SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 581
  • Views: 21K
  • Politics 


🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/sup...d?st=HnFdXM&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

“… The pace also puts the White House well on the way to eclipsing the 41 emergency appeals the Trump administration filed in its first term.

… When the court last week allowed Trump to withhold $4 billion in foreign-aid funding, Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent that the court “per usual” had to consider the Trump administration’s request on a “short fuse” with “scant briefing, no oral argument, and no opportunity to deliberate in conference.”

… The court has given Trump much of what he has asked for so far, but the brevity of its orders has flummoxed judges who say there is no way to interpret them….”

Those undisclosed luxury vacations Thomas and Alito took with Harlan Crow are really paying off.
 
Those undisclosed luxury vacations Thomas and Alito took with Harlan Crow are really paying off.
I doubt the graft impacted their votes; those two are so far to the right, they’re voting unitary executive and Project 2025, money or be no money.
 


“… The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon once again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals of their protected status under federal immigration law.

In a brief, unsigned order, the justices paused a ruling by a federal judge in San Franciso that barred Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, from terminating that status. Friday’s order came roughly four-and-a-half months after the court blocked a temporary order by the same judge requiring Noem to leave the protected status in place while a challenge to Noem’s efforts to end the Temporary Protected Status program designation for Venezuelans continued. “The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here,” the court wrote.

The court’s three Democratic appointees – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – indicated that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request. Jackson wrote a short dissenting opinion in which she described Friday’s order as “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket.”

… On Friday afternoon, the justices once again put Chen’s ruling on hold. After a brief recitation of the history of the case, the court explained that “[a]lthough the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not.”…”
 
it's not going to stop. we are well passed the rubicon here. You folks are living in an authoritarian country. It's not going to go back.
 

Supreme Court Live Updates: Justices Seem Set to Rule Against Colorado’s Ban on Conversion Therapy​

Colorado and over 20 other states have banned the practice aimed at changing the sexual orientation or gender identity of young people.


“… In a lively argument, which lasted an hour and a half, the justices debated whether the so-called conversion therapy covered by Colorado’s law causes harm to minors. Lawyers for the therapist and the Trump administration said there were no studies indicating such therapy causes harm.

The state’s lawyer countered that there is a “mountain of evidence” that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful.…”
 
I'm so not ready to start paying attention to the normal SCOTUS calendar again, but I guess we must. Here's a rundown of the key cases this term --


Needless to say, we should expect it to be an absolute shitshow.
 


“… Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Campbell that this was an unusual case because there have been six years of no enforcement of the law - three before and three after the legal challenge was brought, and that the state entity charged with administering the law has said it would not apply the restrictions to the kind of therapy that Chiles conducts.

… Colorado's law prohibits licensed mental healthcare providers from seeking to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity according to a predetermined outcome, with each violation punishable by a fine of up to $5,000. This includes attempts to reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction or change "behaviors or gender expressions."

The law does permit treatments that provide "assistance to a person undergoing gender transition," as well as therapies centered on "acceptance, support and understanding" for "identity exploration and development."
Chiles sued Colorado officials in 2022 in an attempt to block the statute.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney in 2022 ruled against Chiles, deciding that Colorado's ban was a permissible regulation of professional conduct, not speech. The judge also found that conversion therapy is "ineffective and harms minors who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or gender nonconforming."

The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's ruling, prompting Chiles to appeal to the Supreme Court, whose ruling is expected by the end of June.”
 

Supreme Court Live Updates: Justices Seem Set to Rule Against Colorado’s Ban on Conversion Therapy​

Colorado and over 20 other states have banned the practice aimed at changing the sexual orientation or gender identity of young people.


“… In a lively argument, which lasted an hour and a half, the justices debated whether the so-called conversion therapy covered by Colorado’s law causes harm to minors. Lawyers for the therapist and the Trump administration said there were no studies indicating such therapy causes harm.

