SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

An experimental forum for discussing off-topic subjects

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby seacoaster on Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:50 pm

Umm, WTF. Baseball tickets?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... d39b6ae9cb

"But for Kavanaugh, the differences between his finances and those of his would-be peers on the court are stark. He lists just two kinds of assets — unspecified accounts held with Bank of America, and his wife’s retirement fund from her job in Texas — totaling between $15,000 to $65,000.

His public filing does not include his home, which he purchased with his wife, Ashley, in 2006 for $1.2 million. Public real estate filings indicate that the couple has refinanced their mortgage twice, most recently in 2015. Their current mortgage is $865,000.

His past financial disclosure forms reveal that Kavanaugh has carried significant credit card debt — on and off — for more than a decade. He previously reported between $60,000 to $200,000 in debt among three credit cards and a loan in 2006, the same year he was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit."
seacoaster
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby cradleandshoot on Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:13 pm

Not to be rude coaster... what is your point? Kavanaugh is too poor to serve on the SCOTUS. :doh: Maybe more SCOTUS judges should know and understand what it means to live hand to mouth. In due time the court and the power that it brings will give judge Kavanaugh untold millions... just like everybody else that gets to DC without 2 nickels to rub together and a pot to pee in. :whatever:
" Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine
User avatar
cradleandshoot
 
Posts: 6573
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:52 pm
Location: Upstate... in the peoples republic of New York

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby holmes435 on Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:08 pm

Re-read it if you need, but you know that wasn't his point at all.
User avatar
holmes435
 
Posts: 2679
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:56 pm

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby seacoaster on Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:22 am

My point is that it is a surprise that a 50 something professional is racking up 5 and 6 figure credit card debt, and seems so bad, or maybe reckless, at the careful financial planning that you, C&S, often talk about having to do living in the People's Republic of Cuomo.
seacoaster
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby 6ftstick on Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:19 am

Some more of that unbiased justice department stuff

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/p ... utors.html

"Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, has asked federal prosecutors to help review the government documents of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times on Wednesday.

But in an email sent this week to the nation’s 93 United States attorneys, Mr. Rosenstein asked each office to provide up to three federal prosecutors “who can make this important project a priority for the next several weeks.” Names were to be submitted to Mr. Rosenstein’s office by the end of Wednesday."


Thats a total of 279 prosecutors!

Wonder if Strok and his girlfriend will head it up?
6ftstick
 
Posts: 6435
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 4:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby frmanfan on Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:15 am

I get to hear NPR for about 10-15 minutes on the way to work, and again on the way home. Can someone tell me, is the SCOTUS going to hear any other cases besides those involving Roe v. Wade? I get the impression, not.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Give me a beer, and I'll give you my gratitude. Give me two, and I'll give you my opinion.
It is shaping up to be a very unusual couple of years. For sure!
User avatar
frmanfan
 
Posts: 2782
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Wishin' I was at a dim, smokey bar, cuddling a cold one. Beer that is.

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby CU77 on Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:05 pm

Yes, and those cases are likely to make life significantly worse for the non-plutocrats among us:
Brett Kavanaugh and the new judicial activism: From the CFPB to the EPA to the ACA to net neutrality, a consistent thumb on the scales for capital

the real debate in the American judiciary is whether the Constitution allows the people’s elected representatives to meaningfully regulate the national economy.

Kavanaugh clearly believes it does not: He has called the existence of independent regulatory agencies — notably including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but potentially the entire alphabet soup of FCC, FTC, CFTC, SEC, FEC, etc. — a “threat to individual liberty.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/12/17557594/ ... reme-court
www.si.com/vault/1971/06/14/611594/big-red-votes-itself-no-1
www.si.com/vault/1976/06/07/614885/big-red-sticks-it-to-the-terps
www.si.com/vault/1977/06/06/621812/cornells-wild-irish-rose
User avatar
CU77
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 3:40 pm
Location: Santa Barbara CA

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby ggait on Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:23 pm

My point is that it is a surprise that a 50 something professional is racking up 5 and 6 figure credit card debt, and seems so bad, or maybe reckless, at the careful financial planning that you, C&S, often talk about having to do living in the People's Republic of Cuomo.


Any of us would love to have Kavanaugh's financial plan. In addition to three months off every summer, like all Federal judges/justices Kavanaugh qualifies for "senior status" once he hits 65. That's what Anthony Kennedy now has. Full salary for life. No work required, no retirement contributions required, no market risk. 28 USC 371.

The NPV on that would make all of our 401(k)s look puny by comparison. Like how many old fashioned union/govt jobs were, the comp looks much more modest than it actually is.

