Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread

Love this man.



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/ob...ian-221697

Reply

In the end, Wendy Davis won:



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...t=20160627



Quote:

With a 5-3 decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the court reversed a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had upheld the law. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, while Anthony Kennedy joined the liberal justices in the majority.



NPR's Nina Totenberg, reporting from the Supreme Court, says this decision will have consequences around the country — several states have laws (either in effect or currently blocked) with similar requirements to that of Texas. If those laws are found to be essentially the same as Texas' law, Nina says, they will be thrown out by the courts.

Reply

ETA- IronMaiden beat me to it....



Sorry Texas.... (not really)



Quote:

An Undue Burden in Texas



The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down two Texas abortion-clinic restrictions in a 5-3 decision.



The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a series of restrictions on Texas abortion clinics Monday, turning back one of the most significant challenges to abortion rights in a generation.


“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for a five-justice majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”



<cont>

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Trav McGee View Post
 

Here's another important case on the docket, that looks genuinely hopeful.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html



Upholding the lower court could be a blow against the rampant Republican gerrymandering at the state level. Fingers crossed.



Nearly a year after the first victory over racial gerrymandering, a technical decision is still a win.



Quote:


The lower court held that if traditional redistricting practices such as compactness and protecting incumbents could explain a district, then race could not have been the predominant reason for their creation.



But Kennedy said courts must look at the real reason for drawing the district, not whether it could be justified by other means.


“A state could construct a plethora of potential maps that look consistent with traditional, race-neutral principles,” Kennedy wrote. “But if race for its own sake is the overriding reason for choosing one map over others, race still may predominate.”



Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Kennedy’s opinion. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. mostly concurred, and Justice Clarence Thomas repeated his disapproval of using race to draw legislative districts, whether it predominates or not. Voting law experts disagreed about the decision’s impact. Richard Hasen, an election law expert at University of California at Irvine, said the ruling was technical and did not greatly expand the court’s precedents.



New York University law professor Richard Pildes disagreed. “The court’s opinion today is more forceful and clear than it has ever been that unconstitutional racial gerrymandering can occur even when a state draws districts that look regular and follow traditional districting principles,” he wrote in a blog post.



Here's hoping this starts getting applied in other states, where it's even more sorely needed (looking at you, NC).

Reply

So Gorsuch's confirmation hearing is currently ongoing, though Dems are making noise about not confirming a Justice nominee while the president who nominated him is under investigation by the FBI.


Republicans, on the other hand, are treating this event with the gravity it deserves: https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/84...9771982848

Reply

Yep, he's a dick...




Neil Gorsuch and the “Frozen Trucker”

Reply
AIt's worth noting that some legal commentators, including this liberal Harvard Law professor, have defended Gorsuch's judgment in that case:

"The majority of the panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld the agency on highly creative grounds. The relevant law said the driver couldn’t be fired for refusing to operate his vehicle under the conditions set by the trucking company. The judges held that the driver, who drove away in his cab, had arguably refused to operate the vehicle -- because the term “operate” in the statute was vague.

Gorsuch dissented. The panel had relied on the so-called Chevron doctrine, a special bugaboo of Gorsuch’s, in which judges defer to agencies’ interpretations of unclear laws. Gorsuch said the law wasn’t ambiguous as required by Chevron, because the driver was fired for failing to stay with his truck full of cargo, not for driving away.

I’m not sure Gorsuch was right -- but his view was perfectly defensible, and it certainly didn’t seem to be driven by dislike of the driver. Rather, Gorsuch followed his preference for reading the law on its own terms and against Chevron. There’s nothing troubling about it."

http://www.naplesnews.com/story/opinion/.../99212046/

One thing that both sides tend to do (and I normally don't have much patience for the "both sides..." argument) is conflate regular politics with constitutional level politics. Sometimes an outcome we like is unjustified and an outcome we dislike is justified. I don't agree with Gorsuch's judicial philosophy, but he seems to be guided by that particular conception of the Constitution more than some vague animus toward workers.
Reply


While no person can be 'perfect' (we are fallible humans, after all) it should be possible to realize when someone could very well be imperfect for the job at hand.


The fact that DJT 'outsourced' the possible list of SCOTUS selections to the Heritage Foundation and Gorsuch was on that list should be telling.



and now this bit of news....


Quote:


While Gorsuch was testifying, the Supreme Court unanimously said he was wrong


About 40 minutes after Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch began his second day of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, all eight of the justices he hopes to join said a major disability decision Gorsuch wrote in 2008 was wrong.



Both the Supreme Court’s decision and Gorsuch’s 2008 opinion involved the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which requires that public school systems which take certain federal funds provide a “free appropriate public education” to certain students with disabilities.



