|
FlamingLiberal posted:https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1363860115502354436?s=21 What does unsigned mean? That no specific judge is putting their name on it so it's basically the whole court telling them to gently caress off?
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Bigger news is they also declined to delay enforcement of the subpoena for his financial records, meaning NY should get them soon and be able to start reviewing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1363861854167138310?s=20 This is insane lm,ao
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ, Thomas "listen there's no way to know whether there's evidence out there" first year law school dropout logic
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
I feel like I'm losing my mind. Thomas has a degree from a reputable law school, yes? Has he ever passed a bar exam? Why is his understanding of evidence so poor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I feel like I'm losing my mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
PIZZA.BAT posted:What does unsigned mean? That no specific judge is putting their name on it so it's basically the whole court telling them to gently caress off? No, it’s very normal for the orders “writ granted,” “writ denied,” not to have names. It’s less common to have dissents from grants or denials, but those always have names.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I feel like I'm losing my mind. Clarence Thomas got his JD from Yale. He despises the school, which is completely understandable for a Black man who went there when he did. More generally, he is an intelligent person who got where he is because of incredible perseverance. He came up from a cabin with no running water, speaking a thick dialect, to go through the most elite law school in America at a time when elites didn't bother to conceal their racism even a little bit. The legal theories he uses as the foundation of his reasoning are parallel-universe crazy, he's a lovely person who harassed and slandered Anita Hill, and for all his intelligence he can't make that motivated reasoning look sensible. He is not a good justice or a good person. But the whole "lazy black guy sleeps on the bench, did he even pass the bar" takes are still lovely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Pretty much the one thing Thomas is correct about is the oral arguments are a waste of time and sleeping through them is a good move.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I feel like I'm losing my mind. He's not dumb. His wife's salary just depends on him not understanding certain things, like how Democrats could ever be correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Thomas worked hard to be the crazy loving lizard he is now. If anything I can only imagine the distain someone like him has for the new justices who are barely lawyers. JK JK they all serve the same cult and high-five each other over the corpses of poors
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:He's not dumb. His wife's salary just depends on him not understanding certain things, like how Democrats could ever be correct. yeah I saw your tweet and.... yeah 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
jeeves posted:JK JK they all serve the same cult and high-five each other over the corpses of poors I don't believe they actually cheer death, but I do genuinely believe our ruling class sees an elevated death rate in the growing lower class as a sign of health of our labor extraction / exsanguination economy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
Thoma's wife was cheerleading the Jan 6th event in its lead up and during the initial tensions at the Capitol as well because aside from having utterly insane judicial beliefs and being a garbage person, Thomas and his wife are scummy as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I feel like I'm losing my mind. Having a degree from a reputable school, or passing a bar exam, or indeed being a supreme court justice, is not in any way conclusive evidence that you are not a complete loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 11:17
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:yeah I saw your tweet and.... yeah Ok, just making sure, I can never remember who is who twitter vs here
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ariberman/status/1366399420993044482?s=21 In a 6-3 decision the SCOTUS will rule that Republicans can go hog wild on voter disenfranchisement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised Roberts didn't declare the VRA null and void years ago since it's one of his life's goals despite the judiciary and if Obama wasn't a worthless gently caress he'd have ignored the Shelby County ruling since Congress, not the SCOTUS, is the ultimate authority on matters regarding voting rights and they were pretty clear on their intent when they reauthorized the VRA only a few years prior. Or maybe Dems can pass the John Lewis act but I don't see Biden telling Roberts and the SCOTUS to gently caress off either when they decide "no the John Lewis act is also Unconstitutional because it means the GOP can't steal elections as easily any more."
