Home » Posts tagged 'us supreme court'

Tag Archives: us supreme court

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Limiting EPA’s Power To Regulate Climate-Changing Gases

Supreme Court To Consider Limiting EPA’s Power To Regulate Climate-Changing Gases

The ruling could challenge the Biden administration’s plan to curb carbon emissions right after a key White House proposal died in Congress.

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a set of cases challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, potentially limiting the Biden administration’s options to curb planet-heating pollution.

The lawsuits, filed by Republican-controlled states and a West Virginia oil company, aim to curb the federal government’s power to mandate a transition away from fossil-fueled power plants.

If the high court’s 6-3 conservative majority finds in favor of the plaintiffs, the ruling wouldn’t eliminate the federal government’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act, a legal determination known as the endangerment finding. It would, however, restrict the legal routes through the Clean Air Act for enacting such rules. That could make it harder for the United States to hit its goal to cut emissions in half by the end of this decade.

In an updated grant of certiorari, the Supreme Court said it plans to ask questions about a legal issue known as “non-delegation doctrine,” which Cornell Law School describes as the “principle in administrative law that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities.”

A ruling that explicitly requires Congress to pass new laws allowing EPA to regulate carbon emissions could prove an even bigger setback.

The White House abandoned its main legislative proposal to pay utilities to produce more zero-carbon electricity, and fine those that fail to increase their clean output each year, after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he’d torpedo the administration’s agenda if Democrats included the measure in a sweeping spending bill currently under consideration. Democrats are also expected to lose control of Congress in next year’s election.

Mississippi Claims Memphis is Stealing its Groundwater, Supreme Court to Decide

Mississippi Claims Memphis is Stealing its Groundwater, Supreme Court to Decide

A long standing battle between states over water rights is headed to the Supreme Court.
Water Stress Map

The battle over water rights is heating up. Please consider the State of Mississippi v. City of Memphis and Memphis Light, Gas, and Water now on the Supreme Court Docket.

Mississippi’s complaint alleges that MLGW has “forcibly siphoned” off its water to the tune of billions of gallons. Compl. ¶ 23. And that without modern pumping technology none of that water would be available to Tennessee. Id. at ¶ 24. To make matters worse, Mississippi says Tennessee has removed groundwater far beyond “the water’s natural seepage rate.” Id.

Evidence of Tennessee’s heist, Mississippi claims, can be seen in “substantial drop in pressure and corresponding drawdown of stored water in the Sparta Sand” and the “cone of depression” that extends into north Mississippi. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 30. Because Tennessee is allegedly stealing water at such a rapid rate, Mississippi must now drill wells to substantially greater depths. Id. at ¶ 54(b). Naturally, that practice has increased the costs on Mississippians who rely on the Aquifer for their groundwater.

Mississippi now seeks both declaratory relief and money damages for the taking of its groundwater. The declaratory judgment would establish Mississippi’s “sovereign right, title and exclusive interest in the groundwater stored naturally in the Sparta Sand formation” which would not be available to the Defendants without pumping. I

Analysts Favor Tennessee

This suit has been brewing for years. But analysts strongly favor Tennessee.

For example, the University of Chicago Law Review writer Joseph Regalia says Mississippi’s Plea to the Supreme Court That It “Owns” Its Water and That Tennessee Is “Stealing” It Is Just Wrong.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Have Journalists become Traitors to the United States?

Those in management at most of the mainstream media should be dragged from their offices and charged with conspiracy to overthrow the United States government and to eradicate the US. Constitution. The Washington Post displays its motto “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and indeed they are at war against the United States just as Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum which is out to remove the United States as a superpower and transfer that status to the United Nations. Their report, along with CNN, New York Times, ABC, NBC, and CBS along with most others, are indeed conspiring to overthrow the United States and if they were put on trial using their own words, any unbiased jury would find them guilty.

