U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,233
Based on the way the courts have acted they need to assume bad faith and plans to leak trumps tax information from the prosecutors/politicians who want trumps taxes. Of course they will be leaked to NYT and WAPO the day they are received but judges almost never assume parties will do an illegal act. The ruling against trump should be 9-0 but I think it’s possible 2 or 3 may say since all the democrats plan to leak trumps taxes they will not allow it. But it probably will be 9-0 because they just don’t play psychic- even though as soon as Pelosi gets trumps taxes they are going right to David fahrenthold or Maggie haberman
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,539
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.
Thanks for explaining the legal issues involved.



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.

Nice to see you back! :cheer2:
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,233
This is silly! Roberts “Court should not be political” And then gives liberals victories on every single issue
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,008
I’m not saying he was always liberal but he obviously is now-100%. Exactly like RBG
Let's have a look... which justices has Roberts been most aligned with in the current term (scroll down)?

.
.
.
.

If you answered Brett Kavanaugh, followed by Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan, you will be entered into a draw to win a bobblehead of John Roberts calling balls and strikes.

You may be saddened to learn that Roberts and RBG have only agreed 76% of the time, just like Roberts and Samuel Alito - who is not, in fact, a liberal.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,233
Let's have a look... which justices has Roberts been most aligned with in the current term (scroll down)?

.
.
.
.

If you answered Brett Kavanaugh, followed by Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan, you will be entered into a draw to win a bobblehead of John Roberts calling balls and strikes.

You may be saddened to learn that Roberts and RBG have only agreed 76% of the time, just like Roberts and Samuel Alito - who is not, in fact, a liberal.
Most cases are non ideological minutiae disputes so I know all the justices agree like a huge amount of time. The issue is hot button issues and now alito never agrees with RBG but Roberts agrees with her 100% of the time
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,178
If there is a way, I wouldn't be surprised if the tax cases was decided so that it protects Trump's taxes but at the same time, doesn't rule either way on congressional oversight power. (No idea if that's possible though).
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,008
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.
Looks like you were right... Espinoza has been reversed 5-4 with the usual suspects for and against.
 

snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,232
As I always have to look the cliff notes version up, its a win for tax money going to religious schools.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,233
So the state can’t discriminate against people who want to use tax payer money for a religious school.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
31,991
Ever since the abortion rights ruling, I keep singing, “Last night stare decisis saved abortion rights.” To the tune of “Last night, a DJ saved my life.”


I can’t stop singing it. My husband thinks I’m full-blown crazy now.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
31,991
I abhorred that song when I was a young disco queen back in the day and my opinion of it has not changed.
I honestly only loved it when Madonna used parts of it preceding her performance of "Music" in the Sticky & Sweet Tour. I do love the sentiment behind the song though.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
31,991
Trump-appointed Federal Judge struck down a Trump administration rule that banned most migrants from receiving asylum at the southern border with Mexico. The Judged found that the Trump admin failed to follow the procedural law governing how regulations can be implemented, which requires advance notice and a period for the public to comment on the proposal.

That's like Admin Law 101 for anyone who went to law school.

 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,233
I totally agreed because it seemed like this is stupidity or sabateurs but then I read this “The policy was issued as an interim final rule, thus allowing it to go into effect without public comment” so public comment isn’t necessary because it’s interim!
 

NeilJLeonard

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,258
There seems to be a rumor about 72 year old Justice Clarence Thomas retiring before the election so the GOP can nominate and confirm a much younger true believer to replace him. I thought that Moscow Mitch said we can't replace SCOTUS Justices in an election year. Does anyone have anything to shed some light on this?

NJL (..Of course Gawd's Own Party can change, create or ignore all laws or traditions at will to whatever suits their fancy or fantasy, but this, if true, is a bit much. Sadly, since they control both the Senate and the WH they could pull this off...:(...)
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
31,991
There seems to be a rumor about 72 year old Justice Clarence Thomas retiring before the election so the GOP can nominate and confirm a much younger true believer to replace him. I thought that Moscow Mitch said we can't replace SCOTUS Justices in an election year. Does anyone have anything to shed some light on this?

