These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!
lol.
I'm surprised he didn't outright call them RINOs.
Followed immediately by him saying this
“ Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”
As if, had they liked him more they would have ruled in his favor.
It wasn't even a ruling on the merits of eliminating DACA. It literally is just the Court pointing out his incompetence at governing.
Saw a reporter say the Trump admin is something like 6-for-85 at getting their deregulation justifications past the courts. Turns out it is hard to implement your agenda when you hire incompetent stooges to do it.
The problem is Trump has stacked federal courts so that these decisions have to work their way up to SCOTUS. So yeah for people with money and time they can fight this bullshit and win, but that's not a luxury for everyone getting screwed by the Trump agenda.
That will become a problem, but so far most regulatory rules changes are killed for violating the APA well before it gets to SCOTUS, rather than enabling them until SCOTUS reaffirms the law. Not every District is like the Patent Court.
So is Trump going to pack the court? Because that would be some funny shit.
Unlikely, though it would be yet another hilarious case of people in Trump's sphere of influence thinking they were somehow safe from his insane pettiness versus everyone else whose life he's ruined.
So is Trump going to pack the court? Because that would be some funny shit.
Unlikely, though it would be yet another hilarious case of people in Trump's sphere of influence thinking they were somehow safe from his insane pettiness versus everyone else who's life he's ruined.
People in Trump's sphere of influence would likely applaud the move, in the main.
+2
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Can SCOTUS just say, "Well they should have argued X and Y, so I'm going to rule as if they had" or are they actually bound/limited by the arguments presented to them?
Can SCOTUS just say, "Well they should have argued X and Y, so I'm going to rule as if they had" or are they actually bound/limited by the arguments presented to them?
Based on Scalia's legacy, you don't even need to give it that much of a fig leaf.
Can SCOTUS just say, "Well they should have argued X and Y, so I'm going to rule as if they had" or are they actually bound/limited by the arguments presented to them?
I'm pretty sure any Justice can say "I saw my shadow when I came out of the house today, so I'm ruling as if that matters."
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
The fact that a few of the most recent SCOTUS decisions did not actively enshrine people as second-class citizens is not really a great argument that the SCOTUS is not significantly captured by conservative justices.
Their decisions have in general been horrific, hence the fucking thread title. I am pleased they did not decide to outright endorse the idea that LGBTQ people don't deserve protection under the law and that they decided the president can't just write "I'm Racist" on a piece of paper if he wants to reverse executive actions, but that's not like a counterpoint or a reversal of Shelby County. This SCOTUS has led to the deterioration of voting rights, union rights, and human rights in the US.
It is silly to try to wave that away as irrelevant because they didn't make the wrong decision every time. Particularly because 3 of them DO make the wrong decision every time, since they're ideologically committed to trying to hurt all of us as much as possible.
I don't think they're playing 4D chess. I think they're a conservative court that has hurt a lot of people and will continue to hurt a lot of people because their decisions are often horrible and the members of the court express horrific opinions that they seem deeply ideologically committed to carrying out.
I mean thank fuck for Sotomayor.
Basically, the point is that Roberts is walking a fine line of empowering the conservative agenda while maintaining the popular fiction of the court as apolitical, because losing that fig leaf puts political solutions to conservative control of the court (like packing) on the table.
To put it another way, if it becomes too obvious that the Court is used to bypass democracy, rather than to protect human rights against democracy, then it will be reformed.
This leads to radical ideas, like packing, where the number of judges increases after every elections (in practice; once one party does it...), or setting the number of member to 0 and asking Richard Wagner if he and his 8 colleagues want a part-time job.
The kind of things Roberts really doesn’t want. Because he has a democracy to bypass.
Joe Biden is the presumptive D nominee, and Roberts knows as much as anyone else that Joe Biden is NOT going to pack the courts or impeach him or do anything even if he heads to the Smithsonian and takes a literal shit on the constitution.
It is a challenge to those who hold a black and white world view that sometimes the other team does stuff that is good.
The only way some have found to square that circle is the unfalsifiable nonsense.
The fact that a few of the most recent SCOTUS decisions did not actively enshrine people as second-class citizens is not really a great argument that the SCOTUS is not significantly captured by conservative justices.
