incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.

Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. Previous presidents have used it to amend the civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court has held—in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they weren’t constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act when they did so. With this authority, Mr. Trump can implement any number of “rules governing the competitive service” that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.

Finally, we are focused on delivering cost savings for taxpayers. Skeptics question how much federal spending DOGE can tame through executive action alone. They point to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which stops the president from ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress. Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question. But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.

The federal government’s procurement process is also badly broken. Many federal contracts have gone unexamined for years. Large-scale audits conducted during a temporary suspension of payments would yield significant savings. The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent. Critics claim that we can’t meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink. But this deflects attention from the sheer magnitude of waste, fraud and abuse that nearly all taxpayers wish to end—and that DOGE aims to address by identifying pinpoint executive actions that would result in immediate savings for taxpayers.

With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action. Our top goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026—the expiration date we have set for our project. There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.

[possumsinpeoplesuits]

After the past week and a half, I'd welcome this because Canada slapping the shit out of the country isn't even close to the worst case scenario anymore.

Shit, we've got planes falling out of the sky because a Billionaire Nazi's yet-to-be-official Meme Department fired the head of the Make Planes Not Fucking Explode department.

Half the country and 90% of the GDP would be on the side of the Occupy Us NATO Daddy Coalition.

We'll even let you burn down the White House again!

to all the americans who genuinely think that invading canada is a good idea...

you literally already tried that. it did not go well.

we are more left wing. if trump takes us, you will just have made the country more liberal. considering it's republicans who want this, this would be a bad idea.

your military might be stronger than ours, but you would still get your ass kicked by nato. and all the countries we ally with. the uk likes us more than you.

canada is mister war crimes. prepare for some canned food, dickwad.

[odinsblog]

The Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions on Friday, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After Friday, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

In Chevron, the court unanimously announced an important principle of law that governed the nation until Friday: When a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of it. Why? Congress delegates countless important calls to agencies—directing the EPA, for instance, to limit harmful benzene emissions, rather than providing the precise formula to determine what level of benzene emissions is harmful to humans. Congress writes statutes broadly because it expects these agencies to respond to new facts and adjust their enforcement accordingly.

Crucially, these agencies are staffed with experts who have deep knowledge and experience in the area where Congress seeks to regulate. Such experts can understand and execute regulations more proficiently than federal judges, who are, at best, dilettantes in most fields of regulation. For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule. Moreover, most agencies are staffed with political appointees whom the president can appoint and remove at will. That makes them far more accountable to the citizenry than federal judges, who are guaranteed life tenure no matter how badly they butcher the law.

Since 1984, federal courts have applied Chevron in about 18,000 decisions in every conceivable area of the law: energy policy, education, food and drug safety, labor, the environment, consumer protection, finance, health care, housing, law enforcement—the list is pretty much endless. It has become the background principle against which Congress enacts all legislation.

That all ends now.

(continue reading)

[robertreich]

How to Fix a Broken Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is off the rails — and it’s only going to get worse unless we fight to reform it.

Trust levels and job approval ratings for the Court have hit historic lows due in large part to a growing number of ethics scandals.

Here are THREE key reforms Congress should enact to restore legitimacy to our nation’s highest court:

1) Establish a code of ethics

Every other federal judge has to sign on to a code of ethics — except for Supreme Court justices.

This makes no sense. Judges on the highest Court should be held to the highest ethical standards.

Congress should impose a code of ethics on Supreme Court justices. At the very least, any ethical code should ban justices from receiving personal gifts from political donors and anyone with business before the Court, clarify when justices with conflicts of interest should remove themselves from cases, prohibit justices from trading individual stocks, and establish a formal process for investigating misconduct.

2) Enact term limits

Article III of the Constitution says judges may “hold their office during good behavior,” but it does not explicitly give Supreme Court Justices lifetime tenure on the highest court — even though that’s become the norm.  

Term limits would prevent unelected justices from accumulating too much power over the course of their tenure — and would help defuse what has become an increasingly divisive confirmation process.

Congress should limit Supreme Court terms to 18-years, after which justices move to lower courts.

3) Expand the Court

The Constitution does not limit the Supreme Court to nine justices. In fact, Congress has changed the size of the Court seven times. It should do so again in order to remedy the extreme imbalance of today’s Supreme Court.    

Now some may decry this as “radical court packing.” That’s pure rubbish. The real court-packing occurred when Senate Republicans refused to even consider a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court on the fake pretext that it was too close to the 2016 election, but then confirmed a Republican nominee just days before the 2020 election.

Rather than allow Republicans to continue exploiting the system, expanding the Supreme Court would actually UN-pack the court. This isn’t radical. It’s essential.

Now, I won’t sugar-coat this. Making these reforms happen won’t be easy. We’re up against big monied interests who will fight to keep their control of our nation’s most important Court.

