SCOTUS Watch

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Elevating religion to being akin to race. Wtf? It is hard to have hope when arguments like that are coming out of Supreme Court justices. The court has potentially shifted from Conservative lean to active reactionary. That should give everyone pause.
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

malchior wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:16 am That should give everyone pause.
I agree.

*pause*

Huh, I really thought there'd be earthquakes or raining fire or something...

;)
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by LawBeefaroni »

malchior wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:16 am The court has potentially shifted from Conservative lean to active reactionary.
And to some, that fact makes the disaster that is the Trump adminstration worth it.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

stessier wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:54 am
malchior wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:16 am That should give everyone pause.
I agree.

*pause*

Huh, I really thought there'd be earthquakes or raining fire or something...

;)
No earthquakes. Just creeping authoritarianism. We'll know by July how bad it is.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Yesterday we got a signal that we may be Hungary. Sotomayor openly calls the Conservative majority biased towards the Trump administration in a dissent attached to an immigration ruling released yesterday. She essentially calls out that the conservative majority is showing extreme deference to the Trump administration and isn't standing up for the courts.


The justice warned that her colleagues are favoring the Trump administration over everyone else.
Slate wrote:Normally, “to justify upending the normal rules,” the government “must also show a likelihood of irreparable harm.” And “it has not made that showing here.” But this shortcut to SCOTUS has become “the new normal”; it has happened over and over and over again, as the DOJ leapfrogs over the lower courts to seize a victory at the Supreme Court. Sotomayor explained:

"Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each. And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow."

But the Supreme Court’s conservatives repeatedly accept the DOJ’s declarations of an “emergency,” giving Donald Trump whatever he wants.

This practice, Sotomayor wrote, has “benefited one litigant over all others”: the Trump administration. And the injustice of this favoritism is especially painful in light of the court’s recent refusal to halt unconstitutional executions. “This Court often permits executions—where the risk of irreparable harm is the loss of life—to proceed,” Sotomayor noted, blaming death row inmates for their ostensible failure “to raise any potentially meritorious claims in a timely manner.” She concluded:

"Yet the Court’s concerns over quick decisions wither when prodded by the Government in far less compelling circumstances—where the Government itself chose to wait to seek relief, and where its claimed harm is continuation of a 20-year status quo in one State. I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this Court must strive to protect."

Put simply: When some of the most despised and powerless among us ask the Supreme Court to spare their lives, the conservative justices turn a cold shoulder. When the Trump administration demands permission to implement some cruel, nativist, and potentially unlawful immigration restrictions, the conservatives bend over backward to give it everything it wants. There is nothing “fair and balanced” about the court’s double standard that favors the government over everyone else. And, as Sotomayor implies, this flagrant bias creates the disturbing impression that the Trump administration has a majority of the court in its pocket.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43496
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Blackhawk »

And people think Bernie can bring a revolution.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 17424
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by pr0ner »

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:31 pm And people think Bernie can bring a revolution.
He only could if he tries to execute his agenda via executive order. I wouldn't put that past him if he somehow won (I don't think he can).
Hodor.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

The Atlantic

David Frum perfectly frames the Mazars case and captures the incredibly high-stakes at play.
Sometime before June 29, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court will either plunge the United States into the severest constitutional crisis of the Trump years—or save Americans from that crisis.

Three different committees of Congress, as well as New York State prosecutors, have issued subpoenas to President Donald Trump’s accountants and bankers for his tax and business records. Trump has sued to stop the accountants and bankers from complying. He has lost twice at the district-court level and twice at the appeals-court level. Now he is looking to the conservative majority on the Supreme Court to rescue him.

On March 31, the court will hear oral arguments in the cases of Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank. The decision will be rendered sometime between then and the court’s summer break.

...

As the House of Representatives noted in the brief it filed, previous Congresses have obtained the bank records of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Jimmy Carter, and the tax records of President Richard Nixon. They have read the diaries of President Ronald Reagan and the law-firm billing records of first lady Hillary Clinton.

It’s never before been the law that a subpoena of the president must be authorized by “the full chamber,” much less that this authorization be “unequivocal”—whatever that means.

It’s never before been the law that the president’s privileges—whatever they are—also extend to his private business agents.

It’s never before been the law that the courts set themselves over Congress as scrutinizers of its subpoenas, approving or disapproving. Until now, instead, courts have always extended the utmost deference to congressional investigations, from the first Washington administration onward.

...

By all rights, these cases should end in the kind of defeat for Trump nicely described by a favorite joke of Chief Justice John Roberts. When asked how a certain case could have been decided against a petitioner 9–0, Roberts is said to have replied: “You must remember, there are only nine justices on the Supreme Court.”

