Options

[SCOTUS] thread defers to King Biden.

silence1186silence1186 Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered User regular
edited July 5 in Debate and/or Discourse
All rise, the new SCOTUS thread is back in session. It was an eventful almost 3 years 13 months ~20 months. The country is still reeling from the long dreaded overturning of Roe v. Wade, the longstanding desire of the conservative movement they spent almost 50 years attempting to turn back, as far back as the initial ruling in 1973.

A few ground rules, 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 gosh darn 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)
5a. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are seated. My feelings on the matter can be found here. I don't know if there's much ground for meaningful discussion in screaming into the void at the injustice of it all, or having the same multi-page arguments with the few posters who do approve of the Federalist Society Robots. Probably for the best to stick to just the facts, and discuss new things going forward.

scotusblog.com is the go to place for things relevant to what's going on.

The court has been releasing a bunch of decisions for the term recently. Still outstanding are whether or not Chevron Deference lives, allowing agencies regulatory discretion, and whether the President (or one specific ex-president) is above the law. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-immunity-capitol-attack-acebc079bdaa6257bfd70a90a71a2ca0

The court has a legitimacy problem. Feeling empowered and unassailable, the conservatives wing of the court is writing baseless rulings to explicitly push culture war issues and enable their own party's behavior. For the first time, less than half of the country has a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the judicial branch of the US government headed by the Supreme Court.

In case you've never heard of the Shadow Docket, which sounds spooky like something out of Yugioh, I've left the explanation I tagged two threads ago. Briefly: Shadow Docket explained.

Last thread. Not sure I have the energy to pun the title of a thread that is increasingly dire to read, but I'm always accepting suggestions.

I know it's infuriating at times, but there's a lot of high effort in the weeds discussion in here, so I hope it can continue.

20081022.gif

Hahnsoo1 on
«13456742

Posts

  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    I'd like to point out that as not good as Judge Dredd was, associating his catchphrase with the current SCOTUS does him a great disservice.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Fair. I was more calling attention to the ruling by decree current SCOTUS seems fond of.

  • Options
    ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    I mean, didn't Trump appoint judges that had barely seen the inside of a court room, much less tried cases?

    I mean, Cannon is right there, and I know there were other federal judges he appointed that had no idea what they were doing.
    If you're talking about the SCOTUS picks he made, Kavanaugh had a fair bit of time on the bench already, though Barrett was only serving for I think 3 years beforehand.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Options
    ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    A Democratic Party with the spine to pack the court and actually fight Republicans is a party that doesn’t have to worry nearly as much about Republicans getting back in power.

    That’s really not the way it works. Whenever Democrats are firm, plain-spoken and decisive, voters fucking hate it.

    I think they were implying reinstating the VRA and/or other measures that mathematically protect Democratic majorities. The problem with that though is it takes time to solve systemic issues and Congress flips every two years because voters are fucking stupid.

    I don't think there is a way to fix what's broken in Congress from the top considering Republicans broke it from the bottom.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    A Democratic Party with the spine to pack the court and actually fight Republicans is a party that doesn’t have to worry nearly as much about Republicans getting back in power.

    That’s really not the way it works. Whenever Democrats are firm, plain-spoken and decisive, voters fucking hate it.

    I think they were implying reinstating the VRA and/or other measures that mathematically protect Democratic majorities. The problem with that though is it takes time to solve systemic issues and Congress flips every two years because voters are fucking stupid.

    I don't think there is a way to fix what's broken in Congress from the top considering Republicans broke it from the bottom.

    Ultimately it needs to be fixed from the bottom as is appropriate for a democracy. Every voter should vote as if their vote was the deciding vote.

  • Options
    Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited June 25
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    I mean, didn't Trump appoint judges that had barely seen the inside of a court room, much less tried cases?

    I mean, Cannon is right there, and I know there were other federal judges he appointed that had no idea what they were doing.
    If you're talking about the SCOTUS picks he made, Kavanaugh had a fair bit of time on the bench already, though Barrett was only serving for I think 3 years beforehand.

    During Trump's reign, there were 10 nominations (with later confirmations) that got "not qualified" ratings by the ABA, which is such a low bar to clear it's kind of incredible just how inadequate the noms really were.

    Dark_Side on
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    I mean, didn't Trump appoint judges that had barely seen the inside of a court room, much less tried cases?

    I mean, Cannon is right there, and I know there were other federal judges he appointed that had no idea what they were doing.
    If you're talking about the SCOTUS picks he made, Kavanaugh had a fair bit of time on the bench already, though Barrett was only serving for I think 3 years beforehand.

    During Trump's reign, there were 10 nominations (with later confirmations) that got "not qualified" ratings by the ABA, which is such a low bar to clear it's kind of incredible just how inadequate the noms really were.

    Also fits the guy who appointed them, though.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    I'd like to point out that as not good as Judge Dredd was, associating his catchphrase with the current SCOTUS does him a great disservice.

    It does reference a great Onion video though:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    I mean, didn't Trump appoint judges that had barely seen the inside of a court room, much less tried cases?

    I mean, Cannon is right there, and I know there were other federal judges he appointed that had no idea what they were doing.
    If you're talking about the SCOTUS picks he made, Kavanaugh had a fair bit of time on the bench already, though Barrett was only serving for I think 3 years beforehand.

    During Trump's reign, there were 10 nominations (with later confirmations) that got "not qualified" ratings by the ABA, which is such a low bar to clear it's kind of incredible just how inadequate the noms really were.

    Republicans actually know the game here and so their main qualifications for judicial appointments are loyalty and youth.

    This naturally leans them towards completely unqualified candidates.

  • Options
    raging_stormraging_storm Registered User regular
    edited June 25
    raging_storm was warned for this.
    I dunno I think I'd rather have Judge Dredd than this theocratic shit show. I mean, Dredd would have started off with blowing Trumps head off and followed it up by slaughtering half of congrress. If we are going to suffer fascists let's at least not have the bible bangers.

    Hahnsoo1 on
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    All right nerds, the live feed at SCOTUSBlog starts in 11 minutes for all the lunatics who want to replace their F5 key this week.

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Case 1 - states and social media users don't have standing to sue over government pressure to remove anti-vax bullshit from social media platforms. Reverses the 5th circuit 6-3 with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch in the dissent.

  • Options
    PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Case 2 - "There is no such thing as bribery or corruption stop asking"

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Options
    silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    And that's it for the day.

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    ... only two cases is wild considering their backlog. Friday is going to be a fucking mess.

  • Options
    StarZapperStarZapper Vermont, Bizzaro world.Registered User regular
    edited June 26
    They're just dragging their feet as long as possible to release their decision that Trump is, in fact, immune to some laws of the common man maybe. I expect them to delay through next week!

    StarZapper on
  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    I guess at least we know understand why the SCOTUS is so willing to protect bribery so that ruling makes sense.

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    StarZapper wrote: »
    They're just dragging their feet as long as possible to release their decision that Trump is, in fact, immune to some laws of the common man maybe. I expect them to delay through next week!

    I'm assuming at this point they send it back to the circuit to relitigate rather than make a ruling, with the goal being to not actually take a stand and make us fix this shit at the polls.

  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    It is pretty clear they don't think presidents are immune but their goal is to try to drag this whole process out as far as possible so in theory trump gets elected pardons himself for everything and the question goes away or trump dosn't win and at which point he has no utility to anybody any more and they will cease to care to protect him.

  • Options
    Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Jackson continues her streak of calling out the majority's bullshit, as the bullshitiest bullshit that can be shat.
    The Court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog. Section 666’s regulation of state, local, and tribal governments reflects Congress’s express choice to reach those and other entities receiving federal funds. And Congress not only had good reasons for doing so, it also had the authority to take such legislative action, as this Court has already recognized. See Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 600, 605, 608 (2004). We have long held that when Congress has appropriated federal money, it “does not have to sit by and accept the risk of operations thwarted by local and state improbity.”

    I hope that her and Sotomayor's dissents are studied for years because of how expertly they dismantle so many arguments used by the fascists on the court.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Okay so as long as you write "gratuity" on the sack of money it's fine.

  • Options
    SelnerSelner Registered User regular
    Case 2 - "There is no such thing as bribery or corruption stop asking"

    This is just a wacky, wacky case.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/scotus-anti-corruption-portage-indiana-james-snyder/index.html
    James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, was convicted of accepting $13,000 from a trucking company weeks after it was awarded a contract. Snyder argued the payment was an after-the-fact “gratuity” that wasn’t covered by the federal bribery statute.

    So does that mean you can tip government officials after a contract is awarded now?
    If you do it before the award, it's corrupt.
    If you do it after the award, it's a tip?

  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    No it is 13,000 instances of saying thank you for the help with the contract and we know free speech shall not be infringed.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 26
    Yup!

    Edit: I wonder if there is any motivated reasoning from particular members of the court

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Selner wrote: »
    Case 2 - "There is no such thing as bribery or corruption stop asking"

    This is just a wacky, wacky case.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/scotus-anti-corruption-portage-indiana-james-snyder/index.html
    James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, was convicted of accepting $13,000 from a trucking company weeks after it was awarded a contract. Snyder argued the payment was an after-the-fact “gratuity” that wasn’t covered by the federal bribery statute.

    So does that mean you can tip government officials after a contract is awarded now?
    If you do it before the award, it's corrupt.
    If you do it after the award, it's a tip?

    Teeechhhnicalllly they're saying that it very well could be a bribe but this statute doesn't cover the situation, and the States need to decide if it was a bribe by updating / clarifying their own shit rather than relying on a distortion of the federal law to cover their asses.

    Which is still a pretty shaky argument. Jackson's dissent is a treat in this case.

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I am beginning to wonder if the dissents we're seeing from Jackson and Sotomayor are a bellwether. If they're a situation where they're gloves-off roasting the majority because they know what's coming and are done with decorum.

  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    edited June 26
    So when I go to McDonalds, I'm bribing them for the food; but when I go to a regular sit-down one I'm just tipping them for good service?

    And really, giving a judge a gratuity is not corrupt? The whole concept of a gratuity is that there's a quid pro quo happening.

    daveNYC on
    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Try the veal, don't forget to bribe your server.

  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Selner wrote: »
    Case 2 - "There is no such thing as bribery or corruption stop asking"

    This is just a wacky, wacky case.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/scotus-anti-corruption-portage-indiana-james-snyder/index.html
    James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, was convicted of accepting $13,000 from a trucking company weeks after it was awarded a contract. Snyder argued the payment was an after-the-fact “gratuity” that wasn’t covered by the federal bribery statute.

    So does that mean you can tip government officials after a contract is awarded now?
    If you do it before the award, it's corrupt.
    If you do it after the award, it's a tip?

    Teeechhhnicalllly they're saying that it very well could be a bribe but this statute doesn't cover the situation, and the States need to decide if it was a bribe by updating / clarifying their own shit rather than relying on a distortion of the federal law to cover their asses.

    Which is still a pretty shaky argument. Jackson's dissent is a treat in this case.

    It's real fucking rich to have them go "look the law isn't clear so we can't rule on it" when they have no problem bending themselves into pretzels to say the plain reading of other laws don't mean what they say.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Thomas over here like “no they’re going to give me the money after I rule in their favor, it’s gratuity”

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I am beginning to wonder if the dissents we're seeing from Jackson and Sotomayor are a bellwether. If they're a situation where they're gloves-off roasting the majority because they know what's coming and are done with decorum.

    You know we have some utterly atrocious rulings coming up, because they have issued some marginally not terrible ones in order to seem 'fair and balanced' in advance. The guns to domestic abusers one is telling us clear as day they have something REALLY bad coming, because limitations on gun rights are a big right wing no no. Their recent decisions in lesser cases have been structured to give them cover in the more significant ones.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    Every anti-bribery training I've had over the last ten years has specifically called out that yes, accepting something after a decision is still a fucking bribe.

    But I also don't expect most of the current SCOTUS members to understand bribery and ethics. Especially given what's come out over the last year or two.

  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Oh they understand bribery and ethics. The are pro the former and adverse to the later but they do understand them.

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited June 26
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Every anti-bribery training I've had over the last ten years has specifically called out that yes, accepting something after a decision is still a fucking bribe.

    But I also don't expect most of the current SCOTUS members to understand bribery and ethics. Especially given what's come out over the last year or two.

    They understand (the first of those) very well, thank you; they merely pretend not to, so they can keep taking them.

    Commander Zoom on
  • Options
    TuminTumin Registered User regular
    edited June 26
    Good decisions good, bad decisions bad?

    Make up your minds!

    I love that textualism always reveals itself as "the authors intended whatever I believe"

    Has there ever been a meaty textualist opinion that didnt align politically with a justice's party's political agenda?

    Tumin on
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    Good decisions good, bad decisions bad?

    Make up your minds!

    I love that textualism always reveals itself as "the authors intended whatever I believe"

    Has there ever been a meaty textualist opinion that didnt align politically with a justice's party's political agenda?

    I know! Its so strange that all these textualists never have to write, "Sadly, despite its clear contrast to my parties deeply held beliefs, and recent judicial opinions I have expressed I am FORCED to admit that the founders wanted the exact oppisite of everything I think is right"

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    Good decisions good, bad decisions bad?

    Make up your minds!

    I love that textualism always reveals itself as "the authors intended whatever I believe"

    Has there ever been a meaty textualist opinion that didnt align politically with a justice's party's political agenda?

    My favourite comment on textualism remains "if they actually cared about textualism they'd be appointing and hiring historians, not law school grads".

  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited June 26
    Bloomberg is reporting that SCOTUS accidentally posted an additional opinion early and took it down immediately. Apparently it'd allow the EMTALA to cover emergency abortion care, even in states like ID.

    image.png?ex=667d9a61&is=667c48e1&hm=d87092b3f71c32c7f1379945b5531df4835506a7e7105a9393ed5b2e37670351&

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Textualism is just another word hermeneutics - it's a rigged system set up to lend authority for the interpreter to justify whatever they feel like. The fact that a "gratuity" argument would make it all the way to Court when a plain reading of the situation makes it abundantly clear it's a bribe, makes me a little sick to my stomach.

  • Options
    RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Bloomberg is reporting that SCOTUS accidentally posted an additional opinion early and took it down immediately. Apparently it'd allow the EMTALA to cover emergency abortion care, even in states like ID.

    image.png?ex=667d9a61&is=667c48e1&hm=d87092b3f71c32c7f1379945b5531df4835506a7e7105a9393ed5b2e37670351&

    Odds for one of the conservatives intentionally leaking this so that the right can mobilize for a shit show?

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
Sign In or Register to comment.