Applying this law to individual students, the Supreme Court acknowledged in its Wednesday opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, is not an exact science. “A focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the unanimous Supreme Court. “The instruction offered must be ‘specially designed’ to meet a child’s ‘unique needs’ through an ‘[i]ndividualized education program.’”



But while this process can be difficult, it must provide meaningful educational benefits to disabled students — which brings us to Judge Gorsuch’s error in a 2008 opinion. In Thompson R2-J School District v. Luke P., a case brought by an autistic student whose parents sought reimbursement for tuition at a specialized school for children with autism, Gorsuch read IDEA extraordinarily narrowly.



<cont>



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16...7_0pm1.pdf

Reply

Gorsuch is very, very dangerous...



listening to this NPR/Fresh Air piece



How One Man Brought Justices Roberts, Alito And Gorsuch To The Supreme Court
:


That's what Jeffrey Toobin reports in his latest article in The New Yorker called "The Conservative Pipeline To The Supreme Court." The article is about Leonard Leo, who Toobin says served in effect as president Trump's subcontractor on the selection of Gorsuch. Leo also played a crucial part in the nominations of Justices Roberts and Alito. Leo is executive vice president of The Federalist Society, a national group of conservative lawyers, which Toobin also writes about in his article. The society was co-founded by law students in 1982. One of their faculty advisers was Antonin Scalia, who Justice Gorsuch has now replaced on the court.



from the transcript...


Quote:


I think there is very little doubt - especially if you know what Leonard Leo cares about - that Neil Gorsuch will, at every opportunity over the next three, four decades, vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Reply
AHis name is Leo Leo. How does this happen?
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

His name is Leo Leo. How does this happen?


asshole parents

Reply

Justice Breyer's dissent before Gorsuch's deciding vote allowed Arkansas to execute a man whose trial was dubious, at best:



https://twitter.com/MikeDelMoro/status/8...7972253697



Reply

Gorsuch is cool with debt collectors harassing people with middle-of-the-night phone calls and suchL



http://prospect.org/article/gorsuch%E2%8...s-run-amok



Quote:

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first Supreme Court opinion won’t earn much notice in his biographies. The unanimous decision reads more like a grammatical lesson, scrutinizing one line of text in a decades-old statute. But if you have ever been harassed in the middle of the night by a debt collector, or been threatened with tax liens or court summonses or even bodily harm, you should understand what Gorsuch and his fellow justices did on Monday: They gave some of the worst bottom-feeders in the economy a free pass to break the law.



The case, Henson v. Santander, looks pretty innocuous at first reading. But the Roberts Court’s deference to big business, and lack of experience about the real-world legislative implications of their legal debating club, turned this decision into a huge win for financial predators. It’s now up to Congress to fix what Gorsuch and friends broke. But with the current group in charge, don’t hold your breath.



Here’s what the case is about. Citi Financial Auto made a series of car loans, and then sold the defaulted debts to the Spanish bank Santander, which subsequently tried to collect. The plaintiffs allege that Santander violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) of 1977 by harassing and intimidating the debtors. The FDCPA protects debtors from such practices, enabling them to file suit against the debt collector, with hefty fines for misconduct.

Reply

The Supreme Court has no idea what they've done with this ruling.  I mean, I understand the grammatical argument, but they simply have no idea of the real world effect.

Reply
AThis is weird to me. I have been sent letters from debt buyers. The letters ALWAYS indicate on the amount who the original debt was owed to. Now, that might be statutory or it might be something easily removed because of this ruling. If I were the people bringing the suit I would point that out first thing.

On the other hand I can see the point of language written prior to industry appearing. The FCC has the same issues with the internet. I appreciate the court staying non-activist and allowing this language to change legislatively as it should but it does highlight a problematic interim.
Reply

Neil Gorsuch, campaigning with Mitch McConnell:



http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-count...nservative



Very inappropriate.  I guess he feels indebted to McConnell.

Reply
A tech billionaire wants to take his case to block access to a neighboring, public beach to SCOTUS:

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076461

Quote:A Silicon Valley tech billionaire has taken his bid to block public access to a beach next to his property to the Supreme Court, casting the case as a constitutional showdown with California.

Critics say Vinod Khosla's high-stakes gambit targets the high court's conservative wing. And if those justices bite, they say, the case could undermine coastal management across the country.

Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, is seeking review of a lower court ruling against him concerning Martins Beach, a crescent-shaped stretch of coastline west of San Jose that can only be reached via a private road that crosses Khosla's property.

Represented by one of the best country's best Supreme Court lawyers, Khosla contends that the state's requirement that he keep that road open amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property.

