|
Dead Reckoning posted:I haven't been able to find the majority opinion, but as best I can parse the State's filings, they basically say that the 11th Circuit used the wrong standard when deciding to grant an emergency stay and that it shouldn't have been granted due to those procedural defects. Add to that the conservative wing of the court has grown increasingly hostile to appeals being used tactically to delay executions (see the majority opinion in Glossip v. Gross) and may have assumed that was the case here. I can't speak to the procedural merits, but it wouldn't be the first time that the court has punted on "sure, this would be a 9-0 if you filed it properly, but you didn't." There isn’t a majority opinion. And the idea that this was a tactical delay of execution is loving nonsense, as the dissent makes clear. quote:The warden denied Ray’s request to have his imam by his side on January 23, 2019. And Ray filed his complaint five days later, on January 28. The State contends that Ray should have known to bring his claim earlier, when his execution date was set on November 6. But the relevant statute would not have placed Ray on notice that the prison would deny his request. To the contrary, that statute provides that both the chaplain of the prison and the inmate’s spiritual adviser of choice “may be present at an execution.” Ala. Code §15–18–83(a) (2018). It makes no distinction between persons who may be present within the execution chamber and those who may enter only the viewing room. And the prison refused to give Ray a copy of its own practices and procedures (which would have made that distinction clear). So there is no reason Ray should have known, prior to January 23, that his imam would be granted less access than the Christian chaplain to the execution chamber. The delay was by the prison, which figured it could get away with this kind of bullshit these days.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
It feels naive to allow myself to be shocked at this point, but the depravity of both the state and the court is shocking. It was such a small request, imposed no cost or burden. It was denied expressly as an act of cruelty to the condemned man and the group of which he was a member. Just naked animus without even a pretense of window dressing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 11:32
|
|
|
I just read that, and yeah it’s bad. Also justice beer wrote a dissent saying that Lousiana’s abortion law should go into effect and force 3 of the 4 clinics in the state to close before they sue for relief. Thankfully Roberts signed on with the liberal justices and abortion isn’t unavailable in LA just yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I just read that, and yeah it’s bad. Also justice beer wrote a dissent saying that Lousiana’s abortion law should go into effect and force 3 of the 4 clinics in the state to close before they sue for relief. Thankfully Roberts signed on with the liberal justices and abortion isn’t unavailable in LA just yet. I'd just like to make it clear that Robert's decision to grant that stay has absolutely nothing to do with the his opinion on actual merits of the underlying case regarding abortion, and there is no reason to believe that he will side with the liberal justices on the actual case. To be against the stay is literally saying that lower courts can override the Supreme Court at will. The Fifth Circuit literally acknowledged that Whole Women's Health (adjucated by the Supreme Court two years ago) forbids this ruling. It's ridiculously absurd that this wasn't a 9-0 and can only and obviously be a case of the 4 conservative justices who voted against being absolutely legally bankrupt in service of their political agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There isn’t a majority opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
Piell posted:I'd just like to make it clear that Robert's decision to grant that stay has absolutely nothing to do with the his opinion on actual merits of the underlying case regarding abortion, and there is no reason to believe that he will side with the liberal justices on the actual case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
No, you see, whole women's health would apply only IF the doctors could not get admitting privileges, which would mean that the clinics would close and an undue burden would be imposed. That's the conservative argument that they're not violating precedent. According to their logic, the previous decision doesn't apply unless the doctors are actually prevented from getting admitting privileges as they were in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Why would a civil case filed in state court ever end up before the federal Supreme Court? Like, if you wanted to challenge the law on federal constitutional grounds you’d probably prefer to sue in federal court, right? Especially somewhere like Iowa. The pro-life Iowa legislature was hoping the law would be challenged in Federal court. Unfortunately for them, their opponents made the tactically correct choice of challenging it in state court first and killed the law. ulmont posted:...and if the case is going to have to be appealed to the US Supreme Court anyway, it really doesn't matter if you go state trial - state appeal - state supreme (optional; not all states have this layer for all cases) - US Supreme versus federal district - federal appeal - US Supreme Court The supreme court is not going to grab this case. State Constitutions are allowed to give their residents more freedom than the Federal constitution gives if there is no conflict, and there isn't any here. The supreme court usually (have to say "usually" because of Bush v. Gore  ) only intervenes in state decisions when the state is trying to do something that conflicts with the federal constitution, such as restricting a federal right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The supreme court is not going to grab this case. State Constitutions are allowed to give their residents more freedom than the Federal constitution gives if there is no conflict, and there isn't any here. The supreme court usually (have to say "usually" because of Bush v. Gore While this case does not appear to have been brought suggesting that the Iowa law violated the federal constitution, it easily could have been, in which case the appellate hook would be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
