Supreme Court gives DOGE “unfettered access” to sensitive Social Security data
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
This presumes a system where justice matters and a culture/society that cares that it matters.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
This is an insane ruling by a thoroughly corrupt court majority.
DOGE is NOT a lawfully created government agency, it isn't operating within any established law. It has ZERO rights to receive any privileged information and the court deciding that they have any rights to operate at all is grounds for them to be all removed from the bench for abject betrayal of their oaths to the constitution.
DOGE does NOT legally exist and the court needs to recognize that and order it dissolved NOT rubber stamp this corrupt administration's lawlessness.
DOGE is NOT a lawfully created government agency, it isn't operating within any established law. It has ZERO rights to receive any privileged information and the court deciding that they have any rights to operate at all is grounds for them to be all removed from the bench for abject betrayal of their oaths to the constitution.
DOGE does NOT legally exist and the court needs to recognize that and order it dissolved NOT rubber stamp this corrupt administration's lawlessness.
Upvote
24
(25
/
-1)
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
wait til Seniors start to lose their benefits because some DOGE guy ran a command his LLM suggested.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
The only party suffering irreparable harm is the citenzenry of the country whose personal data is being stolen. Once DOGE has hoovered out everything they can and sent it to XAI/Palantir/Russia and who the fuck knows who else it can't ever be secured again.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
And now that their judges are heavily ensconced, Trump is going after Leo and the Federalists because a few of his appointed judges pushed back a little. It doesn’t take much to get under his skin.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
IANAL, but to my eye it appears this actually fails at least 3 and probably all 4 of the SCOTUS listed “four factors”.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
They perfectly happy to pick which authoritarian they choose to support.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
The 6-3 decision says it all.
There was some small hope that a couple of the 'R' justices would put law, the constitution, principles of sound jurisprudence and maybe even common sense, above other, more political considerations.
So much for that hope.
As a Canadian observer, I've started to wonder... Forget the whole impeachment thing -- can SCOTUS justices be tried for treason?
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
chaos215bar2
Ars Praefectus
Someone sues, they take the case despite established precedent, and they rule the other way?
When you've mostly given up any semblance of acting as an impartial body, this kind of thing gets a whole lot simpler.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
Yeah, this much is obvious. When they ruled on presidency immunity (that they made up entirely themselves), they left the out that it only applies to "official acts." Who decides what is an official act? They do, on a case by case basis. You didn't think they'd actually give that power to a Democrat would you?
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Exactly. The law doesn't really matter when you can ignore it with impunity and your captive court blocks any lawsuits that might trouble you.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
DarkMatterSparta
Smack-Fu Master, in training
Elon Musk's DAD is a mouth piece for Putin and Elon Musk himself has billions vested in China. A country that wants to see at least some form of failure in the US so it can be the number one super power.
Now this clown
stooges has access to every American most personal data.
Voting has consequences!!
Now this clown
stooges has access to every American most personal data. Voting has consequences!!
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
What really bugs me about the majority in that case and other recent cases is the way they hand-wave away the dissent's criticism. It's like telling someone they shouldn't let their kid run with scissors, they ignore you as being all crazy and if it did happen they have a doctor, then the kid trips, hurts themselves and act all shocked like,"How was I to know that could happen.". A better example like their ruling on bribes, there needs to be an explicit Quid Pro Quo.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Moving the US Supreme Court further to the right began with President George W. Bush in the 2000s. Trump is continuing that trend moving the SCOTUS to the extreme right.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
But only if a Republican is in the White House. Otherwise it's government overreach.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Take a look into the future by comparing the emerging Palantir surveillance state to the former East German Stasi.
Loss of Private Life
DDR: Stasi had informants in every layer of society—even among friends and family.
USA parallel: A centralized AI-driven system could reconstruct an individual's movements, communications, and associations from merged IRS, DHS, and ICE data, rendering personal privacy nearly nonexistent.
Preemptive Targeting and Profiling
DDR: People were surveilled before committing any crimes, based on suspicion or political beliefs.
USA parallel: Predictive algorithms analyzing combined government data might tag individuals as “high risk,” leading to pre-crime style interventions without due process or oversight.
Punitive Bureaucracy
DDR: Stasi used administrative means—like job rejections, housing denials, or travel bans—to ruin lives silently.
USA parallel: An integrated federal profile could quietly trigger visa denials, tax audits, or job blocks based on opaque criteria, especially for political activists or immigrants.
Culture of Fear and Self-Censorship
DDR: Fear of informants drove people to suppress thoughts, avoid protests, and isolate socially.
USA parallel: Knowing your digital footprint is monitored and cross-referenced could stifle political dissent, online speech, or even private conversations.
No Path to Accountability
DDR: Victims often never learned who spied on them or why they were targeted.
USA parallel: AI decision-making behind federal watchlists or denials could remain classified, leaving no appeal or transparency—only a sense of invisible persecution.
Loss of Private Life
DDR: Stasi had informants in every layer of society—even among friends and family.