Their decisions have in general been horrific, hence the fucking thread title. I am pleased they did not decide to outright endorse the idea that LGBTQ people don't deserve protection under the law and that they decided the president can't just write "I'm Racist" on a piece of paper if he wants to reverse executive actions, but that's not like a counterpoint or a reversal of Shelby County. This SCOTUS has led to the deterioration of voting rights, union rights, and human rights in the US.
It is silly to try to wave that away as irrelevant because they didn't make the wrong decision every time. Particularly because 3 of them DO make the wrong decision every time, since they're ideologically committed to trying to hurt all of us as much as possible.
I don't think they're playing 4D chess. I think they're a conservative court that has hurt a lot of people and will continue to hurt a lot of people because their decisions are often horrible and the members of the court express horrific opinions that they seem deeply ideologically committed to carrying out.
I mean thank fuck for Sotomayor.
Basically, the point is that Roberts is walking a fine line of empowering the conservative agenda while maintaining the popular fiction of the court as apolitical, because losing that fig leaf puts political solutions to conservative control of the court (like packing) on the table.
To put it another way, if it becomes too obvious that the Court is used to bypass democracy, rather than to protect human rights against democracy, then it will be reformed.
This leads to radical ideas, like packing, where the number of judges increases after every elections (in practice; once one party does it...), or setting the number of member to 0 and asking Richard Wagner if he and his 8 colleagues want a part-time job.
The kind of things Roberts really doesn’t want. Because he has a democracy to bypass.
Joe Biden is the presumptive D nominee, and Roberts knows as much as anyone else that Joe Biden is NOT going to pack the courts or impeach him or do anything even if he heads to the Smithsonian and takes a literal shit on the constitution.
It is a challenge to those who hold a black and white world view that sometimes the other team does stuff that is good.
The only way some have found to square that circle is the unfalsifiable nonsense.
If a Democratic Congress sends Biden a court packing bill, you think he'll veto it?
Edit: And I am tired of the argument that I should assume good faith from people who have routinely acted in bad faith.
The fact that a few of the most recent SCOTUS decisions did not actively enshrine people as second-class citizens is not really a great argument that the SCOTUS is not significantly captured by conservative justices.
Their decisions have in general been horrific, hence the fucking thread title. I am pleased they did not decide to outright endorse the idea that LGBTQ people don't deserve protection under the law and that they decided the president can't just write "I'm Racist" on a piece of paper if he wants to reverse executive actions, but that's not like a counterpoint or a reversal of Shelby County. This SCOTUS has led to the deterioration of voting rights, union rights, and human rights in the US.
It is silly to try to wave that away as irrelevant because they didn't make the wrong decision every time. Particularly because 3 of them DO make the wrong decision every time, since they're ideologically committed to trying to hurt all of us as much as possible.
I don't think they're playing 4D chess. I think they're a conservative court that has hurt a lot of people and will continue to hurt a lot of people because their decisions are often horrible and the members of the court express horrific opinions that they seem deeply ideologically committed to carrying out.
I mean thank fuck for Sotomayor.
Basically, the point is that Roberts is walking a fine line of empowering the conservative agenda while maintaining the popular fiction of the court as apolitical, because losing that fig leaf puts political solutions to conservative control of the court (like packing) on the table.
To put it another way, if it becomes too obvious that the Court is used to bypass democracy, rather than to protect human rights against democracy, then it will be reformed.
This leads to radical ideas, like packing, where the number of judges increases after every elections (in practice; once one party does it...), or setting the number of member to 0 and asking Richard Wagner if he and his 8 colleagues want a part-time job.
The kind of things Roberts really doesn’t want. Because he has a democracy to bypass.
Joe Biden is the presumptive D nominee, and Roberts knows as much as anyone else that Joe Biden is NOT going to pack the courts or impeach him or do anything even if he heads to the Smithsonian and takes a literal shit on the constitution.
It is a challenge to those who hold a black and white world view that sometimes the other team does stuff that is good.
The only way some have found to square that circle is the unfalsifiable nonsense.
If a Democratic Congress sends Biden a court packing bill, you think he'll veto it?
Edit: And I am tired of the argument that I should assume good faith from people who have routinely acted in bad faith.
Joe "I don't want the Republians to lose too many seats as one party shouldn't have too much power" Biden?
Joe "I've made multiple statements about wanting to work with the people who stole a Supreme Court seat while I was Vice President" Biden?
First, the Federalist Society is not shy about their intentions.
Second, people who care about democracy don’t do what Roberts did to the VRA.
Third, “Roberts is not always horrible just because” is also unfalsifiable. Personally, I think he’s doing a mix of both, like all the other judges.
What's the procedure should a president want to enlarge the court? Does that require legislation (as in both houses agreeing on something), or can the president just nominate more justices if he's got a pet senate?
What's the procedure should a president want to enlarge the court? Does that require legislation (as in both houses agreeing on something), or can the president just nominate more justices if he's got a pet senate?
I believe it's the latter.
Assuming the President can get 50 Senators + the VP to vote their way, they could add as many justices as they wanted tonight.
Public backlash and maybe Senate procedural rules are the only thing that prevents it.
What's the procedure should a president want to enlarge the court? Does that require legislation (as in both houses agreeing on something), or can the president just nominate more justices if he's got a pet senate?
The current size of the Judiciary is set by Statute, including the Supreme Court. It must exist, as per the Constitution, but it's size is determined by Law and has not always been nine.
Which, also, the Judiciary itself needs to be enlarged and reorganized. Preferably using GSA Regions since that would overlap with regulations better, even though Census Regions are a more sensible division of the country. But I don't trust Republicans to not fuck with this, even with a BRAC style setup.
What's the procedure should a president want to enlarge the court? Does that require legislation (as in both houses agreeing on something), or can the president just nominate more justices if he's got a pet senate?
I believe it's the latter.
Assuming the President can get 50 Senators + the VP to vote their way, they could add as many justices as they wanted tonight.
Public backlash and maybe Senate procedural rules are the only thing that prevents it.
He'd need the House to approve it too. So, not going to happen pre-election.
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Y’all it’s an Administrative Procedures Act case. It’s admin law. It’s a mess and the usual ideological alignments on the court splinter because admin law is a mix of statutory mandates, constitutional principles, and contradictory precedent. The trump admin was just lazy as fuck when they rescinded DACA. if they had even halfway decent admin lawyers we wouldn’t be here
My takeaway is that the Trump administration is unbelievably terrible at admin law. Can you imagine how good a warren presidency would have been at admin law? The law nerd in me still wants to live this reality.
Anyway, good on Roberts and Gorsuch in the short term, but they can get fucked in the long term. Still gonna enjoy wins when they happen tho.
Not going to post the tweet because screw putting that in-line, but Trump has announced that he's going to publicly release a list of supreme court justice nominees. "If given the opportunity" he'd choose from them.
Sounds like he's signaling he'd like the pack the court.
Not going to post the tweet because screw putting that in-line, but Trump has announced that he's going to publicly release a list of supreme court justice nominees. "If given the opportunity" he'd choose from them.
Sounds like he's signaling he'd like the pack the court.
Either that, or he's going Pelican Brief here (which I really hope isn't the case.)
Not going to post the tweet because screw putting that in-line, but Trump has announced that he's going to publicly release a list of supreme court justice nominees. "If given the opportunity" he'd choose from them.
Sounds like he's signaling he'd like the pack the court.
More sounds like he's campaigning for reelection, and/ or hoping for a stochastic assassination of some people.
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
Not going to post the tweet because screw putting that in-line, but Trump has announced that he's going to publicly release a list of supreme court justice nominees. "If given the opportunity" he'd choose from them.
Sounds like he's signaling he'd like the pack the court.
More sounds like he's campaigning for reelection, and/ or hoping for a stochastic assassination of some people.
Very obviously the first one. He refers back to doing the same thing before the last election, which was a hit with conservatives.
+2
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
Different grounds. APA procedures =/= theory of president’s broad constitutional authority over immigration/nat sec. remember also with the travel ban the administration took a run at it THREE SEPARATE TIMES before they got it “right” enough for the court. They managed to dot the i’s and cross the t’s sufficient for the APA, but apparently not for the constitution (over Sotomayor’s dissent. We Stan an equal protection queen 👑)
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
That was very early in the current regime. It seems likely to me that Roberts was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but as a pattern developed the contempt the administration showed for the Coirt wore thin.
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
That was very early in the current regime. It seems likely to me that Roberts was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but as a pattern developed the contempt the administration showed for the Coirt wore thin.
I absolutely do not believe this to be the case. He's the asshole who wrote an abysmal opinion rolling back voting rights immensely in Shelby V. Holder with the rationalization that "these measures have improved things demonstrably, therefore we need to remove all of them immediately."
All he looks for is a fig leaf so he feels comfortable he'll still get a hagiography when he's older.
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
That was very early in the current regime. It seems likely to me that Roberts was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but as a pattern developed the contempt the administration showed for the Coirt wore thin.
I absolutely do not believe this to be the case. He's the asshole who wrote an abysmal opinion rolling back voting rights immensely in Shelby V. Holder with the rationalization that "these measures have improved things demonstrably, therefore we need to remove all of them immediately."
All he looks for is a fig leaf so he feels comfortable he'll still get a hagiography when he's older.
Yeah, he wants to be taken seriously and to be remembered seriously. Thats not really at odds with what I said though.
His decision on the VRA was obviously a stupid one and he has a career as a conservative on voting rights, but I think some have taken this to a mistaken view that his sole goal is to act as a partisan for the GOP.
It leads to some contorted explanations for why he so often sides against the GOP on major issues that cone before him.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
That was very early in the current regime. It seems likely to me that Roberts was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but as a pattern developed the contempt the administration showed for the Coirt wore thin.
This analysis is incorrect.
There are areas where the law is unsettled and where Roberts is more free to stay within the boundaries of “plausible” analysis. There are different conventions at the constitutional, statutory, and common law levels.
Roberts’ shrewdness is understanding when a) the preference of republican elites can be fulfilled while remaining within the plausible boundaries of each of these ranges of legal reasoning and b) when the preference of republican elites can only be fulfilled outside the realm of plausible deniability.
Edit: let me make this clearer. Roberts has two audiences he cares about. Republican elites, and Legal elites. He privileges the former over the latter, but not in every case—because he is still sensitive to the boundaries of legal plausibility. But he greedily strays into b) range when the boundaries are less clear. Muslim ban is one of those times. Shelby County is flagrantly one of those times. Rucho is not one of those times, even though I think it is one of Roberts’ most vacuous Quintessentially Roberts opinions.
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
That was very early in the current regime. It seems likely to me that Roberts was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but as a pattern developed the contempt the administration showed for the Coirt wore thin.
I absolutely do not believe this to be the case. He's the asshole who wrote an abysmal opinion rolling back voting rights immensely in Shelby V. Holder with the rationalization that "these measures have improved things demonstrably, therefore we need to remove all of them immediately."
All he looks for is a fig leaf so he feels comfortable he'll still get a hagiography when he's older.
Yeah, he wants to be taken seriously and to be remembered seriously. Thats not really at odds with what I said though.
His decision on the VRA was obviously a stupid one and he has a career as a conservative on voting rights, but I think some have taken this to a mistaken view that his sole goal is to act as a partisan for the GOP.
It leads to some contorted explanations for why he so often sides against the GOP on major issues that cone before him.
Not just that. I forget the cases just now, but a couple years ago the Court ruled on two separate cases, one after the other, which rested on assumptions that were entirely contradictory to the other with the same 5-4 spread. The belief of a consistent judicial philosophy by Roberts that happens to overlap with conservative Republicans rather than the other way 'round seems mostly to rest only on a strong desire for it to exist.
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
That was very early in the current regime. It seems likely to me that Roberts was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but as a pattern developed the contempt the administration showed for the Coirt wore thin.
This analysis is incorrect.
There are areas where the law is unsettled and where Roberts is more free to stay within the boundaries of “plausible” analysis. There are different conventions at the constitutional, statutory, and common law levels.
Roberts’ shrewdness is understanding when a) the preference of republican elites can be fulfilled while remaining within the plausible boundaries of each of these ranges of legal reasoning and b) when the preference of republican elites can only be fulfilled outside the realm of plausible deniability.
How do you square this with his ruling on the ACA? He made a proactive effort to legally justify an unpopular bill against the strongest desires of the Republican elite. It seems your criteria were met and yet he acted differently.
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
That was very early in the current regime. It seems likely to me that Roberts was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but as a pattern developed the contempt the administration showed for the Coirt wore thin.
This analysis is incorrect.
There are areas where the law is unsettled and where Roberts is more free to stay within the boundaries of “plausible” analysis. There are different conventions at the constitutional, statutory, and common law levels.
Roberts’ shrewdness is understanding when a) the preference of republican elites can be fulfilled while remaining within the plausible boundaries of each of these ranges of legal reasoning and b) when the preference of republican elites can only be fulfilled outside the realm of plausible deniability.
Basically a form of "parallel construction" - a seemingly reasonable path that arrives at the same place as the terrible, tainted one.
It would help to define Republican elites for the purposes of the discussion. The Muslim ban was certainly in the interests of the administration and theyd fit a definition of Republican elite but does the same hold true for McConnell? Or their various financial backers? There are few true culture warriors among them
I am not sure “dont be incompetent” is such a liberal victory. Like the last time we had one of these it was “this is stopped because you didnt do it right, here is how to do it right”
This isnt inconsistent with Roberts implied motivations by the thread(of trying to maintain the veeneer of legitimacy while working for R ends) but it is inconsistent with the idea that Roberts has secret liberal or legal principles.
He hasnt been a proceduralist in other decisions and he refuses to recognize cold reality when cold reality would require him to make factual decisions that produce results counter to Republican dogma. He is a prodecuralist like scalia was an originalist just without the sick burns.
That he has, in the past, used his own rulings to justify more or less counter positions to prior positions lends more credence to the idea that he is concened about losing the next VRA case due to packing than he is about the rule of law.
Roberts is keenly aware that the lower courts are bound by SCOTUS decisions and that the more inconsistencies in those decisions the more leeway those judges have to write their own law and to produce the big cases that are increasingly hard to deal with. He doesnt want to see a rushed case to SCOTUS he wants to see a dead case that the lower courts squash before it has a chance to become national news.
Roberts is effectively writing equal protection out of the law by issuing these decisions. The next time one of these comes up where things were done properly procedurally he gets to point to this decision and ignore all the contradictory statements by the President publcly or not.
Edit: as an example the 6-3 Gorsuch ruling wrt title ix is a good ruling but if Roberts doesnt go to the majority then Ginsburg decides who writes it. And the result would probably be more sweeping than a “plain reading” ruling that is really easy to swing the other way
Goumindong on
+6
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Roberts does not respond well to bad faith arguments
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
That was very early in the current regime. It seems likely to me that Roberts was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but as a pattern developed the contempt the administration showed for the Coirt wore thin.
This analysis is incorrect.
There are areas where the law is unsettled and where Roberts is more free to stay within the boundaries of “plausible” analysis. There are different conventions at the constitutional, statutory, and common law levels.
Roberts’ shrewdness is understanding when a) the preference of republican elites can be fulfilled while remaining within the plausible boundaries of each of these ranges of legal reasoning and b) when the preference of republican elites can only be fulfilled outside the realm of plausible deniability.
How do you square this with his ruling on the ACA? He made a proactive effort to legally justify an unpopular bill against the strongest desires of the Republican elite. It seems your criteria were met and yet he acted differently.
First, there is lots of evidence that Roberts initially sided with the eventual dissent on the Commerce clause. You need to understand that NFIB’s commerce clause reasoning that the commerce clause does not empower congress to regulate “economic inaction” defies any coherent reading of half a century of commerce clause jurisprudence. NFIB dwells on this issue FOREVER. So on the core, initial challenge to the ACA, Roberts was lockstep with the conservative preference of both republican and legal elites.
Second, the Taxing power backup ground for the individual mandate is formalistic at best. It has little relation to the political disagreement with the ACA. But it is agreeable to the majority of legal elites. It is disagreeable to the majority of legal elites for the Supreme Court to reprise the posture of the pre-1937 Lochner era court to strike enormous pieces of legislation passed by the political branches on flimsy commerce grounds. So grounding the decision on Tax grounds allows Roberts to avoid a dramatic revival of lochner in the eyes of the legal elite community while essentially enshrining into precedent the groundwork to erode the commerce clause in the future.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+5
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
I’m not persuaded by the popular narrative that Roberts is concerned with protecting his personal legacy or the legacy of his tenure on the court. I think he has a keen instinct for power, and sources of power. It is why his most destructive decisions are in the area of voting rights, public corruption, and political process.
