SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 612
  • Views: 22K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
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.
Click to expand...
1. Why is this a Pandora's Box?
2. Why do they care if the Dems get power back? What are Dems going to do? We have to get over our squeamishness to play constitutional hardball. Or political hardball. If we do get power, and we fail to completely obliterate the fascist party and make way for a new, non-authoritarian democracy, then we deserve to be ruled by authoritarians.
 
superrific said:
1. Why is this a Pandora's Box?
2. Why do they care if the Dems get power back? What are Dems going to do? We have to get over our squeamishness to play constitutional hardball. Or political hardball. If we do get power, and we fail to completely obliterate the fascist party and make way for a new, non-authoritarian democracy, then we deserve to be ruled by authoritarians.
Click to expand...
well if dems get power back they too pussy to stack supreme court in their favor
 
www.nytimes.com

Supreme Court Allows Trump to Fire F.T.C. Commissioner

The justices said they will consider whether to overrule a landmark Supreme Court precedent that has limited the president’s ability to fire top officials at the agency.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

"... In an emergency order, a divided court announced that it would allow President Trump to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a F.T.C. commissioner, and that it would hear argument in the case in December, a signal that a majority of the court is ready to revisit a landmark precedent limiting presidential authority.

... In its brief order Monday, the court said it would consider in December the broader question of whether to overturn the precedent that has prevented presidents from removing independent regulators without cause and solely over policy disagreements.

The decision by the court’s conservative majority to allow Mr. Trump to remove Ms. Slaughter drew a dissent from the three liberal justices. ..."

Humphrey's Executor was a 9-0 decision of a then very conservative SCOTUS limiting FDR's ability to remove holdover appointees of the pre-Depression era. So 90 years later, when it is holding back a conservative POTUS, a different but very conservative majority of the SCOTUS seems poised to overturn the precedent when it is hindering a conservative president.
 
nycfan said:
www.nytimes.com

Supreme Court Allows Trump to Fire F.T.C. Commissioner

The justices said they will consider whether to overrule a landmark Supreme Court precedent that has limited the president’s ability to fire top officials at the agency.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

"... In an emergency order, a divided court announced that it would allow President Trump to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a F.T.C. commissioner, and that it would hear argument in the case in December, a signal that a majority of the court is ready to revisit a landmark precedent limiting presidential authority.

... In its brief order Monday, the court said it would consider in December the broader question of whether to overturn the precedent that has prevented presidents from removing independent regulators without cause and solely over policy disagreements.

The decision by the court’s conservative majority to allow Mr. Trump to remove Ms. Slaughter drew a dissent from the three liberal justices. ..."

Humphrey's Executor was a 9-0 decision of a then very conservative SCOTUS limiting FDR's ability to remove holdover appointees of the pre-Depression era. So 90 years later, when it is holding back a conservative POTUS, a different but very conservative majority of the SCOTUS seems poised to overturn the precedent when it is hindering a conservative president.
Click to expand...
Brandeis and Stone were on that court. It wasn't a very conservative decision. The case itself had no impact on FDR because Humphrey had died, so the lawsuit was only over back pay (and of course the larger precedent).

Here is the most frustrating thing about all this. Maybe Humphreys' was wrongly decided (I don't think so, because checks and balances are as real as separation of powers, but whatever), but the fact is that the entire apparatus of post-WWII administrative law was built on it. For decades, Congress created independent agencies and vested them with authority -- authority it likely would not have granted if it knew the president could direct it as he saw fit. So now the reactionaries come in and say, "oops, actually that's all illegal."

So great, now nothing works as it is supposed to. We learn in the first year of law school that, probably more often than not, the fact of a decision is more important than the outcome of the decision. Sometimes the rule needs to be decided one way or the other, and then people build around that. Correcting the decision only creates confusion. But SCOTUS -- and Thomas especially -- has shown that it doesn't give a fuck about stability any more. So they break everything over and over and over again and then they can't figure out why Americans hate them so much.

There is nothing quite so pathetic as a Supreme Court justice begging the public to respect what s/he does. Yeah, Brennan didn't need to beg for respect, and neither did Scalia. Their work did their talking.
 