The Supreme Court’s key decision in 1964 in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which has since protected many media outlets from lawsuits. It is time that it should be scrapped along with total immunity for vaccine companies. If you buy a car and you turn on the ignition and it blows up, is not the auto-manufacturer liable? In every other field, companies are responsible for the products they produce. Why is the media and vaccine companies have any immunity whatsoever? In that case, Supreme Court reversed a libel damages judgment against the New York Times. The decision established the important principle that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press may protect libelous words about a public official in order to foster vigorous debate about government and public affairs. To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

martin armstrong, armstrong economics, united states, journalism, libel, us supreme court, media

How the Supreme Court Doomed the US & the West

I have been warning that those in Washington DO NOT like outsiders. Only 106 republicans out of 196 joined Texas demonstrating that behind the curtain, nearly 50% of republican politicians prefer Trump to leave because he is not one of them. The Supreme Court avoided ruling claiming Texas had no standing which is completely false. Not giving a decision, either way, will propel civil unrest as each side claims they are right. Already people in Texas are talking about secession might be the answer for pro-Trump states. This time, we are approaching the break up of the United States and it may indeed be the only solution. No side has the right to oppress the other and the Supreme Court will NOT defend the people or the Constitution. The rule of law was the foundation of civilization, and refusing to comply with that duty condemns the nation to oblivion.

The Supreme Court has NO DISCRETION whatsoever to deny the petition and I do not say that as being supportive of the action. The only way to settle this dispute is to rule then both sides would have no choice but to settle down. This way, the election will always be in dispute. Biden got more votes in each of these swing states than Hillary or Obama which was NOT the case in any other state. This is indicative of fraud and it should have been addressed yes or no. This election was STOLEN not be Biden, but by an international agenda which has taken over the entire West and they needed Trump removed. Just look at the Agenda 2030 coming from Klaus Schwab and you will see the real future we face…

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The New Trail of Tears

The New Trail of Tears

How climate change is forcing the relocation of species, including our own

By FloridaStock | Shutterstock.com

In 1830 Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, designed to appropriate to the United States lands occupied by aboriginal Americans. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, but the army under Commander in Chief Andrew Jackson acted anyway. Now a lightning rod for condemnation of the expropriation of indigenous property, Jackson was an agent of demographic pressures and a lust for the resources found on tribal lands.

The result of this land grab and ethnic cleansing was the Trail of Tears, a highway of the dispossessed, en route from their homelands to less favorable situations away from the population centers of the European-Americans and their recently created nation. Those with the means self-deported; those who moved late moved in large numbers and suffered terrible losses.

Nearly two centuries later, we face the prospect of forced relocations on a scale that is difficult to fathom. This New Trail of Tears will involve humans on every inhabited continent, and it will impact countless other species as well. This time, the driving force is all humanity, agents of climate change through our greenhouse gas emissions.

A major consequence of climate change is the global rise in sea levels due to the melting of glaciers and the polar ice caps as well as the expansion of warmer oceans. Accompanied by more violent storms powered by the warmer atmosphere, rising seas will have a profound impact on coastal areas. Flooding is already common in coastal Florida; with just the few feet of sea-level rise expected by the end of the century, sizable portions of Miami and Fort Lauderdale will be inundated. “Superstorm” Sandy brought this lesson home to New York City in 2012.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Supreme Court Blocks ExxonMobil’s Effort to Conceal Decades of Documents in Probe of Oil Giant’s Climate Deception

Supreme Court Blocks ExxonMobil’s Effort to Conceal Decades of Documents in Probe of Oil Giant’s Climate Deception

ExxonKnew protesters in T-rex costumes

The high court’s ruling means the company must hand over records to the Massachusetts attorney general for her ongoing investigation

In a win for climate campaigners and Massachusetts’ Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey on Monday, the U.S.Supreme Court rejected ExxonMobil’s attempt to block Healey’s demand for documents related to her state’s ongoing investigation into allegations that one of the world’s largest oil and gas corporations deceived the public and investors for decades about how fossil fuels drive global warming.

“The public deserves answers from this company about what it knew about the impacts of burning fossil fuels, and when,” Healey said, responding on Twitter to the ruling. This victory, she added, “clears the way for our office to investigate Exxon’s conduct toward consumers and investors.”

The news, which followed a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling against the company in April, was also welcomed by climate activists — including 350.org U.S. communications manager Thanu Yakupitiyage, who thanked Healey “for her vigilant leadership in standing up for people over polluters.”

“Executives at Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, but they chose to lie to the rest of us to line their oily pockets,” Yakupitiyage declared. “Now, it’s those who have done the least to cause the problem who are paying the cost of this deception through our lives and livelihoods. In 2019, we’ll use all our power to make sure Big Oil pays its fair share for climate destruction.”