Can SCOTUS just say, "Well they should have argued X and Y, so I'm going to rule as if they had" or are they actually bound/limited by the arguments presented to them?
Well, AFAIK that's what Mabury v. Madison was, so...
Posts
That will become a problem, but so far most regulatory rules changes are killed for violating the APA well before it gets to SCOTUS, rather than enabling them until SCOTUS reaffirms the law. Not every District is like the Patent Court.
Unlikely, though it would be yet another hilarious case of people in Trump's sphere of influence thinking they were somehow safe from his insane pettiness versus everyone else whose life he's ruined.
People in Trump's sphere of influence would likely applaud the move, in the main.
Correction: Roberts doesn’t like obvious post hoc arguments that don’t give him enough room to rule the way he otherwise would
NNID: Hakkekage
His obsession with his legacy is going to inadvertently save a lot of lives
He can’t but it would be great for him to try!
Based on Scalia's legacy, you don't even need to give it that much of a fig leaf.
I'm pretty sure any Justice can say "I saw my shadow when I came out of the house today, so I'm ruling as if that matters."
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Joe Biden is the presumptive D nominee, and Roberts knows as much as anyone else that Joe Biden is NOT going to pack the courts or impeach him or do anything even if he heads to the Smithsonian and takes a literal shit on the constitution.
It is a challenge to those who hold a black and white world view that sometimes the other team does stuff that is good.
The only way some have found to square that circle is the unfalsifiable nonsense.
If a Democratic Congress sends Biden a court packing bill, you think he'll veto it?
Edit: And I am tired of the argument that I should assume good faith from people who have routinely acted in bad faith.
Joe "I don't want the Republians to lose too many seats as one party shouldn't have too much power" Biden?
Joe "I've made multiple statements about wanting to work with the people who stole a Supreme Court seat while I was Vice President" Biden?
Joe "I would veto Medicare for All" Biden?
I dunno, you tell me?
Second, people who care about democracy don’t do what Roberts did to the VRA.
Third, “Roberts is not always horrible just because” is also unfalsifiable. Personally, I think he’s doing a mix of both, like all the other judges.
I believe it's the latter.
Assuming the President can get 50 Senators + the VP to vote their way, they could add as many justices as they wanted tonight.
Public backlash and maybe Senate procedural rules are the only thing that prevents it.
The current size of the Judiciary is set by Statute, including the Supreme Court. It must exist, as per the Constitution, but it's size is determined by Law and has not always been nine.
Which, also, the Judiciary itself needs to be enlarged and reorganized. Preferably using GSA Regions since that would overlap with regulations better, even though Census Regions are a more sensible division of the country. But I don't trust Republicans to not fuck with this, even with a BRAC style setup.
He'd need the House to approve it too. So, not going to happen pre-election.
NNID: Hakkekage
Anyway, good on Roberts and Gorsuch in the short term, but they can get fucked in the long term. Still gonna enjoy wins when they happen tho.
Sounds like he's signaling he'd like the pack the court.
Either that, or he's going Pelican Brief here (which I really hope isn't the case.)
More sounds like he's campaigning for reelection, and/ or hoping for a stochastic assassination of some people.
Weird how Roberts tells the administration that they can't just decide to do something and then make up an ad hoc rationalization after the fact... and yet that's exactly what the administration did with the Muslim Ban as well, which SCOTUS shrugged and said "eh looks good to me"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Very obviously the first one. He refers back to doing the same thing before the last election, which was a hit with conservatives.
Different grounds. APA procedures =/= theory of president’s broad constitutional authority over immigration/nat sec. remember also with the travel ban the administration took a run at it THREE SEPARATE TIMES before they got it “right” enough for the court. They managed to dot the i’s and cross the t’s sufficient for the APA, but apparently not for the constitution (over Sotomayor’s dissent. We Stan an equal protection queen 👑)
NNID: Hakkekage
That was very early in the current regime. It seems likely to me that Roberts was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but as a pattern developed the contempt the administration showed for the Coirt wore thin.
I absolutely do not believe this to be the case. He's the asshole who wrote an abysmal opinion rolling back voting rights immensely in Shelby V. Holder with the rationalization that "these measures have improved things demonstrably, therefore we need to remove all of them immediately."
All he looks for is a fig leaf so he feels comfortable he'll still get a hagiography when he's older.
