SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

I guess his wife's under the table grifting wasn't enough to pay the bills. Maybe just use a tent instead of an RV you couldn't afford

 

So the basic charge here is that Thomas is a 'kept Justice' by white conservative economic interests? A man willing to keep doing the right wing's bidding as long as the pay and perks are good enough? IIRC there is a term for that in the American lexicon 

[pfife]

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/we-are-witnessing-the-biggest-judicial-power-grab-since-1803/?utm_campaign=SproutSocial&utm_content=The+Nation+Magazine,thenation&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook,twitter

We Are Witnessing the Biggest Judicial Power Grab Since 1803

During a major hearing this week, the conservative justices made clear they’re about to gut the federal government’s power to regulate—and take that power for themselves.

Edited January 19, 2024 by pfife

[pfife]

More on the Chevron deference 

https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1750275148303753359?s=20

Edited January 25, 2024 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, pfife said:

More on the Chevron deference 

https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1750275148303753359?s=20

I don't even think the formulation in this tweet captures it. It isn't necessarily even that the law isn't *clear*, it's that regulatory legislation usually establishes a framework and objectives and the Executive branch formulates the rules in detail. That is the only way it can work in practice because the Congress has no technical expertise to get into  the weeds.. The Right wants gut even this aspect.

[pfife]

The court that granted itself the power to overturn laws is going to grant itself the power to be the administrative state.   Some folks here think that's hilarious

[pfife]

I'm sick and tired of special rights for Republicans.     The SCOTUS needs to bounce this bleeper off every ballot forever.   Of course instead they'll probably just find a way to make him president today.

[CMRivdogs]

 three of them are still repaying him for their appointment. At least two others are tied to other financial committments they're still paying off 

[oblong]

It will be  6-3 decision.  I'm not telling you which way but I can see Barret/Chief/Kavanaugh siding with the libs, and I could just as easily see them siding with the other 3.

But I suspect it will be the latter.  No way a court with 6 conservatives will let "states rights" prevail.

 

[ewsieg]

In the little I was able to listen towards the end, if Jackson sides with Colorado, she made them earn it.  She seemed particularly tough on their argument.

[Edman85]

25 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

In the little I was able to listen towards the end, if Jackson sides with Colorado, she made them earn it.  She seemed particularly tough on their argument.

Kagan too... I could see this being unanimous.

[mtutiger]

Would be surprised if it wasn't unanimous...

I do think that if they even hear the immunity case though, it's going to be a different story. At least outside of Thomas and Alito

[oblong]

9-0 and 8-1 decisions are good.

Of course Trump will say it means he's innocent and didn't do an insurrection.

And I have some doubts that if CO had for some reason ruled Biden ineligible for something that the ruling would be 9-0 or 8-1.  Alito and Thomas, and Gorsuch probably, would come up with a reason to sustain it.

 

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, oblong said:

9-0 and 8-1 decisions are good.

Of course Trump will say it means he's innocent and didn't do an insurrection.

And I have some doubts that if CO had for some reason ruled Biden ineligible for something that the ruling would be 9-0 or 8-1.  Alito and Thomas, and Gorsuch probably, would come up with a reason to sustain it.

 

I was pretty agnostic on this one overall, but it shouldn't be surprising. And I'm not sure I love the precedent set if they did see it through.

The ruling yesterday on immunity, to the extent that the law is a factor going forward, is gonna be where the rubber meets the road. I suspect that SCOTUS will not take that one up and there *will* be a trial on the DC Case prior to the election.

[pfife]

I really enjoyed being able to listen to this oral argument, even though I'm  fully aware the justices already all have their minds made up.

The talking heads were saying they thought Trump's team would concentrate on this office/officer technicality but really Trump's defense had what felt to me like a much stronger argument.   

I thought the argument he was making (paraphrasing) where he said if you take him off the ballot, you're essentially blocking congress's power to "remove" the designation which is also stated in the amendment, was a very strong argument.   So for instance, it's objectively determinable whether TayTay will be 35 by the time she's president.  However it is not objectively determinable whether Congress would remove the restriction.   It's very similar to the same question we were discussing elsewhere where the Constitution says the criteria to be president but it doesn't' say anything about criteria to run for president.

I thought Trump's attorney did a good job, maybe he even convinced me. I still think he engaged in insurrection and the constitution says you can't do that and be president, but I also agree with the reasoning presented.

[pfife]

One thing that I did find pretty ridiculous in that hearing though was the "discussion" about how if they allow Colorado to keep Trump off the ballot, the projected outcome is that "the presidency will be decided by a handful of states"

I wonder if the justices are genuinely unaware of "the electoral college" and "status quo" or if they were being purposefully intellectually dishonest.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

being purposefully intellectually dishonest.

I really think a lot them just are not all that bright and on top of that they are ideologically blinkered enough to protect themselves from having to see and deal with the real. Plus these are mostly folks who were climbers their whole lives, it's how they got there. The serious intellectuals on both sides are probably cul-de-sac'd at the district level or in law schools because anyone who really thinks is probably going to be too controversial for either side to get to the SCOTUS. Or you get a guy like Kavanaugh, who has just been a pilot fish doing the dirty work in the wake of bigger swimmers all his life who finally earned enough chits to get tabbed.

Edited February 10, 2024 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

... they are ideologically blinkered enough to ...

This is the only thing that needs to be stated...

[chasfh]

On 2/10/2024 at 7:26 AM, pfife said:

I really enjoyed being able to listen to this oral argument, even though I'm  fully aware the justices already all have their minds made up.

The talking heads were saying they thought Trump's team would concentrate on this office/officer technicality but really Trump's defense had what felt to me like a much stronger argument.   

I thought the argument he was making (paraphrasing) where he said if you take him off the ballot, you're essentially blocking congress's power to "remove" the designation which is also stated in the amendment, was a very strong argument.   So for instance, it's objectively determinable whether TayTay will be 35 by the time she's president.  However it is not objectively determinable whether Congress would remove the restriction.   It's very similar to the same question we were discussing elsewhere where the Constitution says the criteria to be president but it doesn't' say anything about criteria to run for president.

I thought Trump's attorney did a good job, maybe he even convinced me. I still think he engaged in insurrection and the constitution says you can't do that and be president, but I also agree with the reasoning presented.

If I’m understanding your interpretation of their argument right, this is basically saying that if TayTay were objectively under 35, she should not be prevented from running for president for running afoul of the Constitution’s age floor because that would prevent effectively Congress from changing the age floor to 30, since she would have been barred from running for being under 35. Do I have that straight? 

[pfife]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If I’m understanding your interpretation of their argument right, this is basically saying that if TayTay were objectively under 35, she should not be prevented from running for president for running afoul of the Constitution’s age floor because that would prevent effectively Congress from changing the age floor to 30, since she would have been barred from running for being under 35. Do I have that straight? 

No, congress can't change the minimum age.  There's no constitutional mechanism for congress changing the min age to be president, the constitution would need to be amended.

The 14th Amendment Section 3 though does explicitly say that congress can remove the sanctions that preclude one from being in office b/c they engaged in insurrection.   So if they bounce him from the ballot congress (theoretically) could remove that sanction after the ballot was printed/election happened without him on the ballot, so he winds up jammed in that scenario.    

[pfife]

SCOTUS to hear "presidential immunity" case.  Ridiculous.

[pfife]

The constitution doesn't really say anything the SCOTFS found in today's 14th Amendment decision. 

[ewsieg]

On 2/28/2024 at 8:44 PM, pfife said:

SCOTUS to hear "presidential immunity" case.  Ridiculous.

The only partial defense I can make on this is that it's so ridiculous, it's probably good for them to strike it down.  That said, that's a reach.  Even with that, you'd think they could have fast tracked it a bit.

With this case , this is where democrats need to act like republicans a bit.  Jack Smith should be openly stating now that he will pursue this case as quickly as possible and state the DOJ 'rules' do not apply as he started the process well before the election and it was not his delays that kept it into the run up to the election.  

[chasfh]

20 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

The only partial defense I can make on this is that it's so ridiculous, it's probably good for them to strike it down.  That said, that's a reach.  Even with that, you'd think they could have fast tracked it a bit.

With this case , this is where democrats need to act like republicans a bit.  Jack Smith should be openly stating now that he will pursue this case as quickly as possible and state the DOJ 'rules' do not apply as he started the process well before the election and it was not his delays that kept it into the run up to the election.  

SCOTUS didn’t have to take it on to strike it down. All they had to do was refuse to take it on and it stays struck down by the Appeals Court and it goes back to District Court for trial.

And they could have fast-tracked it, like they fast-tracked Colorado ballot to help Trump. But nope.

They also could have taken it on when Jack Smith asked them to earlier this year and they didn’t do so. You could say, well, the Appeals Court had to rule on it first before SCOTUS could take it on, and you’d be right considering that’s how the process of judicial review works. Well, except when Ohio asks the Court to block an EPA climate regulation before the DC circuit has even weighs in. Then the Court’s like, sure, we'll schedule that for you, no prob.

[romad1]

If Clarence Thomas doesn't recuse for things that his wife is involved in, the entire game is deeply deeply corrupted and illegitimate.  If it is illegitimate, there is cause for violence per the January 6 rules.   

[chasfh]

I think just about everybody accepts by now that the Supreme Court is has been deeply corrupted and delegitimatized, even beyond Clarence Thomas. I think the $64 question is now, how long does the Court try to keep up the pretense before they take off the mask and lean hard into it all.