I want other eyes, but upon first reading it sounds like the court took the phony-baloney "questions they're asking are too broad" && fake "legislative action" that Trump's lawyers put out there.
Part III of the opinion tells the lower court that everything needs to be super narrow in scope in order to pass constitutional mustard while balancing that against Congress's broad needs for legislative action.
If I remember right, this is one of the things the lawyer for congress flubbed pretty badly.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Mazar is also against the President but a whole lot of hedging and "Congress better have a good reason" scolding.
Think the end result is sent back to the lower courts and said the President can be supeoned by congress if they really have to for good reason.
With, it should be noted, the same judges as the NY case, but this one seems like more of a punt than than the NY one. It's going to be tied up in court forever and might make it back to SCOTUS.
Mazar is also against the President but a whole lot of hedging and "Congress better have a good reason" scolding.
Think the end result is sent back to the lower courts and said the President can be supeoned by congress if they really have to for good reason.
Yeah, that one's going to drag out further, it's hard to call that a win for either side. It looks like the court has set out a test to be followed by the lower courts in this, that boils down to whether the information is necessary and whether there's a reasonable alternative to obtaining it.
I want other eyes, but upon first reading it sounds like the court took the phony-baloney "questions they're asking are too broad" && fake "legislative action" that Trump's lawyers put out there.
Part III of the opinion tells the lower court that everything needs to be super narrow in scope in order to pass constitutional mustard while balancing that against Congress's broad needs for legislative action.
If I remember right, this is one of the things the lawyer for congress flubbed pretty badly.
The best part is Roberts doesn't even say one way or another, just that the lower courts didn't properly consider it so SCOTUS couldn't possibly comment. Go another round and talk to us a in a couple years if this still matters then.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Mazar is also against the President but a whole lot of hedging and "Congress better have a good reason" scolding.
Think the end result is sent back to the lower courts and said the President can be supeoned by congress if they really have to for good reason.
Yeah, that one's going to drag out further, it's hard to call that a win for either side. It looks like the court has set out a test to be followed by the lower courts in this, that boils down to whether the information is necessary and whether there's a reasonable alternative to obtaining it.
The annoying part is Trump ran an absolutely bat shit argument up the flag pole and it has taken years to get past it. While these rulings say we still, hypothetically, have a functional government with checks and balances I'm not sure how true that is practically.
But Trump is still going to go crazy on Twitter and call Gorsuch and Kavanaugh traitors that should have never been appointed to SCOTUS even though he barely knew them, maybe they got him a diet coke at one point, right?
Tomanta on
+2
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
So can the damn grand jury get the damn records or what?
The rulings are useful especially as precedent but they do have some punt factor if trump does not win in november. But that does not mean he evades the consequences especially the NY one likely winds up ending up against him in the not that distant future and actual legal/financial consqeuences likely follow for him and his family.
Mazar is also against the President but a whole lot of hedging and "Congress better have a good reason" scolding.
Think the end result is sent back to the lower courts and said the President can be supeoned by congress if they really have to for good reason.
Yeah, that one's going to drag out further, it's hard to call that a win for either side. It looks like the court has set out a test to be followed by the lower courts in this, that boils down to whether the information is necessary and whether there's a reasonable alternative to obtaining it.
The annoying part is Trump ran an absolutely bat shit argument up the flag pole and it has taken years to get past it. While these rulings say we still, hypothetically, have a functional government with checks and balances I'm not sure how true that is practically.
Yes you are. We just aren't comfortable saying it out loud for fear if immanetizing the eschaton.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
SCOTUS. The issue is that they take their sweet time on things that are time-sensitive. It's a problem of the courts in general.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
Given that it was decided against with a 7-2 majority it probably should have never been given cert in the first place.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
SCOTUS. The issue is that they take their sweet time on things that are time-sensitive. It's a problem of the courts in general.
By SCOTUS standards these cases were pretty quick.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
Given that it was decided against with a 7-2 majority it probably should have never been given cert in the first place.
This is an odd argument? They have to take cases if they want to set a national precedent or reverse a lower court. The final margin has nothing to do with whether they were valid to grant cert or not.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
SCOTUS. The issue is that they take their sweet time on things that are time-sensitive. It's a problem of the courts in general.
