SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 482
  • Views: 18K
  • Politics 
BubbaOtis said:
One again, I'm out of my area of expertise but the x tweet with the screenshot of the ruling included a reference to the particular portion of Marbury v Madison that supports the majority position.
Click to expand...
Right, but it was a mis-cite. Or a very weak one. The overriding lesson of Marbury, of course, is that the judiciary has the responsibility to state the law, not simply to decide cases (as the majority claims here). The specific outcome of the case was dictated by politics: Marshall thought his assertion of judicial authority would be better received if it was paired with a gesture of humility -- i.e. declining jurisdiction in a specific case of no import.

In any event, if the point was that there is **some** limit on judicial power, duh. The judiciary can't order the military into action either. That's what I mean by it being wrong or incredibly weak. Marshall didn't have to address the usurpation of authority by the executive, so the question of Article III power to check the executive never arose. That's the issue here.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 


“… 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 said:


“… 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.“
Click to expand...

IMG_7791.jpeg

——
IMG_7792.jpeg
——
IMG_7794.jpeg
…
IMG_7797.jpeg

 
stankeylegjones said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


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.
 
lawtig02 said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Does KBJ know that she's supposed to consider the Constitution, not consider her feelings?
 
lawtig02 said:
1752193109582.gif
Click to expand...
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.”
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Kraftyheel89 said:
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.
Click to expand...
0.0%. Those are the chances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top