NJL (..Of course Gawd's Own Party can change, create or ignore all laws or traditions at will to whatever suits their fancy or fantasy, but this, if true, is a bit much. Sadly, since they control both the Senate and the WH they could pull this off...:(...)
This might be the worst thing Thomas can do to us, and he's done a lot of bad things. Shame Democrats can't get away with pulling a Moscow Mitch on this one due to the numbers and us not wanting to set this as a normal precedent and instead keeping it as an example of a horrific abuse of power that American history books will cite for future generations.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
62,464
The thing is, a lot of GOP senators are up for reelection and are going to be focused on their own campaigns. Getting a nomination through and confirmed in four months will be pushing it. Mitch has his own problems back home. Thomas would have to quit like today to get the process started.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,233
People are twisting themselves in knots to say Roberts constantly voting with liberals Doesn’t make him liberal! That he’s the only real conservative on the court! And real conservatives are people like roberts. He’s not really voting with the liberals at all. He’s just doing real conservative concurring opinions. Lol. He’s a liberal. It happens. There is ideological shifting from conservatives to make them liberals. But there has never been a liberal who has become conservative! Interesting trivia. The point of her article is all about telling democrats not to be complacent. That Roberts is total 3D chess and all his rulings with liberals are secretly extremist conservative and will end roe vs wade eventually and deport undocumented eventually
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
31,991
I don't know if anyone remembers but four years ago, there was some push by a poster or two to promote the use of faithless electors to try to prevent Trump from ascending the office of the presidency. Well, SCOTUS in an unanimous ruling (with Thomas agreeing in judgment but opting to write his own concurring opinion to which Gorsuch, who signed on the majority opinion, agreed in Part II) just ruled electors can't do that if their state forbids it and States can certainly punish (in this case fine) faithless electors who don't vote the way the state voted.


In the above case four electors in Washington State chose to not elect votes for Hillary Clinton even though she won the vote of that state. Three of them voted for Colin Powell and one of them voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, an activist fighting against the Keystone Pipeline. It was more of a symbolic gesture since they knew Clinton lost the election. There, Washington had a law mandating that electors vote for their party's nominee (that they pledged to do) if that nominee wins the popular vote in that state, and if they fail to do so then they are not only fined but their votes are vacated and are replaced by another elector.

The 10th Circuit agreed with the petitioners who argued the State governments had no right to interfere with an elector's right to vote. It found the Constitution “does not provide the states the power to interfere once voting begins, to remove an elector, to direct the other electors to disregard the removed elector’s vote or to appoint a new elector to cast a replacement vote.”

The idea comes from the original intent of the Electoral College to be free and independent from the popular vote results in case the population voted for someone who...

Anyways, we've moved on since those times and have become more democratic and voting rights have become more inclusive.

Here's the holding:

A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. Pp. 8–18.

(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27. And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint. A State can require, for example, that an elector live in the State or qualify as a regular voter during the relevant time period. Or more substantively, a State can insist (as Ray allowed) that the elector pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party’s presidential nominee, thus tracking the State’s popular vote. Or—so long as nothing else in the Constitution poses an obstacle—a State can add an associated condition of appointment: It can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty. Which is to say that the State’s appointment power, barring some outside constraint, enables the enforcement of a pledge like Washington’s.​
Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors, and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors’ voting procedures. And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorporated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion, no language of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution. Contrary to the Electors’ argument, Article II’s use of the term “electors” and the Twelfth Amendment’s requirement that the electors “vote,” and that they do so “by ballot,” do not establish that electors must have discretion. The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words expected the Electors’ votes to reflect their own judgments. But even assuming that outlook was widely shared, it would not be enough. Whether by choice or accident, the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page. Pp. 8–13.​
(b) “Long settled and established practice” may have “great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions.” The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689. The Electors make an appeal to that kind of practice in asserting their right to independence, but “our whole experience as a Nation” points in the opposite direction. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513, 557. From the first elections under the Constitution, States sent electors to the College to vote for pre-selected candidates, rather than to use their own judgment. The electors rapidly settled into that non-discretionary role. See Ray, 343 U. S., at 228–229. Ratified at the start of the 19th century, the Twelfth Amendment both acknowledged and facilitated the Electoral College’s emergence as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party-line voting. Courts and commentators throughout that century recognized the presidential electors as merely acting on other people’s preferences. Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus And state election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State’s electors would vote the same way as its citizens. Washington’s law is only another in the same vein. It reflects a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen. Pp. 13– 17. 193 Wash. 2d 380, 441 P. 3d 807, affirmed.​
Also, SCOTUS ruled in a much less unanimous decision that entities outside the federal government collecting debts actually can conduct robocolls on people's cellphones after companies challenged that 1991 and 2005 amended law. So we get to look forward to that. The majority found that this legislative ban was content-based bans on speech. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan dissented while Sotomayor concurred with the majority opinion but agreed with the dissent that not every content-based speech restriction should fall under strict scrutiny review and cited some precedents for that.
 

once_upon

New condo owner
Messages
14,666
I dont understand the robocall thing.

What does it mean in normal language? Like if someone had an outstanding debt robocall can be done? Isnt that what happens now - collection agencies can call constantly (I've never ever had a delinquent account, so dont know about that)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information