The state’s lawyer countered that there is a “mountain of evidence” that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful.…”
My guess is that there is s pretty sharp divide on what the goals of conversion therapy are. If the goal is to convert someone from being sexually attracted to the same sex to being sexually attracted only to the opposite sex, then I would say conversion therapy is an absolute and complete failure. However, if the goal of conversion therapy can be briefly described as "Get back in that closet!" then I would say if the patient being treated had been sufficiently shamed and indoctrinated before the thearapy began, then it has a reasonable chance at "success."

With "success" being as not only shoving the patient back in closet, but on those rare occasions when they are let out, they enthisiastically preach the evils of same sex attraction. One of the casualties of conversion therapy for men are those poor, unfortunate women who wind-up married to the supposed converts. I can't even imagine how miserable their lives must be trapped in a marriage where they will never experience genuine love, affection, or romantic ardor.
 

Supreme Court Live Updates: Justices Seem Set to Rule Against Colorado’s Ban on Conversion Therapy​

Colorado and over 20 other states have banned the practice aimed at changing the sexual orientation or gender identity of young people.


“… In a lively argument, which lasted an hour and a half, the justices debated whether the so-called conversion therapy covered by Colorado’s law causes harm to minors. Lawyers for the therapist and the Trump administration said there were no studies indicating such therapy causes harm.

The state’s lawyer countered that there is a “mountain of evidence” that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful.…”
This is literally going to come down to the conservatives deciding they are the ultimate experts on teen psychology. Alito actually fucking asked whether it's possible for expertise to be ideologically biased. I would have responded that we all try to follow your tremendous leadership on this issue.

But anyway, they've decided that there's no harm in just talking and so what the hell, why not undermine all state medical licensing restrictions. If conversion therapy is constitutionally protected as a form of medicine, so too is prayer and witchcraft, both of which could be purchased under the rubric of "medicine."

They are so far up Lucifer's ass they can't even see the light.
 
"Conservative Justice Samuel Alito seemed to embrace the plaintiff's claim that Colorado's law aims to marginalize views the state dislikes, saying the measure appears to allow therapists to help a patient feel comfortable about being gay but bars them from helping a patient who seeks to "end or lessen" their same-sex attraction.

'It seems to me your statute dictates opposite results in those two situations' based on the viewpoint expressed, Alito told Stevenson. ;Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination,' Alito added.


1. There it is. The statute appears to allow teachers to teach that gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/2^2, but bars them from teaching that gravity is a communist plot. The statute dictates different results based on the viewpoint expressed. Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.

I mean, you can't even fucking parody these motherfuckers any more. I just used his exact words and of course there's no cogent rebuttal. It's just asinine. Literally, per Alito, a state cannot force teachers to teach the truth, if the purported teacher claims some religious bullshit.

2. Note: IMPORTANTLY this is not about free speech. There are no restrictions on conversion therapy in general in Colorado. Anyone can hang out a shingle and sell conversion therapy. The law only prevents the "therapist" from claiming to be performing medical care. That is, Colorado's interest is making sure that it doesn't suffer reputationally by association. Colorado wants its state residents to be able to rely on its medical licensing. Colorado wants its citizens to see "licensed by the state" and infer that, whatever is provided, it's not quackery.

This therapist bitch bringing the lawsuit wants to steal goodwill from every other doctor in the state. Therapists in general provide good services to their clients, so they are trusted. Then Ms. Chiles comes in, starts spewing this harmful bile, and dupes people because medical license. Of course, the damage will be inflicted on therapists as a group. Thus, Ms. Chiles transfers goodwill from other therapists to herself.

I doubt anyone presented the argument this way. I wonder if it would be more persuasive. Maybe the best way to reach the Supreme Court is to paint the other side as thieves. Get that fascist fight-or-flight thing going. I doubt it, though; probably they see that theft as good.
 
"Conservative Justice Samuel Alito seemed to embrace the plaintiff's claim that Colorado's law aims to marginalize views the state dislikes, saying the measure appears to allow therapists to help a patient feel comfortable about being gay but bars them from helping a patient who seeks to "end or lessen" their same-sex attraction.