P.S. And when his daughters inevitably get into Yale (legacy + SCOTUS kid), he'll probably qualify for financial aid. Since Yale won't look at his size-able home equity, retirement assets and govt benefits.
Last edited by ggait on Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ggait
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby thatsmell on Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:32 pm

Perhaps people here are reading too much into it. Maybe he put it all on credit because he "wanted the points?"

What's in your wallet?

:lol:
"I never knew no Godfather. I got my own family, Senator."
User avatar
thatsmell
Moderator
 
Posts: 11167
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:22 am
Location: Dragged into the pantry by Tony Rosato

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby a fan on Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:33 pm

frmanfan wrote:I get to hear NPR for about 10-15 minutes on the way to work, and again on the way home. Can someone tell me, is the SCOTUS going to hear any other cases besides those involving Roe v. Wade? I get the impression, not.

What did you expect?

Ya think FoxNews would be talking about the fall of the Republic if Obama was making this choice?

Yup. We do this to ourselves.
User avatar
a fan
 
Posts: 14157
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:35 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby ggait on Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:23 pm

Maybe he put it all on credit because he "wanted the points?"


Sounds like a group of families going in together on season tickets. If you want to the group sit together, you get one guy to buy all the tickets together, and then the group reimburses the buyer guy.

The buyer guy gets the airline miles in exchange for the hassle of doing the organizing, buying and collecting for the group.

Very nefarious stuff!
User avatar
ggait
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby seacoaster on Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:59 am

Brother Gary, I, anyway, wasn't suggesting anything nefarious. I was suggesting that credit card debt of that magnitude is weird in a guy with and in a financial system that is so very predictable and relatively easy to manage.
seacoaster
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS decisions & general commentary

New postby seacoaster on Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:49 pm

A little overview and prognosis of young Brett and the Environment:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/kavan ... ore-273015

"In Sierra Club v. EPA, in 2008, Kavanaugh sat on a panel with two fellow Republican appointees: then-Chief Judge David Sentelle, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, and Judge Thomas Griffith, who, like Kavanaugh, is a President George W. Bush appointee. That case involved a challenge by the Sierra Club to a Bush-era EPA regulation that relaxed monitoring requirements associated with a permitting program under the Clean Air Act. Writing for the majority, Griffith found that the EPA had overstepped its statutory authority and struck down the rule. In his dissent, Kavanaugh noted that he “agree[d] completely with the majority opinion about bedrock principles of statutory interpretation,” yet arrived at the opposite result — for him, the most natural interpretation of the act was one that favored the agency’s less stringent approach."

Awesome, right? Well, here's some more joy:

"In White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, in 2014, the majority upheld a regulation that imposed more stringent controls on mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants. In dissent, Kavanaugh argued that the agency was obligated to consider compliance costs when determining whether it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate these sources — its failure to do so was, in his eyes, fatal to the regulation. After granting certiorari in the case, the Supreme Court in 2015 vindicated Kavanaugh’s view in Michigan v. EPA. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a 5–4 majority, held that the statutory language “appropriate and necessary” required that the agency consider costs at the earliest stage of its rulemaking.

Kavanaugh’s flexibility becomes apparent in something of a companion case from 2012, EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, in which a group of states and industry representatives challenged a rule to reduce air pollution that crosses state borders. That case also involved the consideration of costs when setting a regulation, but with a twist: In this case, it was the EPA and environmentalists that argued that the agency had the discretion to consider compliance costs when setting emissions budgets for states, and industry arguing that the agency could not consider costs. Kavanaugh again sided with industry, holding that the “EPA may rely on cost-effectiveness factors in order to allow some upwind States to do less than their full fair share” to control pollution, but not more. In other words, for Kavanaugh, cost considerations were a one-way ratchet: When costs are high, then they can be used to justify less stringent environmental protection, but cheap and easy controls are not a good reason to go further to clean up the air. EME Homer, like White Stallion, was taken up by the Supreme Court, but this time Kavanaugh’s view did not prevail, with Justice Ginsburg writing for a 6–2 majority (which included Kennedy and Roberts) that the statute gave the agency broad latitude to craft a regulatory program to cut interstate emissions, with compliance costs as a perfectly reasonable factor for the agency to consider. Scalia, however, agreed with Kavanaugh, arguing in dissent that the agency inappropriately relied on costs.

The contrast between White Stallion and EME Homer is clear: In the case in which considering costs would lead to less stringent standards, Kavanaugh believes that costs must be considered; but in the case in which considering costs would lead to more stringent standards, he says that they cannot be considered."


I think our friend CU77 pretty much nails who this fellow is, and in whose service he likely intends to act.
seacoaster
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:42 pm

Sponsor
 

Previous

Return to The Water Cooler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cooter, Google Adsense [Bot], Il Gigante and 22 guests