But these key reforms have significant support from the American people, who have lost trust in the court.

The Supreme Court derives its strength not from the use of force or political power, but from the trust of the people. With neither the sword nor the purse, trust is all it has.

[reasoningdaily]

BLACK VOTES DON'T MATTER IN MISSISSIPPI 2023 - NEW JIM CROW IN EFFECT: 'Only in Mississippi': White representatives vote to create white-appointed court system for Blackest city in America

A white supermajority of the Mississippi House voted after an intense, four-plus hour debate to create a separate court system and an expanded police force within the city of Jackson — the Blackest city in America — that would be appointed completely by white state officials.

If House Bill 1020 becomes law later this session, the white chief justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court would appoint two judges to oversee a new district within the city — one that includes all of the city’s majority-white neighborhoods, among other areas. The white state attorney general would appoint four prosecutors, a court clerk, and four public defenders for the new district. The white state public safety commissioner would oversee an expanded Capitol Police force, run currently by a white chief.

The appointments by state officials would occur in lieu of judges and prosecutors being elected by the local residents of Jackson and Hinds County — as is the case in every other municipality and county in the state.

Mississippi’s capital city is 80% Black and home to a higher percentage of Black residents than any major American city. Mississippi’s Legislature is thoroughly controlled by white Republicans, who have redrawn districts over the past 30 years to ensure they can pass any bill without a single Democratic vote. Every legislative Republican is white, and most Democrats are Black.

After thorough and passionate dissent from Black members of the House, the bill passed 76-38 Tuesday primarily along party lines. Two Black member of the House — Rep. Cedric Burnett, a Democrat from Tunica, and Angela Cockerham, an independent from Magnolia — voted for the measure. All but one lawmaker representing the city of Jackson — Rep. Shanda Yates, a white independent — opposed the bill.

“Only in Mississippi would we have a bill like this … where we say solving the problem requires removing the vote from Black people,” Rep. Ed Blackmon, a Democrat from Canton, said while pleading with his colleagues to oppose the measure.

READ MORE: Hinds County forces unite against bill to create unelected judicial district, expanded police force

For most of the debate, Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba — who has been publicly chided by the white Republicans who lead the Legislature — looked down on the House chamber from the gallery. Lumumba accused the Legislature earlier this year of practicing “plantation politics” in terms of its treatment of Jackson, and of the bill that passed Tuesday, he said: “It reminds me of apartheid.”

Hinds County Circuit Judge Adrienne Wooten, who served in the House before being elected judge and would be one of the existing judges to lose jurisdiction under this House proposal, also watched the debate.

Public Safety Commissioner Sean Tindell, who oversees the Capitol Police, watched a portion of the debate from the House gallery, chuckling at times when Democrats made impassioned points about the bill. Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, the only statewide elected official who owns a house in Jackson, walked onto the House floor shortly before the final vote.

Rep. Blackmon, a civil rights leader who has a decades-long history of championing voting issues, equated the current legislation to the Jim Crow-era 1890 Constitution that was written to strip voting rights from Black Mississippians.

“This is just like the 1890 Constitution all over again,” Blackmon said from the floor. “We are doing exactly what they said they were doing back then: ‘Helping those people because they can’t govern themselves.'”

The bill was authored by Rep. Trey Lamar, a Republican whose hometown of Senatobia is 172 miles north of Jackson. It was sent to Lamar’s committee by Speaker Philip Gunn instead of a House Judiciary Committee, where similar legislation normally would be heard.

“This bill is designed to make our capital city of Jackson, Mississippi, a safer place,” Lamar said, citing numerous news sources who have covered Jackson’s high crime rates. Dwelling on a long backlog of Hinds County court cases, Lamar said the bill was designed to “help not hinder the (Hinds County) court system.”

“My constituents want to feel safe when they come here,” Lamar said, adding the capital city belonged to all the citizens of the state. “Where I am coming from with this bill is to help the citizens of Jackson and Hinds County.”

Many House members who represent Jackson on Tuesday said they were never consulted by House leadership about the bill. Several times during the debate, they pointed out that Republican leaders have never proposed increasing the number of elected judges to address a backlog of cases or increasing state funding to assist an overloaded Jackson Police Department.

In earlier sessions, the Legislature created the Capitol Complex Improvement District, which covers much of the downtown, including the state government office complex and other areas of Jackson. The bill would extend the existing district south to Highway 80, north to County Line Road, west to State Street and east to the Pearl River. Between 40,000 and 50,000 people live within the area.

Opponents of the legislation, dozens of whom have protested at the Capitol several days this year, accused the authors of carving out mostly white, affluent areas of the city to be put in the new district.