By SCOTUS standards these cases were pretty quick.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
Given that it was decided against with a 7-2 majority it probably should have never been given cert in the first place.
This is an odd argument? They have to take cases if they want to set a national precedent or reverse a lower court. The final margin has nothing to do with whether they were valid to grant cert or not.
Yes, we're saying that standard isn't quick enough.
And no, SCOTUS can reverse without actually granting cert.
Gorsuch's opinion in McGirt is pretty well reasoned. The dissents give the game away by first stressing how awful McGirt's crime was instead of the matter at hand.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+6
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
What did the two hacks opinions read like? "The president is incapable of wrongdoing, and by becoming president any potential wrongdoing in the past becomes right and correct, by virtue of having been done by a future president."?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Yeah, even Thomas and Alito are like "if it were an impeachment inquiry there's nothing we could do to stop them, boss, sorry."
Broad impeachment focused on the financial crimes was always the right play.
The cynical take is that they only said this because it's not what congress did, and it allows them to stick it to a hypothetical Democratic president who a Republican congress tries to impeach.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What did the two hacks opinions read like? "The president is incapable of wrongdoing, and by becoming president any potential wrongdoing in the past becomes right and correct, by virtue of having been done by a future president."?
That Congress went on a fishing expedition without stating a clear purpose so it wasn't legitimate.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Yeah, even Thomas and Alito are like "if it were an impeachment inquiry there's nothing we could do to stop them, boss, sorry."
Broad impeachment focused on the financial crimes was always the right play.
The cynical take is that they only said this because it's not what congress did, and it allows them to stick it to a hypothetical Democratic president who a Republican congress tries to impeach.
This is my feeling on it, like this feels like a troll "If you had done this other thing we would have also denied, we totally wouldn't have ruled like this for sure."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah, even Thomas and Alito are like "if it were an impeachment inquiry there's nothing we could do to stop them, boss, sorry."
Broad impeachment focused on the financial crimes was always the right play.
The cynical take is that they only said this because it's not what congress did, and it allows them to stick it to a hypothetical Democratic president who a Republican congress tries to impeach.
My cynical take is how can you have an inquiry if you can't have access to evidence of wrongdoing in the first place?
Its like telling the police they couldn't have access to a crime scene because they didn't arrest someone first
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
SCOTUS. The issue is that they take their sweet time on things that are time-sensitive. It's a problem of the courts in general.
By SCOTUS standards these cases were pretty quick.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
SCOTUS. The issue is that they take their sweet time on things that are time-sensitive. It's a problem of the courts in general.
By SCOTUS standards these cases were pretty quick.
Yeah, Mazars is totally a punt to kill time. Vance is a partial punt but only because our legal system operates far too slowly, it doesn't seem like an intentional punt.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
Given that it was decided against with a 7-2 majority it probably should have never been given cert in the first place.
This is an odd argument? They have to take cases if they want to set a national precedent or reverse a lower court. The final margin has nothing to do with whether they were valid to grant cert or not.
The opinions released by this court do not give the impression that they are ever concerned with setting national precedent, and in fact look to avoid doing so whenever possible.
Javen on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Goes back to the state court where Trump can make the standard arguments against the subpoena. Expect that to take a couple months, especially in these COVID times.
So, seeing a couple of twitter posts about what Gorusch wrote regarding the Oklahoma decision, and it's really on point.
What was the dissenting opinion? "The government doesn't have to hold to it's agreement, because reasons."?
Basically dissent is look how terrible the person who is complaining about being tried by somebody with no jurisdiction is. Also some blather about how much upheaval this will cause in OK. Just because people have been settling/building things on land they don't own for a long time does not make it legal.
The Oklahoma case has me thinking of that Adam Ruins Everything episode on how Hawaii became part of the US, which was F'd up as hell and probably has a similar "yeah we shouldn't be able to do this, but we've been doing it this way for so long," legal quagmire around it.
+1
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
That de facto disestablishment of the reservation amounts to de jure disestablishment of the reservation.
A lot of that, with a little "and here are some acts of Congress that one could squint at and infer that Congress thought they disestablished it," plus a smattering of "and even the tribes suspected that the US government would renege on those promises, so they didn't treat it as a reservation for most of the 20th century."
