SCOTUS rulings 2020

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

Paper shredders at Deutche Bank will be working overtime the next few days. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Basically, if Trump loses those financial records probably get leaked by someone close to him long before all the litigation around Congressional subpoenas ever wraps up.

I'm actually shocked that his financial records haven't leaked already.  The administration is practically a sieve otherwise.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

Paper shredders at Deutche Bank will be working overtime the next few days. 

Nah, at Deutsche Bank, paper shredding is like 3/4 of their business on a normal workday.  No OT.

[DigglerontheHoof 21064]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I know some are upset that Supreme Court kicked some of the issues down to the lower court, but that seems to be the proper result here. I really can't disagree with either opinion. We all agree the President isn't immune from state subpoena, and now we have a unanimous Supreme Court on that. And, it seems right to me that congressional subpoenas need some legislative justification for seeking the President's personal records as opposed to other records that could equally inform the drafting of legislation. Ultimately,  the upshot, is that Trump isn't going to be able to protect his information even if he wins re-election. That seems like a pretty big deal to me.

Yeah.  I, admittedly, am pretty damned ignorant of the law.  I was in the mind set of "it's the highest court in the land, once they rule, start showing us your financial information, assmunch".  Ignorance can set you up for disappointment. 

[wildcat09 29257]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I'm actually shocked that his financial records haven't leaked already.  The administration is practically a sieve otherwise.

Yeah, it is surprising. I don't think there's a real seal on those either, we're talking about a group of morons that would leave that shit laying around anywhere. Doing the Kremlinology on this shit is hard, because we're only talking about amoral assholes here who only do what they see is in their own best interest at all times, so it should be relatively easy to figure them out. The problem is that they're all extremely fucking dumb and frequently don't have any idea what's in their own best interest.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yeah.  I, admittedly, am pretty damned ignorant of the law.  I was in the mind set of "it's the highest court in the land, once they rule, start showing us your financial information, assmunch".  Ignorance can set you up for disappointment. 

Both of these rulings at the trial court level were of a sort of preliminary nature.  When those get appealed to the Supreme Court, it's rare that the Supreme Court finally disposes of them.  Even when there's a full trial on the merits and entry of a final judgment, a Supreme Court decision only finally decides the case in a comparatively rare number of them.

They are almost always "remanded" back to the trial court.  Sometimes that remand simply means the trial court enters judgment in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, which I believe is what will happen in the Vance case.  Sometimes, it means a big "do over" for the case, which is what will happen in the Mazar's case.

[Biff Tannen 45497]

24 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

it'll be Biden that will have to face a rash of redstate litigation in a few months, and voted accordingly 

for what?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

for what?

you sweet summer child.  you don't think the DA of bumfuckgilmer isn't going to be able to come up with the ukrainian-obamagate-bastropo-fastandfurious-benghazi of 2022?

[TXSG8R 3360]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

for what?

The usual; guns, gay-marraige, gabortion.  

 

I wanted the alliteration bonus, fuck off.  

[kevwun 15653]

Deutsche bank announced they are turning over the documents to the Manhattan DA.  

[Dnaguy 11777]

7 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

The usual; guns, gay-marraige, gabortion.  

 

I wanted the alliteration bonus, fuck off.  

 

is gabortion where the gays start purposefully getting pregnant with the sole purpose of getting an abortion or when the gays go around aborting straight couples babies all willy-nilly like?

 

I forget.

[TXSG8R 3360]

2 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

 

is gabortion where the gays start purposefully getting pregnant with the sole purpose of getting an abortion or when the gays go around aborting straight couples babies all willy-nilly like?

 

I forget.

[Dahobbs 17447]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Both of these rulings at the trial court level were of a sort of preliminary nature.  When those get appealed to the Supreme Court, it's rare that the Supreme Court finally disposes of them.  Even when there's a full trial on the merits and entry of a final judgment, a Supreme Court decision only finally decides the case in a comparatively rare number of them.

They are almost always "remanded" back to the trial court.  Sometimes that remand simply means the trial court enters judgment in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, which I believe is what will happen in the Vance case.  Sometimes, it means a big "do over" for the case, which is what will happen in the Mazar's case.

Yeah, the Vance case is in a much better position to get documents immediately. The House case was always somewhat shaky, which is why, to me at least, it is so weird that Trump's team decided to lead with absurd absolute immunity type arguments as opposed to much more limited opposition. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, the Vance case is in a much better position to get documents immediately. The House case was always somewhat shaky, which is why, to me at least, it is so weird that Trump's team decided to lead with absurd absolute immunity type arguments as opposed to much more limited opposition. 

