SCOTUS Catch-all |

[nycfan]

 

[Mulberry Heel]

McConnell and Trump's packing of the court is really paying off for Republicans and right-wingers. It's destroying the Court's credibility, but they don't care as long as Republicans get what they want, and they'll gladly dare Democrats to disobey their rulings, and it's very unlikely that the Democratic Establishment will, even as those rulings leave them at a greater and greater disadvantage in future elections.

 

[superrific]

Ugh. This campaign finance case is going to be a fucking disaster.

THOUGH: a ruling invalidating restrictions on what party committees can do would weaken the dark money money groups who control tons of $$ specifically because they are the workaround to donating to parties. To whom are Gorsuch, Kav and ACB more indebted? Trump and the GOP? Or Leonard Leo? And what outcome would Leo want? Arguably the one that preserves his power.

The same would be true for Paul Singer and Harlan Crow. They bought Supreme Court justices. Those are valuable assets, and they wouldn't want competition from national political parties.

 

[dukeman92]

JFC

 

[nycfan]

“… The order allows the government to immediately send the men, who hail from countries around the world, to war-torn South Sudan. Neither the United States nor South Sudan has said what will happen to the men on their arrival.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The court last month paused a trial judge’s rulingthat all migrants whom the government seeks to deport to countries other than their own must first be given a chance to show that they would face risk of torture. That order was brief and gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications.

…
Judge Murphy, who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., denied the motion as unnecessary. He said he had issued a separate ruling last month, different from the one the Supreme Court had paused, protecting the men in Djibouti from immediate removal.

He added that Justice Sonia Sotomayor had made the same point in her dissent from the ruling, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. “The district court’s remedial orders are not properly before this court because the government has not appealed them,” she wrote.

In Thursday’s ruling, the majority rejected that distinction, paused both sets of rulings and allowed the deportations to South Sudan.“

 

[nycfan]

“… The order allows the government to immediately send the men, who hail from countries around the world, to war-torn South Sudan. Neither the United States nor South Sudan has said what will happen to the men on their arrival.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The court last month paused a trial judge’s rulingthat all migrants whom the government seeks to deport to countries other than their own must first be given a chance to show that they would face risk of torture. That order was brief and gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications.

…
Judge Murphy, who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., denied the motion as unnecessary. He said he had issued a separate ruling last month, different from the one the Supreme Court had paused, protecting the men in Djibouti from immediate removal.

He added that Justice Sonia Sotomayor had made the same point in her dissent from the ruling, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. “The district court’s remedial orders are not properly before this court because the government has not appealed them,” she wrote.

In Thursday’s ruling, the majority rejected that distinction, paused both sets of rulings and allowed the deportations to South Sudan.“

——

——

…

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf

 

[BillOfRights]

Can we put scotus in a shipping container for 6 weeks and then deport them?

Loading…

www.politico.com

 

[altmin]

Can we put scotus in a shipping container for 6 weeks and then deport them?

Loading…

www.politico.com

We can't, but Trump could if he wanted to I think.

 

[Callatoroy]

Well, if pubs would start putting money into public education, instead of taking from it, perhaps that teacher could've received the support she needed to improve as an educator.

Or maybe she shouldn’t be teaching kids at all. Some kind of standards rather than putting warm bodies in classrooms. In no world should she be teaching.

 

[stankeylegjones]

Or maybe she shouldn’t be teaching kids at all. Some kind of standards rather than putting warm bodies in classrooms. In no world should she be teaching.

You're right. Heaven forbid we give support to those in one of the most important occupations. That would be foolish.

 

[lawtig02]

Not exactly. I can maybe say more later, but I do not hate this opinion. Basically the court viewed the universal injunction as a workaround for class certification (which is sort of correct) and the unavailability of the universal injunction does not preclude a nationwide class.

This isn't a terrible ruling because it knocks out the true bullshit: the 5th Circuit assholes who enjoin the prescription of drugs because of bullshit complaints by a tiny fraction of doctors. No way to make that class certifiable. The birthright citizenship issue is eminently suitable for class certification.

I'd have to think about this more, but my first thoughts are that it's fine. It isn't the rule I would have adopted, but at the moment I don't see too many problems here. I am open to other thoughts, of course, and reserve the right to edit my own if I think about it more.

Good call, and it's good to see some judges taking an aggressive approach to this. We'll see if it holds up but I'm encouraged. And I apologize for questioning your prediction.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

A federal judge agreed Thursday to issue a new nationwide block against President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The ruling from US District Judge Joseph Laplante is significant because the Supreme Court last month curbed the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, while keeping intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened Thursday in New Hampshire.

