If you refuse to vote for Democrats because they don’t perfectly align with your progressive ideals, this is what you get - potentially decades of work implementing environmental, anticorruption, and social justice rolled back by a court that has been stacked with extreme right wingers to legislate from the bench for unpopular outcomes.
There is one viable party that both implements more progressive policies and names judges that will uphold them - do not throw your vote away.
Terrible. So I will not vote in protest! (/s)
These are companies not people (even though we treat them that way when convenient), and they broke a regulation that is part of their expected operating procedures. Why are we dragging this into court and seating a jury because a company didn’t do the thing they were supposed to do. They should have no presumption of innocence, the inspection is the proof one way or the other. This just lets them further delay any consequences, and will be another thing calculated into their cost analysis of “are we going to follow the rules” or is it more cost effective (at least short term because that’s what shareholders care about) to just NOT ever follow the rules, delay any fines, rinse and repeat?
Because the companies paid good money to get these people appointed to the court, and they expect a return on that investment
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The justices ruled in a 6-3 vote that people accused of fraud by the SEC, which regulates securities markets, have the right to a jury trial in federal court.
The SEC was awarded more than $5 billion in civil penalties in the 2023 government spending year that ended Sept. 30, the agency said in a news release.
The case is among several this term in which conservative and business interests are urging the nine-member court to constrict federal regulators.
The court’s six conservatives already have reined them in, including in a decision last year that sharply limited environmental regulators’ ability to police water pollution in wetlands.
Circuit Court of Appeals threw out stiff financial penalties against Jarkesy and his Patriot28 investment adviser.
Those issues got virtually no attention during arguments in November, and the court chose to resolve the case only on the right to a jury trial.
The original article contains 444 words, the summary contains 148 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Why wouldn’t they have a right to a jury trial? It’s ridiculous that this even needs to be a decision by the Supreme Court
Because administrative penalties are a thing. Your right to a jury trial only applies to crimes, and not everything is a crime. SCOTUS effectively ruled that if something could be a crime, even if you’re not being charged with a crime, the government can’t issue a non-criminal fine for it instead.
7th amendment provides for a jury trial in common law. The 6th provides for a jury in criminal cases.