The supreme court agreed to skip the appellate court and grabbed the Citizenship US Census case from the district court. This probably means the court is going to quickly sign off on asking everyone if they are legal. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/021519zr_n6io.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The supreme court agreed to skip the appellate court and grabbed the Citizenship US Census case from the district court. This probably means the court is going to quickly sign off on asking everyone if they are legal. Mathematicians are going to be pisssssssed. Ugh. This fucks over the entire country if this gets allowed
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Can’t wait for the decision that the founders only intended for citizens to be counted for purposes of population count and representation in the House, even though they explicitly did not and they included an infamous formula for counting certain non-citizens
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
The Census has to be finalized for print by June and there's still an injunction in place preventing them from adding the question to the version currently scheduled to be printed, so isn't it possible for this case to drag long enough to make the legal question moot? 6 weeks seems like short turnaround for a SCOTUS decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:The Census has to be finalized for print by June and there's still an injunction in place preventing them from adding the question to the version currently scheduled to be printed, so isn't it possible for this case to drag long enough to make the legal question moot? 6 weeks seems like short turnaround for a SCOTUS decision. The fact that SCOTUS picked it up this way (it was highly unusual before the shitheads took over) is precisely because they want to force it onto the census. If they were going to let it stay off, they would have let it go through the normal court process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
Piell posted:The fact that SCOTUS picked it up this way (it was highly unusual before the shitheads took over) is precisely because they want to force it onto the census. If they were going to let it stay off, they would have let it go through the normal court process. It’s because 4 justices want that, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Piell posted:The fact that SCOTUS picked it up this way (it was highly unusual before the shitheads took over) is precisely because they want to force it onto the census. If they were going to let it stay off, they would have let it go through the normal court process. while I think this is the most likely reading, it's also possible they wanted to resolve it in a non-effectively-moot way regardless clarence thomas writes a separate concurrence saying the question should be disallowed because while the constitution requires a census, it does not explicitly say it is a federal responsibility, and therefore the Census Bureau is unconstitutional and there should be fifty little ones
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It’s because 4 justices want that, right? also this, I think
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:while I think this is the most likely reading, it's also possible they wanted to resolve it in a non-effectively-moot way regardless bad news, the Constitution does explicitly direct Congress to write the laws governing how the census is to be conducted
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It’s because 4 justices want that, right? Four? John "my life's goal has been to gut the VRA" Roberts and the rest of the conservative wing are all 100% ok with doing this to try and suppress the representation of areas with a lot of illegal aliens in it because that means sanctuary cities (ie: places with Democrats) can have their representation further diluted to try and help keep the GOP in power. exploded mummy posted:bad news, the Constitution does explicitly direct Congress to write the laws governing how the census is to be conducted The Constitution (well, the post civil war amendments) also say Congress is the ultimate authority on voting rights and that the soverign debt shall not be questioned. Hasn't stopped the SCOTUS from gutting the renewed VRA or from idiots on both sides of the aisle from allowing government shutdowns over the budget to exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Can’t wait for the decision that the founders only intended for citizens to be counted for purposes of population count and representation in the House, even though they explicitly did not and they included an infamous formula for counting certain non-citizens You just wrote the decision for them. Any counting of brown people is slavery now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:bad news, the Constitution does explicitly direct Congress to write the laws governing how the census is to be conducted well darn at least I can cling to my crackpot immigration law theory along similar lines
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:well darn article 1 says Congress gets to set uniform naturalization laws as well
