|
I really wish Leonard Leo was on the groversub. It can't be stressed enough just how bad of a person he is or the damage he's going to do over the course of his (hopefully short) life, especially with the extra billion dollars he was gifted not long ago.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Here is the propublica article: https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
So when is the last day of their term, AKA when the real evil poo poo drops?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
jeeves posted:So when is the last day of their term, AKA when the real evil poo poo drops? Typically the last working day of June, sometimes they don't finish before July 3 but always by then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
There are 18 cases left. They are doing opinions tomorrow (Thursday) and then probably three days next week. https://amylhowe.com/2023/06/20/with-10-days-left-in-june-18-cases-to-go/ Edit: switched to current article smackfu fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jun 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Alito wrote a WSJ op-ed explaining why riding on someone who is definitely not your buddy’s private jet is cool. I would take this as evidence that Alito is scared shitless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 10:56
|
|
|
The Navajo lost their case over Colorado River water rights 5-4 (Gorsuch and the liberals in dissent). Kavanaugh’s majority says it’s undisputed that the Navajo have water rights but that this case is an attempt to say the US has an affirmative duty to build water infrastructure for the Navajo, which is not something you can just read into a treaty. Gorsuch’s dissent lays out the terrible history here and then says Kavanaugh is making up this whole affirmative duty thing and the Navajo are just seeking to participate in negotiations over water rights and have their rights defined, because in practice they’ve been excluded from lawsuits and negotiations, with the federal government supposedly representing their interests but in practice often selling them short.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
Name Change posted:I would take this as evidence that Alito is scared shitless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Yeah, but why? Just Like with Thomas, scrutiny from the powerless leads to 0 consequences. Exactly - there's no suggestion that Republicans will hold any of it against him. Without them, you'll never get the number of votes to impeach.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
I have realized that if slaves would have created treaties with the US government, then Gorsuch would have an entirely different attitude of issues of race (outside of Native tribes).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
Other cases: Jones v Hendrix: 6-3 (usual), Thomas says that prisoners are procedurally barred from challenging their sentences if they’ve challenged them before even if subsequent court decisions have clarified that they were prosecuted for something that is not actually a crime under the statute Yegiazaryin v Smagin, 6-3 (not usual), Sotomayor says a foreign citizen can sue under RICO about a domestic conspiracy to prevent collection of damages from a lawsuit Pugin v Garland, 6-3 (not quite usual), Kavanaugh says that, for the purposes of deportation, it counts as obstruction of justice when you hinder an investigation from beginning and not just when you hinder a pending investigation
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:Jones v Hendrix: 6-3 (usual), Thomas says that prisoners are procedurally barred from challenging their sentences if they’ve challenged them before even if subsequent court decisions have clarified that they were prosecuted for something that is not actually a crime under the statute
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:drat, SCOTUS really hates prisoners. Yeah, the conservatives have been very consistent about this, and it’s pretty hosed up. Fortunately it should be fixable without needing a massive change in SCOTUS: the laws in question do actually seem to say that you can’t make these appeals even if something substantial changes in the facts or the law, and while I buy the liberal argument that basic habeus protections ought to override that, we could also just change the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Or Biden could issue a pardon. He could do it today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
Name Change posted:I would take this as evidence that Alito is scared shitless. The conservative legal movement is having a very normal one over this. Google Josh Blackman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Yeah, the backlash to these reports seems to indicate that even if it’s not working right now, they believe it might, and that’s enough reason to keep digging
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Yeah, the backlash to these reports seems to indicate that even if it’s not working right now, they believe it might, and that’s enough reason to keep digging Even if all it does is make lavish Federalist Society vacations harder to arrange . . .that strikes at the heart of the republican political engine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:drat, SCOTUS really hates prisoners. All the more reason people like Thomas and Alito need to be prosecuted and thrown in a cell. Nothing says you have to impeach a judge to be able to criminally prosecute and incarcerate them. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:All the more reason people like Thomas and Alito need to be prosecuted and thrown in a cell. Nothing says you have to impeach a judge to be able to criminally prosecute and incarcerate them. As long as they're still allowed to carry out their job
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:As long as they're still allowed to carry out their job Dissent from a Birmingham Jail?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 18:11
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Or Biden could issue a pardon. He could do it today. You're getting way ahead of yourself, the trial isn't even scheduled to start until August 14.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You're getting way ahead of yourself, the trial isn't even scheduled to start until August 14. Oooooof Let's not speak that evil
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The conservative legal movement is having a very normal one over this. Google Josh Blackman. Crows Turn Off posted:Yeah, but why? Just Like with Thomas, scrutiny from the powerless leads to 0 consequences. 1) Alito is stupid. I don't consider Scalia to have been an evil genius or anything, but Alito is a poor substitute. 2) The 6-3 court is wildly out of step with the public on a variety of important issues and because it is the last federal stronghold of conservatives, gets wildly more attention than usual because they are swinging the axe for a divided government. 3) Increased scrutiny is revealing how corrupt Alito and Thomas are in particular, and clearly hasn't gotten to the bottom yet. 4) The scrutiny and growing pressure for reform isn't good for the long-term power of the institution. You don't want to go down as the guy who hosed up the Good Ol Boys gravy train network for everyone else, even just by strengthening disclosure requirements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