'It seems to me your statute dictates opposite results in those two situations' based on the viewpoint expressed, Alito told Stevenson. ;Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination,' Alito added.


1. There it is. The statute appears to allow teachers to teach that gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/2^2, but bars them from teaching that gravity is a communist plot. The statute dictates different results based on the viewpoint expressed. Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.

I mean, you can't even fucking parody these motherfuckers any more. I just used his exact words and of course there's no cogent rebuttal. It's just asinine. Literally, per Alito, a state cannot force teachers to teach the truth, if the purported teacher claims some religious bullshit.

2. Note: IMPORTANTLY this is not about free speech. There are no restrictions on conversion therapy in general in Colorado. Anyone can hang out a shingle and sell conversion therapy. The law only prevents the "therapist" from claiming to be performing medical care. That is, Colorado's interest is making sure that it doesn't suffer reputationally by association. Colorado wants its state residents to be able to rely on its medical licensing. Colorado wants its citizens to see "licensed by the state" and infer that, whatever is provided, it's not quackery.

This therapist bitch bringing the lawsuit wants to steal goodwill from every other doctor in the state. Therapists in general provide good services to their clients, so they are trusted. Then Ms. Chiles comes in, starts spewing this harmful bile, and dupes people because medical license. Of course, the damage will be inflicted on therapists as a group. Thus, Ms. Chiles transfers goodwill from other therapists to herself.

I doubt anyone presented the argument this way. I wonder if it would be more persuasive. Maybe the best way to reach the Supreme Court is to paint the other side as thieves. Get that fascist fight-or-flight thing going. I doubt it, though; probably they see that theft as good.
History has pretty consistently show that they start from the conclusion they want to reach and build the argument backwards from there. There is not any line of augment that would work, because "best argument wins" is not the game they are playing. I know you know all this already, and I'm trying to teach my grandma how to suck eggs, but i'm just venting (too).
 


“… Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Campbell that this was an unusual case because there have been six years of no enforcement of the law - three before and three after the legal challenge was brought, and that the state entity charged with administering the law has said it would not apply the restrictions to the kind of therapy that Chiles conducts.

… Colorado's law prohibits licensed mental healthcare providers from seeking to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity according to a predetermined outcome, with each violation punishable by a fine of up to $5,000. This includes attempts to reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction or change "behaviors or gender expressions."

The law does permit treatments that provide "assistance to a person undergoing gender transition," as well as therapies centered on "acceptance, support and understanding" for "identity exploration and development."
Chiles sued Colorado officials in 2022 in an attempt to block the statute.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney in 2022 ruled against Chiles, deciding that Colorado's ban was a permissible regulation of professional conduct, not speech. The judge also found that conversion therapy is "ineffective and harms minors who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or gender nonconforming."

The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's ruling, prompting Chiles to appeal to the Supreme Court, whose ruling is expected by the end of June.”

This seems like conservative Christian grifters just want to, well, grift under the banner of conversion therapy.

Conversion therapy is harmful.
 
"Conservative Justice Samuel Alito seemed to embrace the plaintiff's claim that Colorado's law aims to marginalize views the state dislikes, saying the measure appears to allow therapists to help a patient feel comfortable about being gay but bars them from helping a patient who seeks to "end or lessen" their same-sex attraction.

'It seems to me your statute dictates opposite results in those two situations' based on the viewpoint expressed, Alito told Stevenson. ;Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination,' Alito added.


1. There it is. The statute appears to allow teachers to teach that gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/2^2, but bars them from teaching that gravity is a communist plot. The statute dictates different results based on the viewpoint expressed. Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.

I mean, you can't even fucking parody these motherfuckers any more. I just used his exact words and of course there's no cogent rebuttal. It's just asinine. Literally, per Alito, a state cannot force teachers to teach the truth, if the purported teacher claims some religious bullshit.

