SCOTUS Watch

[Max Peck]

I could have sworn I posted about his issues before, but SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein is in some serious trouble, as Mr Fed would put it:

Leading Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein was rearrested after prosecutors told a judge he represented a “serious risk of flight” from his criminal federal tax evasion case.
Goldstein failed to disclose two cryptocurrency wallets through which he received more than $8 million, and sent more than $6 million over the past week, Maryland federal prosecutors said.
The SCOTUSblog publisher was indicted in January on charges alleging he failed to declare millions of dollars in poker winnings and used his law firm’s money to pay his gambling debts.

As well as paying for his 4(!) mistresses...

At least he was allegedly providing his mistresses with health insurance. It's not as awesome as offering them ponies, but it ain't nothing.

[Isgrimnur]

Who the hell has that kind of time‽

[Hipolito]

So very unusual:

putative Donald Trump administration cabinet nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

I don't know what "putative" means, but from the first four letters, it sounds like a fitting adjective for RFK Jr.

[Isgrimnur]

Another major test of SCOTUS - Oklahoma is so broken they can't call off the execution of a man that is almost certainly innocent. SCOTUS in the interest of justice should intervene. If not, then we perhaps we should work to outlaw capital punishment because our system is too broken to remedy abuses once uncovered that lead to the death of the innocent.

On Monday, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, filed a truly remarkable document in the Supreme Court.

“The State of Oklahoma recently made the difficult decision to confess error and support vacating the conviction of Richard Glossip,” the document reads, referring to a death row inmate scheduled to be executed on May 18. But because other parts of the state government don’t agree, and Oklahoma’s attorney general does not have the power to lift Glossip’s death sentence on his own, Drummond is now begging the Supreme Court of the United States to save Glossip’s life.

Supreme Court orders new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip

The ruling represents an extraordinary twist in the legal saga surrounding Glossip, who has been scheduled for execution nine times and has eaten his last meal three times only to have his execution stayed.

“We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority.
...
At the center of the appeal are notes taken by prosecutors involved in Glossip’s trial about Justin Sneed, the man who killed Van Treese with a baseball bat in a hotel. Even though both sides agree Sneed actually killed Van Treese, Glossip was charged with orchestrating the murder.

Glossip’s conviction rested on Sneed’s testimony, but years after Glossip’s conviction, the state disclosed evidence that Sneed was treated for a serious psychiatric condition. The notes indicate that prosecutors knew about Sneed’s diagnosis and treatment at the time of Glossip’s trial and, according to Glossip’s supporters, hid that information from his defense.

“Had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered. That correction would have revealed to the jury not just that Sneed was untrustworthy (as amicus points out, the jury already knew he repeatedly lied to the police), but also that Sneed was willing to lie to them under oath,” Sotomayor wrote. “Such a revelation would be significant in any case, and was especially so here where Sneed was already ‘nobody’s idea of a strong witness.’”

Five justices sided with Glossip on ordering a new trial. Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett would have sent the case back to a lower court for further consideration.

Thomas, writing in a dissent joined by Alito, argued the court’s decision “imagines a constitutional violation where none occurred, and abandons basic principles governing” how federal courts review state court decisions.

[El Guapo]

Of course Thomas and Alito dissented. Never miss an opportunity to be utter dipshits.

[Drazzil]

I heard from somewhere that the SCROTUS might not rule against Trump in any major way out of fear of appearing weak and powerless when Trump defies them anyway.

[Blackhawk]

Did somewhere identify their sources?

[Drazzil]

Did somewhere identify their sources?

Think it was some random thing I read on reddit. I wouldn't have glommed onto it, cept for I thought it was an interesting angle. It would make a morbid kind of sense.

[GreenGoo]

I think we're long past Justices caring about their public images. Long past.

[Drazzil]

I think we're long past Justices caring about their public images. Long past.

Unfortunately yes.

[Blackhawk]

Did somewhere identify their sources?

Think it was some random thing I read on reddit. I wouldn't have glommed onto it, cept for I thought it was an interesting angle. It would make a morbid kind of sense.

There's nothing wrong with sharing interesting angles, but suggestion - if you're posting something you just heard on social media (including Reddit), say so. It's important context. Offering angles for discussion is fine, but there shouldn't be any question of whether it is just a random thought, or based on actual statements/documents.

[Drazzil]

Did somewhere identify their sources?

Think it was some random thing I read on reddit. I wouldn't have glommed onto it, cept for I thought it was an interesting angle. It would make a morbid kind of sense.

There's nothing wrong with sharing interesting angles, but suggestion - if you're posting something you just heard on social media (including Reddit), say so. It's important context. Offering angles for discussion is fine, but there shouldn't be any question of whether it is just a random thought, or based on actual statements/documents.

