[SCOTUS] : Back in black robes - new judicial session has begun

So It Goes

As previously noted:

Expectations for this thread

1. This is not the general politics or lol this party sucks thread.
2. This is a thread about the US Supreme Court, if it doesn't have anything to do with SCOTUS, it doesn't belong here.
3. Not all things about SCOTUS belong here. Some cases dealing with certain issues, already have a thread or their own god damn separate thread that is more appropriate to discuss a certain SCOTUS rulings or cases.
4. In the event that a tangent regarding something involving SCOTUS has it's own thread created after the discussion starts in this thread, then move the discussion over to the new thread. (Also appreciated if people link to the new thread to help others out).
5. In the event that we get a SCOTUS vacancy in the lifetime of this thread, this would probably be the best place to discuss such an appointment given how low traffic this thread is likely to be. (leaving this for posterity and lols - SIG)

Read SCOTUSBlog for all the latest and greatest info you could ever need about our highest court: http://www.scotusblog.com/

Let's keep it on topic, folks.

/bangs gavel

So It Goes

Geth, kick @AngelHedgie from the thread.

Geth

Affirmative So It Goes. @AngelHedgie banned from this thread.

syndalis

Leaving Rule 5 is hilarious. And sad. And yet still hilarious.

Label

spool32 wrote:

Resist and obstruct, the end?

That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?

The filibuster of Merrick Garland caused two wounds to our democracy.

First, the job of a President to appoint justices to the supreme court, as laid out in the constitution, was obliterated.

Second, the Supreme Court sits vacant still, halting it's ability to form precedent and damaging it's credibility.


The goal of filibustering anyone but Merrick Garland is that the Republicans will either repair the damages they caused by blocking Mr Obama's rightful appointee, or they will remove the weapon they used to inflict this damage from their own hands.


Any deal or other nominee or anything is a legitimization of the first wound. As to the second wound, there would indeed be 9 seats filled and the court could fulfill it's obligations. But since it was filled falsely, this would only further damage the credibility of the court.

Note, if Republicans want to change the process by which supreme court judgess are appointed, there is a process for that, a constitutional amendment.


Democrats may indeed not get anything out of their attempt to uphold the constitution by blocking any appointee other than Merrick Garland, but at least they're fighting for it.


A question I would ask is why is it not the Republicans job to uphold the constitution?

spool32

Label wrote: »

spool32 wrote:

Resist and obstruct, the end?

That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?

The filibuster of Merrick Garland caused two wounds to our democracy.

First, the job of a President to appoint justices to the supreme court, as laid out in the constitution, was obliterated.

Second, the Supreme Court sits vacant still, halting it's ability to form precedent and damaging it's credibility.


The goal of filibustering anyone but Merrick Garland is that the Republicans will either repair the damages they caused by blocking Mr Obama's rightful appointee, or they will remove the weapon they used to inflict this damage from their own hands.


Any deal or other nominee or anything is a legitimization of the first wound. As to the second wound, there would indeed be 9 seats filled and the court could fulfill it's obligations. But since it was filled falsely, this would only further damage the credibility of the court.

Note, if Republicans want to change the process by which supreme court judgess are appointed, there is a process for that, a constitutional amendment.


Democrats may indeed not get anything out of their attempt to uphold the constitution by blocking any appointee other than Merrick Garland, but at least they're fighting for it.


A question I would ask is why is it not the Republicans job to uphold the constitution?

oh it's absolutely their job. I continue to be disgusted by the GOP Senate's failure to at least bring Garland to the floor for an insulting no vote.

Polaritie

spool32 wrote: »

Label wrote: »

spool32 wrote:

Resist and obstruct, the end?

That's a legit answer, but what is the goal? What would you be trying to accomplish?

The filibuster of Merrick Garland caused two wounds to our democracy.

First, the job of a President to appoint justices to the supreme court, as laid out in the constitution, was obliterated.

Second, the Supreme Court sits vacant still, halting it's ability to form precedent and damaging it's credibility.


The goal of filibustering anyone but Merrick Garland is that the Republicans will either repair the damages they caused by blocking Mr Obama's rightful appointee, or they will remove the weapon they used to inflict this damage from their own hands.


Any deal or other nominee or anything is a legitimization of the first wound. As to the second wound, there would indeed be 9 seats filled and the court could fulfill it's obligations. But since it was filled falsely, this would only further damage the credibility of the court.

Note, if Republicans want to change the process by which supreme court judgess are appointed, there is a process for that, a constitutional amendment.


Democrats may indeed not get anything out of their attempt to uphold the constitution by blocking any appointee other than Merrick Garland, but at least they're fighting for it.


A question I would ask is why is it not the Republicans job to uphold the constitution?

oh it's absolutely their job. I continue to be disgusted by the GOP Senate's failure to at least bring Garland to the floor for an insulting no vote.

But if they vote him down Obama just nominates another moderate. And it becomes harder to spin as anything but trying to steal the seat.

archivistkitsune

syndalis wrote: »

Leaving Rule 5 is hilarious. And sad. And yet still hilarious.

In my defense, it was a different time when I wrote that and the big things usually got spun off.

As for the last part of the former thread. I strongly disagree with this sports trading bullshit that people are pushing. We do not have liberal, conservative, pastafarian ect seats. The republicans should have done their damn job and given Garland a vote. They were just too damn chicken shit to do so because voting yes, would proven they were full a shit and that Obama was picking qualified candidates and it would piss off their voters. Voting no would have also shown they were shit because Garland was from a list that the GOP said they didn't have any problems with and could have gotten some of them booted last year.

I don't care if they offer up two liberal seats and pass some binding law that prevents them from failing to follow through. SCOTUS seats should not be traded like players for a sports team. Not only does that shit legitimize the GOP's blatant obstruction, laziness and cowardice, but he continues to reinforce the harmful view that many Americans have, where politics is a team sport and real policies be damned.

Elki

Udall's plan is something that I hope is dropped like a hot potato. There is nothing to be gained by moving from a pretty simple message of opposition based a principle to anything that looks like horse trading. Once you're trading you can't claim there are principles involved. And it's not even a good trade.

Label

If a conservative justice wants to step down while trump is in office, that's their decision.

That entirely separate seat has nothing and should have nothing to do with Merrick Garland, or the attack on our constitutional processes surrounding his nomination.

Tox

Label wrote: »

If a conservative justice wants to step down while trump is in office, that's their decision.

That entirely separate seat has nothing and should have nothing to do with Merrick Garland, or the attack on our constitutional processes surrounding his nomination.

I would extend this notion to any seat vacated before (at the earliest) election day, 2020.

Sterica

Requesting the title be changed to Eight is Enough

Commander Zoom

Eight is (Not) Enough
?

Spoit

So, in the off chance that Trump actually gets around to appointing people for the other federal court vacancies, and they're divisive enough to make national news, which thread would that conversation go in?

So It Goes

Not this one.

AresProphet

So a SCOTUS thing today

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-06/jury-s-racial-bias-can-be-probed-after-trial-high-court-rules

The ruling could mean a new trial for Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez, who was convicted of harassing two teenage girls and groping one of them in a women’s bathroom in 2007. Rodriguez, who worked at the Colorado racetrack where the incident occurred, says he was misidentified.

The jury convicted Pena Rodriguez of three misdemeanor counts. After trial, two jurors submitted sworn statements saying another juror had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward Pena Rodriguez and an alibi witness who testified on his behalf.

Among other comments, the juror allegedly said Pena Rodriguez "did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want."

It turns out one of the guys I work with is related to one of the jurors who brought that statement to the judge's attention

Good for someone standing up for injustice

Polaritie

AresProphet wrote: »

So a SCOTUS thing today

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-06/jury-s-racial-bias-can-be-probed-after-trial-high-court-rules

The ruling could mean a new trial for Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez, who was convicted of harassing two teenage girls and groping one of them in a women’s bathroom in 2007. Rodriguez, who worked at the Colorado racetrack where the incident occurred, says he was misidentified.

The jury convicted Pena Rodriguez of three misdemeanor counts. After trial, two jurors submitted sworn statements saying another juror had expressed anti-Hispanic bias toward Pena Rodriguez and an alibi witness who testified on his behalf.

Among other comments, the juror allegedly said Pena Rodriguez "did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want."

It turns out one of the guys I work with is related to one of the jurors who brought that statement to the judge's attention

Good for someone standing up for injustice

SCOTUSblog link:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/opinion-analysis-divided-court-rules-defendant-juror-bias-case/

Edit: I think this is a good ruling overall - I'm not a fan of the idea that testimony that demand a mistrial if it came out during the trial shouldn't warrant the same if it comes to light after.

DevoutlyApathetic

In other SCOTUS-y news today, it's time for our yearly reminder that Thomas is not completely and totally terrible:

Clarence Thomas Condemns Civil Asset Forfeiture, Points to 'Egregious and Well-Chronicled Abuses'

Label

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

In other SCOTUS-y news today, it's time for our yearly reminder that Thomas is not completely and totally terrible:

Clarence Thomas Condemns Civil Asset Forfeiture, Points to 'Egregious and Well-Chronicled Abuses'

So I gather from that link that the SCOTUS declined to hear the case on procedural grounds, is that correct?

Hope that moves through quickly then. Criminetly.

So It Goes

Label wrote: »

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

In other SCOTUS-y news today, it's time for our yearly reminder that Thomas is not completely and totally terrible:

Clarence Thomas Condemns Civil Asset Forfeiture, Points to 'Egregious and Well-Chronicled Abuses'

So I gather from that link that the SCOTUS declined to hear the case on procedural grounds, is that correct?

Hope that moves through quickly then. Criminetly.

They denied cert. So they won't be hearing any appeal. The lower court decision stands.

VishNub

The lower court ruled against her, but

But because Lisa Olivia Leonard "raises her due process arguments for the first time in this Court," Thomas concluded, the Supreme Court has no business weighing in until the lower court has properly considered those arguments first.

