201
In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests' (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/law@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In an environmental case, the liberal justice questioned whether the high court treats business interests differently from "less powerful litigants."

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues Friday in a scathing dissent in a case involving vehicle emissions regulations.

In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's ruling gives the impression it favors “moneyed interests” in the way it decides which cases to hear and how it rules in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations.

She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago

yeh, I need 50,000 shell companies to manage social media, online media, traditional media, us law, print media, branding, exhibitions, TV media, streaming media, free streaming media, physical media and ad campaigns.

Any anti-human when a "$10 limit for judge is sponsored by" law comes into effect.

Seriously, these judges are being bought for 500k per year. I have no sources on this. I have read news reports of politicians being bought for 10k to 100k. And, for me, 500k would massively change my life.
So 500k to lean to one side, 2 cases per year: I would be set.
The fact that these judgements affect 10k, 100k, 1m people? I would have issue with that, but if it was boiling a frog of minor judgements that don't affect anyone but slowly increased impact and payout... I might not notice.
Especially if they slipped in a few no-impact rulings with extremely high payout (this is the "jackpot" method for training dogs, name coined from - I presume - casinos and gambling).
And by the time I've realised I've been bought out by the bad guys: I would be planning for my exit, the aftermath and my family. I'd be demanding more, selling everything out, and making sure the laws I effect benefit my exit.

It's bought & sold. It's disgusting.
They should be held to higher standards and procedures, with ACTUAL consequences.
I hope - at one point - they were human, and cared, and that's why they were selected.
If they were in-human before they were selected, then the system is broken.
Considering they have the power to reverse or approve government decisions, seems like THEY are the ones people should be voting for and that the president is more of a guiding figure

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent