Welcome to the TeamstersOnline.com.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Retired !

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Local Union
    107
    Employer
    Retired - New Penn
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    16,854
    Rep Power
    366

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    As the story says, the upcoming term for the SCOTUS is due to hear arguments concerning ERISA and other retirement employer sponsored benefit plans.


    Justices Roll Up Their Sleeves for Retirement, Benefits Cases
    The Supreme Court’s upcoming term is shaping up to be a blockbuster for those seeking clarity on the federal law that governs 401(k) retirement and other employer-sponsored benefit plans.
    The justices have already agreed to hear two cases brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when the next term starts in October, and two more cases are waiting in the wings.
    While ERISA is not a hot-button issue like abortion, gun control, or drug prices, the law has an exceptionally broad reach because it sets standards for most retirement and health-care plans.
    “ERISA is a major federal law,” said Mark Smith, a partner at Eversheds Sutherland. “It protects both retirement plans and employer-provided health plans and as such it has a significant place in the economic security of working Americans.”
    It’s common to have one or two ERISA cases each term, but to have as many as four cases worthy of the court’s review is unusual.
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/class-...rticle-related

  2. Likes ABFwife Liked this post
  3. #12
    Retired !

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Local Union
    107
    Employer
    Retired - New Penn
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    16,854
    Rep Power
    366

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    I decided to place this article here since it does involve a letter to Chief Justice Roberts.
    This isn't just some dissenting judge, but a person with knowledge and experience in how our country is supposed to operate. For all the people, all the time. He now feels that isn't happening and has directed this letter to the Supreme Court Chief justice to explain why.
    It does say many of the same things a few of us here have repeated over and over again.

    Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar
    James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. He has appeared on briefs and petitions as part of the most prestigious association of attorneys in the country: the Supreme Court Bar. The lawyers admitted to practice before the high court enjoy preferred seating at arguments and access to the court library, and are deemed members of the legal elite. Above all, the bar stands as a sprawling national signifier that the work of the court, the legitimacy of the institution, and the business of justice is bolstered by tens of thousands of lawyers across the nation.
    On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. In his letter, reprinted in full below, Dannenberg compares the current Supreme Court, with its boundless solicitude for the rights of the wealthy, the privileged, and the comfortable, to the court that ushered in the Lochner era in the early 20th century, a period of profound judicial activism that put a heavy thumb on the scale for big business, banking, and insurance interests, and ruled consistently against child labor, fair wages, and labor regulations.
    Excerpts from the letter.

    The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.

    Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society.
    The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.
    The full letter contained in the article: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ts-letter.html

  4. Likes 222lifer, fedexnuno, ABFwife Liked this post
  5. #13
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Local Union
    641
    Employer
    Retired New Penn
    Location
    Northeastern PA
    Posts
    22,963
    Rep Power
    318

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    Quote Originally Posted by fxstc07 View Post
    I decided to place this article here since it does involve a letter to Chief Justice Roberts.
    This isn't just some dissenting judge, but a person with knowledge and experience in how our country is supposed to operate. For all the people, all the time. He now feels that isn't happening and has directed this letter to the Supreme Court Chief justice to explain why.
    It does say many of the same things a few of us here have repeated over and over again.

    Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar


    Excerpts from the letter.




    The full letter contained in the article: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ts-letter.html
    He was already retired.

  6. Likes 1484-1075 Liked this post
  7. #14
    Retired !

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Local Union
    107
    Employer
    Retired - New Penn
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    16,854
    Rep Power
    366

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    Quote Originally Posted by crazy View Post
    He was already retired.
    Glad you understood that much.
    But that wasn't the point of the article's story.

  8. #15
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Local Union
    641
    Employer
    Retired New Penn
    Location
    Northeastern PA
    Posts
    22,963
    Rep Power
    318

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    Quote Originally Posted by fxstc07 View Post
    Glad you understood that much.
    But that wasn't the point of the article's story.
    What was the point?? That he has an opinion and that he didn't agree with some of the decisions made. Get over it. I am sure there are many that disagreed with the SC when they had a liberal majority. That is the consequence of elections. I voted for the party that has the same values as I do. They won.
    Last edited by crazy; 03-14-2020 at 06:18 PM.

  9. Likes 1484-1075, Jimmy Liked this post
  10. #16
    Retired !

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Local Union
    107
    Employer
    Retired - New Penn
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    16,854
    Rep Power
    366

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    The upcoming weeks should prove to be interesting. There are three cases which the SCOTUS will hear arguments, and they are all about Trump and his financial records.

    Argument preview: Justices to tackle disputes over access to Trump financial records
    During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump famously refused to release copies of his tax returns – a departure from the practice of nearly all major-party candidates in recent decades – and he has continued to decline to do so since then. But on May 12, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a trio of cases arising from efforts by a New York grand jury and congressional committees to gain access to the president’s financial records. The court’s ruling could be significant not only for Trump and his businesses, but also for the presidency more broadly.
    The first two cases slated for argument on May 12, Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, involve subpoenas issued by congressional committees. In the Mazars case, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena in April 2019 to Mazars, the president’s longtime accounting firm, for financial records relating to Trump and his businesses. The committee said that it wanted the documents as part of its investigation into the adequacy of current government ethics laws.
    A decision in the cases is expected by summer.
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/a...s/#more-293530

  11. #17
    Resistance is futile.

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Local Union
    391
    Employer
    YRC-Roadway
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,100
    Rep Power
    866

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    Quote Originally Posted by fxstc07 View Post
    The upcoming weeks should prove to be interesting. There are three cases which the SCOTUS will hear arguments, and they are all about Trump and his financial records.

    Argument preview: Justices to tackle disputes over access to Trump financial records



    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/a...s/#more-293530
    justice kavanaugh has his back lol.... just watch

  12. #18
    Scab Hating Union Thug

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Local Union
    222
    Employer
    YRC
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    27,295
    Rep Power
    1166

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    I'm thinking beer barfing Brett has a little more than his back......

    Sent from my SM-J327T using Tapatalk

  13. #19
    Resistance is futile.

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Local Union
    391
    Employer
    YRC-Roadway
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,100
    Rep Power
    866

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    Quote Originally Posted by 222lifer View Post
    I'm thinking beer barfing Brett has a little more than his back......

    Sent from my SM-J327T using Tapatalk

  14. #20
    Retired !

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Local Union
    107
    Employer
    Retired - New Penn
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    16,854
    Rep Power
    366

    Default Re: Supreme court case

    Here is another case decided right along the justices party lines.
    The term "Article III" means to show you have suffered ( a loss or injury ) but not what may happen in the future.

    Participants in Defined-Benefit Retirement Plan Lack Standing to Sue Over Alleged Mismanagement
    Among the five opinions handed down today by the Supreme Court was Thole v. U.S. Bank, in which the Supreme Court concluded that participants in a defined-benefit retirement plan lacked Article III standing to sue the plan alleging it was mismanaged. As a consequence, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action by plan participants against U.S. Bank.
    The case split the Court along traditional ideological lines, 5-4, as has often happened in cases concerning Article III standing and class action litigation. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the Court. Justice Thomas concurred, joined by Gorsuch. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by the Court's three liberal justices.
    One reason this case is potentially significant is because it represents one of the more serious standing cases to reach the Court since the death of Justice Scalia, who was quite the standing hawk. The Court's refusal to find or expand an exception to Article III's injury requirement in ERISA or trust principles suggests that the Court still has five justices on the Court who would like to keep a tight leash on Article III.
    https://reason.com/2020/06/01/partic...mismanagement/

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •