U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

pollyanna

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,518
It sounds like they were allowed. Local news reports that the last votes were cast around 7 pm and everyone who was waiting got to vote.

They can’t allow this to happen in November.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,539
So this article states that Jefferson County, KY, usually has 2400 poll workers (election officers) for an election. Yesterday, they had only about 160 to 180 poll workers. Over a 90% reduction of their usual workforce, presumably due to CV19 concerns.

Most poll workers are elderly. Younger people may need to consider taking on poll worker duty, or this situation could definitely recur in November.

 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
62,464
It sounds like they were allowed. Local news reports that the last votes were cast around 7 pm and everyone who was waiting got to vote.

They can’t allow this to happen in November.
How was there one polling spot/county for some counties and more for others? Boyd county had three: one in Ashland, one in Catlettsburg, and one in the rural part of the county.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,233
I never thought the Supreme Court was going to open its doors to be immigration court of America
 
Last edited:

snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,232
I needed the cliff's notes version. Looks like it was actually a 7/2 ruling, with Kagan and Sotomayor in the minority.

 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
31,991
I needed the cliff's notes version. Looks like it was actually a 7/2 ruling, with Kagan and Sotomayor in the minority.

It was a 7-2 decision with Alito writing the majority but only 4 Justices joining the majority opinion. Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion with Breyer signing on where they agreed with the judgment in that particular case but disagreed with the scope of the decision with regard to how sweeping it was. Sotomayor wrote the dissent with Kagan joining.
 

Reuven

Official FSU Alte Kacher
Messages
15,775
So this article states that Jefferson County, KY, usually has 2400 poll workers (election officers) for an election. Yesterday, they had only about 160 to 180 poll workers. Over a 90% reduction of their usual workforce, presumably due to CV19 concerns.

Most poll workers are elderly. Younger people may need to consider taking on poll worker duty, or this situation could definitely recur in November.

We are having our primary elections on 14 July here in Maine (I already voted by mail). Portland was thinking of reducing the number of polling locations because so many usual volunteers were opting out. So the city requested volunteers and got inundated with replies. All locations will be open. Mainahs are some wicked awesome.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,609
Trump has filed for SCOTUS to gut Obamacare completely:

 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,178
The 9th Circuit Court ruled that the Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to divert Pentagon funds appropriated by Congress. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/poli...06-26T18:36:19&utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link

"The Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer of funds," wrote Chief Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas for the majority. "The panel noted that the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress. The panel held that the transfer of funds violated the Appropriations Clause, and, therefore, was unlawful."
On to the Supreme Court, I guess.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,233
It doesn’t have The constitutional authority it has Legal statutory authority as approved by congress. Congress passed a bill saying president can divert funds for emergencies. What needs to be done is repeal this bill or this bill be declared unconstitutional. I believe it’s called the presidential emergency act or something like that. So Did congress Go outside of it’s authority when it said the president can redirect funds? National Emergencies Act in 1976
 
Last edited:

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,008
The June Medical decision is in, SCOTUS upholds Whole Women's Health and Louisiana's attempt to restrict abortions is ruled unconstitutional.

John Roberts concurred with the judgment but has a separate opinion:
I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.
Also, there's a decision in the CFPB case. More opinion(s) to come tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,008
A relief for now. Was it a 5/4 decision? I couldn't find details online yet.
5-4. Breyer wrote the majority opinion with RBG, Sotomayor and Kagan concurring & Roberts concurring in the judgment. The opinion is linked in my previous post, and you can check out SCOTUSblog, they're a great resource.

I guess Roberts doesn't want the states doing whatever they want and messing with SCOTUS precedent.
 

skatingfan5

Past Prancer's Corridor
Messages
13,388
5-4. Breyer wrote the majority opinion with RBG, Sotomayor and Kagan concurring & Roberts concurring in the judgment. The opinion is linked in my previous post, and you can check out SCOTUSblog, they're a great resource.