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:well darn Well...did congress pass legistlation about adding the question?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
ulmont posted:
Hey thanks for your work bringing things to the thread's attention. I'm in the group that cares about this one now and you're doing a service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:Hey thanks for your work bringing things to the thread's attention. I'm in the group that cares about this one now and you're doing a service. No worries - I figure the SCOTUS thread needs a summary of each opinion, and I was going to read them all anyway - but glad you like it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
ulmont posted:No worries - I figure the SCOTUS thread needs a summary of each opinion, and I was going to read them all anyway - but glad you like it! That's an awesome service - it turns out we don't get honest and complete summaries on the news - when the decisions are mentioned at all. You do a really good job of giving relevant history and how legal minds look at written law and precedent without getting so far in the weeds I stop reading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:That's an awesome service - it turns out we don't get honest and complete summaries on the news - when the decisions are mentioned at all. You do a really good job of giving relevant history and how legal minds look at written law and precedent without getting so far in the weeds I stop reading. yeah, i really appreciate ulmont's writeups
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
this is just thomas alone concurring in a denial of cert but still, lol https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1097867552443822080 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1097869171394789376 (not even one other conservative joined him here, so it's not exactly terribly worrying, but my man wrote 14 pages about being mad at NYT v. Sullivan) eke out fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Feb 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Ehhhhhh. I'm not exactly thrilled with NYT v Sullivan myself. The malice standards are valid for private citizens, but not for people presenting as journalists, who supposedly bear a higher degree of responsibility and trust. I absolutely don't trust a conservative supreme court to rewrite those standards though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
the other big news (at least for environmental law) today is that they granted cert in County of Maui v. Hawai'i Wildlife Fund about whether you need a NPDES permit if pollutants are conveyed from a point source, through groundwater, into a water of the United States. The facts are basically that Maui was injecting sanitized wastewater into wells which was directly proven to be migrating through groundwater and coming out in a specific patch of seabed in the Pacific nearby. Conservatives would very much like this to not fall under the Clean Water Act, because if it does, situations like pollutants migrating through groundwater from coal ash ponds into nearby rivers would be regulated that way. There are also some examples of gas pipelines leaking underground and the pollutants getting into a nearby waterway where this would apply, allowing enforcement or citizen suits where it's currently stupidly barred e: Oh also a surprising thing here is that the Trump EPA basically supports upholding this regulation. They have their own particular theory they'd like the court to officially endorse but they ultimately think this scenario, where there's reasonably certain empirical proof, should fall under the CWA - which is very different than the conservative circuits that've split on this and a bunch of conservative amici eke out fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Feb 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
LMAO No, they are not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
I must say, I would have thought that if any Justice was in favor of overruling Sullivan it would be Alito, not Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
 Opinion! BOBBY JAMES MOORE v. TEXAS Holding / Majority Opinion: In 2015, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that petitioner, Bobby James Moore, did not have intellectual disability and consequently was eligible for the death penalty. We previously considered the lawfulness of that determination, vacated the appeals court’s decision, and remanded the case for further consideration of the issue. The appeals court subsequently reconsidered the matter but reached the same conclusion. We again review its decision, and we reverse its determination. When we first heard this case, in Moore, we noted that the state trial court (a state habeas court) “received affidavits and heard testimony from Moore’s family members, former counsel, and a number of court-appointed mental-health experts.” We described the evidence as “reveal[ing]” the following: “Moore had significant mental and social difficulties beginning at an early age. At 13, Moore lacked basic understanding of the days of the week, the months of the year, and the seasons; he could scarcely tell time or comprehend the standards of measure or the basic principle that subtraction is the reverse of addition. At school, because of his limited ability to read and write, Moore could not keep up with lessons. Often, he was separated from the rest of the class and told to draw pictures. Moore’s father, teachers, and peers called him ‘stupid’ for his slow reading and speech. After failing every subject in the ninth grade, Moore dropped out of high school. Cast out of his home, he survived on the streets, eating from trash cans, even after two bouts of food