SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 778
  • Views: 34K
  • Politics 
SCOTUS has scheduled opinion announcements Feb 20, 24 & 25, with a lot of anticipation about (finally) a decision on tariffs.

Weā€™ll see. They heard the tariffs case on an expedited basis but people expecting the decision would be expedited as well keep being disappointed.
 
nycfan said:
SCOTUS has scheduled opinion announcements Feb 20, 24 & 25, with a lot of anticipation about (finally) a decision on tariffs.

Weā€™ll see. They heard the tariffs case on an expedited basis but people expecting the decision would be expedited as well keep being disappointed.
Click to expand...
I've heard several Court watchers say that the tariffs opinion is increasingly taking on the vibe of the immunity opinion. Reasonable decisions can be expedited. Really bad opinions take time.
 
heelinhell said:
Dems have to take back the Senate in November before we can pull a turtle.
Click to expand...
I wish November were the correct window. Dems win in November and they don't take over the Senate until early January. Absolutely zero doubt in my mind that several justices would resign between election day and start of the next session to allow the Pubs to ram through Trump appointees.
 
uncsig said:
I wish November were the correct window. Dems win in November and they don't take over the Senate until early January. Absolutely zero doubt in my mind that several justices would resign between election day and start of the next session to allow the Pubs to ram through Trump appointees.
Click to expand...
Big if, but if Dems take back the Senate chances are there would not be enough time for justices to retire/resign and then nominees be named before Thanksgiving. After that, we are into the holiday season when Congress typically goes home . I don't think confirmation hearings would be held during the holidays.
 
heelinhell said:
Big if, but if Dems take back the Senate chances are there would not be enough time for justices to retire/resign and then nominees be named before Thanksgiving. After that, we are into the holiday season when Congress typically goes home . I don't think confirmation hearings would be held during the holidays.
Click to expand...
They will if they need to be. They've got the votes and the people in the right spots to make it happen and we know that expediency rules for these assholes.
 
If Thomas and/or Alito retire, would their replacements be any worse? Theyā€™re already about as bad as you can get.

Roberts is the only one Iā€™d be concerned about, but even he has rarely reigned in the crazy.
 
finesse said:
They will if they need to be. They've got the votes and the people in the right spots to make it happen and we know that expediency rules for these assholes.
Click to expand...
ACB was nominated 9/16 2020 and confirmed 10/26/2020 all of which occurred before the election. I'm not sure what lead up was to the date of her actual nomination.

If Alito and/or Thomas wait to vacate after the election then I don't see beating the clock if Dems take back the Senate. So in my mind it is whether Trump and SCOTUS want to play it safe and have Alito and/or Thomas announce their intention to retire no later than this summer.
 
If this happens then the Democrats have to push expanding the supreme court the next time they are in control of Congress and the White House
 
GoHeelsweeeehoooo said:
If this happens then the Democrats have to push expanding the supreme court the next time they are in control of Congress and the White House
Click to expand...
That has to occur anyway, regardless. Ideally, we'd just nuke the Supreme Court -- deprive it of virtually all jurisdiction and create a new appeals court to do its appellate review job.

After Trump v. US, after the Summer of Stays, this SCOTUS has lost all legitimacy and cannot be reasonably regarded as a judicial body.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
I've heard several Court watchers say that the tariffs opinion is increasingly taking on the vibe of the immunity opinion. Reasonable decisions can be expedited. Really bad opinions take time.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is accurate at all. First, the "really bad opinions take time" approach is just not accurate. They've had some really bad decisions on the shadow docket, arguably as bad as Trump v. US.

What you're reacting to is that the important, involved opinions usually are released end of term for a number of reasons. The Court has been fucking up in those important, involved opinions a lot. That doesn't mean the really bad ones take time; it just means a lot of the ones announced at the end of term are really bad.

In this case, the longer it takes, the more likely it is for the tariffs to fall -- that's my view, at least. That's because the thorniest issue in the case by far, and indeed one of the thorniest issues I've seen before the Supreme Court recently, is the appropriate remedy for the illegal imposition of tariffs. Usually, an illegally collected tax results in return of the money paid; but is that feasible here? Do the importers get all the refunds, and customers who have been paying higher prices get stiffed? The petitioners in this case said that they would be OK with a mere invalidation of the tariffs without any compensation, but if the tariffs are struck down, all importers would at least have a right to seek relief. If the court says, "the plaintiffs do not ask for monetary remedies and we will therefore decline to give one," that's great but it wouldn't apply to Wal-Mart. If the court wants to say, "the plaintiffs cannot seek monetary remedies because administrability," then it has to find a way to do that consistent with law. If it cared about this issue, it would just do whatever it wanted but this isn't religion or gun rights or voting so it might try to at least pretend to follow the law.

Here, what will actually take time is wrestling with this question, which would not be required if the ruling was "tariffs stand." I'm not saying this argument is the only reason that the opinion could take a long time, but if you want to identify an issue that would be holding up the decision, it's more likely to be this than some capitulation to Trump.

I have expected since oral argument more than two opinions. At least three, maybe four. In the old days, the court was sometimes OK with publishing the "fractured" opinion -- i.e. one with a "majority" outcome but no majority opinion. For instance, 3 justices might rule for petitioner on theory A; 2 justices might rule for petitioner on theory B without joining on theory A; and 4 justices dissent. That was almost the set up in the first Obamacare case. They don't usually do that anymore, because what happens is that the plurality opinion there (the one getting three votes) would not be binding because it takes 5 to bind, and then there is a question of "if the 2 agree with the 4 on some issue, does that agreement become binding because six justices accepted it." The answer should be no, but then there is confusion below.

So the justices spend more time than they used to getting to five votes. There are negotiations between a plurality and a concurrence about how to write a majority opinion that they can all join so they establish a holding in the case. That could be taking a while because of the multiple camps here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top