SCOTUS rulings 2020

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

I believe that some states have laws in place to replace faithless electors. Several states replaced electors in 2016 but I believe 7 electors were faithless and their votes were allowable.

We all can understand that most likely 1 elector probably wouldn't impact an election but not impossible. 7 electors? There are many paths in which this could change the results or throw the election to the House of Reps.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

12 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I believe that some states have laws in place to replace faithless electors. Several states replaced electors in 2016 but I believe 7 electors were faithless and their votes were allowable.

We all can understand that most likely 1 elector probably wouldn't impact an election but not impossible. 7 electors? There are many paths in which this could change the results or throw the election to the House of Reps.

Correct.  And apparently there is a Colorado case pending that challenges that.  Looks like an opinion on that should be forthcoming shortly.

Edit:  shortly as in today.  There's a per curiam (no opinion) ruling reversing the 10th Circuit, which held the Colorado scheme unconstitutional.

So, apparently the ability of states to regulate electors includes voiding their faithless votes.

Edited July 6, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Huckleberry 32701]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Correct.  And apparently there is a Colorado case pending that challenges that.  Looks like an opinion on that should be forthcoming shortly.

Edit:  shortly as in today.  There's a per curiam (no opinion) ruling reversing the 10th Circuit, which held the Colorado scheme unconstitutional.

So, apparently the ability of states to regulate electors includes voiding their faithless votes.

I don't really have an issue with all of that, but doesn't that pretty much make electors, as in the people themselves, a pointless exercise? If electors are pointless then the 12th Amendment needs to be repealed and replaced. Simply have the States certify their results, assign their "elector" distribution according to their State law, and send that number to the President of the Senate.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

37 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I'm ok with winner take all, or the NE/ME method. The key is that an elector shouldn't be allowed to change the rules.

The only scenario that faithless electors could be good is if there was determined to be a newly discovered problem with the President-elect and common agreement was to stop their inauguration. However that would seem to be less likely than an elector overturning their state's votes.

kagan says in there they aren't saying anything about faithless electors in the event of a candidate dying mid november, so they are keeping the window open for *really good* reasons to be faithless.

['stache 21774]

24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't really have an issue with all of that, but doesn't that pretty much make electors, as in the people themselves, a pointless exercise? If electors are pointless then the 12th Amendment needs to be repealed and replaced. Simply have the States certify their results, assign their "elector" distribution according to their State law, and send that number to the President of the Senate.

If you could get an amendment passed, the electoral college system should be scrapped and go with straight popular vote. I don't buy the argument that the rural folks need to be "protected" from city folk. The complete opposite is happening where the vote of a rural redneck in Wyoming has 2 or 3 times the strength of a Los Angeles resident. If a popular vote causes problems, then maybe we are too big to be a single country. Same rant re the Senate.

Edited July 6, 2020 by 'stache

[Huckleberry 32701]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

If you could get an amendment passed, the electoral college system should be scrapped and go with straight popular vote. I don't buy the argument that the rural folks need to be "protected" from city folk. The complete opposite is happening where the vote of a rural redneck in Wyoming has 2 or 3 times the strength of a Los Angeles resident. If a popular vote causes problems, then maybe we are too big to be a single country. Same rant re the Senate.

No, it shouldn't. There are other threads to discuss that issue on, though.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

43 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't really have an issue with all of that, but doesn't that pretty much make electors, as in the people themselves, a pointless exercise? If electors are pointless then the 12th Amendment needs to be repealed and replaced. Simply have the States certify their results, assign their "elector" distribution according to their State law, and send that number to the President of the Senate.

Almost, yes.  

But some states only penalize and a few states do nothing to faithless electors.  They're permitted to do those things, they don't have to, and not all of them do.

[Voldemort86 2259]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics/keystone-xl-supreme-court-pipeline/index.html
 

SCOTUS shuts down Trump administration on keystone pipeline.

that piece of shit that only 10% of Americans actually want.

#MAGA

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

Tomorrow is going to be a big day. Last day of opinions. 
 

my guess is that Chief Justice Roberts has the opinion for the tax cases 

[TwiceHorn 31280]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Tomorrow is going to be a big day. Last day of opinions. 
 

my guess is that Chief Justice Roberts has the opinion for the tax cases 

Any of those three writing for the majority probably bode ill for Trump.  

Other than not enforcing the House subpoena for political question or other "prudential" reasons, I don't see these coming down in his favor.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

5 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

my guess is that Chief Justice Roberts has the opinion for the tax cases 

It's surprising it is taking them so long to write "lol what of course a bank has to respond to a subpoena."

[tx 3 putt 76381]

If the Supreme Court rules against trump on his bank records, what’s his next excuse for not releasing them ?

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

If the Supreme Court rules against trump on his bank records, what’s his next excuse for not releasing them ?

They will be turned over for the criminal probe. The House subpoena is a closer call but I think they get the records too. The public will see them before the election and I’m guessing NY goes after the state tax/insurance fraud issues. 

[wildcat09 29256]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

If the Supreme Court rules against trump on his bank records, what’s his next excuse for not releasing them ?

“John Roberts is actually dead from fall + blow to head.  Dems on the court are faking him alive to swing the vote the wrong way. FAKE RULING! ANYBODY WHO COMPLIES WILL BE KILLED!”

Susan Collins will express a moderate level of concern. John Cornyn will say nothing. Kavanaugh will hold a funeral for Roberts.

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

“John Roberts is actually dead from fall + blow to head.  Dems on the court are faking him alive to swing the vote the wrong way. FAKE RULING! ANYBODY WHO COMPLIES WILL BE KILLED!”

Susan Collins will express a moderate level of concern. John Cornyn will say nothing. Kavanaugh will hold a funeral for Roberts.

7-2 with Thomas and Alito dissenting

[wildcat09 29256]

3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

7-2 with Thomas and Alito dissenting

We're gonna get a weird mix with some of the Congressional subpoenas being approved and some being prohibited, because reasons.

[The Royal We 3065]

wtf?  I thought this would be an all or nothing deal?

[TwiceHorn 31280]

7 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

wtf?  I thought this would be an all or nothing deal?

If the only issue was executive privilege, Trump would lose his ass.

There are some other issues, principally the enforceability of a House subpoena.  I think a House subpoena to an entity outside the executive branch is fully enforceable and not subject to political question or other doctrines of abstention, which is how McGahn "got off."

[wildcat09 29256]

Alito cited to a Rod Dreher book in his opinion today. I can't wait for next year when we see him or Thomas cite to Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, or Donald Trump Jr.

Imagine being a Supreme Court justice. You went to the most prestigious schools and have access to as much expertise and information about literally anything as perhaps anyone in history. Now imagine spending your free time reading whatever tripe the conservative industrial grift complex buys up each month to turn into a best seller.

[Dnaguy 11775]

56 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

If the Supreme Court rules against trump on his bank records, what’s his next excuse for not releasing them ?

He's the commander in chief and controls the tanks.

When congress and the supremes get some tanks, come and talk to me.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Alito cited to a Rod Dreher book in his opinion today. I can't wait for next year when we see him or Thomas cite to Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, or Donald Trump Jr.

Imagine being a Supreme Court justice. You went to the most prestigious schools and have access to as much expertise and information about literally anything as perhaps anyone in history. Now imagine spending your free time reading whatever tripe the conservative industrial grift complex buys up each month to turn into a best seller.

I guess it's not surprising Alito wrote the opinion.

I am a little surprised that it was basically 7-2 with only Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting.

[Dnaguy 11775]

52 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

“John Roberts is actually dead from fall + blow to head.  Dems on the court are faking him alive to swing the vote the wrong way. FAKE RULING! ANYBODY WHO COMPLIES WILL BE KILLED!”

Susan Collins will express a moderate level of concern. John Cornyn will say nothing. Kavanaugh will hold a funeral for Roberts.

 

Weekend at Appellee's?

[HornOnTheBayou 8881]

OK, legal eagles, can someone explain this to me? I understand allowing religious organizations an exception to discrimination of religious beliefs. A Catholic school should be able to fire a teacher who promotes Satanism. But why are they allowed an exception to age discrimination laws? Isn't that what this ruling is saying or am I not understanding it correctly?

[TwiceHorn 31280]

15 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

OK, legal eagles, can someone explain this to me? I understand allowing religious organizations an exception to discrimination of religious beliefs. A Catholic school should be able to fire a teacher who promotes Satanism. But why are they allowed an exception to age discrimination laws? Isn't that what this ruling is saying or am I not understanding it correctly?

That's pretty correct.

There is a longstanding notion in American law that courts won't get involved in church government or affairs, which makes a certain amount of sense.  That notion even applies to matters of corporate governance, finance, or contracts that don't implicate religious belief at all, or at least not anywhere near the surface.

A friend of mine had a case where a guy allegedly loaned money to an Indian "temple."  The temple called it a donation.  A state court dismissed the case on that no-interference-with religious-governance ground.  Presumably if the guy had not been a member of the temple, they might have looked at it harder.

This ruling just holds basically that the courts won't get involved at all, rather that get on the slippery slope of trying to decide when a question presents too many issues of religion or faith for the court to get involved.

You can parse it a lot finer than that, if you wish.  Interestingly, even the dissent didn't take much issue with whether the discrimination claims involved any aspect of religion, just their general applicability to church employees.

Edited July 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Gap03 3286]

23 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

He's the commander in chief and controls the tanks.

When congress and the supremes get some tanks, come and talk to me.

"Supreme Court - you have a problem with that? You know what you should do? You should sanction me - sanction me with your army.  Oh - wait a minute, you don't have an army ... 

 

[JBJ 3649]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If the only issue was executive privilege, Trump would lose his ass.

There are some other issues, principally the enforceability of a House subpoena.  I think a House subpoena to an entity outside the executive branch is fully enforceable and not subject to political question or other doctrines of abstention, which is how McGahn "got off."

The GJ subpoena will be enforced.

 The Congressional subpoena won't be, or we'll see a mixed bag like Wildcat predicts. Unlawful Congressional subpoena, but in many more words. 

No new precedent in either case.

[lemonlime 5503]

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

7-2 with Thomas and Alito dissenting

My marker's on 5-4 with both subpoenas quashed.  Roberts' earlier decisions were just to provide a veneer of respectability, and also protection for the GOP, who doesn't really want abortion restricted or gay rights trampled on. They really just want the culture war to rile up their base.

[tx 3 putt 76381]

45 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

My marker's on 5-4 with both subpoenas quashed.  Roberts' earlier decisions were just to provide a veneer of respectability, and also protection for the GOP, who doesn't really want abortion restricted or gay rights trampled on. They really just want the culture war to rile up their base.

I’m also in this camp

the gay rights case was a throw away for Roberts / Trump 

[WBT 20422]

On 7/6/2020 at 11:38 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

and if there was 1 year that would occur, it would be 2020.

Nah, this election isn't going to be that close.  1800, 1824, 1876, and 2000 come to mind.  An elector even abstained in 2000.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

I’m also in this camp

the gay rights case was a throw away for Roberts / Trump 

Well, yeah, except Gorsuch wrote the opinion and Roberts wasn't the deciding vote.

Unlike McConnell and other members of the GOP,  these guys have no reason to stay loyal to Trump, if they were ever inclined to be in the first place.  Most conservative judicial candidates have assembled a record of at least somewhat principled conservatism (at least the Supreme Court nominees/appointments, some of the lower court ones are complete assclowns like Trump).  Infinitely more principled than Trump.  So other than a brief gratitude for the appointment, I'm not sure what motivation these guys would have to do Trump's bidding, per se.

Kavanaugh is a super knee-jerk conservative, though, so I'm less confident of him.  

Edited July 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, yeah, except Gorsuch wrote the opinion and Roberts wasn't the deciding vote.

Unlike McConnell and other members of the GOP,  these guys have no reason to stay loyal to Trump, if they were ever inclined to be in the first place.  Most conservative judicial candidates have assembled a record of at least somewhat principled conservatism (at least the Supreme Court nominees/appointments, some of the lower court ones are complete assclowns like Trump).  Infinitely more principled than Trump.  So other than a brief gratitude for the appointment, I'm not sure what motivation these guys would have to do Trump's bidding, per se.

Kavanaugh is a super knee-jerk conservative, though, so I'm less confident of him.  

i used to think that.  there are a lot of votes these days where you know the outcome of at least 6 justices just by knowing the parties.  

[wildcat09 29256]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, yeah, except Gorsuch wrote the opinion and Roberts wasn't the deciding vote.

Unlike McConnell and other members of the GOP,  these guys have no reason to stay loyal to Trump, if they were ever inclined to be in the first place.  Most conservative judicial candidates have assembled a record of at least somewhat principled conservatism (at least the Supreme Court nominees/appointments, some of the lower court ones are complete assclowns like Trump).  Infinitely more principled than Trump.  So other than a brief gratitude for the appointment, I'm not sure what motivation these guys would have to do Trump's bidding, per se.

Kavanaugh is a super knee-jerk conservative, though, so I'm less confident of him.  

I'm sure Roberts will decide based on what he thinks the optimal political calculation is for what he sees as the Republican party's long-term project, which is essentially to establish and protect a neo-feudal social and economic structure (though I'm sure he'd present it in a much better light). If he thinks Trump has a legitimate chance of reelection, he might help him cover it up because I'm sure Roberts would love to see another couple conservatives added to the court in the next four years. But if he thinks Trump is probably boned either way, he'll probably let the subpoenas proceed to keep the Democrats from talking up court packing. Gorsuch hasn't been on the Court long enough for me to really get a read on him, but he seems much more aligned with Roberts' long-term political thinking than Alito and Kavanaugh's "Republicans always win" legal calvinball.

[lemonlime 5503]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, yeah, except Gorsuch wrote the opinion and Roberts wasn't the deciding vote.

Unlike McConnell and other members of the GOP,  these guys have no reason to stay loyal to Trump, if they were ever inclined to be in the first place.  Most conservative judicial candidates have assembled a record of at least somewhat principled conservatism (at least the Supreme Court nominees/appointments, some of the lower court ones are complete assclowns like Trump).  Infinitely more principled than Trump.  So other than a brief gratitude for the appointment, I'm not sure what motivation these guys would have to do Trump's bidding, per se.

Kavanaugh is a super knee-jerk conservative, though, so I'm less confident of him.  

I have a trouble thinking Roberts, the author of Shelby County v. Holder, isn't going to render decisions based on party loyalty.  He also wrote a concurrence in Citizens United.  His decisions in cases that impact voting or the Republican party long term have been along party lines.  He also wrote the majority opinion in the Muslim ban case.  He's thrown some bones to the moderates in deciding things like abortion cases on stare decisis grounds for instance.  But on issues of GOP power grabs, he's toed the party line.

I don't see any reason to think  the two justices appointed by trump to do his bidding would break from the trumpublicans.

Edited July 8, 2020 by lemonlime

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

Today's the Day!

Will the SCOTUS allow prosecutors or Congress to see Trump family records? My guess is that they are clear the President is not above the law but they find a way to punt the actual handover of documents until AFTER the election. 

[SubliminalHorn 6674]

I don’t know why I’m nervous about these rulings today. Are they more nails in the coffin of American rule of law?

[TwiceHorn 31280]

1 minute ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I don’t know why I’m nervous about these rulings today. Are they more nails in the coffin of American rule of law?

To extend the executive privilege to the extent that Trump wants would be very bad idea jeans.  I can't imagine that the rulings will do that.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

3 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

I don’t know why I’m nervous about these rulings today. Are they more nails in the coffin of American rule of law?

Some of the possibilities can either cause problems for the US or will create problems for the 2020 election. Does anyone think Trump would turn over documents quietly? This would just feed into his conspiracy theory on why he loses.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

16 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i used to think that.  there are a lot of votes these days where you know the outcome of at least 6 justices just by knowing the parties.  

Well, sometimes the votes are decided along partisan or political philosophy lines and thus predictably, obviously.

But I mean specifically Trump.  The guy has no politics, really, other than himself.  Occasionally, he lines up with his party, other times not so much.  So I don't think the court is going to do Trump's bidding.

The main "political" issue underlying todays decisions is "imperial presidency."  While it has recently been identified as a conservative/republican issue, it isn't really.  "On the ground" political operatives like Cheney or Barr (and fairly obviously someone in the Obama administration) may favor it, but I am not sure it has a lot of traction among Supreme Court justices, even really conservative ones.

Edited July 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Underdog 28457]

IF there's a God, please make it happen.  

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

33 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Today's the Day!

Will the SCOTUS allow prosecutors or Congress to see Trump family records? My guess is that they are clear the President is not above the law but they find a way to punt the actual handover of documents until AFTER the election. 

Judging by Trump's rage tweets this morning, he got word that the cases won't come down his way.

[JFKFC 4878]

If Cyrus Vance wins, Trump's taxes stay in a very confidential Grand Jury setting.

 

If you want transparency, the case involving the House is everything. 

[TwiceHorn 31280]

3 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

If Cyrus Vance wins, Trump's taxes stay in a very confidential Grand Jury setting.

 

If you want transparency, the case involving the House is everything. 

Well, "transparency" is going to come from leaks, either way.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

I am liveblogging at SCOTUSblog.

Lmao.  What has the world come to?

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am liveblogging at SCOTUSblog.

Lmao.  What has the world come to?

Nerd.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

3 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Nerd.

Guilty.  I prefer geek.  But this is a new low.

[wildcat09 29256]

Leah Litman with a good prediction in Mazars:

 

This would suck.

[kevwun 15651]

Trump is too cranky this morning for it to be good news for him.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

Gorsuch gets the Indian case.  Joined by RBG, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer.  Dude's a maverick.

So that leaves Sotomayor and Roberts for the Trump cases.

Edited July 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29256]

Gorsuch with a real Charlie Kelly wildcard vibe this term.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Leah Litman with a good prediction in Mazars:

 

This would suck.