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
I kinda see the Biden admin as a dead cat bounce of any sort of Democratic rule in this country. It’s going to be 6-3s on anything having to do with voting rights all the way down from now on. Edit - dead cat bounce not dead count jeeves fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
I feel like striking down a brand new law named after a civil rights legend designed to reform and protect voting rights would be a very quick way to get court packing back on everyone's radar, right up there with actually reversing Roe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Roberts no longer has iron-fisted control over the conservative majority, if the rest of that wing of the court wants to do away with the "nonpartisan court" charade, tip us back into full Jim Crow, and call the Dems bluff on court packing, there's not a whole lot he or the progressive wing of the court can do about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
The Opening Arguments host made a good point that 'good' arguments in supreme court cases are going to move from 'persuasive technocratic argument for Ted Kennedy' to 'shame John Roberts over naked partisanship' to 'find the sovereign citizen style originality beep boop for Gorsuch'. Which is sad as that's going to become what 'good' looks like for lawyers as those are the types of legal arguments that win supreme court cases. Scalia's monkey paw wish comes true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I feel like striking down a brand new law named after a civil rights legend designed to reform and protect voting rights would be a very quick way to get court packing back on everyone's radar, right up there with actually reversing Roe.  Where are you going to find the votes in the Senate? Good luck getting people like Manchin to support expanding the courts, let alone support anything further left than center-right. Sydin posted:Roberts no longer has iron-fisted control over the conservative majority, if the rest of that wing of the court wants to do away with the "nonpartisan court" charade, tip us back into full Jim Crow, and call the Dems bluff on court packing, there's not a whole lot he or the progressive wing of the court can do about it. If you knew anything about Roberts you'd know he's likely giddy over it. He can play the "reasonable moderate" card as part of a 4 vote minority while seeing the other 5 conservatives burn the country to the ground to pave way for the evangelical theocracy of their dreams. Or he'll just drop the mask and join them because who's going to stop him? If they finish killing the VRA then any stay the GOP currently controls is going to be theirs indefinitely and they'll absolutely abuse their judicial control to kneecap everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
I am under no illusions that Roberts doesn't want to usher in the conservative hellstate just as much as the worst of them. It's just obvious that he'd rather it be done via death by a thousand cuts "reasonable" rulings rather then just tossing out Roe or the VRA or whatever and causing a huge backlash. Also it doesn't even matter if you could get Manchin on board or not because you could not get Biden on board with packing the courts, and the Dem main line is far too chickenshit to actually try anyway. The party is more concerned right now about getting the support for Tanden's nomination than they were about finding it for the $15/hour minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
You could probably name a bill “This is what Jesus would want” and Repubz would vote it down unless it was more right than center right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 06:36
|
|
|
jeeves posted:I kinda see the Biden admin as a dead count bounce of any sort of Democratic rule in this country. Yeah, Roberts is real bad on voting rights. There really wasn’t going to be much left standing there once Kennedy retired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 06:44
|
|
|
Shelby County was a horrid decision on its face but Roberts not even giving a constitutional reasoning for gutting the VRA should've been the end of anyone seeing the Court as a legitimate body (well that shoulda been Bush v Gore but I digress) and everyone just kept acting like things were normal. The podcast 5-4 started a Patreon and their first backer episode is on the shittiest Justice in probably all of our lives: https://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod/ Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Mar 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
 Opinion! This one’s a week old, but it’s only the one and not that exciting.BROWNBACK ET AL. v. KING TLDR: If you bring a case under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the US government for torts committed by a federal employee within the scope of their employment, any judgment on the merits will stop you from bringing another suit against that employee individually. Even a loss for failure to state a valid claim under FRCP 12(b)(6), which implies that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction and therefore no power to hear the suit and give you a judgment. Majority Opinion (Thomas): The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows a plaintiff to bring certain state-law tort suits against the Federal Government. It also includes a provision, known as the judgment bar, which precludes “any action by the [plaintiff], by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim” if a court enters “[t]he judgment in an action under section 1346(b).” The Sixth Circuit held that the District Court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s FTCA claims did not trigger the judgment bar because the plaintiff’s failure to establish all elements of his FTCA claims had deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. We disagree and hold that the District Court’s order also went to the merits of the claim and thus could trigger the judgment bar. The FTCA streamlined litigation for parties injured by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Before 1946, a plaintiff could sue a federal employee directly for damages, but sovereign immunity barred suits against the United States, even if a similarly situated private employer would be liable under principles of vicarious liability. Despite that immunity, the Government often would provide counsel to defendant employees or indemnify them.In addition, Congress passed private bills that awarded compensation to persons injured by Government employees. But by the 1940s, Congress was considering hundreds of such private bills each year. “Critics worried about the speed and fairness with which Congress disposed of these claims.” “In 1946, Congress passed the FTCA, which waived the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees” acting within the scope of their employment. The Act in effect ended the private bill system by transferring most tort claims to the federal courts. … While waiving sovereign immunity so parties can sue the United States directly for harms caused by its employees, the FTCA made it more difficult to sue the employees themselves by adding a judgment bar provision. That provision states: “The judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” “[O]nce a plaintiff receives a judgment (favorable or not) in an FTCA suit,” the bar is triggered, and “he generally cannot proceed with a suit against an individual employee based on the same underlying facts.” … This case involves a violent encounter between respondent James King and officers Todd Allen and Douglas Brownback, members of a federal task force, who mistook King for a fugitive. King sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging that the officers committed six torts under Michigan law. He also sued the officers individually under the implied cause of action recognized by Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), alleging four violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In the alternative, they moved for summary judgment. The District Court dismissed King’s claims. As to his FTCA claims, the court granted the Government’s summary judgment motion. It found that the undisputed facts showed that the officers did not act with malice. The officers thus would have been entitled to state qualified immunity had Michigan tort claims been brought against them. The