|
FlamingLiberal posted:Wasn't there some concern that it would run afoul of the parliamentarian or something? There always is. What's the court going to do? Strike down the annual budget, bring government to a halt and crash everything because the Senate played a little loose with their own rules?
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The conservative argument from SCOTUS's side isn't necessarily "SOMEONE BENEFITS" so much as it's "if Congress had meant to give anywhere near this much benefit to this many people, they probably would have said so in the original law Biden is trying to stretch here". Which isn't a terribly unreasonable argument, unfortunately. Ok now let’s do that with the 2001 AUMF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:There always is. Well the argument is probably that if the parliamentarian rules against it the senate majority isn't going to override her, even though they can. Not that the court has any say over senate rules, the constitution is quite clear that each house of congress is the sole arbiter of its own rules (with some specifically noted exceptions: quorum, etc) Ultimately the issue is that congress is less interested in governing than in finding someone else to blame for their failure to govern, and the court is all too happy to take all the heat for imposing unpopular conservative legislation on the country. The story should be all about how congress refused and still refuses to address the student loan crisis, but it's all going to be about how that mean old court stopped a good thing from happening but whaddya gonna do they're there for life, and everyone's just gonna kind of forget that we elect people every two years who have the power to fix these problems but choose not to use it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Farchanter posted:IIRC Twitter even coded a procedural Nazi suppression filter, but elected to not actually deploy it because Neonazi politicians kept getting caught in the dragnet. fixed
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2023 08:07
|
|
|
An interesting fact I learned today: The concept of judicial review in the US was not started with Marbury v Madison, but by a case called Bayard v Singleton in the North Carolina Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:An interesting fact I learned today: Judicial review as a concept of older than America and was assumed by the founding fathers when they didn't bake in parliamentary supremacy. It just took a while to recognize.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2023 11:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SDonziger/status/1640428641762054144 Gorsuch and Kavanaugh dissented. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032723zor_nmjp.pdf Gorsuch posted:However much the district court may have thought Mr. SimonChris fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Mar 28, 2023 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
SimonChris posted:https://twitter.com/SDonziger/status/1640428641762054144 What do you think about the merits of the case?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
I'm with Steve. That was insane bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:25
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:What do you think about the merits of the case? I tend to agree with Gorsuch that a judge hiring a private law firm to prosecute the case is ridiculous. The merits of the contempt case itself are irrelevant since the District Court declined to prosecute.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
Frankly if there's anyone bribing judges I think it's more likely to be the giant oil company.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Frankly if there's anyone bribing judges I think it's more likely to be the giant oil company. Yeah. I rather doubt the guy was bribing anyone, especially enough to overcome oil company bribe money. The Ecuadorean court arrived at it's judgement because, gasp!, the merits were on the plaintiff side and there were large national interests in preserving the Amazon
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
Does this mean that at least two of Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson voted to deny cert? Is that surprising?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Does this mean that at least two of Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson voted to deny cert? Is that surprising? They all did. Beer and Gorsuch were the only two who dissented. There's probably some kind of reason for it, but none of them put their reasoning in writing. If I had to guess, I'd say it's most likely because there's a precedent from the 1980's that Gorsuch mentions in his dissent where a court “approved the use of court-appointed prosecutors as a ‘last resort’ in certain criminal contempt cases." So while it's undoubtedly a conflict of interests, unfair, and almost assuredly bad, it's a thing that's happened before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:They all did. Beer and Gorsuch were the only two who dissented. There's probably some kind of reason for it, but none of them put their reasoning in writing. If I had to guess, I'd say it's most likely because there's a precedent from the 1980's that Gorsuch mentions in his dissent where a court “approved the use of court-appointed prosecutors as a ‘last resort’ in certain criminal contempt cases." So while it's undoubtedly a conflict of interests, unfair, and almost assuredly bad, it's a thing that's happened before. Oh, I thought that the cert up-or-down votes weren't public and we only knew who dissented when they published a written dissent. But now that I think about it, it wouldn't make any sense for a dissenter to dissent without joining or at least mentioning a different published dissent, so, yeah, ok.