Yeah, he wants to be taken seriously and to be remembered seriously. Thats not really at odds with what I said though.
His decision on the VRA was obviously a stupid one and he has a career as a conservative on voting rights, but I think some have taken this to a mistaken view that his sole goal is to act as a partisan for the GOP.
It leads to some contorted explanations for why he so often sides against the GOP on major issues that cone before him.
This analysis is incorrect.
There are areas where the law is unsettled and where Roberts is more free to stay within the boundaries of “plausible” analysis. There are different conventions at the constitutional, statutory, and common law levels.
Roberts’ shrewdness is understanding when a) the preference of republican elites can be fulfilled while remaining within the plausible boundaries of each of these ranges of legal reasoning and b) when the preference of republican elites can only be fulfilled outside the realm of plausible deniability.
Edit: let me make this clearer. Roberts has two audiences he cares about. Republican elites, and Legal elites. He privileges the former over the latter, but not in every case—because he is still sensitive to the boundaries of legal plausibility. But he greedily strays into b) range when the boundaries are less clear. Muslim ban is one of those times. Shelby County is flagrantly one of those times. Rucho is not one of those times, even though I think it is one of Roberts’ most vacuous Quintessentially Roberts opinions.
NNID: Hakkekage
Not just that. I forget the cases just now, but a couple years ago the Court ruled on two separate cases, one after the other, which rested on assumptions that were entirely contradictory to the other with the same 5-4 spread. The belief of a consistent judicial philosophy by Roberts that happens to overlap with conservative Republicans rather than the other way 'round seems mostly to rest only on a strong desire for it to exist.
How do you square this with his ruling on the ACA? He made a proactive effort to legally justify an unpopular bill against the strongest desires of the Republican elite. It seems your criteria were met and yet he acted differently.
Basically a form of "parallel construction" - a seemingly reasonable path that arrives at the same place as the terrible, tainted one.
This isnt inconsistent with Roberts implied motivations by the thread(of trying to maintain the veeneer of legitimacy while working for R ends) but it is inconsistent with the idea that Roberts has secret liberal or legal principles.
He hasnt been a proceduralist in other decisions and he refuses to recognize cold reality when cold reality would require him to make factual decisions that produce results counter to Republican dogma. He is a prodecuralist like scalia was an originalist just without the sick burns.
That he has, in the past, used his own rulings to justify more or less counter positions to prior positions lends more credence to the idea that he is concened about losing the next VRA case due to packing than he is about the rule of law.
Roberts is keenly aware that the lower courts are bound by SCOTUS decisions and that the more inconsistencies in those decisions the more leeway those judges have to write their own law and to produce the big cases that are increasingly hard to deal with. He doesnt want to see a rushed case to SCOTUS he wants to see a dead case that the lower courts squash before it has a chance to become national news.
Roberts is effectively writing equal protection out of the law by issuing these decisions. The next time one of these comes up where things were done properly procedurally he gets to point to this decision and ignore all the contradictory statements by the President publcly or not.
Edit: as an example the 6-3 Gorsuch ruling wrt title ix is a good ruling but if Roberts doesnt go to the majority then Ginsburg decides who writes it. And the result would probably be more sweeping than a “plain reading” ruling that is really easy to swing the other way
First, there is lots of evidence that Roberts initially sided with the eventual dissent on the Commerce clause. You need to understand that NFIB’s commerce clause reasoning that the commerce clause does not empower congress to regulate “economic inaction” defies any coherent reading of half a century of commerce clause jurisprudence. NFIB dwells on this issue FOREVER. So on the core, initial challenge to the ACA, Roberts was lockstep with the conservative preference of both republican and legal elites.
Second, the Taxing power backup ground for the individual mandate is formalistic at best. It has little relation to the political disagreement with the ACA. But it is agreeable to the majority of legal elites. It is disagreeable to the majority of legal elites for the Supreme Court to reprise the posture of the pre-1937 Lochner era court to strike enormous pieces of legislation passed by the political branches on flimsy commerce grounds. So grounding the decision on Tax grounds allows Roberts to avoid a dramatic revival of lochner in the eyes of the legal elite community while essentially enshrining into precedent the groundwork to erode the commerce clause in the future.
NNID: Hakkekage
NNID: Hakkekage
Well, AFAIK that's what Mabury v. Madison was, so...