What does it matter how corrupt they are if there’s no method or willingness for accountability? It’s the Garland appointment all over again. The only way is to vote out the chuds but oops you can’t vote anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:What does it matter how corrupt they are if there’s no method or willingness for accountability? It’s the Garland appointment all over again. The only way is to vote out the chuds but oops you can’t vote anymore. Because if people get mad enough, maybe they do vote out the chuds. And if they can't channel that anger into peaceful change via voting, it'll eventually burst out in some other form that's far less convenient to the ruling classes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:What does it matter how corrupt they are if there’s no method or willingness for accountability? It’s the Garland appointment all over again. The only way is to vote out the chuds but oops you can’t vote anymore. There are methods, they aren’t dictators with military backing. Congress has tools to rein them in but lacks the will to use them. The composition of Congress can be changed by voters. Voters are influenced by the news saying justices are corrupt
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because if people get mad enough, maybe they do vote out the chuds. And if they can't channel that anger into peaceful change via voting, it'll eventually burst out in some other form that's far less convenient to the ruling classes. Well the party in power has the option to do something now. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jun 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:drat, SCOTUS really hates prisoners. Is this true? If so, looks like congress really hates them too. https://twitter.com/JoshuaHoyt/status/1671893272414019584
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
You'd think being able to be convicted and imprisoned for something that isn't a crime would be a violation of due process and other rights but I'm not a Federalist Society cultist so what do I know. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You'd think being able to be convicted and imprisoned for something that isn't a crime would be a violation of due process and other rights but I'm not a Federalist Society cultist so what do I know. I don't envy new law students who have to try to explain these nonsense holdings for bar or class exams.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 03:20
|
|
|
I was legitimately panicking last year at all the bullshit SCOTUS released that changed everything before last year's bar exam. I passed and they kept the questions well away from ConLaw topics, but it's going to be even worse for the new cohort coming through
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I was legitimately panicking last year at all the bullshit SCOTUS released that changed everything before last year's bar exam. I passed and they kept the questions well away from ConLaw topics, but it's going to be even worse for the new cohort coming through Yeah the bar exams generally try to keep to well-established con law. But the overturning of Roe v Wade kinda pulled the rug out of the reasoning for a LOT of privacy cases that would normally be testable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 03:26
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Is this true? If so, looks like congress really hates them too. SCOTUS could simply ignore the law when making a ruling as they've done plenty in the past. That would require them actually think it was an injustice, however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Is this true? If so, looks like congress really hates them too. The bit about how writ of habeas corpus is important doesn't have a "unless congress doesn't feel like it" bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 04:09
|
|
|
8-1 in favor of the Biden Administration Supreme Court rejects Texas and Louisiana challenge to Biden deportation priorities https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/politics/biden-supreme-court-immigration-republican-lawsuit
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:8-1 in favor of the Biden Administration quote:Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Well the party in power has the option to do something now. You might not have noticed, but there is not currently "a party in power" (unless you mean the conservatives on the Supreme Court). Nothing can be done until we have one again, and the more power they have the more can be done (and in the case of the Supreme Court they've been doing plenty).
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
I'm really curious why Thomas signed with the majority given his typical leanings, but I also don't want to gaze into the abyss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:I'm really curious why Thomas signed with the majority given his typical leanings, but I also don't want to gaze into the abyss. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf This is all very much on first glance: Thomas signed on to the Gorsuch opinion which simply says that the states don’t have standing because there is no remedy available to the courts. “The States lack standing because federal courts do not have the authority to redress their injuries”. The Kavanaugh opinion seems to be much narrower and goes into a bunch of ways that a different case could be ruled differently? The Gorsuch concurrence in judgement is much more direct. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jun 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
US v Hansen is about a law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” a foreigner to come to the US unlawfully. Everyone agrees that this is over-broad if read literally, but the 7-2 majority gives it a saving construction to restrict it to intentional solicitation of unlawful entry; Jackson and Sotomayor would call it facially unconstitutional. Hansen was running an “adult adoption” scam, so it’s hard to get too worked up about the specific application here, but it could be an example of bad cases making bad precedent. US v Texas is a couple of states suing the federal government for setting a policy of prioritizing the arrest and removal of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists and violent criminals, thereby deprioritizing (and largely stopping) the arrest of other people who aren’t lawfully in the US. Their claim is that this imposes costs on the states, an injury giving them grounds to sue. The majority says that standing also requires the courts to have the ability to resolve the problem, and under the separation of powers the courts cannot order the executive branch to adopt new policies and arrest more people in genera; there’s no precedent for that kind of intrusion on the political branches. Alito’s argument for entertaining this is that the policy is in violation of the law and the states are just suing to get the proper enforcement of the law, and then there’s a lot of bluster. It’s a solo dissent, though. Coinbase v Bielski is a civil procedure case about whether courts have to stay their proceedings while an appeal is active that’s relevant to those proceedings. In this case, the appeal was about whether the lawsuit was allowed at all (Coinbase wants to compel arbitration), so all proceedings need to be stayed. The dissent (the liberals + Thomas) says that individual judges are generally responsible for deciding whether a stay is appropriate, and there’s no precedent or reason to override that globally. Samia v US is about the confrontation clause. Two men were hired to murder a real-estate agent, which they did. One of them (Stillwell) confessed and said the other man (Samia) killed her. The men were tried together, and Stillwell didn’t testify at the trial (perhaps he declined to, as is his right under the Fifth). Instead, prosecutors had an agent testify about the content of Stillwell’s confession, which normally would have confrontation clause problems for Samia — he has a right to question his accusers. To try to get around those problems, the prosecutors “anonymized” the confession so that it just talks about “the other man” and doesn’t name Samia, making it supposedly not testimony against Samia. The majority thinks this is fine because there were clear instructions to only consider the testimony as to Stillwell. The dissent (the liberals) says that obviously the jury understood that the testimony was about Samia; you can’t wish that away with jury instructions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 17:08
|
|