court, following its own precedent, ruled that the Government was immune because it retains the benefit of state-law immunities available to its employees. The court also ruled in the alternative that King’s FTCA claims failed under Rule 12(b)(6) because his complaint did not present enough facts to state a plausible claim to relief for any of his six tort claims. The court dismissed King’s Bivens claims as well, ruling that the defendants were entitled to federal qualified immunity. King appealed only the dismissal of his Bivens claims. As a threshold question, the Sixth Circuit assessed whether the dismissal of King’s FTCA claims triggered the judgment bar and thus blocked the parallel Bivens claims. It did not, according to the Sixth Circuit, because “the district court dismissed [King]’s FTCA claim[s] for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction” when it determined that he had not stated a viable claim and thus “did not reach the merits.” The Sixth Circuit then held that the defendant officers were not entitled to qualified immunity and reversed the District Court. … The judgment bar provides that “[t]he judgment in an action under section 1346(b)” shall bar “any action by the claimant” involving the same subject matter against the employee of the Federal Government whose act gave rise to the claim. Here, the District Court entered a “Judgment . . . in favor of Defendants and against TPlaintiff.” The parties agree that, at a minimum, this judgment must have been a final judgment on the merits to trigger the bar, given that the “provision functions in much the same way as [the common-law doctrine of claim preclusion].” We agree. … a judgment is “on the merits” if the underlying decision “actually passes directly on the substance of a particular claim before the court.” Thus, to determine if the District Court’s decision is claim preclusive, we must determine if it passed directly on the substance of King’s FTCA claims. We conclude that it did. The District Court’s summary judgment ruling hinged on a quintessential merits decision: whether the undisputed facts established all the elements of King’s FTCA claims. The court noted that one element of an FTCA claim is that the plaintiff establish that the Government employee would be liable under state law. The court then explained that Michigan law provides qualified immunity for Government employees who commit intentional torts but act in subjective good faith. And it concluded that, because the undisputed facts here showed that the officers would have been entitled to immunity from King’s tort claims, the United States, by extension, was not liable under the FTCA. The one complication in this case is that it involves overlapping questions about sovereign immunity and subject-matter jurisdiction. In such cases, the “merits and jurisdiction will sometimes come intertwined,” and a court can decide “all . . . of the merits issues” in resolving a jurisdictional question, or vice versa. That occurred here. The District Court passed on the substance of King’s FTCA claims and found them implausible. In doing so, the District Court also determined that it lacked jurisdiction. But an on-the-merits judgment can still trigger the judgment bar, even if that determination necessarily deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The District Court did lack subject-matter jurisdiction over King’s FTCA claims. In most cases, a plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) does not deprive a federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction. However, a plaintiff must plausibly allege all jurisdictional elements. And in the unique context of the FTCA, all elements of a meritorious claim are also jurisdictional. Because King’s tort claims failed to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the United States necessarily retained sovereign immunity, also depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ordinarily, a court cannot issue a ruling on the merits “when it has no jurisdiction” because “to do so is, by very definition, for a court to act ultra vires.” But where, as here, pleading a claim and pleading jurisdiction entirely overlap, a ruling that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may simultaneously be a judgment on the merits that triggers the judgment bar. We conclude that the District Court’s order was a judgment on the merits of the FTCA claims that can trigger the judgment bar. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered. Lineup: Thomas, Unanimous. Concurrence by Sotomayor. Concurrence (Sotomayor): I join the Court’s opinion because I agree that the District Court dismissed King’s Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims on the merits. Importantly, the Court does not today decide whether an order resolving the merits of an FTCA claim precludes other claims arising out of the same subject matter in the same suit. Although the parties briefed the issue, it was not the basis of the lower court’s decision. I write separately to emphasize that, while many lower courts have uncritically held that the FTCA’s judgment bar applies to claims brought in the same action, there are reasons to question that conclusion. This issue merits far closer consideration than it has thus far received. … further elaboration here is unnecessary. As the Court points out, “‘we are a court of review, not of first view.’” While lower courts have largely taken petitioners’ view of the judgment bar, few have explained how its text or purpose compels that result. In my view, this question deserves much closer analysis and, where appropriate, reconsideration. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-546_7mip.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TBishUp/status/1366778043365163010
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
I see they've stopped even bothering at pretense and pretext. I'm sure that is a portent of only good things to come.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Dameius posted:I see they've stopped even bothering at pretense and pretext. I'm sure that is a portent of only good things to come. Its not illegal if the racism is overt I think is their new strategy. I give it 70/30 odds (in favor of).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
Per the gerrymandering decision, it will be ruled that as long as the intent is to disenfranchise Democrats specifically rather than minority voters then it's legal. All the Jim Crow laws relating to voting will return with sections scribbled out and the word Democrats scrawled above it
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
These kinds of takes from Twitter randos in every thread are what's driving calls to stop allowing Twitter in D&D. Here is what was actually said: quote:“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Judge Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing. In any case, the lawyers might be wildly overestimating how much of a conservative kangaroo court the post-Trump SC is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
So how dead is the VRA? Because we all know that Roberts has spent his life trying to destroy it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
lol does that qualify as valid standing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
“Competitive disadvantage” because they have fewer voters...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:lol does that qualify as valid standing? With a 6-3 court it doesn’t matter
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
I thought court precedent was that the judiciary shouldn't need involved in election laws and the remedy for the GOP if they feel laws are disadvantaging their ability to win elections is to win the elections and change the laws...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
“Lalalalalalala 6/3 says fingers in my ears can’t hear you.” - future Majority Opinion
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
MrNemo posted:I thought court precedent was that the judiciary shouldn't need involved in election laws and the remedy for the GOP if they feel laws are disadvantaging their ability to win elections is to win the elections and change the laws... For political, non-racial, gerrymanders, yes. For actual violations of the racial-equality protections that still remain in the Voting Rights Act, no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 23:29
|
|