But this is the Trump era. The courts are partisan and getting more so. Although Trump lost every previous round of this litigation, one appellate judge did agree with him on the merits: his own appointee to the D.C. Circuit, Neomi Rao.

In her dissent from the majority opinion against Trump, Rao advanced an arresting new claim: “When Congress seeks information about the President’s wrongdoing, it does not matter whether the investigation also has a legislative purpose … Allegations that an impeachable official acted unlawfully must be pursued through impeachment … [and] cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment.”

This is wild talk that would shut down almost all congressional investigations. It asks that Congress decide whether an act was unlawful before it begins its investigation of that act. It’s an argument that cannot be applied in real life—and is probably not meant to be applied in real life beyond this one and only application: shutting down an unwanted investigation of President Trump.

Plainly, there is something in those documents that Trump dreads letting the world see. We now seem on track to one of three possible outcomes of this dispute.

The first is that precedent and law prevail. Trump loses his lawsuit against his accountants and bankers, and the subpoenaed documents are surrendered to Congress.

The second is that the political imperative to save Trump that swayed Rao will sway the conservative justices on the Supreme Court—and that Trump’s secrets will be protected by a 5–4 decision.

The third is that Trump loses—but continues to devise new delays to thwart the subpoenas and defy not only Congress but also the courts.

Every one of these possible outcomes leads to explosive controversy in the summer before the 2020 election.

In the first case, we are surely plunged into a screaming hurricane of Trump scandals.

In the second, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court will be called into doubt in a way not seen in decades, if ever.

And in the third, we confront a full-blown crisis of the rule of law.

Under all three scenarios, the issues raised by impeachment in early 2020 come roaring back for the election finale. Trump’s evident corruption, the questions over his thralldom to the Putin regime in Russia, the refusal of the Republican Party to uphold law when inconvenient to Trump—you thought we’d talked them to death during impeachment? There is so much more to come.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82093
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

WaPo
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6 to 3 that state court juries must be unanimous to convict a defendant of a serious crime, a decision that scrambled the court’s usual ideological lineups and prompted soul-searching among some justices about when to overturn precedent.

Louisiana and Oregon are the only two states that do not require unanimity for major crimes, and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said each state’s decision was rooted in discrimination. Although unanimity is not mentioned in the Constitution’s guarantee of an unbiased trial, he wrote, it is clear what is required.
...
In a 1972 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous verdicts in federal trials. But one of the five, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., said unanimous verdicts were not required in state trials.
...
The Louisiana case was brought by Evangelisto Ramos, convicted of second-degree murder in 2016 on a 10-to-2 jury vote and sentenced to life in prison. “Instead of the mistrial he would have received almost anywhere else, Ramos was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole,” Gorsuch noted.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Defiant »

Tell me they met virtually, and didn't actually require them to physically be there. :?
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Defiant wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 8:57 pm Tell me they met virtually, and didn't actually require them to physically be there. :?
They have been remote and are going to hold hearings by teleconference. No video.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Are we Hungary? Who knows anymore. This SCOTUS may be attempting to wipe its hands clean of responsibility for what will be our eventual dictatorship.

via TPM.
In a sign that could spell more trouble for presidential oversight efforts, the Supreme Court on Monday signaled that it was not even sure whether the judicial branch had the authority to settle disputes over congressional subpoenas issued for President Trump’s financial documents.

The court issued an order that the parties in pending blockbuster Trump subpoena cases submit additional briefing papers addressing the question.

“The parties and the Solicitor General are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the political question doctrine or related justiciability principles bear on the Court’s adjudication of these cases,” the order said.

If the Supreme Court ultimately decided that it did not have the authority to resolve the disputes, the effect of such a ruling could cut both ways for the President.
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

As noted, calling it a political question is not a clear win for the administration.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:40 pm As noted, calling it a political question is not a clear win for the administration.
That is not the point. The Supreme Court saying that they can't get involved in political questions may be rolling back 200+ years of jurisprudence. What power does Congress have to compel the WH to produce witnesses or evidence? Only norms. And the Court is beginning on a path of essentially stepping aside and saying, "Hope it all works out".
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

malchior wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:53 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:40 pm As noted, calling it a political question is not a clear win for the administration.
That is not the point. The Supreme Court saying that they can't get involved in political questions may be rolling back 200+ years of jurisprudence. What power does Congress have to compel the WH to produce witnesses or evidence? Only norms. And the Court is beginning on a path of essentially stepping aside and saying, "Hope it all works out".
The idea that there are political questions that the court sidesteps is not new. Asking if this is one of those times is not out of line.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