2. Note: IMPORTANTLY this is not about free speech. There are no restrictions on conversion therapy in general in Colorado. Anyone can hang out a shingle and sell conversion therapy. The law only prevents the "therapist" from claiming to be performing medical care. That is, Colorado's interest is making sure that it doesn't suffer reputationally by association. Colorado wants its state residents to be able to rely on its medical licensing. Colorado wants its citizens to see "licensed by the state" and infer that, whatever is provided, it's not quackery.

This therapist bitch bringing the lawsuit wants to steal goodwill from every other doctor in the state. Therapists in general provide good services to their clients, so they are trusted. Then Ms. Chiles comes in, starts spewing this harmful bile, and dupes people because medical license. Of course, the damage will be inflicted on therapists as a group. Thus, Ms. Chiles transfers goodwill from other therapists to herself.

I doubt anyone presented the argument this way. I wonder if it would be more persuasive. Maybe the best way to reach the Supreme Court is to paint the other side as thieves. Get that fascist fight-or-flight thing going. I doubt it, though; probably they see that theft as good.
There have been so many terrible rulings since overturning Roe I forget some of what was in that decision, but didn't Alito cite some 12th or 13th century English judge as part of his justification? He had to have that one in his pocket for years, just waiting for when he could use it.
 
There have been so many terrible rulings since overturning Roe I forget some of what was in that decision, but didn't Alito cite some 12th or 13th century English judge as part of his justification? He had to have that one in his pocket for years, just waiting for when he could use it.
Yes, his survey of the "tradition" of Western Civilization began in the 13th century.

He was not holding that one in his pocket. They talk about this shit openly. I'm guessing there was at least amicus brief by some group of "historians" that listed dozens of historical episodes to demonstrate that people in the 13th century allowed abortion before quickening and therefore Americans can outlaw abortion at any stage.
 
It's also worth remembering that Alito didn't even find anything about abortion per se. He called assaults on pregnant women, regardless of their consent, abortions and thus the prosecution of assailants who beat women until their babies died in utero means that women can't make decisions.

I mean, literally. "The “eminent common-law authorities (Blackstone,Coke, Hale, and the like) all describe abortion after quickening as criminal. Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise explained that if a person has “struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated, and particularly if it be animated, he commits homicide."

Never mind this pesky detail:

Although a pre-quickening abortion was not itself considered homicide, it does not follow that abortion was permissible at common law.

This sentence, of course, makes no sense. It's not as if he is saying it was charged as a different felony. He's admitting it wasn't criminally charged but no matter. "Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman “with child” a “potion” to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was “murder” because the potion was given unlawfully to destroy her child within her.” Alito italicized unlawfully, as if it suggests anything other than the woman ended up dead.
 
Yes, his survey of the "tradition" of Western Civilization began in the 13th century.

He was not holding that one in his pocket. They talk about this shit openly. I'm guessing there was at least amicus brief by some group of "historians" that listed dozens of historical episodes to demonstrate that people in the 13th century allowed abortion before quickening and therefore Americans can outlaw abortion at any stage.
Thanks for this.
 
It's also worth remembering that Alito didn't even find anything about abortion per se. He called assaults on pregnant women, regardless of their consent, abortions and thus the prosecution of assailants who beat women until their babies died in utero means that women can't make decisions.

I mean, literally. "The “eminent common-law authorities (Blackstone,Coke, Hale, and the like) all describe abortion after quickening as criminal. Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise explained that if a person has “struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated, and particularly if it be animated, he commits homicide."

Never mind this pesky detail:

Although a pre-quickening abortion was not itself considered homicide, it does not follow that abortion was permissible at common law.

This sentence, of course, makes no sense. It's not as if he is saying it was charged as a different felony. He's admitting it wasn't criminally charged but no matter. "Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman “with child” a “potion” to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was “murder” because the potion was given unlawfully to destroy her child within her.” Alito italicized unlawfully, as if it suggests anything other than the woman ended up dead.
This is a terrific explanation. Again, thank you.
 
Back
Top