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Avoid the Slippery Slope

Avoid the Slippery Slope

Everything government touches turns to crap.
Ringo Starr

Social media companies, search engines, and payments platforms are excising conservative, libertarian, and assorted anti-government voices. SLL argued in “The Friendly Faces of Fascism” that the largest and best known of these companies were essentially arms of the government. They are mechanisms for conveying information, opinions, and commerce between billions of people. Given their reach, importance, and ties to the government, should these ostensibly private companies be subject to the First Amendment’s prohibition of government restriction of free speech and the free press?

The First Amendment states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. By its terms, the amendment applies to one institution, Congress. By necessary implication, freedom of speech and the press must also be the freedom to choose what not to speak or publish.

In Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), the Supreme Court held that California’s Constitution permissibly required a private shopping center to allow a group to express its political views on shopping center property regularly held open to the public. California’s Constitution created an affirmative right of free speech that the court reasoned went beyond the First Amendment, which is a set of prohibitions on the government, or negative rights.

Those who argue that the social media companies, search engines, and payments platforms shouldn’t be allowed to suppress viewpoints they don’t like hang their rhetorical hats on the Pruneyard rationale. These companies are virtual public forums or enable such forums, the argument goes. As such, they should be required to accept all viewpoints.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Supreme Court Takes Case That Could End Internet Censorship, Expand First Amendment

Supreme Court Takes Case That Could End Internet Censorship, Expand First Amendment

Supreme Court Takes Case That Could End Internet Censorship, Expand First Amendment

After the recent purge of over 800 independent media outlets on Facebook, the Supreme Court is now hearing a case that could have ramifications for any future attempts at similar purges.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that could change free speech on the Internet forever.

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, the case that it has agreed to take, will decide if the private operator of a public access network is considered a state actor, CNBC reported.

The case could affect how companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google and YouTube are governed. If the Court were to issue a far-reaching ruling it could subject such companies to First Amendment lawsuits and force them to allow a much broader scope of free speech from its users.

The Court decided to take the case on Friday and it is the first case that was taken after Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court.

DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez claimed that they were fired from Manhattan Neighborhood Network for speaking critically of the network. And, though the case does not involve the Internet giants, it could create a ruling that expands the First Amendment beyond the government.

“We stand at a moment when the very issue at the heart of this case — the interplay between private entities, nontraditional media, and the First Amendment — has been playing out in the courts, in other branches of government, and in the media itself,” the attorneys from MNN wrote in their letter to the Court asking it to take the case.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

4 Pillars of Debt in Danger of Collapse

Last month I was in a series of high-level meetings with members of Congress and the Senate in Washington.

While there’s been major news about the Supreme Court, my discussions were on something that both sides of the aisle are coming to consensus over.

You see, issues that impact your own bottom line are way more about economics than they are about politics. On Capitol Hill, leaders know that. They also know that voters react to what impacts their money. That’s why, behind the scenes, I’ve been discussing issues focused on protecting the economy.

Behind closed doors, we’ve been working on how to shield the economy from Too Big to Fail banks and how the U.S. can better fund infrastructure projects. These are initiatives that all politicians should care about.

Underneath the surface of the economy is a financial system that is heavily influenced by the Federal Reserve. That’s why political figures and the media alike have all tried to understand what direction the system is headed.

Also last week I joined Fox Business at their headquarters to discuss the economy, the Fed and what they all mean for the markets. On camera, we discussed this week’s Federal Reserve meeting and the likely outcomes.

Off camera, we jumped into a similar discussion that those in DC have pressed me on. Charles Payne, the Fox host, asked me what I thought of new Fed chairman, Jerome Powell, in general. Payne knew that I view the entire central bank system as a massive artificial bank and market stimulant.

What I told him is that Powell actually has a good sense of balance in terms of what he does with rates, and the size of the Fed’s book. He understands the repercussion that moving rates too much, too quickly, or selling off the assets, could have on the global economy and the markets.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Donald Trump and the Next Crash: Making the Fed an Instrument for Disaster

Donald Trump and the Next Crash: Making the Fed an Instrument for Disaster

Photo by futureatlas.com | CC BY 2.0

Warning: What you are about to read is not about Russia, the 2016 election, or the latest person to depart from the White House in a storm of tweets. It’s the Beltway story hiding in plain sight with trillions of dollars in play and an economy to commandeer.