It is very troubling. The one caveat is that this is what the bogus DC Circuit opinion relied on in making its decision, so it makes some logical sense to incorporate that into these cases. Hopefully that's the reason for this (since they're going to have to consider that argument sooner or later anyway).
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:03 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:53 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:40 pm As noted, calling it a political question is not a clear win for the administration.
That is not the point. The Supreme Court saying that they can't get involved in political questions may be rolling back 200+ years of jurisprudence. What power does Congress have to compel the WH to produce witnesses or evidence? Only norms. And the Court is beginning on a path of essentially stepping aside and saying, "Hope it all works out".
The idea that there are political questions that the court sidesteps is not new. Asking if this is one of those times is not out of line.
No, but if SCOTUS embraces the idea that courts can't get involved in enforcing congressional subpoenas to the president, that would mean the virtual death of congressional oversight, regardless of the particular reason adopted by the court.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

El Guapo wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:05 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:03 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:53 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:40 pm As noted, calling it a political question is not a clear win for the administration.
That is not the point. The Supreme Court saying that they can't get involved in political questions may be rolling back 200+ years of jurisprudence. What power does Congress have to compel the WH to produce witnesses or evidence? Only norms. And the Court is beginning on a path of essentially stepping aside and saying, "Hope it all works out".
The idea that there are political questions that the court sidesteps is not new. Asking if this is one of those times is not out of line.
No, but if SCOTUS embraces the idea that courts can't get involved in enforcing congressional subpoenas to the president, that would mean the virtual death of congressional oversight, regardless of the particular reason adopted by the court.
No, it would mean Congress would have to exert oversight through politics rather than the courts.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:04 pm It is very troubling. The one caveat is that this is what the bogus DC Circuit opinion relied on in making its decision, so it makes some logical sense to incorporate that into these cases. Hopefully that's the reason for this (since they're going to have to consider that argument sooner or later anyway).
I don't see that working in a positive way. They've been hinting at some very troubling positions vis a vis their role in jurisprudence and haven't been afraid to step on rulings. This is a very not good sign.
stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:40 pmThe idea that there are political questions that the court sidesteps is not new. Asking if this is one of those times is not out of line.
I'm not saying it is out of line. More that in light of recent decisions from the new majority of the Court and the momentum of the legal reasoning we have been seeing that this potentially hints that we are moving in a very ominous direction.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:10 pm
El Guapo wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:05 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:03 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:53 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:40 pm As noted, calling it a political question is not a clear win for the administration.
That is not the point. The Supreme Court saying that they can't get involved in political questions may be rolling back 200+ years of jurisprudence. What power does Congress have to compel the WH to produce witnesses or evidence? Only norms. And the Court is beginning on a path of essentially stepping aside and saying, "Hope it all works out".
The idea that there are political questions that the court sidesteps is not new. Asking if this is one of those times is not out of line.
No, but if SCOTUS embraces the idea that courts can't get involved in enforcing congressional subpoenas to the president, that would mean the virtual death of congressional oversight, regardless of the particular reason adopted by the court.
No, it would mean Congress would have to exert oversight through politics rather than the courts.
How is this going to work? What happens when the President says no? Like they are doing right now. At the very least they haven't shown they are willing to ignore court orders.
User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 20969
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by coopasonic »

Here's how the _good_ outcome plays out in my head.

Supreme Court says "Cut the BS and comply"
White House says "Executive Privilege"
Supreme Court shrugs and says "We tried."

Former White House Staffer or Cabinet Member says they will testify based on the Supreme Court Ruling.
Barr, Trump and Giuliani all draw their proverbial swords.
Roll credits on Democracy.
-Coop
Black Lives Matter
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

coopasonic wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:16 pm Here's how the _good_ outcome plays out in my head.

Supreme Court says "Cut the BS and comply"
White House says "Executive Privilege"
Supreme Court shrugs and says "We tried."

Former White House Staffer or Cabinet Member says they will testify based on the Supreme Court Ruling.
Barr, Trump and Giuliani all draw their proverbial swords.
Roll credits on Democracy.
Here's how it might play out using this format.