That makes a lot of sense. I think I will do this going forward. Good lookin out. Also I never thought of Reddit as social media but it totally is. Wow. Social media finally got me.

[stessier]

Did somewhere identify their sources?

Think it was some random thing I read on reddit. I wouldn't have glommed onto it, cept for I thought it was an interesting angle. It would make a morbid kind of sense.

There's nothing wrong with sharing interesting angles, but suggestion - if you're posting something you just heard on social media (including Reddit), say so. It's important context. Offering angles for discussion is fine, but there shouldn't be any question of whether it is just a random thought, or based on actual statements/documents.

That makes a lot of sense. I think I will do this going forward. Good lookin out. Also I never thought of Reddit as social media but it totally is. Wow. Social media finally got me.

This website is social media as well.

[Punisher]

Did somewhere identify their sources?

Think it was some random thing I read on reddit. I wouldn't have glommed onto it, cept for I thought it was an interesting angle. It would make a morbid kind of sense.

There's nothing wrong with sharing interesting angles, but suggestion - if you're posting something you just heard on social media (including Reddit), say so. It's important context. Offering angles for discussion is fine, but there shouldn't be any question of whether it is just a random thought, or based on actual statements/documents.

That makes a lot of sense. I think I will do this going forward. Good lookin out. Also I never thought of Reddit as social media but it totally is. Wow. Social media finally got me.

This website is social media as well.

But what if I'm not feeling social?

[stessier]

But what if I'm not feeling social?

Then you're definitely in the right place.

[Drazzil]

Did somewhere identify their sources?

Think it was some random thing I read on reddit. I wouldn't have glommed onto it, cept for I thought it was an interesting angle. It would make a morbid kind of sense.

There's nothing wrong with sharing interesting angles, but suggestion - if you're posting something you just heard on social media (including Reddit), say so. It's important context. Offering angles for discussion is fine, but there shouldn't be any question of whether it is just a random thought, or based on actual statements/documents.

That makes a lot of sense. I think I will do this going forward. Good lookin out. Also I never thought of Reddit as social media but it totally is. Wow. Social media finally got me.

This website is social media as well.

Don't push it.

[Blackhawk]

But what if I'm not feeling social?

[stessier]

Did somewhere identify their sources?

Think it was some random thing I read on reddit. I wouldn't have glommed onto it, cept for I thought it was an interesting angle. It would make a morbid kind of sense.

There's nothing wrong with sharing interesting angles, but suggestion - if you're posting something you just heard on social media (including Reddit), say so. It's important context. Offering angles for discussion is fine, but there shouldn't be any question of whether it is just a random thought, or based on actual statements/documents.

That makes a lot of sense. I think I will do this going forward. Good lookin out. Also I never thought of Reddit as social media but it totally is. Wow. Social media finally got me.

This website is social media as well.

Don't push it.

This website is the definition of social media and no different than Reddit.

[Drazzil]

Did somewhere identify their sources?

Think it was some random thing I read on reddit. I wouldn't have glommed onto it, cept for I thought it was an interesting angle. It would make a morbid kind of sense.

There's nothing wrong with sharing interesting angles, but suggestion - if you're posting something you just heard on social media (including Reddit), say so. It's important context. Offering angles for discussion is fine, but there shouldn't be any question of whether it is just a random thought, or based on actual statements/documents.

That makes a lot of sense. I think I will do this going forward. Good lookin out. Also I never thought of Reddit as social media but it totally is. Wow. Social media finally got me.

This website is social media as well.

Don't push it.

This website is the definition of social media and no different than Reddit.

Sorry. I assumed you would automatically get the joke. You said this was social media, I said something Asocial, also a kind of play on my reputation in the forum of not being open to, nor adopting new ideas or advice. I guess I'm not great at subtle humor.

[sgoldj]

I heard from somewhere that the SCROTUS might not rule against Trump in any major way out of fear of appearing weak and powerless when Trump defies them anyway.

I recall hearing that view point as well, and I think it was from Devin at Legal Eagle. I won't swear to that, but pretty sure. I do NOT recall which upload, but it was fairly recent.

[GreenGoo]

I heard from somewhere that the SCROTUS might not rule against Trump in any major way out of fear of appearing weak and powerless when Trump defies them anyway.

I recall hearing that view point as well, and I think it was from Devin at Legal Eagle. I won't swear to that, but pretty sure. I do NOT recall which upload, but it was fairly recent.

I've stopped watching Legal Eagle, for now. For one, it's too much drumpf. I get that it needs to be discussed, by it's unhealthy for me so I stay away. For another, I don't recall exactly what it was, but something prior to constant drumpf coverage had me looking elsewhere for things of interest.

