Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

The problem is that the Democrats who may have become more excited and engaged live in the wrong places (from the Senate perspective). Heitkamp is pretty much toast, McCaskill and Donnelly will probably lose too. So even if the Dems flip AZ and NV, and hold FL and WV, the GOP expands their majority in the Senate.

 

I think common consensus is the Dems gain control of the house but lose seats in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the torrential, constant-Category-V pace of the news cycle around this administration, there's still lifetimes between here and the election.

 

However, at this point, pure election cycle talk should be taken to other threads; this one should go back to being about the actual work of SCOTUS on its cases, etc.  Even if the Senate flips, the effect on the topic of this thread will actually be minimal until another seat actually opens up on the Court.  Though it's interesting to consider whether justices would time their retirements differently if the Senate remains in Republican hands vs. flipping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the article twice and I still don't understand why the court ruled the way it did. Can someone please enlighten me in plain English?

 

Supreme Court shields Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross from answering questions in census controversy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-shields-commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-from-answering-questions-on-census/2018/10/22/33dfa890-ce5f-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KJP  They did not say he does not have to testify, only granted a stay in whether he would have to testify at this time. They never actually ruled on the specific issue. What is happening is that they are going to address this issue along with other issues involved in this matter at a later time in one bigger case that will be ruled upon by the full court.  Ultimately, what the Court has said right now is that the appeals court should stay their case until the full Supreme Court addresses this issue as well as a host of other issues related to the 2020 Census issue, which it appears they will address sometime this year, or if the appeals court moves forward right now, they cannot have Ross's deposition.

 

Ultimately, all this means, or should mean, is that the court case dealing with the Census should be delayed until the full Supreme Court can address their issues at a later point this year. My bet is Ross will probably need to submit to a deposition at some point but just not now.

 

Typically, the Court will look to consolidate as many similar issues in a case together so they are not constantly ruling on one off minutiae all the time.

Edited by Brutus_buckeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who were quick to point out the significance of sworn affidavits making allegations against Kavanaugh, it now appears that Ms. Swetnick & Mr. Avenatti have criminally consipired to make false allegations to Senate Committee and obstruct the Committee's investigation.

 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/senate-judiciary-committee-releases-summary-of-investigation-from-supreme-court-confirmation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freefourur and Brutus can BOTH be right here. 

 

Unfortunately, Avenatti's self-interest and political avarice led him to embellish claims and promote a false narrative. That doesn't help Ford and Ramirez, but it certainly doesn't discredit their statements either. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that Swetnick's claims were never taken all that seriously even during the confirmation fight.  There were clearly some indicia of a lack of credibility there.  The primary allegations against Kavanaugh were, and remain, Ford's.  Those also have indicia of a lack of credibility, but not of the kind that gets you a call-out for basically perjury to the Senate.  Ford admitted the weak points in her story herself--the age, the lack of witnesses, the lack of contemporaneous reporting or other contemporaneous evidence, just 30+ years until she starting talking about her story to a therapist and 35+ until she went public with it.  There will be no serious Senate investigation of that in the same manner they went after Avenatti and Swetnick because there is no serious evidence that Ford actively fabricated anything more contemporaneously to try to bolster her case.  She went with just the memories as they currently sat.  That meant that her tale was less damning but it also protected it from a perjury or similar investigation.  For Republicans to try to flip this on Ford, Republicans would have to become the accusers--and they'd face the same issue that Ford herself faced, which is that proving what did or didn't happen 35+ years ago is a fool's errand and whichever side has the burden of proof faces a staggeringly uphill climb.  They'd need proof of more recent nefarious acts on her part, and there doesn't seem to be much there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gramarye said:

Remember that Swetnick's claims were never taken all that seriously even during the confirmation fight.  There were clearly some indicia of a lack of credibility there.  The primary allegations against Kavanaugh were, and remain, Ford's.  

 

Perhaps.  But I think the added allegations had the desired effect of "piling on"...  and to most casual observers, there was enough detail to any one of these stories to make it seem believable, without providing any real evidence.  As if the average american could hear 2 or 3 or more allegations and say "yeah, he's probably a creep"...  whereas, if the only allegation had been Dr. Ford, it would have remained a he-said/she-said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gottaplan said:

For those who were quick to point out the significance of sworn affidavits making allegations against Kavanaugh, it now appears that Ms. Swetnick & Mr. Avenatti have criminally consipired to make false allegations to Senate Committee and obstruct the Committee's investigation.