The bill would double the funding for the district to $20 million in order to increase the size of the existing Capitol Police force, which has received broad criticism from Jacksonians for shooting several people in recent months with little accountability.

The new court system laid out in House Bill 1020 is estimated to cost $1.6 million annually.

Democratic members of the House said if they wanted to help with the crime problem, the Legislature could increase the number of elected judges in Hinds County. Blackmon said Hinds County was provided four judges in 1992 when a major redistricting occurred, and that number has not increased since then even as the caseload for the four judges has exploded.

In addition, Blackmon said the number of assistant prosecuting attorneys could be increased within Hinds County. In Lamar’s bill, the prosecuting of cases within the district would be conducted by attorneys in the office of Attorney General Lynn Fitch, who is white.

Blackmon said the bill was “about a land grab,” not about fighting crime. He said other municipalities in the state had higher crime rates than Jackson. Blackmon asked why the bill would give the appointed judges the authority to hear civil cases that had nothing to do with crime.

“When Jackson becomes the No. 1 place for murder, we have a problem,” Lamar responded, highlighting the city’s long backlog of court cases. Several Democrats, during the debate, pointed out that the state of Mississippi’s crime lab has a lengthy backlog, as well, adding to the difficult in closing cases in Hinds County.

Lamar said the Mississippi Constitution gives the Legislature the authority to create “inferior courts,” as the Capitol Complex system would be. The decisions of the appointed judges can be appealed to Hinds County Circuit Court.

Democrats offered seven amendments, including one to make the judges elected. All were defeated primarily along partisan and racial lines.

“We are not incompetent,” said Rep. Chris Bell, D-Jackson. “Our judges are not incompetent.”

An amendment offered by Rep. Cheikh Taylor, D-Starkville, to require the Capitol Police to wear body cameras was approved. Lamar voiced support for the amendment.

Much of the debate centered around the issue of creating a court where the Black majority in Hinds County would not be allowed to vote on judges.

One amendment that was defeated would require the appointed judges to come from Hinds County. Lamar said by allowing the judges to come from areas other than Hinds County would ensure “the best and brightest” could serve. Black legislators said the comment implied that he judges and other court staff could not be found within the Black majority population of Hinds County.

When asked why he could not add more elected judges to Hinds County rather than appointing judges to the new district, Lamar said, “This is the bill that is before the body.”

[elbiotipo]

Also, this has already happened, several times. The US supreme court awarded the presidency to George Bush in 2000 (and we all know what happened after), even though Al Gore had a lead on the popular vote, small lead but lead nonetheless, the (unelected) court said the whole state of Florida would go to Bush and that's that. Worth noting, like always, that the electoral college awards entire states to a single candidate, so even if those states had people voting for others (as it happens everywhere) they are completely unrepresented.

Same, and worse, happened in 2016, Hillary had 48% to Trump's 46%. In ANY other democractic election, a 2% lead is a clear win. But because of the electoral college, Trump won nonetheless, and there was also a bunch of bullshit where some representatives of the electoral college didn't even vote for the candidates they were supposed to vote for. Again, in any other democracy around the world, this would have been a scandalous rigging.

Even in 2020 I remember that people were still thinking Trump could win, even as Biden led a 4% lead in the popular vote, just because of some electoral college shit. If you dive in US history you can find many other such cases.

This isn't even news to anyone who follows US, or indeed, world politics, but I still point it out because even for the standards of liberal democracies, the US is incredibly undemocratic and anachronistic. Not to mention the institutionalization of two parties (a two-party state, we could say) and the suppression of third parties, there are very, very few countries that claim to be a multi-party democracy and only have two parties. From an outsider persepective from a flawed but relatively working democracy, watching US elections is something bizarre.

[nonenosome2]

Democratic bill seeks to reverse Supreme Court ruling on federal agency power

"Giant corporations are using far-right, unelected judges to hijack our government and undermine the will of Congress,” Warren said in a statement Tuesday.

So NOT allowing unlimited power to be held by unelected bureaucrats and requiring Congress to NOT be vague when creating agency rules, which are then used to create laws, is somehow a BAD thing?

[mariacallous]

In the end, the return of net neutrality was short-lived: Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down rules introduced by the Biden administration that would have prevented internet service providers from favoring some apps or websites over others. It’s the conclusion of a decades-long fight for a more equitable internet—and a harbinger of what may await other consumer protections in the years to come.

It’s easy to get lost in the technicalities of net neutrality, but the basic thing the Federal Communications Commission wanted was the power to prevent broadband providers from engaging in bandwidth discrimination, slowing speeds for certain customers or to certain sites. Those protections existed under the Obama administration but were rolled back shortly after Donald Trump took office in 2017. You probably won’t feel much near-term impact; we’re largely back to the status quo, and Spectrum is unlikely to immediately try slowing down YouTube to get you to watch its own cable news channels. But that’s also why the way the Sixth Circuit arrived at its decision may be even more alarming than the ruling itself.