poisoning.” At the outset of our [past Moore] opinion, we recognized as valid the three underlying legal criteria that both the trial court and appeals court had applied. To make a finding of intellectual disability, a court must see: (1) deficits in intellectual functioning—primarily a test-related criterion, see DSM– 5, at 37; (2) adaptive deficits, “assessed using both clinical evaluation and individualized . . . measures,” ibid.; and (3) the onset of these deficits while the defendant was still a minor, id., at 38. With respect to the first criterion, we wrote that Moore’s intellectual testing indicated his was a borderline case, but that he had demonstrated sufficient intellectual-functioning deficits to require consideration of the second criterion—adaptive functioning. With respect to the third criterion, we found general agreement that any onset took place when Moore was a minor. But there was significant disagreement between the state courts about whether Moore had the adaptive deficits needed for intellectual disability. “In determining the significance of adaptive deficits, clinicians look to whether an individual’s adaptive performance falls two or more standard deviations below the mean in any of the three adaptive skill sets (conceptual, social, and practical).”...We disagreed with the appeals court’s adaptive-functioning analysis, however, and identified at least five errors.…For the reasons we have described, the Court set aside the judgment of the appeals court and remanded the case “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” … On remand the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reconsidered the appeal and reached the same basic conclusion, namely, that Moore had not demonstrated intellectual disability. The court again noted the three basic criteria: intellectual-functioning deficits, adaptive deficits, and early onset. But this time it focused almost exclusively on the second criterion, adaptive deficits. The court said that, in doing so, it would “abandon reliance on the Briseno evidentiary factors.” It would instead use “‘current medical diagnostic standards’” set forth in the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM–5. In applying those standards to the trial court record, it found the State’s expert witness, Dr. Kristi Compton, “‘far more credible and reliable’” than the other experts considered by the trial court. (As in our last opinion, we neither second nor second-guess that judgment.) And, as we have said, it reached the same conclusion it had before. … After reviewing the trial court record and the court of appeals’ opinion, we agree with Moore that the appeals court’s determination is inconsistent with our opinion in Moore. We have found in its opinion too many instances in which, with small variations, it repeats the analysis we previously found wanting, and these same parts are critical to its ultimate conclusion. For one thing, the court of appeals again relied less upon the adaptive deficits to which the trial court had referred than upon Moore’s apparent adaptive strengths….For another thing, the court of appeals relied heavily upon adaptive improvements made in prison….Further, the court of appeals concluded that Moore failed to show that the “cause of [his] deficient social behavior was related to any deficits in general mental abilities” rather than “emotional problems.” Id., at 570. But in our last review, we said that the court of appeals had “departed from clinical practice” when it required Moore to prove that his “problems in kindergarten” stemmed from his intellectual disability, rather than “‘emotional problems.’”...Finally, despite the court of appeals’ statement that it would “abandon reliance on the Briseno evidentiary factors,” it seems to have used many of those factors in reaching its conclusion.…To be sure, the court of appeals opinion is not identical to the opinion we considered in Moore. There are sentences here and there suggesting other modes of analysis consistent with what we said. But there are also sentences here and there suggesting reliance upon what we earlier called “lay stereotypes of the intellectually disabled.” … We conclude that the appeals court’s opinion, when taken as a whole and when read in the light both of our prior opinion and the trial court record, rests upon analysis too much of which too closely resembles what we previously found improper. And extricating that analysis from the opinion leaves too little that might warrant reaching a different conclusion than did the trial court. We consequently agree with Moore and the prosecutor that, on the basis of the trial court record, Moore has shown he is a person with intellectual disability. The petition for certiorari is granted. The Attorney General of Texas’ motion to intervene is denied; we have considered that filing as an amicus brief. The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Lineup: Per curiam (but presumably not written by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, or Gorsuch). Dissent by Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. Other Opinions: Roberts (concurrence): When this case was before us two years ago, I wrote in dissent that the majority’s articulation of how courts should enforce the requirements of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002), lacked clarity. It still does. But putting aside the difficulties of applying Moore in other cases, it is easy to see that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals misapplied it here. On remand, the court repeated the same errors that this Court previously condemned—if not quite in haec verba, certainly in substance. The court repeated its improper reliance on the factors articulated in Ex parte Briseno, 135 S. W. 3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), and again emphasized Moore’s adaptive strengths rather than his deficits. That did not pass muster under this Court’s analysis last time. It still doesn’t. For those reasons, I join the Court’s opinion reversing the judgment below. Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch (dissent): Two years ago, this Court vacated a judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals holding that Bobby James Moore was not intellectually disabled and was therefore eligible for the death penalty. While the Court divided on the appropriate disposition, both the majority and the dissent agreed that the Court of Criminal Appeals should have assessed Moore’s claim of intellectual disability under contemporary standards rather than applying the outdated evidentiary factors laid out in Ex parte Briseno. On remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the leading contemporary clinical standards for assessing intellectual disability, applied those standards to the record, and once again determined that Moore is eligible for the death penalty. Today, the Court reverses that most recent decision, holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals failed to follow our decision in Moore. Such a failure would be understandable given the “lack of guidance [Moore] offers to States seeking to enforce the holding of Atkins.” Indeed, each of the errors that the majority ascribes to the state court’s decision is traceable to Moore’s failure to provide a clear rule. For example, the majority faults the Court of Criminal Appeals for “rel[ying] less upon the adaptive deficits . . . than upon Moore’s apparent adaptive strengths, and for “rel[ying] heavily upon adaptive improvements made in prison,”But in Moore, we said only that a court ought not “overemphasiz[e]” adaptive strengths or place too much “stres[s]” on improved behavior in prison. This left “the line between the permissible—consideration, maybe even emphasis— and the forbidden—‘overemphasis’—. . . not only thin, but totally undefined . . . .” The majority’s belief that the state court failed to follow Moore on remand merely proves that “[n]either the Court’s articulation of this standard [in Moore] nor its application sheds any light on what it means.” Having concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeals failed to apply the standard allegedly set out in Moore, the Court today takes it upon itself to correct these factual findings and reverse the judgment.* This is not our role. “We do not grant a certiorari to review evidence and discuss specific facts.”...If the Court is convinced that the Court of Criminal Appeals made a legal error, it should vacate the judgment below, pronounce the standard that we failed to provide in Moore, and remand for the state court to apply that standard. The Court’s decision, instead, to issue a summary reversal belies our role as “a court of review, not of first view.” The Court’s foray into factfinding is an unsound departure from our usual practice. The error in this litigation was not the state court’s decision on remand but our own failure to provide a coherent rule of decision in Moore. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-443_8m58.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Looking forward to the disparate impact suits based on the mental disability standard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Looking forward to the disparate impact suits based on the mental disability standard. The underlying ban on executing people with intellectual disabilities dates to 2002, so I think any such suits would have started already if they were likely to be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
eke out posted:this is just thomas alone concurring in a denial of cert but still, lol  nothing in the Mayflower Compact even references lese-majeste.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
I had to look up per curiam and I'm still not sure I understand what it means or why; I thought it meant unanimous, but given that dissent clearly I was wrong. It looks like the court split 5-4 (maybe?) or 6-3, with one dissent joined by 3 of them. Why not put down the names of everyone that wanted to vacate? Is it just that none of them wanted to write a long judgement because the problem is 'Texas keeps trying to execute mentally disabled people and they need to cut it out' and they decided that was sufficient? Do we know for sure how everyone voted, is it possible one of the dissenters voted to vacate but still signed the dissent because of the court's methodology? How often are per curiam decisions made? I didn't really understand just how lovely Thomas is until fairly recently. I'm pretty sure he'd rule the constitution unconstitutional if it meant rolling us back to the articles of confederation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 10:49
|
|
|
SCOTUS just incorporated the 8th excessive fines clause against the state overturning Indiana's asset forfeiture of a $42,000 land rover when a maximum fine for the crime was $10,000. They also said states cannot give a tax preference to retired state employees that they do not also give to retired federal employees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:SCOTUS just incorporated the 8th excessive fines clause against the state overturning Indiana's asset forfeiture of a $42,000 land rover when a maximum fine for the crime was $10,000. hey it only took 151 years after the ratification of the 14th - not bad!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:SCOTUS just incorporated the 8th excessive fines clause against the state overturning Indiana's asset forfeiture of a $42,000 land rover when a maximum fine for the crime was $10,000.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:56
|
|