USA parallel: A centralized AI-driven system could reconstruct an individual's movements, communications, and associations from merged IRS, DHS, and ICE data, rendering personal privacy nearly nonexistent.
Preemptive Targeting and Profiling
DDR: People were surveilled before committing any crimes, based on suspicion or political beliefs.
USA parallel: Predictive algorithms analyzing combined government data might tag individuals as “high risk,” leading to pre-crime style interventions without due process or oversight.
Punitive Bureaucracy
DDR: Stasi used administrative means—like job rejections, housing denials, or travel bans—to ruin lives silently.
USA parallel: An integrated federal profile could quietly trigger visa denials, tax audits, or job blocks based on opaque criteria, especially for political activists or immigrants.
Culture of Fear and Self-Censorship
DDR: Fear of informants drove people to suppress thoughts, avoid protests, and isolate socially.
USA parallel: Knowing your digital footprint is monitored and cross-referenced could stifle political dissent, online speech, or even private conversations.
No Path to Accountability
DDR: Victims often never learned who spied on them or why they were targeted.
USA parallel: AI decision-making behind federal watchlists or denials could remain classified, leaving no appeal or transparency—only a sense of invisible persecution.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Wouldn't it be too bad if the Social Security history of nine SCOTUS justices suddenly went viral?
I bet Justice Thomas would have even more explaining to do about his side hustle.
I bet Justice Thomas would have even more explaining to do about his side hustle.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Republicans always do that. Remember when McConnell criticized Obama for apparently not vetoing a bill hard enough when the Republican congress overroad the president's veto, and entirely predictable consequences (i.e. why it was vetoed in the first place) happened?
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Long ago did that, and I'm retired so no longer adding to the pot. Yes, I do check it several times a year, and SS has been good at reminding me about it at key times. Checks area sl direct-deposited which means they have my bank account info too). Access has become a tad dodgy, though, since DOGE people fired or enticed to leave a large number of SocSec technical staff including the IT people.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Note that the SocSec login process has changed in the last few months. You can't log in directly to Social Security with your old password any more. You have to generate login.gov credentials now to get access. Last time I logged in, I got one last login the Old Way, the was redirected to login.gov to do the work. Luckily, I had an old account there from years back when dealing with IRS over something, so I didn't have to start from scratch; doing it from a cold start is tricky and annoying, and requires a credit check in some cases.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Yes, but it also crashes a LOT.
"Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) system has been involved in numerous crashes, with reports indicating at least 54 fatalities linked to its use. Despite updates and recalls, accidents continue to occur, raising concerns about the safety of the technology." Teslavangelists will always disagree.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterl...las-full-self-driving-exposed-in-crash-video/
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg4UJxEK_Fg
etc...
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
No, it's far more serious than that: He is "a self-described Christian nationalist, Vought is the founder of the Center for Renewing America, an organization that opposes critical race theory and advocates for the idea of America as a 'nation under God'". So, an idiot fanatical creationist.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Orwell (Eric Blair) was an Old Etonian. His thinking on the subject of authoritarian tyranny is a bit muddled partly because (like Adam Smith or Voltaire) he couldn't imagine how capitalism would evolve and partly because, at bottom, and despite claiming to be a socialist, he was very suspicious of socialism.
Like Marx who thought communism would come first to advanced countries, not backward ones like Russia or China, Blair got it wrong about which developed country would first come to be ruled by propaganda after WW2.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Even if it could have somehow saved things, that particular minority can't bear the responsibility for the entire shitshow.
The problem is the roughly half of total voters that allowed themselves to be duped by the neo-fascists, and the Murdoch empire which largely enabled it.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
he is not smart. he is playing the soviet book, imposed in many ex soviet satellite countries.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Very cool and normal. Can't wait to see what new fuckery will become of this and how it's actually my fault for existing.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Talk to a recovering addict. They'll tell you yes, at some point the substance took full charge.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
In other news, scientist have found a nearly unlimited supply of energy. They tapped into the rotating graves of the Founding Fathers of the US, and are now producing energy in the gigawatt range. They believe the other rotating caskets of the likes of the millions of soldiers who died fighting for American freedom can power the entirety of the US by 2028
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
This is conservatism. Conservatives believe in enforcing hierarchy, no matter what it takes to do that.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Exactly. Everything we denounce as hypocrisy is used by them to increase their power. They do not care about collateral damages.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Unless they're not at the top.
What they actually believe is there are those the law binds but does not protect, and those the law protects but does not bind.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
In fairness, you're giving Trump the credit where the credit is not due. Republicans have been trying to (and succeeding at) stack the SCOTUS for roughly 50+ years now. Mitch McConnell is the one that actually got this working by illegally blocking Merrick Garland's nomination under Obama. McConnell specifically set up this chain of events to land this court. Trump is not and has not been smart enough to do it. McConnell has and did. Trump can only be credited for finding just the worst of the worst of nominations for McConnell to ram through.
But it's abundantly clear by now that Trump has no problem whatsoever finding the worst of the worst of all alleged human beings.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)