Supreme Court says "The courts have no part to play in this drama"
Previous Court orders go poof
The Congressional subpoenas stand. Ways and Means says to banks and accountants, "Produce docs"
Banks and accountants say, "No" (for many reasons they'll likely dream up)
Congress stands with hands on hips and says, "You are in contempt"
Banks say, "Do something about it".
Nothing happens.
Later on, every time Congress demands something from the Executive they say no.
Nothing happens.
Roll credits on Democracy.
User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 20969
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by coopasonic »

I think that's called a win/win?
-Coop
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:10 pm
El Guapo wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:05 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 4:03 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:53 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:40 pm As noted, calling it a political question is not a clear win for the administration.
That is not the point. The Supreme Court saying that they can't get involved in political questions may be rolling back 200+ years of jurisprudence. What power does Congress have to compel the WH to produce witnesses or evidence? Only norms. And the Court is beginning on a path of essentially stepping aside and saying, "Hope it all works out".
The idea that there are political questions that the court sidesteps is not new. Asking if this is one of those times is not out of line.
No, but if SCOTUS embraces the idea that courts can't get involved in enforcing congressional subpoenas to the president, that would mean the virtual death of congressional oversight, regardless of the particular reason adopted by the court.
No, it would mean Congress would have to exert oversight through politics rather than the courts.
Is your fallback plan for them to send over magical unicorns to retrieve the requested documents?
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13682
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Max Peck »

Someone's going to be updating their list and checking it twice.

Justice Ginsburg in hospital with infection, court says
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized Tuesday with an infection caused by a gallstone, but plans to take part in the court’s arguments by telephone Wednesday, the Supreme Court said.

The 87-year-old justice underwent non-surgical treatment for what the court described as acute cholecystitis, a benign gallbladder condition, at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.

She is resting comfortably and expects to be in the hospital for a day or two, the court said.

Ginsburg took part in the court’s telephone arguments Monday and Tuesday. She initially sought medical care Monday, when the gallstone was first diagnosed.
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 13132
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Paingod »

Max Peck wrote: Tue May 05, 2020 9:56 pmSomeone's going to be updating their list and checking it twice.
This timeline can't afford her to retire in any capacity before Trump is ousted. If she drops out before November, even with 12 days left before the election, McConnell would push through a third GOP justice to guarantee a warp in the system for decades to come.
Black Lives Matter

2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Zaxxon »

Paingod wrote:
Max Peck wrote: Tue May 05, 2020 9:56 pmSomeone's going to be updating their list and checking it twice.
This timeline can't afford her to retire in any capacity before Trump is ousted. If she drops out before November, even with 12 days left before the election, McConnell would push through a third GOP justice to guarantee a warp in the system for decades to come.
And yet it is the worst timeline, so this is virtually guaranteed to occur.
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13682
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Max Peck »

"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7551
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by geezer »

Paingod wrote: Wed May 06, 2020 8:39 am
Max Peck wrote: Tue May 05, 2020 9:56 pmSomeone's going to be updating their list and checking it twice.
This timeline can't afford her to retire in any capacity before Trump is ousted. If she drops out before November, even with 12 days left before the election, McConnell would push through a third GOP justice to guarantee a warp in the system for decades to come.
What makes you think Trump/McConnell wouldn't cram someone through between the election and the inauguration, even if they lost both the White House and the Senate?
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Defiant »

geezer wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 12:32 pm
Paingod wrote: Wed May 06, 2020 8:39 am
Max Peck wrote: Tue May 05, 2020 9:56 pmSomeone's going to be updating their list and checking it twice.
This timeline can't afford her to retire in any capacity before Trump is ousted. If she drops out before November, even with 12 days left before the election, McConnell would push through a third GOP justice to guarantee a warp in the system for decades to come.
What makes you think Trump/McConnell wouldn't cram someone through between the election and the inauguration, even if they lost both the White House and the Senate?
Well, Election and New Years. IIRC, the new Senate starts on January 1st, so if they lost the Senate, they wouldn't be able to confirm in January.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Defiant wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 12:53 pm
geezer wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 12:32 pm
Paingod wrote: Wed May 06, 2020 8:39 am
Max Peck wrote: Tue May 05, 2020 9:56 pmSomeone's going to be updating their list and checking it twice.
This timeline can't afford her to retire in any capacity before Trump is ousted. If she drops out before November, even with 12 days left before the election, McConnell would push through a third GOP justice to guarantee a warp in the system for decades to come.
What makes you think Trump/McConnell wouldn't cram someone through between the election and the inauguration, even if they lost both the White House and the Senate?
Well, Election and New Years. IIRC, the new Senate starts on January 1st, so if they lost the Senate, they wouldn't be able to confirm in January.
True. Although I think they would get it done even if they only had one day. It's kind of an interesting question - what's the minimum amount of time they would need to confirm a replacement justice. It's also the kind of thing that I think McConnell spends a lot of time thinking about.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 1:21 pm It's also the kind of thing that I think McConnell spends a lot of time thinking about.
Hopefully near a closet rod and with a belt.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82093
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:25 am SCOTUS to take on Bridgegate appeal.