 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/senate-judiciary-committee-releases-summary-of-investigation-from-supreme-court-confirmation

 

False accusations should be prosecuted -- they do real damage to those who would come forward to tell the truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all intents and purposes, it did remain a he-said/she-said.  The piling-on effect might have given the media more grist for the ratings but the media has been learning since at least 2016 that its power to sabotage Republicans among Republicans is highly limited.  And members of the Senate of both parties are presumptively more experienced than most at taking what the media says with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More links on that:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized.html

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/415677-ginsburg-hospitalized-after-fall

 

From the NYT, a fair reminder that she actually returned to work shortly after breaking 2 ribs in 2012, though the difference between being 79 and 85 could still make this a rougher convalescence for her.  She also returned to weeks 3 weeks after a (successful) surgery on cancer.

 

The NYT also warns about the risk of a punctured lung, but I have to assume that the risk of that was almost all up front (i.e., right after the fall) and has basically passed at this point.  IANAD, though, so obviously don't take my random pontifications on the subject of medicine on the Internet as anything other than they are.  Maybe there are other forumers who know more about the long-term risks from broken ribs.  Glad to say I've never personally experienced it [knock on wood with gavel].

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ at first glance this doesn't seem to be very serious although falls can be serious for elderly people.  That being said, I think RBG is in better physical shape than the average senior citizen.  IANAD but the danger with any rib injury is that if breathing gets shallow from the pain it could lead to pneumonia.  I once had a bruised lung from a minor bicycle accident and I was told by Urgent Care to go to the emergency room immediately.  I think extra precautions are taken when there are rib injuries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2018 at 2:08 PM, Gramarye said:

Remember that Swetnick's claims were never taken all that seriously even during the confirmation fight.  There were clearly some indicia of a lack of credibility there.  The primary allegations against Kavanaugh were, and remain, Ford's.  Those also have indicia of a lack of credibility, but not of the kind that gets you a call-out for basically perjury to the Senate.  Ford admitted the weak points in her story herself--the age, the lack of witnesses, the lack of contemporaneous reporting or other contemporaneous evidence, just 30+ years until she starting talking about her story to a therapist and 35+ until she went public with it.  There will be no serious Senate investigation of that in the same manner they went after Avenatti and Swetnick because there is no serious evidence that Ford actively fabricated anything more contemporaneously to try to bolster her case.  She went with just the memories as they currently sat.  That meant that her tale was less damning but it also protected it from a perjury or similar investigation.  For Republicans to try to flip this on Ford, Republicans would have to become the accusers--and they'd face the same issue that Ford herself faced, which is that proving what did or didn't happen 35+ years ago is a fool's errand and whichever side has the burden of proof faces a staggeringly uphill climb.  They'd need proof of more recent nefarious acts on her part, and there doesn't seem to be much there.

 

To put it very bluntly, Swetnick's claims, in the light of the culture of that era, failed Occam's Razor unless she was attending such parties hoping to be "selected".   That was unusual then but not unheard of.  Had it been often and non-consensual it would have come to light quite quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, freefourur said:

Supreme Court: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, hospitalized after fracturing 3 ribs in fall at court

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-85-hospitalized-after-fracturing-3-ribs-in-fall-at-court/

 

it's gonna be a long 2 years. 

 

Trump's not a conservative or a constitutionalist.   He believes only in Trump.

 

To replace Ginsburg, he'll appoint a moderate, perhaps even a Democrat, after gaining concessions from the Dems for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, E Rocc said:

 

Trump's not a conservative or a constitutionalist.   He believes only in Trump.

 

To replace Ginsburg, he'll appoint a moderate, perhaps even a Democrat, after gaining concessions from the Dems for doing so.

 

 

I highly doubt it.  He will appoint a hardliner to fire up his base.  But as of right now there is no opening on the Court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E Rocc: I doubt that.  First, I don't think Ginsburg is actually going to be replaced anytime soon, unless these broken ribs lead to follow-on complications that make functioning much more difficult.

 

However, Trump has been very consistent in delivering strong constitutionalist judges regardless of his own thoughts (which are half-formed at best) on constitutional law and legal theory.  I think there's a very good chance he pulls the trigger on Amy Coney Barrett if he is still in office and still has a solid Senate majority when the next seat opens (regardless of whether it's RBG's).  If not, it will still be someone from the FedSoc-vetted list, maybe Hardiman (who people think has a stealth lobbyist in Trump's very low-profile sister).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaysus, the bad guys just keep getting win after win. Can we all agree the 2000s have been brutal.