I guess Roberts doesn't want the states doing whatever they want and messing with SCOTUS precedent.
Thanks! I went to the link but was confronted by the wall of text and decided to be lazy and just ask for a quick answer. After all, I'm still on my first cup of coffee! :shuffle:
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,008
When will we get the decision on Trump's taxes? Anyone know??
Presumably soon, but they don't announce ahead of time when a case is about to be decided. They don't even announce how many opinions will be handed down on any given day. It could be tomorrow. Or not.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,539
I'm cynical enough to wonder if Roberts has decided to throw a few the other way so he can get some points publicly, yet still protect Trump in the taxes case.
 

snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,232
I'm not sure why he needs to be popular with a lifetime appointment but I would put $5 on him protecting the tax information.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,539
Most people care about their reputation in some way or other. There's also the issue of how he will look when the history of these times is written. What does he want his grandchildren to read about him in school?

The tax case will be definitely a test of where he's at. For a Republican to go against the party leader/elected President on such a crucial case is not a step many would take.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
62,464
Most people care about their reputation in some way or other. There's also the issue of how he will look when the history of these times is written. What does he want his grandchildren to read about him in school?

The tax case will be definitely a test of where he's at. For a Republican to go against the party leader/elected President on such a crucial case is not a step many would take.
The thing is, the other party will be back in the WH in the near future. Making a decision to protect one can have adverse issues in the future. Those decisions have to be based on the rule of law. He wasn't appointed by Trump and holds no personal obligations to him. I don't know how he'll vote, but it needs to be based on legal matters and not politics. I do think he tries to do that. While I don't know about Roberts personally, I do know a close friend of his who is conservative, but most assuredly is not a Trump supporter. I suspect his friend is supporting the Lincoln Project.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
31,991
What saved this case was Roberts' respect for stare decisis. I know some people think it's pretext and he wanted to preserve abortion rights for his reputation, but if he cared about that, then he would have voted in the majority in the 2016 case or even in this case. I really do think he's one of those jurists who really cares about legal process and integrity rather than these social issues. Had 2016 went the other way, he would have upheld THAT precedent.
 

PRlady

Well-Known Member
Messages
34,921
I'm cynical enough to wonder if Roberts has decided to throw a few the other way so he can get some points publicly, yet still protect Trump in the taxes case.
We here in the religious freedom business think that’s what’s going to go south. There are three cases we are waiting on - vouchers used for religious education, religious exception for birth control employees and students under ACA and how broad is the ministerial exception for religious organizations. We might get creamed on all three given this court.

ETA: I agree Roberts cares about legal integrity and precedent. He publicly said judges should not be politicized.
 
Last edited:

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,233
What saved this case was Roberts' respect for stare decisis. I know some people think it's pretext and he wanted to preserve abortion rights for his reputation, but if he cared about that, then he would have voted in the majority in the 2016 case or even in this case. I really do think he's one of those jurists who really cares about legal process and integrity rather than these social issues. Had 2016 went the other way, he would have upheld THAT precedent.
I don’t agree with saying he’s not a liberal now. He didn’t care about stare decisis many times when he was a conservative but now that he’s liberal he cares? No. Being a liberal like RBG and Breyer and kagan and sotomayor is what’s true. He’s a part of the liberal stranglehold on the Supreme Court now
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,008
What saved this case was Roberts' respect for stare decisis. I know some people think it's pretext and he wanted to preserve abortion rights for his reputation, but if he cared about that, then he would have voted in the majority in the 2016 case or even in this case. I really do think he's one of those jurists who really cares about legal process and integrity rather than these social issues. Had 2016 went the other way, he would have upheld THAT precedent.
From a distance Roberts comes across as very much a process guy - whether that's his nature or something he feels compelled to do as Chief Justice.

I think he's also had enough of bad faith legislation and Trump's unwillingness to at least pretend to play by the rules. If that's the case, we should expect some kind of narrow ruling against Trump in at least one of the tax cases.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information