SCOTUS Catch-all |
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 608
- Views: 22K
- Politics
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,753
Not enough.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,753
FWIW nobody joined his concurrence. So he was speaking only for himself. Technically. The others might not give enough fucks to bother reading it. Who knows.
Meanwhile, Kav has decided that because the plaintiffs in the case could be stopped in the future on grounds other than race, the injunction against the use of race does them no good. Whatever.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,753
Why would you carry your papers with you? The agents will just destroy them. You'd have to carry a copy, but then the agents will say it's a copy so it's fake, blah blah blah.
This is just straight blatant racism. Obviously the justices watch Fox News and have had their worldviews distorted.
- Messages
- 1,963
Oddball
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 116
This, sir, is the crux of the issue at hand.
It has become more and more apparent that the current regime NEVER expects the other side to get the chance and will keep doing all they can (legally but more decisively illegally) to keep it that way.
USSCT of old would of course reject 90% or more of Trump's actions based simply on Court precedent and Congress would accept that based on the expectation that they don't want the other side to ever have that power, as you noted.
But this Coward Court knows Trump and Congress will ignore it unless they play along.... and given enough gerrymandering and flat out fraud ("just find the 11k votes, or here in NC pull a Jeff Griffin and tossed out votes from areas that vote against you) the current regime may well have insulated itself successfully by 2026 to make every other previous notion of our governance moot.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,753
But not on the merits. Suddenly the Supreme Court regained its interest in jurisdiction and standing. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they are evaluating claims against Trump and not Biden administration.
The idea that a person doesn't have standing to seek an injunction when a) the official policy is to target him/her based on race characteristics; b) they were already harassed or detained on that basis; and c) ICE came to their workplaces or homes (i.e. not random traffic stops). And note that the district court's factual findings were sound on all points.
Meanwhile, not a single state suing over student loans had any interest at all. Missouri claimed that it hypothetically received money from a loan servicer run by the state (which appeared on the record not to be true) and anyway drying up of that income stream would mean nothing because there are plenty of other debt instruments to service. Standing? Of course!
Mulberry Heel
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,112
Agreed, but I doubt the party's congressional leadership as it is now constituted has the guts to do it, even with a majority in both Houses. At some point, though, Democrats have got to start realizing that their survival as a political party is at stake, or at least their chances of ever regaining a majority in Congress.
- Messages
- 29,381
“Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily kept in place the Trump administration’s decision to freeze nearly $5 billion in foreign aid.
Roberts acted on the administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in a case involving billions of dollars in congressionally approved aid. President Donald Trump said last month that he would not spend the money, invoking disputed authority that was last used by a president roughly 50 years ago.
The high court order is temporary, though it suggests the justices will reverse a lower court ruling that withholding the funding was likely illegal. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled last week that Congress would have to approve the decision to withhold the funding.
- Messages
- 29,381
“… “They’re leaving the circuit courts, the district courts out in limbo,” said Judge James Wynn, an Obama appointee, during oral arguments in a case about the Department of Government Efficiency employees’ access to Social Security data.
“We’re out here flailing. … I’m not criticizing the justices. They’re using a vehicle that’s there, but they are telling us nothing. They could easily just give us direction and we would follow it.”
“They cannot get amnesia in the future because they didn’t write an opinion on it. Write an opinion,” Wynn said.
“We need to understand why you did it. We judges would just love to hear your reasoning as to why you rule that way. It makes our job easier. We will follow the law. We will follow the Supreme Court, but we’d like to know what it is we are following.”
During the remarkable, 80-minute venting session Thursday at the Richmond-based court, judges openly debated how to follow the justices’ sparse guidance while fulfilling their own constitutional duty to issue detailed rulings in complex cases.
“The Supreme Court’s action must mean something,” said Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee. “It doesn’t do these things just for the kicks of it.”
…
Despite recent umbrage expressed by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — suggesting lower court judges had flippantly defied high court emergency-docket rulings — the public debate among the 4th Circuit judges underscored continuing confusion on the lower courts about precisely how to follow those decisions in practice, especially when they lack any detailed reasoning.
Compounding that issue in the case argued Thursday, about sensitive Social Security Administration information, is that in June the Supreme Court overruled the 4th Circuit’s decision and lifted an injunction against DOGE’s use of the data.
By an apparent 6-3 vote, the justices went further, saying that no matter what the appeals court decided, the injunction would remain on hold until the case returned to the Supreme Court. Yet, the high court’s majority offered no substantive rationale for the lower court to parse….”
- Messages
- 29,381
“… That left many of the 15 4th Circuit judges on hand for Thursday’s unusual en banc arguments puzzling at their role. One even suggested the appeals court should simply issue a one-line opinion saying the injunction is lifted and kick the case back to the Supreme Court to resolve.
However, some judges said they were obliged to consider and rule on the case like any other, even if the high court has already decided that any such ruling would be of no immediate effect.
“It sounds like some of my colleagues think that there’s no work to be done, that we’re done because the Supreme Court has told us what the answer is,” said Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee.
Judge Robert King said punting on the case would be a mistake.
“We each have a commission and we have a robe and we have an oath to abide by,” said King, a Clinton appointee….”
However, some judges said they were obliged to consider and rule on the case like any other, even if the high court has already decided that any such ruling would be of no immediate effect.
“It sounds like some of my colleagues think that there’s no work to be done, that we’re done because the Supreme Court has told us what the answer is,” said Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee.
Judge Robert King said punting on the case would be a mistake.
“We each have a commission and we have a robe and we have an oath to abide by,” said King, a Clinton appointee….”
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,964
They haven't overturned it yet but they'll be reconsidering it, and we now know how these things turn out with this Court. I hope the Pubs realize the Pandora's box they're unlocking right now. Their only hope is that Dems never get power back.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,753
Well, it didn't overturn it. It just permitted the government to proceed as if it has been overturned.
Which is surely a sign of what is to come.
- Messages
- 1,199
Yep, and I'm sure there is a 100% chance of there being something in the works to prevent that insofar as elections. I'm sure the dark Lords Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, et al, are developing something for election rigging/interference or whipping up an emergency at the appropriate time to suspend them. I suspect they had something very similar ready to go for 2024, but lucked out and didn't need it. I'm not saying they will be successful, but they are damn well going to try some thing