I can't help but think this might be eventually seen as another partisan use of the court to protect bad conduct by Republican actors. I hope this won't be the case because this was ridiculous conduct that endangered people's lives for partisan bullying. However, I can't help but think that after the bullshit outcome of the McDonnell case that this set of jurists won't overturn it.
NPR
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision Thursday, overturned the fraud convictions of two former top aides to then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who were found guilty in 2016 for their role in the "Bridgegate" scandal.
...
"Because the scheme here did not aim to obtain money or property, [William] Baroni and Kelly could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws," the court wrote in its unanimous opinion.
...
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said: "The question presented is whether the defendants committed property fraud. The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing — deception, corruption, abuse of power. But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct."
...
Kagan, in the opinion, wrote Baroni and Kelly used deception to reduce Fort Lee's access lanes to the George Washington Bridge for no reason other than political payback, but she added: "Not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime. Because the scheme here did not aim to obtain money or property, Baroni and Kelly could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws."
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 13682
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Max Peck »

So not-for-financial-gain corruption is fine now?
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor

It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Max Peck wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 3:15 pm So not-for-financial-gain corruption is fine now?
I think the issue is that these are corruption laws, and what they didn't isn't corruption as much as it is abuse of power. Which should be a separate criminal prohibition, but isn't.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 3:17 pm
Max Peck wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 3:15 pm So not-for-financial-gain corruption is fine now?
I think the issue is that these are corruption laws, and what they didn't isn't corruption as much as it is abuse of power. Which should be a separate criminal prohibition, but isn't.
I haven't read the decision but this is another shot below the waterline. There is no reason to investigate this type of activity anymore. Prosecutors can't make cases since it isn't a crime. The state investigation mechanisms were under control of the bad actors. Media has been gutted and journalistic investigations are a rarity anymore. We have almost no protection against the government. This system has few protective controls against abuse of power to begin with and now this. Corruption is going to just keep escalating out of control.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43496
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Blackhawk »

I don't have a major issue with this one. They did something way, way out there. The prosecutors chose to charge them with something that didn't quite fit. If you charge someone with 1st degree murder when they committed negligent homicide, they're not guilty because their actions don't match the definition of the crime. It's entirely possible that this was so far out of the norm that they didn't have specific statutes and had to guess which crime best fit what they did.

Now, if someone with more knowledge of the law wants to clarify why this ruling is a problem, I'm willing to listen.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 1:24 am I don't have a major issue with this one. They did something way, way out there. The prosecutors chose to charge them with something that didn't quite fit. If you charge someone with 1st degree murder when they committed negligent homicide, they're not guilty because their actions don't match the definition of the crime. It's entirely possible that this was so far out of the norm that they didn't have specific statutes and had to guess which crime best fit what they did.

Now, if someone with more knowledge of the law wants to clarify why this ruling is a problem, I'm willing to listen.
The way I'd describe it is that it is a problem of the 'law' that was constructed. In the sense that the Supreme Court has created this policy environment through its various anti-corruption rulings. One of the reasons the prosecutors had to use this theory of the law was that the Supreme Court has boxed out almost all corruption. This has been a theme in the Roberts court. A good example would be the McDonnell case. They have over time pretty much shaved corruption to cartoon mustache twirling conduct.

And let's be clear, they could have chosen to not take the case and let it silently stand. If you stand back and look at how this went end to end, you still are left with the current situation that almost no political conduct has consequence anymore in this nation. If you are a corrupt or abusive political figure you can do whatever you want. Even better if you can make it a political controversy. Then you can even get a mass of the voters to say it wasn't a big deal. The only person who faced consequences was the one who plead guilty to a crime. And like we saw with Flynn that isn't even ironclad anymore. Ultimately we are left with very little protection. Corrupt actors have no reason to fear the law will constrain them.
User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 17424
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by pr0ner »

From reading tweets today about the Trump hearings, it seems that the Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer are all aligned in favor of Mazars and Deutsche Bank. Alito and Thomas are firmly in favor of Trump. Not quite sure where Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh fall.

Also, the lawyers arguing this case on both sides don't appear to be fully up for the challenge.
Hodor.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

It'll be a 5-4 decision for Trump and it will be done in such a way that only applies to him somehow. I have no doubts the (R) appointments will continue to pay dividends.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
Post Reply