 

[superrific]

Good call, and it's good to see some judges taking an aggressive approach to this. We'll see if it holds up but I'm encouraged. And I apologize for questioning your prediction.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

A federal judge agreed Thursday to issue a new nationwide block against President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The ruling from US District Judge Joseph Laplante is significant because the Supreme Court last month curbed the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, while keeping intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened Thursday in New Hampshire.

1. Why would you apologize for questioning predictions? They are predictions. If I was 100% sure they are correct I could be a very rich man. Put it this way: at a minimum, it's valuable to other posters to see that there's some disagreement between our law folks and thus don't take super's word to the bank. Well, I had a deposit withdrawn today from a company running short on cash, so maybe my word is good enough for a bank in a recession, but that's beside the point.

2. If the Supreme Court fucks this up somehow, then we can add "saboteur" to the list of other labels they have earned. This should be as straightforward as it gets. Are they going to stay it? During oral arguments, several justices were concerned about the order taking effect. They wanted to know if the administration was going to get the case to them on the merits "expeditiously."

 

[ZenMode]

Does KBJ know that she's supposed to consider the Constitution, not consider her feelings?

 

[lawtig02]

Does KBJ know that she's supposed to consider the Constitution, not consider her feelings?

 

[ZenMode]

When you have a court this divided, and the decision is eight to one.... You have to question the decision making of the one.

Interpretations of the Constitution vary, but this is just a weird dissent:

“For some reason, this court sees fit to step in now and release the president’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” Jackson wrote. “In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”

 

[Kraftyheel89]

Trump just lost his appeal in Federal Court for a NY jury finding Trump guilty of sexual assault and defamation in the E.J. Carroll $5 Million settlement. What are the chances of the SCOTIS taking this case for their Prez?

In the past, they have kept Trump out of trouble by using delay tactics, sending cases back to lower courts to address minutia such as "what is an official act of the office versus non official acts." Thus, they've given Trump what he wants and requests without actually going on record as stating Trump's actions were lawful.

If they take on this case, they can't do that. A jury has decided, and a Federal Court declined the appeal. If Trump asks the Supreme Court to weigh in, I see only two options. They either decide not to take the case (correct decision), or they completely ignore law and give Trump what he wants, reversing the decision. NO loopholes here, they would be on record 100% for ignoring laws and changing the duties of the SCOTUS.

There is a third option of course. They could take on the case and DENY Trump's appeal tio SCOTUS, the only possible legal correct decision and should be 9-0. I don't EVER see them doing that. But yet, they continue to ignore the law for Trump, so who knows.

 

[McAdooSmackinYou]

Does KBJ know that she's supposed to consider the Constitution, not consider her feelings?

 

[Calheel]

Trump just lost his appeal in Federal Court for a NY jury finding Trump guilty of sexual assault and defamation in the E.J. Carroll $5 Million settlement. What are the chances of the SCOTIS taking this case for their Prez?

In the past, they have kept Trump out of trouble by using delay tactics, sending cases back to lower courts to address minutia such as "what is an official act of the office versus non official acts." Thus, they've given Trump what he wants and requests without actually going on record as stating Trump's actions were lawful.

If they take on this case, they can't do that. A jury has decided, and a Federal Court declined the appeal. If Trump asks the Supreme Court to weigh in, I see only two options. They either decide not to take the case (correct decision), or they completely ignore law and give Trump what he wants, reversing the decision. NO loopholes here, they would be on record 100% for ignoring laws and changing the duties of the SCOTUS.

There is a third option of course. They could take on the case and DENY Trump's appeal tio SCOTUS, the only possible legal correct decision and should be 9-0. I don't EVER see them doing that. But yet, they continue to ignore the law for Trump, so who knows.

0.0%. Those are the chances.

 

[superrific]

When you have a court this divided, and the decision is eight to one.... You have to question the decision making of the one.

Interpretations of the Constitution vary, but this is just a weird dissent:

“For some reason, this court sees fit to step in now and release the president’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” Jackson wrote. “In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”

STFU you racist pinhead. You actually don't know what the vote was. All you know is that EK and ACB didn't join KBJ's dissent. That means nothing in this context, except maybe they don't have as much energy.

Just FYI, the unitary executive theory that your boys love so much was articulated in . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . a solo dissent by Scalia.

 

[ZenMode]

STFU you racist pinhead.

You actually don't know what the vote was.

As I said, 8 to 1.

All you know is that EK and ACB didn't join KBJ's dissent. That means nothing in this context, except maybe they don't have as much energy.

Just FYI, the unitary executive theory that your boys love so much was articulated in . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . a solo dissent by Scalia.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that she's incorporating her feelings about Trump into her decision, when she should be talking about constitutional interpretations, past decisions, etc to ultimately determine if Trump's executive order was lawful. Her opinion of his actions are irrelevant... Or they should be irrelevant, just as the amount of melanin in her skin is irrelevant.