[Holman]

An autocratic American Caesar will want to keep up the appearance of Constitutional government for as long as it is convenient, and that means the appearance of checks and balances among the three branches of government.

(Roman emperors kept up a pet senate as an institution, after all. SPQR and all that.)

Chief Justice Roberts is clearly more invested in the appearance of court independence than in actually preventing autocracy. He'll arrange things so that Trump largely gets what he wants while the courts still seem to have some power. There will probably be some small-impact cases where the Court thwarts Trump, but the long-run tendency will be clear.

Eventually the SC will be just a rubber stamp for the autocrat.

[Drazzil]

I heard from somewhere that the SCROTUS might not rule against Trump in any major way out of fear of appearing weak and powerless when Trump defies them anyway.

I recall hearing that view point as well, and I think it was from Devin at Legal Eagle. I won't swear to that, but pretty sure. I do NOT recall which upload, but it was fairly recent.

That might be where I heard that. Legal Eagle on you tube.

[El Guapo]

An autocratic American Caesar will want to keep up the appearance of Constitutional government for as long as it is convenient, and that means the appearance of checks and balances among the three branches of government.

(Roman emperors kept up a pet senate as an institution, after all. SPQR and all that.)

Chief Justice Roberts is clearly more invested in the appearance of court independence than in actually preventing autocracy. He'll arrange things so that Trump largely gets what he wants while the courts still seem to have some power. There will probably be some small-impact cases where the Court thwarts Trump, but the long-run tendency will be clear.

Eventually the SC will be just a rubber stamp for the autocrat.

Roberts / Kavanaugh / Barrett will have a decision point sooner or later. I'm not sure I am quite as pessimistic as you - I don't think the above is a certainly, although I think it's at least more likely than not.

[Drazzil]

An autocratic American Caesar will want to keep up the appearance of Constitutional government for as long as it is convenient, and that means the appearance of checks and balances among the three branches of government.

(Roman emperors kept up a pet senate as an institution, after all. SPQR and all that.)

Chief Justice Roberts is clearly more invested in the appearance of court independence than in actually preventing autocracy. He'll arrange things so that Trump largely gets what he wants while the courts still seem to have some power. There will probably be some small-impact cases where the Court thwarts Trump, but the long-run tendency will be clear.

Eventually the SC will be just a rubber stamp for the autocrat.

Roberts / Kavanaugh / Barrett will have a decision point sooner or later. I'm not sure I am quite as pessimistic as you - I don't think the above is a certainly, although I think it's at least more likely than not.

I like Kavenaugh and ACB more then I thought I would. They're still awful partisan hacks, but they do seem to have a glimmer of a whiff of jurisprudence in them yet. I'd trust them more then Roberts or Alito.

[Smoove_B]

Of course they will:

The Supreme Court agreed Monday in a case from Colorado to decide whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children.

The conservative-led court is taking up the case amid actions by President Donald Trump targeting transgender people, including a ban on military service and an end to federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

The justices also have heard arguments in a Tennessee case over whether state bans on treating transgender minors violate the Constitution. But they have yet to issue a decision.

Colorado is among roughly half the states that prohibit the practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling.

Specifically:

The issue is whether the law violates the speech rights of counselors. Defenders of such laws argue that they regulate the conduct of professionals who are licensed by the state.

I get that Americans feel things like the 1st and 2nd Amendment are sacrosanct, but I feel like our democracy is continuously being undercut by (1) gun absolutists and (2) people that want hate speech to be accepted, especially if it's wrapped in religious nonsense.

Anyway, the timeline:

The case will be argued in the court’s new term, which begins in October. The appeal on behalf of Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado Springs, was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years in cases involving high-profile social issues.

[Smoove_B]

They're sure going to be busy:

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow restrictions on birthright citizenship to partly take effect while legal fights play out.

In emergency applications filed at the high court on Thursday, the administration asked the justices to narrow court orders entered by district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that blocked the order President Donald Trump signed shortly after beginning his second term.

The order currently is blocked nationwide. Three federal appeals courts have rejected the administration’s pleas, including one in Massachusetts on Tuesday.

The order would deny citizenship to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It also forbids U.S. agencies from issuing any document or accepting any state document recognizing citizenship for such children.

[Holman]

I get that Americans feel things like the 1st and 2nd Amendment are sacrosanct, but I feel like our democracy is continuously being undercut by (1) gun absolutists and (2) people that want hate speech to be accepted, especially if it's wrapped in religious nonsense.

It won't be long before it's accepted that money is speech, and guns are speech, but undesired speech is not speech because it's domestic terrorism.

[Alefroth]

So we just need to shoot up Tesla dealerships instead.

[Drazzil]

So we just need to shoot up Tesla dealerships instead.

God this post just writes itself!