Edited by TBideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Trump's not a conservative or a constitutionalist.   He believes only in Trump.

 

To replace Ginsburg, he'll appoint a moderate, perhaps even a Democrat, after gaining concessions from the Dems for doing so.

 

Why?  He only needs Senate approval.  You think the GOP is going to back off of another far right operative?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 10:04 AM, Gramarye said:

E Rocc: I doubt that.  First, I don't think Ginsburg is actually going to be replaced anytime soon, unless these broken ribs lead to follow-on complications that make functioning much more difficult.

 

However, Trump has been very consistent in delivering strong constitutionalist judges regardless of his own thoughts (which are half-formed at best) on constitutional law and legal theory.  I think there's a very good chance he pulls the trigger on Amy Coney Barrett if he is still in office and still has a solid Senate majority when the next seat opens (regardless of whether it's RBG's).  If not, it will still be someone from the FedSoc-vetted list, maybe Hardiman (who people think has a stealth lobbyist in Trump's very low-profile sister).

 

If he's still in office and under investigation (which is basically one in the same for him), then he will nominate someone who has opined or expressed in some way that executive powers are broad and shouldn't be challenged.   I don't know anything about Amy Coney Barrett, but if she doesn't follow that, I'm willing to bet she won't be his pick.  I'm out of my swimlane here, but I don't believe Kavanaugh was someone on the top of anyone but Trump's list, for this very reason. 

Edited by ck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Why?  He only needs Senate approval.  You think the GOP is going to back off of another far right operative?

 

Do you think he's actually "far right", as opposed to playing it when it suits him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Do you think he's actually "far right", as opposed to playing it when it suits him?

He will absolutely appoint a far right candidate if it is before his 2020 re-election. That was one of his major selling points to his conservative base voters...he’s constantly telling us himself.

 

After that, who know what he’ll do (but I still wouldn’t bet on a moderate appointee myself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 3:04 PM, ck said:

 

If he's still in office and under investigation (which is basically one in the same for him), then he will nominate someone who has opined or expressed in some way that executive powers are broad and shouldn't be challenged.   I don't know anything about Amy Coney Barrett, but if she doesn't follow that, I'm willing to bet she won't be his pick.  I'm out of my swimlane here, but I don't believe Kavanaugh was someone on the top of anyone but Trump's list, for this very reason. 

If you look at most conservative jurisprudence, most conservative justices in the vein of Scalia and Kennedy tended to be more libertarian leaning than big government.

 

Many conservatives loathe the Chevron decision from years ago so I don't think many picks would be in the mold to hold up something that grants wide executive power just because it would protect Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If you look at most conservative jurisprudence, most conservative justices in the vein of Scalia and Kennedy tended to be more libertarian leaning than big government.

 

Many conservatives loathe the Chevron decision from years ago so I don't think many picks would be in the mold to hold up something that grants wide executive power just because it would protect Trump.

 

Would you consider Kavanaugh to have been a top choice of most conservatives before Trump selected him?  If not, that's the point.  There's a certain viewpoint Kavanaugh had that doesn't necessarily jive with conservative ideology overall.  That appears to be why he was selected by Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While he was not personally my first choice, he was very qualified. Is he as libertarian as say Scalia or even Gorsuch, probably not. However, I do think he would be closer to a Gorsuch than say an Alito on the court. 

 

As mentioned, one of the key cases conservatives loathe is the Chevron case, which essentially allows federal agencies and the executive branch to consolidate power without Congressional approval (they may obviously check an overreach but passing legislation is difficult). Would someone like Kavanaugh who would tend to disagree with Chevron (and I have not read him close enough to know this) rule on a case that gives Trump's actions cover, solely as payback for the nomination, while at the same time create precedent that he would otherwise seek to avoid. 

 

Logically, I cant see this. While I am sure he appreciates Trump selecting him to the Court, he has a lifetime appointment and therefore, is not beholden to Trump in anyway and does not need to answer to him. He is completely independent. I do not think the Justices, any Justice acts as a Quid Pro Quo to protect any administration in matters where their judicial philosophy does not necessarily agree with the administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always interesting to read the cases where justices ostensibly far apart on the most high-profile 5-4 cases come together without bringing the rest of their colleagues along.

 

The Court just denied cert in a Sixth Amendment case from Arizona involving evidence in a drunk driving case.  Dissenting from cert were Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2018/11/19/gorsuch-and-sotomayor-fault-scotus-for-d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Not super related, I think I like Sotomayor than RBG.

 

Some left – libertarian friends of mine were very much against Sotomayor’s appointment, particularly because of her take in Doninger v. Niehoff.    She definitely has a tendency to side with government over the individual.   As did Garland. Probably my least favorite justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/11/02/curtis-flowers-supreme-court-appeal

 

I am invested (personally) in the outcome of this case, thanks mostly to listening to season 2 of In The Dark, an investigative podcast.  Curtis Flowers has been tried six times by one man - Grenada County (MS) District Attorney Doug Evans - over 21 years.  Evans has a history of both Brady and Batson violations, but to my knowledge has suffered no professional repercussions.  Curtis Flowers, meanwhile, has spent 21 years in prison while four of his convictions have been overturned and 2 of his trials ended in a mistrial.  He has been found guilty by all-white or nearly all-white juries in every trial.

 

There is also an apparent Brady violation uncovered at the tail end of the podcast series - another suspect who claims he was interviewed for hours and held in county jail for 11 days.  In turning over evidence, he was mentioned one time on investigators' notes.  The suspect claims all of his questioning was recorded.

 

It is cases like these that still get to me - an open racist violating his duties as an attorney and public prosecutor who receives little to no consequences for his actions, while a potentially innocent man spends over half his life in prison precisely because of that prosecutorial misconduct.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what?

 

All 83 Of The Ethics Complaints Against Justice Brett Kavanaugh Were Dismissed Because He's On The Supreme Court Now

A panel of judges concluded that Kavanaugh is no longer covered by the judiciary's disciplinary system now that he's a Supreme Court justice.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/brett-kavanaugh-ethics-complaints-dismissed-supreme-court


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/21/679065534/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-undergoes-surgery-for-lung-cancer

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Undergoes Surgery For Lung Cancer

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery Friday for early stage lung cancer, a Supreme Court spokesperson tells NPR. Doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering hospital in New York performed a lobectomy, removing one of the five lobes of the lung.

 

Short of complications in recovery, doctors say prospects look good for a full recovery for Ginsburg, 85. She hopes to be back on the court for the start of the next argument session in early January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ginsburg may live for many more years, but she seems determined to give every other liberal in this country a heart attack before she goes!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So disturbing.... EDIT: maybe this should go in the crazy conspiracies thread??

 

Dan Zak for the Washington Post:

“She still looks and sounds like the Washington wife of yore, with the pearl earrings, the Reagan-red cocktail attire, the sunglasses tiara’d atop her blond bob. At the holidays, she lays wreaths at Arlington and sings carols around the piano with her be-sweatered husband, Clarence, who happens to be the longest-serving justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Memorial Day means a backyard barbecue with star-spangled tablecloths and a sheet cake that reads ‘God Bless America!’

 

“But meanwhile, on Facebook, she’s behaving like your slightly paranoid neighbor who stockpiles bullets and astronaut food.”

 

This month, Ginni Thomas shared a Facebook post that bizarrely described California as a war zone, with illegal immigrants scaling walls and carjacking U.S. citizens. Last month, she shared a post alleging that Democrats committed voter fraud in four midterm races. (Which ones? How? She didn’t say.) Then there was the post in August (since deleted) proclaiming that teenage survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting are “dangerous to the survival of our nation” because of their gun-control activism. And the post in February that harangued Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for supposedly wiretapping Donald Trump — a baseless accusation indulged in only by conspiracy theorists.

 

What is Ginni Thomas saying now? The evolution of an unusually outspoken Supreme Court spouse

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-is-ginni-thomas-saying-now-the-evolution-of-an-unusually-outspoken-supreme-court-spouse/2018/12/26/883da960-f753-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html

Edited by KJP

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I'm the first one to post anything about today's decision? This is the first of many horrific 5-4 decisions to erode Americans' rights...

 

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2016, Caitlyn Jenner said we should support candidate Circus Peanut. Whoops.

If only there were signs in his past behavior that would have led Jenner to think maybe she shouldn't trust him..... if only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KJP said:

Really? I'm the first one to post anything about today's decision? This is the first of many horrific 5-4 decisions to erode Americans' rights...

 

 

 

 

Putting things into perspective Ken so you can calm down a bit on this case. The Supreme Court DID NOT necessarily say Trump's ban is Constitutional. The case has never even reached the Supreme Court. The decision only deals with lifting the temporary injunction while the matter works itself through the courts. THis may never reach the Supreme Court and other appeals courts may invalidate it. The Supreme Court could hear the case on its merits still and then make a decision. However, the decision to date was not on the merits and only regarding a temporary injunction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...