Trump Admin SCOTUS cases | SCOTUS blocks AEA deportations

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 49
  • Views: 1K
  • Politics 
CHAMTRAIN said:
Super, who is your 3rd of the terrible 3? Gorsuch or Kav?
Click to expand...
Gorusch. By far. Kav can be awful, but he's rarely awful in opposition to Gorsuch. Where they disagree, Kav is almost always right.

I will carve an exception for federal Indian law, which has been an interest of Gorsuch and has earned him some praise across ideological spectrum. I'm making that exception because I don't know shit about Indian law -- not more than the very, very basics -- and can't possibly evaluate.
 
superrific said:
Gorusch. By far. Kav can be awful, but he's rarely awful in opposition to Gorsuch. Where they disagree, Kav is almost always right.

I will carve an exception for federal Indian law, which has been an interest of Gorsuch and has earned him some praise across ideological spectrum. I'm making that exception because I don't know shit about Indian law -- not more than the very, very basics -- and can't possibly evaluate.
Click to expand...
I do, and you're right about him in that very narrow area.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

I'm of two minds about this. I always have been on this issue. On one hand, we really need to tie the hands of assholes like the 5th circuit judges who tried to enjoin the use of abortion drugs nationwide. On the other hand, for something as blatantly illegal as this, it's completely infeasible for all potentially affected parties to go to court, and even if it weren't, it would be a huge waste of judicial resources and money.

I guess my standard would be something like, "no nationwide injunction unless the action is blatantly illegal." I would need a better word than blatantly, and anyway as soon as you give the GOP lunatics an "unless" they will try to abuse it.
 

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Block Order Reinstating Federal Employees​

Government complains that lower courts have issued broad nationwide orders that have slowed its policies​


GIFT LINK --> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/tru...5?st=LifpTm&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

"The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court on Monday to block a judge’s order requiring it to reinstate more than 16,000 federal employees, as administration officials vow to seek the justices’ intervention in clearing away lower-court rulings that have slowed Trump policies.

Earlier this month, a federal district judge in San Francisco ordered the government to reinstate probationary employees fired at a half dozen agencies under the Trump administration’s fast-moving plan to shrink the federal government. U.S. District Judge William Alsup found that the administration had failed to comply with legal procedures required for the layoffs.

Alsup’s order, and a similar one from a federal judge in Maryland, require agencies to offer the employees their jobs back while litigation over the legality of the layoffs proceeds.

...Chief Justice John Roberts, responding to such calls, said in a statement last week that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

On Sunday evening, Chad Mizelle, chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, said the administration was taking that course. “This week, we are giving the Supreme Court another chance to reverse many of these injunctions. Time for the Court to act to stop lawless injunctions,” Mizelle said in an X post. ..."
 
Wasn’t sure where to put this but a thread on the SC seemed appropriate.

A Supreme Court case about abortion could destroy Medicaid​

Kerr v. Planned Parenthood asks the justices to render much of federal law unenforceable, in order to spite abortion providers.

www.vox.com

A Supreme Court case about abortion could destroy Medicaid

Kerr v. Planned Parenthood asks the justices to render much of federal law unenforceable, in order to spite abortion providers.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
 
DiehardHeelFan said:
Wasn’t sure where to put this but a thread on the SC seemed appropriate.

A Supreme Court case about abortion could destroy Medicaid​

Kerr v. Planned Parenthood asks the justices to render much of federal law unenforceable, in order to spite abortion providers.

www.vox.com

A Supreme Court case about abortion could destroy Medicaid

Kerr v. Planned Parenthood asks the justices to render much of federal law unenforceable, in order to spite abortion providers.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link but Probably better here:

nycfan

Politics Thread 'SCOTUS Catch-all | Upholds Ghost Gun Regulations 7-2'


Not the sort of thing that should be controversial or big news, but ...

Justice Kagan calls for a way to enforce Supreme Court ethics code​

Justice Elena Kagan suggested Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could appoint an outside panel of highly respected judges to review allegations of wrongdoing.
  • Like
 
nycfan said:
Thanks for the link but Probably better here:

nycfan

Politics Thread 'SCOTUS Catch-all | Upholds Ghost Gun Regulations 7-2'


Not the sort of thing that should be controversial or big news, but ...

Justice Kagan calls for a way to enforce Supreme Court ethics code​

Justice Elena Kagan suggested Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could appoint an outside panel of highly respected judges to review allegations of wrongdoing.
  • Like
Click to expand...
Thank you. Tries to find that one.
 
nycfan said:
These are going to start piling up

Click to expand...

“… The United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to put the district court’s order on hold while the government appealed, but it agreed to fast-track the appeal itself.

Meanwhile, a federal district court in Maryland has also ordered the Department of Education to reinstate terminated grants in a different lawsuit.

… Until the Supreme Court weighs in, Harris asserted, federal courts around the country will continue to act beyond their authority “by ordering the Executive Branch to restore lawfully terminated grants across the government, keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, and send out the door taxpayer money that may never be clawed back.”

The justices, Harris pleaded, “should put a swift end to federal district courts’ unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of Executive Branch funding and grant-disbursement decisions.” …”

——
It is not at all clear that the executive is acting legally in a lot of these cases when they refuse to fund or purport to cancel funding that has been authorized by Congress, signed into law and contracted for …
 
I had a feeling that might happen. I think ultimately the plaintiffs will win the case -- because the administration is proceeding with patent unlawfulness -- but the Court might shunt them into the court of claims and that's just an unbelievably stupid outcome.

Jackson has had just about enough of the bullshit. Here are some quotes from her dissent:

It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceiveof the Government’s application as an emergency. It is likewise baffling that anyone is persuaded that the equities favor the Government when the Government does not even argue that the lower courts erred in concluding that it likely behaved unlawfully.

If the emergency docket has now become a vehicle for certain defendants to obtain this Court’s real-time opinion about lower court rulings on various auxiliary matters, we should announce that new policy and be prepared to shift how we think about, and address these kinds of applications (emphasis added)

Courts that are properly mulling interim injunctive relief (to prevent imminent harms and thereby facilitate fair adjudication of potentially meritorious claims) should be wary of allowing defendants with weak underlying arguments to divert all attention to ancillary threshold and remedial questions. Children, pets, and magicians might find pleasure in the clever use of such shiny-object tactics. But a court of law should not be so easily distracted
 
By the way, I am so fucking sick of this stupid, unconstitutional and senseless concept of "sovereign immunity." When we get a new constitution, as we must, here's hoping we make clear what the Framers thought they did with silence on the issue: the government can be sued when it violates the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top