While we’ve been bombarded with a litany of scandals from the Oval Office and the Trump family, there’s a crucial institution in Washington that few in the media seem to be paying attention to, even as President Trump quietly makes it his own. More obscure than the chambers of the Supreme Court, it’s a place where he has already made substantial changes. I’m talking about the Federal Reserve.

As the central bank of the United States, the “Fed” sets the financial tone for the global economy by manipulating interest rate levels. This impacts everyone, yet very few grasp the scope of its influence.

During times of relative economic calm, the Fed is regularly forgotten. But what history shows us is that having leaders who are primed to neglect Wall Street’s misdoings often sets the scene for economic dangers to come. That’s why nominees to the Fed are so crucial.

We have entered a landmark moment: no president since Woodrow Wilson (during whose administration the Federal Reserve was established) will have appointed as many board members to the Fed as Donald Trump. His fingerprints will, in other words, not just be on Supreme Court decisions, but no less significantly Fed policy-making for years to come — even though, like that court, it occupies a mandated position of political independence.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Drastic Pension Cuts Will Hit California, Kentucky, Other States

The CA Supreme Court will rule on pension cuts. Curiously, the court’s ruling will be irrelevant in case of bankruptcy.

California Governor Jerry Brown said legal rulings may clear the way for making cuts to public pension benefits, which would go against long-standing assumptions and potentially provide financial relief to the state and its local governments.

Brown said he has a “hunch” the courts would “modify” the so-called California rule, which holds that benefits promised to public employees can’t be rolled back. The state’s Supreme Court is set to hear a case in which lower courts ruled that reductions to pensions are permissible if the payments remain “reasonable” for workers.

“There is more flexibility than there is currently assumed by those who discuss the California rule,” Brown said during a briefing on the budget in Sacramento. He said that in the next recession, the governor “will have the option of considering pension cutbacks for the first time.”

That would be a major shift in California, where municipal officials have long believed they couldn’t adjust the benefits even as they struggle to cover the cost. They have raised taxes and dipped into reserves to meet rising contributions. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the nation’s largest public pension, has about 68 percent of assets needed to cover its liabilities. For the fiscal year beginning in July, the state’s contribution to Calpers is double what it was in fiscal 2009.

“In the next downturn, when things look pretty dire, that would be one of the items on the chopping block,” Brown said.

Pension Cuts Are Coming

It’s refreshing to hear a politician admit the obvious: Pension cuts are coming.

However, whether or not the cuts are “reasonable” is irrelevant in cases of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is under federal, not state law.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Supreme Court to Debate Warrantless Collection Of Cellphone Records in Huge Fourth Amendment Battle

Supreme Court to Debate Warrantless Collection Of Cellphone Records in Huge Fourth Amendment Battle

In one of the most important Fourth Amendment battles of the digital age, the Supreme Court is preparing to tackle a case involving law enforcement accessing cellphone records without a warrant.

On Wednesday the US Supreme Court is scheduled to address the case of Carpenter v. United States to determine whether or not law enforcement should be required to obtain a warrant before accessing the cellphone records of an individual. The case deals with a set of armed robberies that took place between December 2010 and March 2011. Several men worked together to rob RadioShack and T-Mobile stores in the Michigan and Ohio areas, stealing cell phones and holding store employees and customers hostage in the process.

A couple of the men were arrested and quickly confessed afterwards. However, one man remained at large. With one of the suspect’s phones in their possession, the FBI gained access to”transactional records” from various wireless carriers for 16 different phone numbers contained within the phone. These records contained all the location info and call records made to and from the phone. Using the “cell-site records” pulled off the phone, the FBI was able to locate and arrest the final suspect, Timothy Carpenter. He was charged and convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting robbery that affected interstate commerce, and aiding and abetting the use or carriage of a firearm during a federal crime of violence. Carpenter now faces life in prison for his crimes.

The FBI gained access to the cell-site records using provision set forth by the Stored Communications Act, which was passed in 1986 to deal with the protection of information stored digitally.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Opinion Infected by Bias

Opinion Infected by BiasBIAS

QUESTION: Marty; Why do you say your opinion is not worth much? You have been around for some time and you are the only analyst to have been behind the curtain. If anyone’s opinion carries any weight, it has to be yours.

