SCOTAL Itch

[SR71]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

This isn't SCOTAL but ever since I saw the PBS Frontline special "Supreme Justice" I've been paying more attention to that shitstain McConnell spraying his mark all over the judicial system and it makes me so fucking angry! I used to be an "average American" so I can assure you most citizens don't even pay attention to Congress at all, much less to some random Senator from Kentucky. And I suspect most don't pay close enough attention to the judicial to know that federal judges are appointed for life.

News | Senate confirms 200th judicial nominee from Trump, a legacy that will last well beyond November - The Washington Post

I don't think most even know there's a Grabby McGrabberson full fledged bid for autocrat in progress. Now I understand how it happens.

[Stephen Maturin]

June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Russo, 591 U.S. ___:

Back in 2012, Chief Justice Roberts kept the Affordable Care Act afloat by deciding that the individual mandate was a valid exercise of the taxing power. Today, he killed that Louisiana "admitting privileges" law by voting with Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

One day a case that presents the opportunity to overrule the Roe/Casey line of cases will make it to SCOTUS. When it does, the decision whether the right to choose continues to exist at all and, if so, in what form will depend entirely on Roberts. In his case, he followed the precedent set in Whole Women's Health, a case that shot down a near-identical Texas law, even though he dissented in that case. That's grounds for extremely cautious optimism.

[viscousmemories]

I'm so cynical I keep thinking SCOTUS is making these uplifting rulings just to make people put their guard down and think maybe the GOP stealing the court isn't so evil after all.

[erimir]

I think Roberts thinks Trump is going to lose and may drag down the GOP Senate with him. It may be he figures that dissuading Democratic Senators from packing the courts is better for his long-term ideological projects than getting an abortion victory right now.

Also, it was pretty blatant hackery of Republicans to attempt to overturn Whole Women's Health in this manner, and Roberts, while he may be a hack, is more concerned than the other Republicans on the court about not appearing to be a hack. Which I guess plays into the court packing concern - blatant Republican hackery on the court makes the case for court packing even easier than merely delivering conservative victories.

The plan is probably just to wait for the Democrats to lose the Senate again, then do more right-wing hackery, after it's too late for them to respond because Biden can't get anyone confirmed.

In the meantime, while Roberts is a politician in a sense (he's certainly not an umpire calling balls and strikes), Supreme Court justices are not electoral politicians and don't necessarily know what's smart for those purposes (cf. Kagan agreeing to trade the ACA mandate for making the Medicaid expansion optional, presumably because she thought it would be electoral suicide for Republicans to reject it or that they wouldn't be so cynical and callous. Bad trade!). I wonder whether he's miscalculating in thinking that some of these decisions will make Democrats complacent rather than demoralizing conservative voters. I hope that he is.

I'm of the opinion that unless Clarence Thomas drops dead between January 21 and March 2021 or something, they should definitely just go ahead and pack the SCOTUS. And probably either way, they ought to expand the judiciary and reorganize the circuits. Hell, even if Thomas does drop dead, they probably ought to expand SCOTUS, to lighten the workload on individual justices.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

lucy-football.jpg

[Stephen Maturin]

The majority holds that a Montana scholarship program unlawfully discriminated against religious schools by excluding them from a tax benefit. The threshold problem, however, is that such tax benefits no longer exist for anyone in the State. The Montana Supreme Court invalidated the program on state-law grounds, thereby foreclosing the as-applied challenge petitioners raise here. Indeed, nothing required the state court to uphold the program or the state legislature to maintain it. The Court nevertheless reframes the case and appears to ask whether a longstanding Montana constitutional provision is facially invalid under the Free Exercise Clause, even though petitioners disavowed bringing such a claim. But by resolving a constitutional question not presented, the Court fails to heed Article III principles older than the Religion Clause it expounds. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730 (1991) (forbidding “resolution of a federal question” that “cannot affect” a state-court judgment).

Not only is the Court wrong to decide this case at all, it decides it wrongly.

Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___, ____ (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

From now on, if a state provides some financial benefit to some private schools (a tax credit, in this case), it must provide the same benefit to all private schools, including religious ones. The many state constitutional provisions that preclude giving public money to churches have gone to be with Jesus. May their souls find peace in the Lord's loving embrace.

I've never been burdened with a belief that there really is a "wall of separation" between church and state, as Jefferson put it, or religion and government, as Madison put it. Hell, in the first case where the Court applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the states, it held that a law authorizing use of public money to reimburse parents for the cost of transporting their snot miners to religious schools was A-OK. But now they've gone straight up Ray Liotta in Goodfellas ("Your state constitution says you can't give taxpayer money to a church? Fuck you, pay me").

Speaking of the Establishment Clause and state governments, Clarence Thomas at long last has a playmate! Since 2002, ol' Clarence has been a one-man band advocating for the view that all the Establishment Clause does is prohibit the federal government from setting up a national religion; states are free have their own official churches, so long as state laws regarding the official church are not so coercive as to violate citizens' Free Exercise rights. The position is enough of a jaw-dropper that even Scalia wouldn't sign on. Scalia wouldn't, but Neil Gorsuch did.

[viscousmemories]

I saw this case in the news but didn't understand it until now. Thanks for all you do Mr. Maturin!

[SR71]

I'm glad this is settled before this particular election.

Supreme Court rules presidential electors can be forced to uphold popular vote

I'd hate to see any shenanigans like that being decided after the fact.

[SR71]

Here comes the judge, here comes the judge...

The tax return final decision on Thursday. Is it tomorrow yet?

[Stephen Maturin]

As a practical matter, Trump won both financial documentation cases. The Court didn't shut down either case entirely, as Trump demanded, but both the case involving the Congressional subpoenas and the case involving the state subpoena got sent back to their respective trial courts for further proceedings.

Bottom line: we won't be seeing any Trump tax returns or other financial documents before November.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Kick something into the long grass - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

To halt or stall something, especially a plan or project, so as to postpone having to make a decision or action regarding it. Primarily heard in UK.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Bottom line: we won't be seeing any Trump tax returns or other financial documents before November.

Is there at least an increased probability of his facing legal problems post-Presidency (should that ever occur)?

[SR71]

I think it's at least not less likely now. If Dump gets , I assume Bilbar Baggins will get scotched PDQ, then the US Attorneys Bilbar massacred and replaced with drones will, in turn, get replaced by actual sentient beings. That should clear the runway for any justifiable prosecutions that are queued up to start hitting the docket. If I understand the ruling, he will have to put up with the grand jury having his financials, whether he bloody well likes it or not.

Anyone with actual qualifications feel free to step in and disabuse me of any silly notions I may have expressed here.

[Kyuss Apollo]

Another take on teh recent ruling on Trump's tax returns on Politico:

Actually, the Supreme Court Just Gave Congress a Big Win: Trump might have won a short-term political battle. But Congress’ subpoena power is clearer than it ever was.

:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mazars USA is best viewed in tandem with the Republican Senate majority’s acquittal of Trump for obstruction of Congress. Trump’s lawyers successfully argued that the president can totally flout any requests for information from Congress to the Executive Branch with impunity, leaving American voters and their representatives without the basic information needed for oversight. Congress gave that power away, with nothing gained in return. The Supreme Court just handed it back.

I still think the Democrats should have started pushing this project like, 3 1/2 years ago. Anyone surprised Team Trump would defy congressional subpoenas, raise your hand.

Yeah, thought so. Too bad none of us are running the House Ways & Means Committee.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

But her emails.

In the middle of the night, by a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court authorized the execution of a mentally incompetent Alzheimer’s patient who does not understand why the government wants to kill him.

He was executed 20 minutes ago.

Read the liberals’ dissents: https://t.co/eEe8g3resI

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 16, 2020

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Tiny old woman defeats machinations of evil 200 kilogram Warlord, armed only with indomitable spirit, will to live, and her mastery of the Red Tiger School of Tae Kwon Do. pic.twitter.com/DkH9pI3Dic

— DPRK News Service (@DPRK_News) July 17, 2020

[Stephen Maturin]

On remand from the Supreme Court, a federal trial court judge in New York has dismissed Trump's lawsuit against against the Manhattan District Attorney in which shitboy sought to enjoin enforcement of a New York state grand jury subpoena issued to Trump's accountants. That was exceptionally fast and thorough (there's a link to the 103-page opinion in the article) work, so big ups to Judge Victor Marrero and his his law clerk.

The appeals will now begin anew. The real question is whether Trump's lawyers can persuade any federal court to continue staying enforcement of the subpoena while the appeals are pending.

[viscousmemories]

Hey Mr. Maturin,

I saw this law prof Samuel Moyn interviewed by Katie Halper the other night and he had some interesting opinions about whether the Democrats should pack the court if they take the WH and Congress. He wrote this article in the Atlantic and contributed to this one too.

The tl;dr was that focus should be on de-clawing the SCOTUS instead of packing, arguing that a Democracy should be ruled by the people, not a star chamber. (I paraphrase).

Thoughts?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Justice Clarence Thomas suggests Supreme Court should overturn same-sex marriage in scathing attack | Salon.com

[Ensign Steve]

This isn't really scotal, but can someone please lawyerpslain what is happening with SpaceX and the Air Force?

Case closed: California judge ends SpaceX's lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force - SpaceNews

I don't know if spacenews.com is a reputable source, but you got enough search terms there at least.

Are they just, like, suing because they didn't win a bid? WTF? Over.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

Are they just, like, suing because they didn't win a bid? WTF? Over.

They should have bid less then. Duh.

Looks like clickbait with a side order of truth.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

Are they just, like, suing because they didn't win a bid? WTF?

Can't comment on the reliability of spacenews.com () as a source, but yes, it does in fact appear that SpaceX ( Elon Musk) did indeed sue because it failed to win a bid for a government contract.

SpaceX originally filed its lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which ruled over a year ago that it lacked jurisdiction over the case and transferred it to a different federal court. The Court of Claims' opinion, available here, explains the lawsuit and the circumstances giving rise to it in more detail than one might want.

The spacenews.com () article says the California-based federal court to which the case was transferred dismissed the case on 10/2. The opinion is apparently sealed, likely due to it including confidential, proprietary and/or classified material. However, spacenews.com () tells us the dismissal was based on a determination that "the Air Force’s actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of the law, and that SpaceX was not entitled to any relief in this action.” That make sense. A government agency's decision regarding an award of contracts is administrative in nature and subject only to limited judicial review. Per the Administrative Procedures Act, particularly 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), a court can set aside an administrative decision that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
Spacenews.com's () description of the ruling accords with the legal standard the court would have applied.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

This isn't really scotal, but can someone please lawyerpslain what is happening with SpaceX and the Air Force?

Case closed: California judge ends SpaceX's lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force - SpaceNews

I don't know if spacenews.com is a reputable source, but you got enough search terms there at least.

Are they just, like, suing because they didn't win a bid? WTF? Over.

Yes. Honest to god government procurement is one of the most specialized and complicated and overall godawful areas of law. Google "Federal Acquistion Regulations" one day and slip into a sweet coma reading the table of contents.

I do not know enough about procurement to talk knowledgeably, but basically, you can sue the government over the procurement process. (Generally you can only sue the federal government in specific circumstances and when the government consents to be sued - this is one area where there is a statute allowing them to be sued). SpaceX on the receiving end of an adverse action by a government agency. When that happens, you can ultimately get the courts to review it under the Administrative Procedures Act. The standard for getting a court to make the agency reverse an adverse action is, among other things, if the action was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." So it sounds like court looked at the administrative record and decided nope, they lost fair and square.

ETA since Maturin stole my mojo:

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Justice Clarence Thomas suggests Supreme Court should overturn same-sex marriage in scathing attack | Salon.com

Incredibly enough, this is more Kim Davis shit. After the Supreme Court shot down same-sex marriage laws in 2015, Davis - the clerk of Burnt Scrotum County, KY or some such shit - refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on "religious" grounds. There was a federal lawsuit seeking a mandatory injunction requiring issuance of the licenses. That one did no go well for Davis.

This separate lawsuit involved a civil action for money damages brought by two same-sex couples under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Davis argued that she was immune from liability under the doctrines of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. A federal trial court and federal court of appeals held that (1) Davis acted on behalf of the State of Kentucky, such that sovereign immunity precluded claims against her in her official capacity, but (2) qualified immunity did not apply, so claims against Davis in her individual capacity can proceed. The court of appeal opinion is available here.

Davis appealed the portion of the ruling she lost, and today the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.. Thomas and Alito agreed with the decision not to hear the case because it "implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them." It may or may not be true, but I'll take that as acknowledgement that Mat Staver of Jerry Falwell's "Liberty Counsel" did a shit job on his cert petition.

In any event, ol' Clarence's statement is dripping with snowflake accommodation verbiage such as "Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last" and [s]ince Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy."

[Kyuss Apollo]

spacenews.com () =

ISN

When you need to know what Elon Musk or the Narn are really up to.