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:They all did. Beer and Gorsuch were the only two who dissented. There's probably some kind of reason for it, but none of them put their reasoning in writing. If I had to guess, I'd say it's most likely because there's a precedent from the 1980's that Gorsuch mentions in his dissent where a court “approved the use of court-appointed prosecutors as a ‘last resort’ in certain criminal contempt cases." So while it's undoubtedly a conflict of interests, unfair, and almost assuredly bad, it's a thing that's happened before. Only 2 published something and 4 are needed to hear a case. Does that leave the possibility that one justice voted to hear the case but didn’t want to join the opinion for whatever reason?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Only 2 published something and 4 are needed to hear a case. Does that leave the possibility that one justice voted to hear the case but didn’t want to join the opinion for whatever reason? I've only seen it written as "the two conservative justices" but I guess it's possible that one of the three liberal justices dissented but opted out of signing on or writing their own dissent. That feels unlikely, though. Dissents are really useful for future rulings and signaling that "hey this poo poo sucks." And this poo poo does suck, so I'd expect them to be willing to put their name next to someone saying that, if not write a few pages about how it's a blight on our legacy as a nation or whatever. raminasi posted:Oh, I thought that the cert up-or-down votes weren't public and we only knew who dissented when they published a written dissent. But now that I think about it, it wouldn't make any sense for a dissenter to dissent without joining or at least mentioning a different published dissent, so, yeah, ok. Yeah, that's what I based it on. The articles I've seen only mention Beer and Gorsuch, and I really do think this is the kind of thing that you'd want to write something about if you disagreed with it. I guess they think the process is sound, even if the action that brought it about was crazy poo poo, but Gorsuch was more willing to ignore the specific precedent in question in favor of a more fundamental objection to the fact it happened at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
It's confusing because they're talking about the 6-3 Court makeup like we don't all know it already but the overall makeup is less relevant than only two conservative judges being the dissent
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Frankly if there's anyone bribing judges I think it's more likely to be the giant oil company. They did bribe the judge, openly and legally. No one is denying the enormous compensation they gave him, which the judge characterized as a bribe under oath. However, no one in power has elected to handpick a judge and prosecution firm to address this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
On cert denials, lack of a written dissent absolutely doesn’t mean that a justice voted for cert - written dissents are uncommon in that circumstance. Now, because it only takes four votes to grant cert, it’s definite that at least Kalman fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Mar 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
Kalman posted:On cert denials, lack of a written dissent absolutely doesn’t mean that a justice voted for cert - written dissents are uncommon in that circumstance. Two, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Two, right? Whoops, yeah. Two must have voted against. Probably Jackson? (Also there is some strategy to cert votes - if the liberal justices think they’re going to get a bad opinion out of it that’ll make things worse overall, they might vote against cert even if they think the underlying ruling was bad.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Yeah, that's what I based it on. The articles I've seen only mention Beer and Gorsuch, and I really do think this is the kind of thing that you'd want to write something about if you disagreed with it. I guess they think the process is sound, even if the action that brought it about was crazy poo poo, but Gorsuch was more willing to ignore the specific precedent in question in favor of a more fundamental objection to the fact it happened at all? The SCOTUS petition is about a relatively narrow, technical question that comes up after the merits of the Ecuador judgment have been litigated. For all the crazy backstory, you want the district court's 2014 order that goes over the trial and the judge's findings. That was upheld in a different opinion. (The good news is that it's published at 974 F.Supp.2d 362 and can be found online for free. The bad news is that it's roughly as long as The Return of the King, and not nearly as interesting.) After Donziger loses, the Court issues a series of orders that he refuses to comply with, which he admits for the purposes of this petition. The Court wants to charge him with criminal contempt for disobeying those orders and refers him to DOJ, which declines to prosecute on the basis of insufficient resources - "we still love you and please don't yell at us, but we have better things to do." At this point there's a rule which says: quote:(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt. There's also a case (Young v. U.S. ex rel Vuitton*) which affirms the court's power to appoint a private prosecutor, so that's what the district court does for the contempt charge. Most of the arguments on appeal are about whether the prosecutor is exercising an inherent judicial power to punish contempt as Young suggests, or an executive power that would be subject to the Appointments clause - and if it is, whether the prosecutors are inferior officers subject to supervision. Gorsuch and Kav want to read Young narrowly (a "last resort") because they think it conflicts with more recent separation-of-powers cases, and they think there's an Appointments clause problem too. IMO, the majority probably got it right. * Not surprisingly, the case was about counterfeit handbags. Louis Vuitton got an order telling the defendants not to sell them, and then they did anyway, and then the district court appointed LV's own lawyers as the prosecution for a criminal contempt action. SCOTUS said you can appoint a private prosecutor, you just can't use the other side's lawyers. So at least there's that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:What do you think about the merits of the case? It was entirely meritless
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 14:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1643929027353124864?s=20quote:IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Apr 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 14:21
|
|
|
Is there anything Justice Roberts could do within his position as Chief Justice, or is it impeachment or literally nothing in terms of any repercussions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:Is there anything Justice Roberts could do within his position as Chief Justice, or is it impeachment or literally nothing in terms of any repercussions? Roberts can yell at him and manipulate which opinions he gets to write, but he can't prevent him from contributing his vote to rulings or writing concurrences and dissents. It's impeachment or death for that (because it won't be resignation) Or Congress could enact a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, bringing them into line with the rest of the judicial system, but, well, *gestures wildly*
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:Is there anything Justice Roberts could do within his position as Chief Justice, or is it impeachment or literally nothing in terms of any repercussions? He could begin a campaign of workplace harassment, put pubes on his soda can, stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
Devor posted:He could begin a campaign of workplace harassment, put pubes on his soda can, stuff like that. He could also decapitate Justice Thomas with a zweihander. I don't expect anything to be done, but it'd be funny if a law setting conduct standards somehow got passed. Mainly because it would inevitably end up in front of SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
And he'd only be angry because Thomas is dumb enough to be so stupidly open about the corruption. Roberts et al absolutely do the same corrupt poo poo, but cloak it in enough Respectable Business layers that they get a pass
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
Slaan posted:And he'd only be angry because Thomas is dumb enough to be so stupidly open about the corruption. Roberts et al absolutely do the same corrupt poo poo, but cloak it in enough Respectable Business layers that they get a pass I'd give anything to know what Scalia's version of Pierre Delecto was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Does this mean that at least two of Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson voted to deny cert? Is that surprising? Well, they are libs, so no
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
SCOTUS intervened in a case that is currently making its way through the courts regarding trans issues https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1644045957095387155?s=20 https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1644044836599889921?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
Alito is the least surprising dissent on there, even beyond Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Alito is the least surprising dissent on there, even beyond Thomas. the argument is basically the seven sane-ish justices going "yeah the state took eighteen months to get off its rear end, this is not an urgent matter, we are lifting the stay" and the other two going "no u"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS intervened in a case that is currently making its way through the courts regarding trans issues Just to be clear: they didn’t intervene, they ruled on a request presented to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:Is there anything Justice Roberts could do within his position as Chief Justice, or is it impeachment or literally nothing in terms of any repercussions? He could appeal his conviction to his own court and vote to strike down the law, but he'd only be one vote there None of that will actually happen, but there's in theory a mechanism for a justice committing crimes
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:If Thomas violated an actual law mandating disclosing those gifts, couldn't he just be arrested, charged, and tried normally? Supreme Court justice doesn't come with immunity from prosecution and he could hear cases just fine from a prison cell if Congress isn't interested in impeaching him post-conviction Hell you don't even have to be near Supreme Court level to get away with this poo poo as a judge. Reuters posted:Among the cases from the past year (2020) alone:
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Roberts can yell at him and manipulate which opinions he gets to write, but he can't prevent him from contributing his vote to rulings or writing concurrences and dissents. It's impeachment or death for that (because it won't be resignation) They could, but if the terms of that "binding" include removal from the bench, it will be struck down by every single court that hears the case. Congress doesn't have the power to unilaterally rewrite Article III.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
So you don't remove them from the bench, you pass a new law that states when a judge is serving time they are automatically, forcibly recused from any and all court cases. Then pass another law that says a judge who's a convicted felon is permanently recused from hearing cases as well. Article 3 isn't rewritten because the judge is still on the bench, they're just effectively neutered in their role (a change that can be made without requiring an amendment). Could the courts just say "gently caress you we strike all this down because we don't like it" like when the SCOTUS usurped Congress's authority in their Shelby County ruling? Sure, but forcing a confrontation and actually trying to address the increasing right wing activist corruption of the judiciary is either going to happen at some point or the US is going to fall into a Christofascist state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2023 01:33
|
|
