SCOTUS under Trump


#4322

#timexwasright


#4323

I was not the only one who thought Avenati was a piece of shit that we shouldn’t hitch our wagon to.

Really, whenever a lawyer tries to make a case about themselves… Just stay away from them.


#4324

New avatar speaks like this:

Knew Avenati was bad egg. Lawyers self serving. Stay away.


#4325

That’s not Herbie Popnecker.


#4326

I read that in Jackie Earle Haley’s RS voice, and it worked perfectly :)


#4327

Wow. Chief Justice John Roberts:


#4328

It’s a lot to hope for, but my sense of Roberts is that he isn’t entirely incapable of imagining the judgement of history, at least not in the way Scalia was or Alito is. That alone might save us from conservative Sharia law.


#4329

100% chance that sometime today, someone had to tell Trump he can’t fire John Roberts.

And then someone else had to tell him, because he didn’t believe it.


#4330

“People have been telling me you can’t fire a supreme court judge. All kinds of people. Turns out they’re wrong, and I can do it if I want.” - Donald Trump, tomorrow, probably


#4331

It left in place two lower court opinions that said that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates who offer preventive care for low income women.

It would have taken four justices to agree to hear the issue, and only three conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – voted to hear the case.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to side with the court’s liberals in not taking up the case – showing an effort to avoid high-profile abortion-related issues for now.


#4332

I’m not sure I’m comfortable with judges being openly partisan, but anyway, this is kind of cool.


#4333

While I commend the action, she just moved to the left of far-right, to unaffiliated or no-preference. And also while I can understand and commend her actions and statements regarding what has been happening to illegal immigrants within her jurisdiction, she is a chief justice who’s affiliation was under a party in decline right now, both in her state, and in the house.

So the realist in me sees this also for job and future career preservation on her part. If she moves on from her current appointment, she will suffer more hardship with her current party affiliation.

So I guess I would summarize, it’s good to see, but that would not mean she would get my approval toward a future supreme court nomination. Go forth from her current position and put that into action on case loads as they appear. Show me you mean you’re not going to side conservatively going forward, and that this isn’t a short-term stance to self-preserve.


#4334

I think it’s good. Anyone who is horrified with what their party does but remains in the party after what the Republicans have been doing just makes me question how serious they really are. She doesn’t need to become a Democrat to make a stand against her former party, and yeah, judges shouldn’t be openly partisan when it comes to their work.


#4335

I tend to agree. I used to give more of a pass before the GOP started openly edging closer to Fourth Reich territory.


#4336

#4337

Well, I guess we can be thankful that Roberts isn’t a complete hack.
Although I gather that he’s largely responsible for the legal doctrine that led to the bizarre interpretation of the Arbitration Act of 1925 as a justification of mandatory binding arbitration as a substitute for class action lawsuits in everyday consumer contracts.


#4338

On the other hand:

The majority said he took too long or some bullshit. Because I guess rights have expiration dates.


#4339

This is a valid argument.

It’s not that rights have expiration dates, but rather that you can’t wait until the last minute to make a request, with the knowledge that accommodating that request will take long enough to delay your sentence.

The execution had been scheduled for 3 months, and the guy waited until 7 days before the event to make this request, which would have taken more than 7 days to accommodate. I believe that the main issue was that they couldn’t go through the security vetting procedures for the Imam he requested in the time allotted.

There’s already clearly established precedent showing that the State does not need to accommodate last minute requests designed to delay implementation of a sentence.

However, it’s possible there is something more to this case, as I can’t find the full court’s opinion. I can only find Kagan’s dissent.


#4340

This strikes me as a bullshit argument. The security vetting necessary before letting an Imam into his maximum security holding facility is basically an X-ray and metal detector scan. If the guy isn’t armed, he isn’t going to be a problem. It’s a prison.


#4341

It’s not the same issue as letting a visitor into the prison. The imam was already regularly visiting prisoners. However, additional paperwork was necessary for anyone to be present in the execution chamber itself.

The real question is whether the guy should have known that extra paperwork is required, and that’s where the various courts split.