In my Presidential Power class, which has gotten so much mileage over the years, we discussed congressional subpoenas rather extensively.  One of the main reasons they don't go to court too often is that the issuing body is rarely pleased with the courts' disposition of them.  That has conditioned me to kind of hold my breath when they "go to the mat" on one.  Part of it is that they tend to overreach at times and their rules (not recognizing privileges, no formal objection process) are kind of anathema to the courts.

And, you know that Trump overrode any sophisticated legal strategery with "I'm the President!  I'm Donald fucking Trump!  I can't be bothered with these low-money, low IQ people!"  And he got a good dose of backup from the "imperial presidency" people.

[TXSG8R 3360]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, the Vance case is in a much better position to get documents immediately. The House case was always somewhat shaky, which is why, to me at least, it is so weird that Trump's team decided to lead with absurd absolute immunity type arguments as opposed to much more limited opposition. 

Because it allows them to run more clock.  Sekulow tweeted after the ruling that they are going to raise more constitutional issues.  They just want to drag shit out beyond the election.  

[Dnaguy 11777]

1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

Because it allows them to run more clock.  Sekulow tweeted after the ruling that they are going to raise more constitutional issues.  They just want to drag shit out beyond the election.  

Is the case invalidated if Trump is no longer president?

Or does it continue?

[TwiceHorn 31283]

5 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Because it allows them to run more clock.  Sekulow tweeted after the ruling that they are going to raise more constitutional issues.  They just want to drag shit out beyond the election.  

They don't even have to raise new issues, the Supreme Court, with the concurrence of the liberals, handed them a big fat one to gnaw on for a few more years.  With a bit of luck, that one will be moot in a few months.

Notwithstanding Trump, there are fairly serious separation of powers issues in subpoenas from the House to the President, and even to third parties holding presidential stuff.  Just like Trump can't walk all over the House by diverting spending to the wall, the House can't walk all over the president, either.

Edited July 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Dahobbs 17447]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In my Presidential Power class, which has gotten so much mileage over the years, we discussed congressional subpoenas rather extensively.  One of the main reasons they don't go to court too often is that the issuing body is rarely pleased with the courts' disposition of them.  That has conditioned me to kind of hold my breath when they "go to the mat" on one.  Part of it is that they tend to overreach at times and their rules (not recognizing privileges, no formal objection process) are kind of anathema to the courts.

And, you know that Trump overrode any sophisticated legal strategery with "I'm the President!  I'm Donald fucking Trump!  I can't be bothered with these low-money, low IQ people!"  And he got a good dose of backup from the "imperial presidency" people.

Maybe. But, Will Consovoy, while a nice guy, takes some oddball cases and pursues similar really extreme positions (federalist society stuff). It is sort of his bread and butter. So, while I wouldn't be surprised if Trump overrode some other sophisticated legal strategy, I don't think that is the full explanation. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Michael Knight 12898]

Court rules nearly half of Oklahoma doesn't suck

Supreme Court Rules Nearly Half of Oklahoma Is Indian Reservation

The 5-4 decision could reshape criminal justice in eastern Oklahoma by preventing state authorities from prosecuting Native Americans

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/us/supreme-court-oklahoma-mcgirt-creek-nation.html

[TwiceHorn 31283]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Maybe. But, Will Consovoy, while a nice guy, takes some oddball cases and pursues similar really extreme positions (federalist society stuff). It is sort of his bread and butter. So, while I wouldn't be surprised if Trump overrode some other sophisticated legal strategy, I don't think that is the full explanation. 

Yeah, that is a solid indicator that the "imperial president" wonks were driving this one.

[TXSG8R 3360]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They don't even have to raise new issues, the Supreme Court, with the concurrence of the liberals, handed them a big fat one to gnaw on for a few more years.  With a bit of luck, that one will be moot in a few months.

Notwithstanding Trump, there are fairly serious separation of powers issues in subpoenas from the House to the President, and even to third parties holding presidential stuff.  Just like Trump can't walk all over the House by diverting spending to the wall, the House can't walk all over the president, either.

Would this decision have been different WRT separation of powers between a subpoena for legislative purposes versus impeachment?  IE, did the house fuck up by using the former instead of the latter?  