"The government simply cannot command that parties open their private property to the public without compensation," wrote Khosla's attorney, Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration.
Reply
Uuuuugh fuck Silicon Valley.
Reply
(03-15-2018, 05:17 PM)commodorejohn Wrote: Uuuuugh fuck Silicon Valley.

We need Max Zorin to knock them down a peg or two.
Reply
The conservatives on the Supreme Court ruled that employers can bar worker class-action suits, which could potentially limit the rights of tens of millions of employees:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...t=politics

Quote:A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers can force workers to use individual arbitration instead of class-action lawsuits to press legal claims. The decision potentially limits the rights of tens of millions of employees.

The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, said for the first time Monday that employers can enforce arbitration agreements signed by workers, even if those accords bar group claims. The majority rejected contentions that federal labor law guarantees workers the right to join forces in pressing claims.

The ruling builds on previous Supreme Court decisions that let companies channel disputes with consumers and other businesses into arbitration. The latest decision applies directly to workers’ wage-and-hour claims, and its reasoning might let employers avoid class action job-discrimination suits as well.
Reply
...and in the 'WTF SCOTUS ?!' corner.

Quote:Supreme Court Upholds Ohio’s Purge of Voting Rolls

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio’s aggressive efforts to purge its voting rolls.
The court ruled that a state may kick people off the rolls if they skip a few elections and fail to respond to a notice from state election officials.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the more conservative justices in the majority.

The case concerned Larry Harmon, a software engineer and Navy veteran who lives near Akron, Ohio. He voted in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections but did not vote in 2012, saying he was unimpressed by the candidates. He also sat out the midterm elections in 2010 and 2014.
But in 2015, Mr. Harmon did want to vote against a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana and found that his name had been stricken from the voting rolls.

Federal laws prohibit states from removing people from voter rolls “by reason of the person’s failure to vote.” But they allow election officials who suspect that a voter has moved to send a confirmation notice.
The central question in the case was whether a failure to vote could be the reason to send out the notice.

Republican led states are going to go on a tear to boot as many of 'those' people off the voter roles as possible before 2020.
I used to be with "it", but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't "it", and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me. -Grandpa Simpson
Reply
chickenshits OR perhaps good news in the long term?

Supreme Court Sidesteps Decision on Partisan Gerrymandering
I used to be with "it", but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't "it", and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me. -Grandpa Simpson
Reply
The Supreme Court ruled police officers cannot retrace the location of your cell phone without a warrant:

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-cell...ntent=1100

Quote:Police officers cannot retrace the location of your cell phone without a warrant, the Supreme Court ruled today — a narrow but critically important victory for privacy advocates as well as giant tech companies.

Why it matters: The court’s precedents have allowed a relatively broad range of warrantless searches, but Silicon Valley warned that if those “analog” rules were applied to modern smartphones, hardly anything we do would ever be private again. And they won. 

The big picture: When the police go back and retrace a suspect's steps through the location of the suspect's cell phone, that constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, the court said in a 5-4 ruling. And so police will "generally need a warrant" to access that information, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, though there will be exceptions.
Reply
current SCOTUS-- fucking the country one decision at a time.


Samuel Alito- “In redistricting cases, the ‘good faith of [the] state legislature must be presumed.'” 

Supreme Court Upholds Gerrymandered Texas Maps, Dealing a Blow to Voting Rights
The ruling will boost Republicans in the state through 2020 and perhaps beyond.
I used to be with "it", but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't "it", and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me. -Grandpa Simpson
Reply
bye, public sector unions

what a fucking week
home taping is killing music
Reply
(06-27-2018, 10:12 AM)boone daniels Wrote: bye, public sector unions

what a fucking week

This wasn't a surprise as the court had ruled 4/4 on it post Scalia death and with Gorsuch in there a 5/4 vote was pretty much a given.
I used to be with "it", but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't "it", and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me. -Grandpa Simpson
Reply
Kennedy is retiring.

We're fucked.
Reply
I have felt fairly immune to the unfolding Trumpocalypse, but his selection for the Supreme Court is nightmarish.
[Image: latest?cb=20130405010724]
Reply
(07-09-2018, 10:29 PM)Overlord Wrote: I have felt fairly immune to the unfolding Trumpocalypse, but his selection for the Supreme Court is nightmarish.

Is it though?
home taping is killing music
Reply
(07-10-2018, 06:32 AM)boone daniels Wrote:
(07-09-2018, 10:29 PM)Overlord Wrote: I have felt fairly immune to the unfolding Trumpocalypse, but his selection for the Supreme Court is nightmarish.

Is it though?

I don't get it; last week you were up in arms about the suggestion that the Dems might let Trump "get away" with putting Garland back up*, but now you're blase about Kavanaugh?

*itself a pipe dream
Reply
Of course it's nightmarish.
home taping is killing music
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)