if this precedent is set, what's to stop a future Congress from sifting through the tax records of any government official they choose?
I don't see that as a bad thing. All politicians should be subject to have their tax records made public.
Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online Speech The cases could significantly affect the power and responsibilities of social media platforms. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/technology/supreme-court-online-free-speech-social-media.html excerpt: For years, giant social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have operated under two crucial tenets. The first is that the platforms have the power to decide what content to keep online and what to take down, free from government oversight. The second is that the websites cannot be held legally responsible for most of what their users post online, shielding the companies from lawsuits over libelous speech, extremist content and real-world harm linked to their platforms. Now the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider those rules, potentially leading to the most significant reset of the doctrines governing online speech since U.S. officials and courts decided to apply few regulations to the web in the 1990s. On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users. more at the link
The USSC is potentially setting up a Catch 22 for social media. 1. They can't take down content. 2. They can be sued for content on their platform that people find offensive and they can't down.
Just to note J Edgar Hoover wasn't a member of Congress and the DOJ has always been able to get tax records with warrants.
Legal Progressives Have Lost That Lovin' Feelin' https://lawliberty.org/book-review/legal-progressives-have-lost-that-lovin-feelin/ excerpt: Liberal law professors used to love the US Supreme Court. For half a century, they applauded activist decisions, proposed new theories of “noninterpretive” jurisprudence, and blew kisses to the Justices most responsible for steering the Court to the left—e.g., Earl Warren, William Brennan, William O. Douglas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In books such as Gideon’s Trumpet (1964), the Warren Court’s novel decisions extending unprecedented procedural rights to criminal defendants were hailed as exemplars of wisdom and enlightenment. In a prior era, the job of “Supreme Court correspondent” for newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post consisted of enthusiastic fandom—applauding every doctrinal innovation advanced by the liberal majority on the Court. This seductively-powerful flattery was dubbed the “Greenhouse Effect.” Then, abruptly, the Left’s devotion to the Court turned sour. Seemingly overnight, liberals spurned the Court, reminding observers of the song “You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’.” After decades of devotion, progressives have lost their “lovin’ feelin’” for the Court. As the song goes, “Now it’s gone, gone, gone.” In contrast with their previous ardor, liberal Democrats are questioning the legitimacy of the Court and proposing court-packing schemes, term limits for Justices, and other measures that were once the province of conservative critics of judicial activism—measures that liberals formerly condemned as “threatening the independence of the judiciary.” What happened? Stated succinctly, the “rule of five”—Justice Brennan’s cynical shorthand for the number of votes needed to form a majority—has turned against progressives accustomed to having their way. To their considerable chagrin, President Donald Trump’s appointments flipped the Court. With the addition of Trump-appointed Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, the Court’s long-suffering conservative minority is now in charge. When brazenly-activist lower court judges abused their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions in cases challenging President Trump’s immigration policy and other matters, the new conservative majority sometimes had to issue orders vacating such erroneous rulings—to the dismay of Trump’s vociferous opponents. The reversal of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs last year removed all doubt that the tide has finally turned on the Supreme Court—and not coincidentally so has the tenor of scholarship from the legal academy. Like a jilted lover, the left-wing professoriate holds the Court in scornful contempt. University of Texas law professor (and CNN analyst) Stephen Vladeck’s The Shadow Docket is a prime example. more at the link
Hell yea is right! In this case, Congress passed a law, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which provides that the CFPB shall be funded by up to 12 percent of the Federal Reserve’s total operating expenses. Thus, under Cincinnati Soap, the CFPB is constitutional because it was funded by an act of Congress. Boy you alt-right wingers are nuts...
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/02/...ty-of-consumer-watchdog-agencys-funding-cfpb/ A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected most of the groups’ challenges to the rule, but it ultimately struck down the rule based on the CFPB’s unique funding scheme, which operates outside the normal congressional appropriations process. Instead of receiving money allocated to it each year by Congress, the CFPB receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve, which collects fees from member banks. And that scheme, the court of appeals concluded, violates the Constitution’s appropriations clause, which directs that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The appropriations clause, the court of appeals explained, “ensures Congress’s exclusive power over the federal purse,” which is in turn essential to ensure that other branches of government don’t overstep their authority. The court of appeals vacated the 2017 rule on the ground that the CFPB was receiving funding through that unconstitutional funding mechanism when it adopted the rule. ad hominem
Looks like the S Ct is going to strike down Biden's executive order to forgive a lot of student loans. Just pure class warfare and GOP politics. The GOP Supremes do not want to many Americans to have the experience of the government these Ivy League clowns know what side their bread is buttered on. These A holes would gladly approve any executive orders favoring big biz. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/02/28/us/student-loans-supreme-court Give these warriors for the wealth a chance and they will find food stamps unconstitutional and the WIC program for woman infants and (OTHER PEOPL'E' )children also suspect. The Dems and Biden should just propose things which help many Americans and let these clowns and their counterparts keep blocking it. A good one is expanding Medicare for seniors-to include dental and vision -- even Repblicans out in the rural areas who seldom see an immigrant and are scared ihsitless of them and crime and transgenders whatever the fearmongering of the day etc need thisIt want their teeth fixed.. After it was the coservative S Ct back in the day who kept finding social security unconsitutional that led to the 40 years of Democratic dominatation.
Biden should just extend the pause indefinitely. If Dems keep getting elected POTUS then keep it going. Let the next Republican POTUS be the one to make millions of borrowers start repayments after years and years. Is this a permanent solution? Nope, is it petty? Kind of. But IDGAF. Watching the USSC packed to push conservative policies and seeing what’s going on with Dominion v FNC….stop trying to be the nice guy adult in the room. Play the game to get what you want or the GOP will.