[Dahobbs 17447]

8 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Would this decision have been different WRT separation of powers between a subpoena for legislative purposes versus impeachment?  IE, did the house fuck up by using the former instead of the latter?  

Yes, even Justice Thomas thinks so. But, I'm less sure as to whether it is a fuck up. I'm sure some political calculations were made not to subpoena using the investigatory powers that stem from impeachment. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Just now, TXSG8R said:

Would this decision have been different WRT separation of powers between a subpoena for legislative purposes versus impeachment?  IE, did the house fuck up by using the former instead of the latter?  

Maybe.  No one really knows.  As the opinion says, dealing with it two times in a century doesn't lend itself to easy analysis.

Impeachment is more compelling than mere oversight, I think, just as a matter of common sense.  But we also know that impeachment, being political in nature, doesn't have to be driven by mounds of evidence.  And, it raises the question of when is there really an impeachment inquiry and how serious is it after an actual impeachment.

[tx 3 putt 76392]

1 hour ago, Voldemort86 said:

I can’t speak for Alito, but I think Clarence Thomas just really hates the Democrats because of his very contentious confirmation hearing. It seems like he has never missed an opportunity to stick it to the dems during a court case. Some people hold grudges and he seems like the type.

I can’t wait for Thomas to retire, but I hope it’s after Trump is hopefully voted out this fall.

I expect the R’s to put a full court press on Thomas to retire ASAP 

his wife is a trump friend 

Edited July 9, 2020 by tx 3 putt

[TwiceHorn 31283]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, even Justice Thomas thinks so. But, I'm less sure as to whether it is a fuck up. I'm sure some political calculations were made not to subpoena using the investigatory powers that stem from impeachment. 

Yeah, Thomas certainly thinks so, but that and $3.00 will get you a cuppa joe at Starbucks.  The majority opinion doesn't address impeachment inquiry justifications per se, but does cast a sideways glance at "law enforcement" subpoenas and stats that "Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.” 

So I don't think just incanting "impeachment investigation" alone would have made the situation much better.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

I expect the R’s to put a full court press on Thomas to retire ASAP 

his wife is a trump friend 

Thomas can retire now if he wants to.  Even a Trump nominee would shift the court leftward.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

I expect the R’s to put a full court press on Thomas to retire ASAP 

his wife is a trump friend 

The R's would be foolish to do so, in my opinion, because they can't get a better knee-jerk justice for their agenda than Clarence Thomas.  Same is largely true of Alito.

Edited July 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29257]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The R's would be foolish to do so, in my opinion, because they can't get a better knee-jerk justice for their agenda than Clarence Thomas.  Same is largely true of Alito.

I think it's extremely funny that Kavanaugh literally swore revenge against Democrats and he's still less of a partisan hack than Thomas and Alito.

[Jive Turkey 12568]

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I think it's extremely funny that Kavanaugh literally swore revenge against Democrats and he's still less of a partisan hack than Thomas and Alito.

Yep, you just never know what you're gonna get.

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

7-2 on Mazars, but new standard for analyzing congressional subpoenas to executive branch or for executive branch information, even if privilege not implicated.

Vacated and remanded.

This feels like a negotiated settlement on both cases at 7-2 to save the integrity of the court.
 

The people win on principle with big majority, which makes court packing in the event of a Democratic sweep less likely. The President gets a temporary reprieve, making hypothetical principled conservatives* less likely to push nakedly partisan manipulation of appointments less likely when things return to normal**. Roberts, Gorsuch and Justice BeerPrivilege get to claim non-partisan neutrality for future business cases.
 

 

 

* Like ROUS, I don’t think they exist 

** Things will never return to normal

Edited July 9, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31283]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This feels like a negotiated settlement on both cases at 7-2 to save the integrity of the court.
 

The people win on principle with big majority, which makes court packing in the event of a Democratic sweep less likely. The President gets a temporary reprieve, making hypothetical principled conservatives* less likely to push nakedly partisan manipulation of appointments less likely when things return to normal**. Roberts, Gorsuch and Justice BeerPrivilege get to claim non-partisan neutrality for future business cases.
 

 

 

* Like ROUS, I don’t think they exist 

** Things will never return to normal

Maybe.

I think it's just the nature of the legal process, as far as the "reprieve" goes.  There's almost no way the Supreme Court could have ended either of these cases conclusively given their procedural setting.  Even with nine liberal justices.  