That's bad news for Lisa Olivia Leonard. But there is a silver lining for all critics of civil asset forfeiture. When the right case does finally come along, Justice Thomas insisted today, SCOTUS should tackle the unconstitutional practice head on.

Label

Oh I see.

FUCKING FUCK GOD DAMNIT.

Matev

Argh, frustrating that it didn't get heard, but the fact that even Thomas thinks it's pants on head means that it probably isn't terribly long for this world.

kaid

Yup this is more of a wrong case but likely on the right track.

So It Goes

It's usually not a winning strategy to raise Constitutional appeal claims only once you are trying to get certified to the Supreme Court. I'm not surprised in the denial of cert.

You should plead all possible claims when appealing the first time, then there's a solid record from the courts below to actually appeal from.

Fencingsax

So It Goes wrote: »

It's usually not a winning strategy to raise Constitutional appeal claims only once you are trying to get certified to the Supreme Court. I'm not surprised in the denial of cert.

You should plead all possible claims when appealing the first time, then there's a solid record from the courts below to actually appeal from.

Yeah, appeals courts do not take new cases, so if there was no previous appeal, later courts can't rule on that part of it.

JoeUser

McConnell is saying he plans to get Gorsuch approved before the April recess, which seems crazy

enlightenedbum

That would be a basically normal waiting period before Garland.

DevoutlyApathetic

We haven't started committee hearings yet so that seems fast but I haven't really looked up historically how long those run for.

davidsdurions

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

We haven't started committee hearings yet so that seems fast but I haven't really looked up historically how long those run for.

I just read this stuff a couple nights ago. It's summarized on the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).

Garland was on the docket but never considered for 293 days.

VishNub

They've also promised to vote on healthcare in that time frame.

DevoutlyApathetic

davidsdurions wrote: »

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

We haven't started committee hearings yet so that seems fast but I haven't really looked up historically how long those run for.

I just read this stuff a couple nights ago. It's summarized on the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).

Garland was on the docket but never considered for 293 days.

Oh yeah, over this past year I got familiar with overall time frame of confirmation. I was the one posting milestones in here.

I'm not sure how long committee hearings typically take. I think a month or so from memory but ya see, it never came up with Garland...

*rage intensifies*

moniker

Unlike Garland, Gorsuch won't get...strung along.

8-)



(I made myself sad.)

moniker

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

In other SCOTUS-y news today, it's time for our yearly reminder that Thomas is not completely and totally terrible:

Clarence Thomas Condemns Civil Asset Forfeiture, Points to 'Egregious and Well-Chronicled Abuses'

Thomas actually believes the stuff he says. Some of it might be crazy and a century out of date, but he means it and will vote that way regardless. Which I do respect. He is wrong about damn near everything, but he isn't a hack. Unlike Alito, Roberts, or Scalia was.

Label

So according to this, Dianne Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee doesn't get it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-supreme-court-democrats-confirmation-235941

“Our job is to put together the hearing,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Why have a hearing if everybody is going to take a position? … So to be talking about whether I’m for or against at this stage makes no sense at all to me because it’s uninformed.”

fucking hell... Can we get some noise about primarying her RIGHT THE FUCK NOW?

Your job, Ms. Feinstein, is to defend our democracy. NOW.

The filibuster is a weapon doing damage to our democracy, and that will not stop until we force congressional republicans to repair the damage or remove the weapon.

enlightenedbum

1) It's a jungle primary in California.
2) It's her long time policy to never comment on a nomination before the vote. Which is silly, but not new.

kedinik

Feinstein is probably retiring after this term, any ways

enlightenedbum

She's 85, but the rumor is she's going to run again. Hopefully California elects someone more reflective of the state's views regardless.

Aioua

I don't get the anger?


She's not opposing a confirmation hearing? That's not saying she's gonna vote for him.

Khavall

Aioua wrote: »

I don't get the anger?


She's not opposing a confirmation hearing? That's not saying she's gonna vote for him.

He should get a confirmation hearing only after Garland does.

tbloxham

Khavall wrote: »

Aioua wrote: »

I don't get the anger?


She's not opposing a confirmation hearing? That's not saying she's gonna vote for him.

He should get a confirmation hearing only after Garland does.

Indeed, the problem we have is that Gorsuch is probably perfectly confirmable. He's not who I would pick, but if Clarance Thomas quit tomorrow then Trump would be perfectly fine to nominate Gorsuch as far I can tell.

Gorsuch is not the problem, and having a confirmation hearing on him just exaggerates the problem. Noone can serve. There is NO candidate other than Garland who can fill that seat. Noone Trump could nominate is OK, until, at the VERY least, the Senate has voted on Garland.

Any justice, no matter how respected, who is nominated by Trump to that seat is there improperly. Perhaps if a vote is held on Garland, and he loses that vote, then MAYBE just MAYBE our democracy can survive this nomination.

Gorsuch will serve for probably 30 years. Do you genuinely think he can command respect in ANY case in which he disagrees with the plaintiff? That any decision swayed by him should command public respect? His appointment is corrupt. He cannot cleanse that corruption with his own actions. You can't clean a car with a filthy sponge and a bucket of mud.