Fuckers up to no good again. This time, they say the Impoundment Control Act says the opposite of what it actually says, and that it preempts lawsuits under the APA. Congress was so mad about Nixon's impoundments, the story goes, that it made it harder to hold the president accountable for impounding it. And oh, the harm to the US foreign policy (which supposedly is being furthered by Trump cutting the aid abruptly) of a stay is more important and irreparable than the money not going to do the recipients (hungry and/or sick children who will die).


The dissent is worth a read. It appears the majority reached a new low. Apparently in the lower court, the government argued precisely the opposite of what it now argues. I'm not sure why, but that's what Kagan says. So in an emergency application, where the party has to show an overwhelming likelihood of prevailing on the merits, it's OK for the government to present an argument that is not only shitty, but directly contrary to what it argued below. Forget waiver for a moment (though surely if waiver means anything, it means this); how can it be overwhelmingly likely for the government to win if it can't even make up its mind about its actual position.

I hate these fuckers so, so, so, so, so much. They are destroying the federal court system, if they haven't already destroyed it.
 
superrific said:
Fuckers up to no good again. This time, they say the Impoundment Control Act says the opposite of what it actually says, and that it preempts lawsuits under the APA. Congress was so mad about Nixon's impoundments, the story goes, that it made it harder to hold the president accountable for impounding it. And oh, the harm to the US foreign policy (which supposedly is being furthered by Trump cutting the aid abruptly) of a stay is more important and irreparable than the money not going to do the recipients (hungry and/or sick children who will die).


The dissent is worth a read. It appears the majority reached a new low. Apparently in the lower court, the government argued precisely the opposite of what it now argues. I'm not sure why, but that's what Kagan says. So in an emergency application, where the party has to show an overwhelming likelihood of prevailing on the merits, it's OK for the government to present an argument that is not only shitty, but directly contrary to what it argued below. Forget waiver for a moment (though surely if waiver means anything, it means this); how can it be overwhelmingly likely for the government to win if it can't even make up its mind about its actual position.

I hate these fuckers so, so, so, so, so much. They are destroying the federal court system, if they haven't already destroyed it.
Click to expand...
 
I am waiting for scotus to send some vets to congress so they can neuter it once and for all.
 
To be clear line item veto was unconstitutional, do whatever the fuck you want after congress passes bills : totally cool
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

“… In a brief order released to reporters by the court’s Public Information Office shortly before 11 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, the justices wrote that the Trump administration’s request to pause Cobb’s order “is deferred pending oral argument in January 2026” – indicating that, as a technical matter, they will hear oral arguments and issue a decision on the request for a stay, rather than on the underlying merits of the dispute (although the likelihood that a litigant will prevail is an important criterion in determining whether to grant a stay).

The court also signaled that Trump and Cook would not file additional briefs on the merits of the dispute, as would normally be the practice when the court grants review. Instead, the justices directed the clerk of the Supreme Court, Scott Harris, to set a schedule for the filing of “friend of the court” briefs, as well as “any supplemental briefs responding to” those briefs.

The court’s order effectively leaves Cobb’s ruling in place – and prevents Trump from firing Cook – while the case moves forward in the Supreme Court.“
 
breepf said:
I don't follow SCOTUS very closely, or know much about the law, but I can't imagine it's a coincidence that the court lets Trump fuck with labor but not with banking.
Click to expand...
It's not, although the court has let Trump fuck with a lot more than just labor. Basically anything that's not the federal reserve. You know, all the stuff except what affects the justices personally.
 
nycfan said:
(although the likelihood that a litigant will prevail is an important criterion in determining whether to grant a stay).
Click to expand...
It used to be an important criterion.

Of course, this stay request is indistinguishable from all the others. The logic they have used in all the other cases (i.e. the executive suffers irreparable injury when not allowed to implement its desired policies; nobody else's injuries are irreparable, especially individual appointees like Lisa Cook) should apply here. But for some reason, it doesn't. Whatever could that reason be?
 


🎁 —> 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….”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top