Jasonisms

Is our current #SCOTUS applying a religious double standard? Some say yes, other say it's a bit more complicated than that. _"In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the court actually went out of its way to rest its decision on the anti-religious comments of a local official, when that issue wasn't even presented before the judges at the briefing," said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates. "Here, in contrast, the court went out of its way to ignore the copious amounts of anti-Muslim bigotry from the President as he was developing and then enacting the policy. It's a total double standard," Khera added._ https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/does-the-supreme-court-have-a-double-standard-on-religion/index.html

One would have to wonder how the recent #SCOTUS decision ensuring privacy protections for cell phones impacts these stingray devices that track and intercept phone calls and messages. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/privacy-scotus-cell-data-carpenter-v-usa.html https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/senator-to-fcc-what-do-you-know-about-stingrays-ability-to-disrupt-911-calls/

Is gerrymandering wrong? I think so, but Justice Roberts thinks the rest of us are too dumb to understand enough to care. #SCotUS #gerrymandering Originally shared by **** The evidence might be persuasive, once you take the time to digest it, but few voters have the patience or smarts to do so. If justices blow the whistle on Republican cheating, Roberts believes, the public will inevitably conclude that they're simply shilling for Democrats — "And that is going to cause very serious harm to the status and the integrity of the decisions of this Court in the eyes of the country." Roberts' argument amounts to a rejection of rational inquiry itself: If the evidence that Wisconsin has violated its citizens' constitutional rights is too sophisticated for laymen to grasp at first glance, he says, the court would be better off to ignore it. ...Roberts is right to be worried about the credibility of the judiciary, and its capacity to command the confidence of citizens ac...

The #SCotUS made an unanimous decision that actually makes sense for just about everyone regardless of political ideology. About the only people who won't be happy are law enforcement and, perhaps, prosecutors. And they're right, what's wrong with getting a warrant? https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-cell-phone-privacy-searches/amp?_utm_source=1-2-2

What do we know about Niel Gorsuch, #DonaldTrump's nominee to the #SCOTUS? At least one thing, it would seem: he's not interested in whether someone dies as long as they obey their boss. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/this-is-how-neil-gorsuch-thinks.html

#TrumpNation seeks to resurrect the ghost of Antonin Scalia. #SCotUS http://www.9news.com/mb/news/local/next/neil-gorsuch-federal-judge-in-denver-could-be-trumps-supreme-court-nominee/395105086

The takeaway here is that, yes, the Senate can confirm an appointee, they're just choosing not to to play politics with the Constitution. #SCotUS Originally shared by Electronic Frontier Foundation BREAKING: With a majority Senate vote, Dr. Carla Hayden is confirmed as the next Librarian of Congress.

Openly bribing politicians should be protected under the First Amendment, thanks to Citizen's United , says Kentucky Republican. And to prove it, he's suing the state of Kentucky. Thank you #SCotUS http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/23/4052685_gop-state-senator-suing-to-overturn.html?rh=1

The SCotUS recently decided corporations are individuals and are therefore allowed to contribute unrestrictive to political campaigns. In other words, corporations are exempt from 100 years of campaign finance laws and previous court decisions. So, that being said, since corporations are, per the SCotUS, legal individuals does that mean corporations will be as tax responsible as individuals? For example, will they now be required to pay income taxes on monies earned, or pay roughly 30% to the IRS and hope for a government refund in April 15?