The three-judge panel frequently cited Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the recent Supreme Court decision that overturned a legal doctrine known as Chevron deference. Under Chevron, courts were required to defer to regulatory agencies when it came to deciding how relevant laws should be interpreted when their provisions were unclear. Now, courts are free to decide for themselves. And the Sixth Circuit did exactly that.

“Unlike past challenges that the DC Circuit considered under Chevron, we no longer afford deference to the FCC’s reading of the statute,” the ruling reads. “Instead, our task is to determine ‘the best reading of the statute’ in the first instance.”

In other words, the court substituted the subject matter expertise of the FCC with its own.

“It's a sad day for democracy when giant corporations can forum-shop for industry-friendly judges to strike down some of the most popular consumer protection rules in history,” says Evan Greer, director of the digital rights nonprofit Fight for the Future. “The court citing Loper Bright here is an alarming harbinger of industry-friendly rulings to come.”

And not just on issues affecting the broadband industry. The Sixth Circuit showed today how courts might use the end of Chevron deference to shape all sorts of policy, from tech to the environment to health care to pretty much any area where legislative ambiguity reigns.

Critics of Chevron argued that Congress too often delegated the work of interpreting policies to unelected bureaucrats working for federal agencies, says John Bergmayer, legal director at the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Knowledge. “Now we have the alternative: The first panel of judges to hear an issue can set nationwide policy.”

There’s at least one way out of this imbalance of power, Bergmayer says: Congress can pass a bill that explicitly says agencies have the authority to interpret laws. That seems unlikely, though, in a GOP-led legislature that’s wary of—or outright hostile toward—the administrative state.

After all, Congress also could have codified net neutrality as the law of the land rather than leaving it to the FCC. Outgoing FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, still hopes that it will. “Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair,” Rosenworcel said in a statement. “With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open internet principles in federal law.”

That certainly would have been preferable to forcing net neutrality to ride on a political seesaw for the past two decades, passing in and out of favor depending on who’s in charge. (Former FCC chair Ajit Pai, who rolled back net neutrality rules under Trump, hailed the Sixth Circuit’s opinion as “excellent.”) But unless and until that happens, the regulatory whiplash that takes place when a new party takes power will only fuel the courts’ willingness to take matters into their own hands—especially now that they have a green light from the Supreme Court. “Applying Loper Bright means we can end the FCC’s vacillations,” the Sixth Circuit opinion says.

There’s some good news in all this. In 2018, California passed its own net neutrality law that, after years of legal challenges, fully went into effect in 2021. Because the internet doesn’t stop at state borders, California’s law does offer some degree of protection to everyone in the US. “California’s law is quite good,” says Bergmayer. “It’s just that something nationwide would be better.”

Which means, at least, that some net neutrality protections still exist. They’re not as comprehensive as digital rights advocates hoped for and not as strong as the FCC would have granted, but it’s something. But as courts increasingly invoke Loper Bright, that won’t always be the case. The Sixth Court has shown how easily consumer and environmental safeguards can now be erased in an era when it takes only one court ruling to make them disappear.

[wilwheaton]

In her dissent, Kagan underscored the political mechanics underlying the majority opinion in usually bald terms for a justice on a Court so prizing comity and respect. She traced the conservatives’ recent rulings, in which they give themselves enough excuses to toss Chevron since it’s become outmoded anyway. In each, the majority grasped for novel reasons to ignore the precedent. In a one-two punch, Kagan also pointed out that this kind of behavior, reverse engineering a string of cases to get a hall pass to overturn long established precedent, has become habitual. “This Court has ‘avoided deferring under Chevron since 2016’ because it has been preparing to overrule Chevron since around that time,” she wrote. “That kind of self-help on the way to reversing precedent has become almost routine at this Court.”

Supreme Court Executes Massive Power Grab From Executive Branch In New Ruling

“...reverse engineering a string of cases to get a hall pass to overturn long established precedent, has become habitual.“

That’s the entire game.

The stolen SCOTUS majority is throwing out precedent and overturning decades of settled law. It is taking rights and protections away from all Americans, and rightly has its lowest approval rating in history. It is almost finished making itself into an unelected, unaccountable, untouchable Star Chamber. It has become the enforcement arm of the people behind Project 2025. I fully expect them to rule in favor of Trump’s outrageous immunity claim, because they are fully on board with everything he did and intends to do if he seizes power again.

This SCOTUS majority is a direct and existential threat to everything we think of when we hear “the American way of life”, laws and precedent be damned.

As far as I can tell, the only way to do anything about this is to expand the Court to nullify them, and I just don’t see that happening any time soon.