I'm reminded of Twain's essay on how to deal with the (remaining) natives, which said (essentially) "we've been absolute shit to these people, for so long and so hard, that they will never (for good reason) trust us or be willing to live with us; so we should all accept and admit, to ourselves and everyone, that we are utter bastards and do what utter bastards do, which is finish the job of exterminating them (because it's them or us)."
Which was, uh, certainly a take.
Posts
Part III of the opinion tells the lower court that everything needs to be super narrow in scope in order to pass constitutional mustard while balancing that against Congress's broad needs for legislative action.
If I remember right, this is one of the things the lawyer for congress flubbed pretty badly.
With, it should be noted, the same judges as the NY case, but this one seems like more of a punt than than the NY one. It's going to be tied up in court forever and might make it back to SCOTUS.
Yeah, that one's going to drag out further, it's hard to call that a win for either side. It looks like the court has set out a test to be followed by the lower courts in this, that boils down to whether the information is necessary and whether there's a reasonable alternative to obtaining it.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The best part is Roberts doesn't even say one way or another, just that the lower courts didn't properly consider it so SCOTUS couldn't possibly comment. Go another round and talk to us a in a couple years if this still matters then.
Would have been harder, seems like, if Congress had just been like "we want these documents because we think they will prove the president is a criminal who should be removed from office."
The annoying part is Trump ran an absolutely bat shit argument up the flag pole and it has taken years to get past it. While these rulings say we still, hypothetically, have a functional government with checks and balances I'm not sure how true that is practically.
Broad impeachment focused on the financial crimes was always the right play.
Yes you are. We just aren't comfortable saying it out loud for fear if immanetizing the eschaton.
Yeah, there's a real issue with the courts taking far too long to resolve things. Ludicrous arguments should get shot down right away not require half a year of SCOTUS briefing and argument and waiting for opinions.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Great. Now who gets to decide which arguments are ludicrous? (Hint: not forums.penny-arcade.com)
SCOTUS. The issue is that they take their sweet time on things that are time-sensitive. It's a problem of the courts in general.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Given that it was decided against with a 7-2 majority it probably should have never been given cert in the first place.
By SCOTUS standards these cases were pretty quick.
This is an odd argument? They have to take cases if they want to set a national precedent or reverse a lower court. The final margin has nothing to do with whether they were valid to grant cert or not.
Yes, we're saying that standard isn't quick enough.
And no, SCOTUS can reverse without actually granting cert.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
The cynical take is that they only said this because it's not what congress did, and it allows them to stick it to a hypothetical Democratic president who a Republican congress tries to impeach.
That Congress went on a fishing expedition without stating a clear purpose so it wasn't legitimate.
This is my feeling on it, like this feels like a troll "If you had done this other thing we would have also denied, we totally wouldn't have ruled like this for sure."
pleasepaypreacher.net
My cynical take is how can you have an inquiry if you can't have access to evidence of wrongdoing in the first place?
Its like telling the police they couldn't have access to a crime scene because they didn't arrest someone first
Yes. That's the problem.
The opinions released by this court do not give the impression that they are ever concerned with setting national precedent, and in fact look to avoid doing so whenever possible.
I mean, these aren't the most secret things in the world.
Also, watching him pitch a fit, just the tizziest temper tantrum, is delicious
I'd trade every tantrum for a single unit of comeuppance.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
What was the dissenting opinion? "The government doesn't have to hold to it's agreement, because reasons."?
"The founders clearly didn't intend to honor any agreements with them whatsoever!", presumably.
Basically dissent is look how terrible the person who is complaining about being tried by somebody with no jurisdiction is. Also some blather about how much upheaval this will cause in OK. Just because people have been settling/building things on land they don't own for a long time does not make it legal.
Generous reading is that the status quo has gone on for so long that it's beyond the court's ability to remedy.
But still with a whole lot of "this man is a bad man and deserves to be punished" in it.
Which is “the government never intended to treat the treaties seriously”
A lot of that, with a little "and here are some acts of Congress that one could squint at and infer that Congress thought they disestablished it," plus a smattering of "and even the tribes suspected that the US government would renege on those promises, so they didn't treat it as a reservation for most of the 20th century."
Which was, uh, certainly a take.