Jump to content

SCOTUS rulings 2020

Nice Guy Eddie

By Nice Guy Eddie
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
Posted

Surprised we didn't have a thread this year to discuss the rulings and their political impact.

With the latest abortion ruling, Roberts is implying that he doesn't want to overturn long standing precedents even if he disagrees with it. The Court doesn't appear to have votes to overturn Roe unless the GOP can get another Federalist Society member on the bench.

I also wonder if Roberts isn't playing politics some here in that he wants to go easy on controversial cases in an election year. It could imply that he will give Trump some cover with investigation/subpoena data on his financial background. I don't think Roberts would agree that a President is above the law but perhaps he can find a narrow ruling that would unlikely give future Presidents a similar right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

Roberts is tired of Trump running his mouth. He was ready to back this law, imo if not for trump 

I think it's a few things, but less a rebuke of Trump and more that he wants a challenge that isn't based on essentially the exact same law they struck down just 4 years ago. His primary concern is maintaining the Court's legitimacy in the public's eye while pushing it rightward, so he's willing to slow play his judicial activism when being too obvious about shit might become politically difficult. The last thing he wants to do right now is give the Dems even more of a reason to want to publicly criticize the Court and push for efforts to enlarge the bench. 

This doesn't mean he's not willing to neuter Roe, but like with the Census and the DACA cases he doesn't want to look like a completely partisan asshole when doing it. He's practically begging for someone to bring a more competent challenge that he can pretend to distinguish from Whole Woman's Health.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14251

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Roberts is tired of Trump running his mouth. He was ready to back this law, imo if not for trump 

I disagree.  Didn't he write the opinion striking down the same law in Texas just a couple years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Abortion law is about oppressing poor people.  No law on earth is going to stop a rich white lady from getting a safe/confidential abortion and everyone damn well knows it.

you know the attitude: Abortions are what poor people use for birth control and the lack of judgement. Rich people are fixing a quiet issue that will ruin their daughter's life because of a small indiscretion. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

4D chess !

If Kennedy was on the court and had joined the Liberal side for this vote, I think there is a good chance Roberts would have joined the conservative side. It's not like the Supreme Court acts in some academic vacuum with their decisions. They can be just as political as the Exec and Legis branches.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26283

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If Kennedy was on the court and had joined the Liberal side for this vote, I think there is a good chance Roberts would have joined the conservative side. It's not like the Supreme Court acts in some academic vacuum with their decisions. They can be just as political as the Exec and Legis branches.

I've never been a Roberts fan and I'm still not one, but I do appreciate that at least for now he is acting as though he sees his job in terms of protecting the institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanRydell

DanRydell 799

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Roberts is implying that he doesn't want to overturn long standing precedents even if he disagrees with it. The Court doesn't appear to have votes to overturn Roe unless the GOP can get another Federalist Society member on the bench

I'm not so sure that is what he was saying. I think all he's saying is "we just fucking ruled on the same law four years ago, you don't get to just get a do-over because there are a couple of new justices, and fuck you Fifth Circuit for ignoring clear precedent and putting this back on our plate right now."

But if someone wants to bring a more novel argument and the question before the Court is whether Roe or Casey should be overturned rather than whether these regulations violate Whole Women's Health, he may come down a different way.

Edited by DanRydell
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9903

Posted
Posted

I mean, even by conservative standards, this was a bold move Cotton.  Let's ask the Court to overturn it's own ruling two years later.  I agree a different challenge could entice Roberts to severely limit or overturn Roe, but he's at the "At least buy me a drink" stage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11776

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Abortion law is about oppressing poor people.  No law on earth is going to stop a rich white lady from getting a safe/confidential abortion and everyone damn well knows it.

 

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

you know the attitude: Abortions are what poor people use for birth control and the lack of judgement. Rich people are fixing a quiet issue that will ruin their daughter's life because of a small indiscretion. 

If they wanted access to abortions then why did they choose to be poor in the first place?

Think About It Reaction GIF by Identity

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31282

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DanRydell said:

I'm not so sure that is what he was saying. I think all he's saying is "we just fucking ruled on the same law four years ago, you don't get to just get a do-over because there are a couple of new justices, and fuck you Fifth Circuit for ignoring clear precedent and putting this back on our plate right now."

But if someone wants to bring a more novel argument and the question before the Court is whether Roe or Casey should be overturned rather than whether these regulations violate Whole Women's Health, he may come down a different way.

The Fifth Circuit cannot be told to fuck itself often enough.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31282

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I know the Court rejected this a few years ago, but Roberts dissenting in that case and then doing a 180 now that his vote would actually be decisive  is not exactly what I would describe as upholding the integrity of the institution.  Even if you agree with the result, I think it does more to expose the Court (or at least John Roberts) as political outcome motivated schemers than it does to guard against that perception.

It’s the SCOTUS equivalent of the Republicans campaigning on repealing and replacing Obamacare for 6 years, and then when they actually get the opportunity they reveal that they were full of shit the whole time and don’t even really want it to change.

Nah.

Having a decision overturn less-than-a-decade-old precedent just because of a change in the composition of the court is bad business.

The losers on decisions have to eat their losses.  Except Clarence, he just eats paste.

Plus, double fuck the Fifth Circuit for sending the same case to the Supreme Court twice in a decade.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31282

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If any justice eats paste, it’s definitely Alito. He’s shockingly stupid for a judge, much less a Supreme Court justice.

I'll take your word.  Clarence has some weird ideas so you do kind of know he's thinking, if in an aberrant way.  I don't remember any Alito opinions off the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll take your word.  Clarence has some weird ideas so you do kind of know he's thinking, if in an aberrant way.  I don't remember any Alito opinions off the top of my head.

He wrote the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll take your word.  Clarence has some weird ideas so you do kind of know he's thinking, if in an aberrant way.  I don't remember any Alito opinions off the top of my head.

I was gonna say, Clarence has always stuck out at me more than Alito in the stupid category. Where Alito has it on him is dishonesty

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31282

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

No but I remember when they claimed they were against judicial activism.

What it was was that the liberal-types started going to the courts for things they couldn't get through the legislature:  abortion, women's rights, things of that nature.  So when the court agreed with them it was "activism."

Finally,  the GOP types (I won't say conservatives) came around to the idea that they could play in the courts, too.  

Not all that much has changed in the way courts go about their decision-making.  The role of highly politicized appointments and litmus tests has increased along with the level of #bothsides going to the courts for the purposes of their respective agendas.  And the accusations of "activism" apply to #bothsides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Roberts and Gorsuch will defend the principle of stare decisis when needed. They are the new swing votes. 

The right to privacy has been decided. It is law.

Nothing has been done that can't be undone. Roberts practically laid out a roadmap today for how to get him to sign on to stricter abortion restrictions.

20 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I was gonna say, Clarence has always stuck out at me more than Alito in the stupid category. Where Alito has it on him is dishonesty

Not that any of these are exclusive of the others, but the way I see them it's primarily:

Roberts: dishonest, Alito: stupid, Clarence: crazy

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Any chance that we see an Alito or Thomas retirement in the next week or two? It's not like they can't see the possibility that Trump and the Senate flipping. They also have to realize that a Senate change could stop any new conservative justice for an extended time.

With the exception of Doug Jones this year, the Dems don't have an endangered incumbent Senator in 2022 with maybe the NV senator in question. It could be 2024 before they could lose a Senator. They take the Senate this year, it's theirs for at least 4 years.

CNN has an article about SCOTUS retirements: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/trump-supreme-court-campaign-boost/index.html

An open spot on the SC at this moment does help Trump too. There's no doubt that he's wanted an RBG or Breyer retirement/death but the window is closing on that. 

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted (edited)

wapost headline: montana program aiding private schools must be open to religious schools

interesting that the court dismissed the NY gun case on mootness but came to a decision on this as montana had ended the program

 

edit: i guess the montana constitutional provision still exists, maybe that's what was decided?

 

edit2: the montana supreme court tossed the whole program, not the legislature

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, elfenix said:

wapost headline: montana program aiding private schools must be open to religious schools

interesting that the court dismissed the NY gun case on mootness but came to a decision on this as montana had ended the program

You mean to tell me the conservatives will immediately abandon legal formalism whenever a convenient opportunity to further their political and ideological aims arises? This comes as quite a shock!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Any chance that we see an Alito or Thomas retirement in the next week or two? It's not like they can't see the possibility that Trump and the Senate flipping. They also have to realize that a Senate change could stop any new conservative justice for an extended time.

With the exception of Doug Jones this year, the Dems don't have an endangered incumbent Senator in 2022 with maybe the NV senator in question. It could be 2024 before they could lose a Senator. They take the Senate this year, it's theirs for at least 4 years.

CNN has an article about SCOTUS retirements: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/trump-supreme-court-campaign-boost/index.html

An open spot on the SC at this moment does help Trump too. There's no doubt that he's wanted an RBG or Breyer retirement/death but the window is closing on that. 

Why would Alito or Thomas retire?  They are guaranteed to take the rightest wing stance possible and are a known commodity. Any replacement justice would almost certainly end up being to the left of them. Why risk appointing an actual strict constitutionalist when you already have 2 flexible conservative justices ready to bend to your will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...