RJ

Friedman-sand

Spock

ANSWER:Yes. Experience is everything. You cannot forecast something you have never seen, but opinion is fallible because we are all infected with that human trait of being fallible. I have learned so much from the computer. This is the importance of real cognitive adaptive computer systems. They have no emotion or bias so they are objective. In a way, they are like the character Spock from “Star Trek.” If someone believes that paper money is the great evil, then they will be blind to all other influence and look no further. Concluding that the evil is paper money, means they consider nothing else when in fact it is the fiscal mismanagement of the monetary system irrespective of what society uses for money. This is why a gold standard would not work and has failed historically every time just like Bretton Woods. It has nothing to do with the medium of exchange. It is always about those in charge. Milton Friedman said if you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in no time. Investigating the truth requires abandoning all bias.

1992PRES

The computer has never been wrong because it sees trends without interjecting some theory or bias which infects all opinion. The only times the computer has been wrong seems directly linked to serious manipulation. It projected the Al Gore would win by a tiny, narrow margin. The Supreme Court gave it to Bush and would not allow a recount. When the recount was completed, it proved that the computer was correct after all. But that is reality.

1992PRES

The computer has never been wrong because it sees trends without interjecting some theory or bias which infects all opinion. The only times the computer has been wrong seems directly linked to serious manipulation. It projected the Al Gore would win by a tiny, narrow margin. The Supreme Court gave it to Bush and would not allow a recount. When the recount was completed, it proved that the computer was correct after all. But that is reality.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Supreme Court Just Created a Full-Blown Police State – The End of the USA Cannot Be Far Behind

US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruling in Utah v Strieff awarded the police total freedom to stop any citizen, at any time, to do whatever they desire. The Supreme Court determined that the “poisonous fruit” of a police officer’s stop of a citizen can be used against them at trial. This has wiped out, in reality, any constitutional protection you thought you had. This is a sad day for the United States, for the Supreme Court has officially created a full-blown police state and clearly has no intention of honoring why this nation began the entire American Revolution —  to prevent illegal searches that allowed the king to look for anything he could use to prosecute citizens.

The Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer had initially violated a person’s rights (in other words, the Constitution) the officer’s conduct was “at most negligent” and the result of “good-faith mistakes.” This language is a wink and nod to the police who only have to claim they made a mistake that was not intentional and they walk free. We have witnessed police outrageously murder citizens, but the police officers involved are usually not charged. Now, with this decision, the United States has become exactly as Ukraine stood before the people revolted.

A friend of mine from Ukraine came to the states before the last revolution. When they would see a police officer, they would tense up and try to avoid them at all costs. At home, the police were the criminals. They would shake you down, abuse you, and there was simply no rule of law. The Supreme Court, as of yesterday, has committed suicide.

Otis-James

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Upgrade Your iPhone Passcode to Defeat the FBI’s Backdoor Strategy

YESTERDAY, APPLE CEO TIM COOK published an open letter opposing a court order to build the FBI a “backdoor” for the iPhone.

Cook wrote that the backdoor, which removes limitations on how often an attacker can incorrectly guess an iPhone passcode, would set a dangerous precedent and “would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession,” even though in this instance, the FBI is seeking to unlock a single iPhone belonging to one of the killers in a 14-victim mass shooting spree in San Bernardino, California, in December.

It’s true that ordering Apple to develop the backdoor will fundamentally undermine iPhone security, as Cook and other digital security advocates have argued. But it’s possible for individual iPhone users to protect themselves from government snooping by setting strong passcodes on their phones — passcodes the FBI would not be able to unlock even if it gets its iPhone backdoor.

The technical details of how the iPhone encrypts data, and how the FBI might circumvent this protection, are complex and convoluted, and are being thoroughly explored elsewhere on the internet. What I’m going to focus on here is how ordinary iPhone users can protect themselves.

The short version: If you’re worried about governments trying to access your phone, set your iPhone up with a random, 11-digit numeric passcode. What follows is an explanation of why that will protect you and how to actually do it.

If it sounds outlandish to worry about government agents trying to crack into your phone, consider that when you travel internationally, agents at the airport or other border crossings can seize, search, and temporarily retain your digital devices — even without any grounds for suspicion. And while a local police officer can’t search your iPhone without a warrant, cops have used their own digital devices to get search warrants within 15 minutes, as a Supreme Court opinion recently noted.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress