SCOTUS Watch

[El Guapo]

The cheerleader free speech case is out. 8-1 ruling in favor of the cheerleader (who was being punished by her school for saying "Fuck school, fuck cheer, fuck everything", or something like that, in a message to friends). So the result is good, but the reasoning of the majority opinion is a meaningless mush that won't provide all that much guidance to future court decisions or to school administrators.

[stessier]

Alito builds his case on a faulty assumption, imo. He says that parents agree to give up the students' first amendment rights when they sign them up. But the State requires them to sign up. I would argue the State strips them of some amount of rights for a period of years and we've decided that it is in furtherance of a greater good.

[malchior]

Long ago I used to think Thomas was the worst justice but Alito has worked hard to sprint past him. His jurisprudence is half-hinged at best.

[stessier]

I'm pretty sure Thomas just argued that women shouldn't be allowed an education.

[Smoove_B]

would argue the State strips them of some amount of rights for a period of years and we've decided that it is in furtherance of a greater good.

I was taking a graduate course on HR law and the person teaching was making all kinds of legal comparisons between students (mostly high school) and workers. Namely that the legal challenges raised in school environments filter out then (the rulings / results) into the working world, shaping an influencing workplace policies. There were also comparisons to prisoners, but the student / workplace comparisons stuck with me more.

[Isgrimnur]

NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime.

By a largely unanimous vote, the court declared that police violated the rights of a California man by pursuing him into his garage for allegedly playing loud music while driving down a deserted two-lane highway late at night.

[Little Raven]

Farm union organizers lose big.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday tightened the leash on union representatives and their ability to organize farmworkers in California and elsewhere. At issue in the case was a California law that allows union organizers to enter farms to speak to workers during non-working hours—before and after work, as well as during lunch—for a set a number of days each year.

By a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, the court ruled that the law—enacted nearly 50 years ago after a campaign by famed organizer Cesar Chavez—unconstitutionally appropriates private land by allowing organizers to go on farm property to drum up union support.

[El Guapo]

I wonder when the last time was that the SCOTUS issued an opinion siding with a union.

[malchior]

I wonder when the last time was that the SCOTUS issued an opinion siding with a union.

I think it was this one in 1977. Abood v Detroit. That precedent was thrown into a fire in the Janus v. AFSCME decision that Alito penned in 2018.

[malchior]

SCOTUS essentially says that the eviction moratorium was illegal but we'll give tenants a break for this to wind down. The eviction crisis can has been kicked back exactly one month. It's still coming.

[malchior]

Washington Post

The VRA is essentially dead. It really feel like our democracy is circling the drain. People had feel good reactions about some of the outcomes this term but on something that was essential and critical, the Conservatives showed their true colors and stepped up for partisan politics.

Edit: You have to imagine the DOJ lawsuit against Georgia might as well be balled up and thrown in the garbage. SCOTUS isn't going to protect minority right to vote. And the GOP is absolutely going to take advantage of it to end our current form of democracy.

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld two Arizona voting restrictions that a lower court had said discriminated against minority voters.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion in the 6 to 3 ruling, which divided the court along ideological lines.

The court was considering the shield provided by the Voting Rights Act (VRA), first passed in 1965 to forbid laws that result in discrimination based on race.

The cases involved two voting regulations from Arizona that are in common use across the country. One throws out the ballots of those who vote in the wrong precinct. The other restricts who may collect ballots cast early for delivery to polling places, a practice then-President Donald Trump denounced as “ballot harvesting.”

But the greater impact could be how VRA relates to an outpouring of new laws enacted by state legislatures that have changed voting procedures, and on the drawing of congressional and legislative districts following the 2020 Census.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, pretty depressing. The SCOTUS isn't completely worthless as a guardian of democracy, in that their presence makes a narrow category of anti-democratic measures difficult (e.g., they wouldn't allow a president to declare himself emperor and cancel elections), but they are happy to allow the GOP to build itself a sizeable electoral edge via anti-democratic restrictions.

What I'm pre-frustrated about is that they're absolutely going to be much more aggressive in striking down efforts to protect full democracy. So that even if the democrats do ultimately managed to get their shit together enough to pass some version of the For The People Act or some Manchin-ized version of it, the Supreme Court is inevitably going to gut it.

[Blackhawk]

Our democracy isn't dead, but it's bleeding out. It's a completely treatable wound, and there are doctors standing by, trauma kits in hand. But there are more doctors blocking their way because it would hurt their bottom line if they stopped the bleeding.

We're not dead, but I honestly don't see a way out.

[malchior]

Reflecting back on what the court has been doing, it really looks like the Roberts court is bending over backwards to avoid making the big socially disruptive ruling I still fully expect will become too tempting. In the mean time they seem to be paving the way for autocracy or an updated version of Jim Crow. And Breyer probably still won't see any need to retire.

[El Guapo]

Reflecting back on what the court has been doing, it really looks like the Roberts court is bending over backwards to avoid making the big socially disruptive ruling I still fully expect will become too tempting. In the mean time they seem to be paving the way for autocracy or an updated version of Jim Crow. And Breyer probably still won't see any need to retire.

If you're cynical you could conclude that the court is waiting to make politically explosive rulings until after the democrats can no longer do anything about it.

But while that's possible, I think it's more likely that Roberts is more of a McConnell type politically and most of the rulings this term haven't been stuff that he cares all that much about politically.

[malchior]

That's exactly what I think. He's very smart about this. Every time there could be a weird outcome, controversy, or trouble he either writes the majority opinion himself or crafts some wacky coalition to make it work.

[malchior]

This is incredibly selfish, especially after what happened after Ginsburg died. That he is talking now about his personal satisfaction leading the liberal wing of the court, which is itself amusing since Kagan and Sotomayor run ring around him, is just astonishing.

[malchior]

[El Guapo]

Since there were no decisions today I was dreading coming into this thread and reading that Breyer announced that he's not retiring. But expecting that, that allegations were ignored on Kavanaugh seems totally fine!

I will say that the bare number of accusations is close to meaningless. Knowing the complaint system that my agency has at least, that has to include everything from "Kavanaugh is a secret alien who impregnated people via space sex rays!" to "I read in the NYT that Kavanaugh is a sex predator!" to actual "I am a specific person who knew Kavanaugh and witnessed him committing sexual assault" credible allegations.

[malchior]

SCOTUS knocked down part of a NY State eviction moratorium in an unsigned opinion. They left another portion untouched. The part they struck down was due to a form that had a checkbox that the person stated they suffered an economic setback due to the pandemic. The problem is that a person can not 'judge themselves'. The portion that remains allows a moratorium if a judge determines if an economic setback has occurred. It looks like this is purely technical and probably doesn't mean much for the analysis of the CDC moratorium.

[Little Raven]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett denies request to block Indiana University's vaccine mandate

Justice Amy Coney Barrett declined a request to block Indiana University's vaccine mandate, signaling that similar policies going into effect amid a Covid-19 surge could pass legal muster.

Barrett, who has jurisdiction over the appeals court involved in the case, acted alone without referring the matter to the full court.

[Smoove_B]

I'm sure this will do...something.

NEW: Senate Judiciary chair Dick Durbin announces a hearing to examine the Supreme Court’s abuse of its “shadow docket” (use of emergency orders and summary decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States without the opportunity of oral argument).

Good.

[Blackhawk]

After being pushed off the cliff, he was heard to say, "I object!"

[El Guapo]

This is good, in that if anything's ever going to be done to restrict or push back on the use of the "shadow docket" (which is great branding by that law professor who came up with the term), a necessary first step is increasing awareness in the public and the media about why it's a problem.

[Unagi]

Where can I educate myself.

[El Guapo]

Where can I educate myself.

NY Times had an article about it yesterday in the context of the TX abortion law.

Also, if you want longer reading, this is the law review article from 2015 which popularized the term "shadow docket"

[Unagi]

Thanks!

[Kasey Chang]

I am finding the reason why SCOTUS let stand (for now) the TX abortion law a bit suspect. I am a layman, but "we're letting the law stand because the people we ask say they don't plan to enforce the law" sounds really really lame. Indeed, that's what the 3 dissenting justices said in their opposing opinion.

[Drazzil]

Our democracy isn't dead, but it's bleeding out. It's a completely treatable wound, and there are doctors standing by, trauma kits in hand. But there are more doctors blocking their way because it would hurt their bottom line if they stopped the bleeding.

We're not dead, but I honestly don't see a way out.

Our democracy isn't dead, but it's bleeding out. It's a completely treatable wound, and there are doctors standing by, trauma kits in hand. But there are more doctors blocking their way because it would hurt their bottom line if they stopped the bleeding.

We're not dead, but I honestly don't see a way out.

I'm sure this will do...something.

NEW: Senate Judiciary chair Dick Durbin announces a hearing to examine the Supreme Court’s abuse of its “shadow docket” (use of emergency orders and summary decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States without the opportunity of oral argument).

Good.

I'm sure it'll do NOTHING.

Marbury v Madison.

The supreme court and the United States

Spoiler:

Fuck the United States, its been dead for a while. It now exists as a dark opposite of itself. Representing the OPPOSITE of what it does now.

country cannot co exist and progress forward AT ALL with these backward plantationists being able to set the agenda of our shared nation. The political will does not exist to change it, so DISREGARD THEM!!

Say it loud and say it proud.

MARBURY V MADISON

[Blackhawk]

Can we just get a smiley of Homer backing into the hedge? It would save a lot of time.

[Drazzil]

Can we just get a smiley of Homer backing into the hedge? It would save a lot of time.

This attitude my fellow forumers. Its like Stockholm syndrome. You cling to the belief that this can be changed by means of voting. It cannot. We voted Clinton, we got Shafted, We voted Obama, we got nothing, we voted Biden... and we got ignored. The system is not worth defending OR saving.

I recommend investigating congress for actual factual treason; and you people say "Political persecutions of enemies" As if the office makes them sacrosanct.

I recommend Madison v Marbury and you say "Oh we can't do that, cause then we would have no court to defend us.

I recommend a large group of citizenry defending themselves vs the police beating them and you scream We need to be non violent! As if the Occupy and George Floyd movements weren't viscously and most ruthlessly put down and dispersed.

You guys are trying to cleave to an abusive system that is dead and rotting.

[Zarathud]

Said like someone who has no children or family to lose, Drazzil.

What the hell do you even think Marbury v. Madison means? It’s telling that you don’t even refer to the case correctly.

[hepcat]

Anarchy is great if you’re the biggest kid on the playground.

I suspect some folks think they’re bigger than they really are.

[Brian]

Can we just get a smiley of Homer backing into the hedge? It would save a lot of time.

Can't help you there but how 'bout a cookie?

[Drazzil]

Said like someone who has no children or family to lose, Drazzil.

What the hell do you even think Marbury v. Madison means? It’s telling that you don’t even refer to the case correctly.

The supreme court granted itself the right to judicially examine laws passed in the United States and strike them down at will. That's a judicial overreach. Also I am absolutely correct in my reference of the case.

Just because some body says it has the powers to do something, and it goes unchallenged for a while. doesn't mean it does.

[Drazzil]

Anarchy is great if you’re the biggest kid on the playground.

I suspect some folks think they’re bigger than they really are.

No. I know I'm dead as a doornail if the country collapses. I don't pretend to be good at violence. I'm actually shit at it. But this isn't about me. This is about a politicized, illegitimate court that has granted itself FAR too much authority to be the final be all and say all that it does. The supreme court must be relegated unto the dust bin before it literally destroys the lives of countless millions of Americans. I just say Biden fuck off the SC. Maybe we start investigating the SC and impeach justices that were set there illegitimately, maybe the office of the president announces one day that the supreme court has again and again proven itself a partisan body set on pursuing an agenda that will result in the destruction of this country.

Either way I would break with 200 years of precedent.

[Unagi]

We voted Clinton, we got Shafted, We voted Obama, we got nothing, we voted Biden... and we got ignored. The system is not worth defending OR saving.

lols

Don't you want to add: "I voted Trump" somewhere in that list, Nostradamus?

[Unagi]

Anarchy is great if you’re the biggest kid on the playground.

I suspect some folks think they’re bigger than they really are.

No. I know I'm dead as a doornail if the country collapses. I don't pretend to be good at violence. I'm actually shit at it.

And do you have kids? Honest question - what fucking horse do you even have in this game? We know you are totally cool with just dying, etc... so - if some of us actually give a fucking half-shit about the future - where does your opinion start to matter?

[hepcat]

Drazzil, quit saying “we” all the time.

[Drazzil]

We voted Clinton, we got Shafted, We voted Obama, we got nothing, we voted Biden... and we got ignored. The system is not worth defending OR saving.

lols

Don't you want to add: "I voted Trump" somewhere in that list, Nostradamus?

Sure did. Flight 93 strategy. Crabs in a bucket. Get used to it. I may not do it again but tons of hopeless will.