On the merits, even for the biggest bunch of hacks in the bag for Trump or some other partisan, they have to acknowledge that a decision in favor of Trump could be weaponized by the other side when things inevitably turn.

Edited July 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Jive Turkey 12568]

If Ted was a real Texan, he’d be celebrating this. 

 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

4 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

If Ted was a real Texan, he’d be celebrating this. 

 

Ha. That’s funny. 
 

lawyers, is this really as big of a deal as it sounds?  If so, it seems to have huge implications.

[wildcat09 29257]

1 minute ago, Xian said:

Ha. That’s funny. 
 

lawyers, is this really as big of a deal as it sounds?  If so, it seems to have huge implications.

There’s like ten lawyers in the country that know anything about Indian law (that’s generally what that body of law has been referred to historically, not me being old). I can tell you that if you’re gonna buy property in the El Paso area you’re probably going to have an exception to your title policy for claims related to some old land grants that were stolen and disputes that may never be resolved.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

Most Indian law I’ve studied revolves around the idea of giving away an interest, usually real property, and then unilaterally taking back said interest and the legality of that process. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

There’s like ten lawyers in the country that know anything about Indian law (that’s generally what that body of law has been referred to historically, not me being old). I can tell you that if you’re gonna buy property in the El Paso area you’re probably going to have an exception to your title policy for claims related to some old land grants that were stolen and disputes that may never be resolved.

Lol really?!? 
my family has a Story that after we fled France during the French Revolution we came in three ships full of property. Once we arrive in Nola we sold everything we had and bought a huge part of downtown El Paso from the Spanish crown. 
 

years later a “drunk“ Tulane lawyers house burned down and we lost the proof of ownership. 
 

Wonder if it related. 

[Degenerate Gardner 4081]

8 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

If Ted was a real Texan, he’d be celebrating this. 

 

Choosing to phrase this as a 'give away' to Native Americans for something that was stolen to begin with..is just what I'd expect, actually.

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

21 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

If Ted was a real Texan, he’d be celebrating this. 

 

Proving once again that Ted Cruz doesn't belong in the Senate. Here's what actual Oklahoma Senators from Oklahoma had to say:

 

Quote

U.S. Sen. James Lankford:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling determines that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation was not dis-established when Oklahoma became a state. The work will continue in the days ahead to clarify a framework for criminal and civil regulatory jurisdiction that provides consistency and predictability for all people living and doing business within the state. However, I am grateful for the commitment from the state and the 5 Tribes to work with the delegation to craft legislation that ensures that the ruling has a minimal impact on individuals and businesses throughout Oklahoma. Our greatest priority should be to provide for the safety of communities by ensuring those serving time for crimes continue to do so, and individuals that commit crimes are prosecuted to the fullest extent under the law. I look forward to working with the tribes, the state, and other members of the Oklahoma congressional delegation to finding a solution acceptable to all parties.”

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe

"As we move forward, I have no doubt we can work together with state officials, tribal organizations, and the delegation to find a workable solution for everyone that ensures criminals are prosecuted and brought to justice in the most appropriate manner. We have a duty to all American citizens to uphold the Constitution and stand up for victim’s rights. Our number one priority will always be the safety of each and every Oklahoman.”

 

[lemonlime 5503]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ok, looking back.  In the Vance case, Trump sued Vance trying to enjoin issuance of the subpoena.  The trial court dismissed the case on an incorrect ground, as found by the Second Circuit, who also found that Trump had no right to oppose the subpoena.  The Supremes affirmed the latter part.  So I think the remand to the court is simply for entry of judgment against Trump on the ground that he has no right to oppose a subpoena.  Not much to appeal there.  That particular trial court is no place to raise mere objections.  That's going to have to be done somewhere else if it can be done at all.

On the House case, the trial court is going to have to apply the new test, articulated in the last few paragraphs of the majority opinion, to evaluate the validity of the house subpoena.  That one is going to entail substantial litigation and an appeal and possibly another grant of cert.

 

So why did they hear the Vance case?  It seems to me this entire thing was just to shield Trump until after the election.  If they really thought he wasn't above the law, why not simply deny cert.  Instead they've given Trump however many extra months to hide his taxes.

[washparkhorn 9935]

The Creek Reservation case is significant for the fact it does away with the notion that federal "adverse possession" trumps written federal law.

I am not seeing the parade of horribles described by the dissent. There is a limit on post-conviction remedies, so I doubt we will see any wide release of prisoners convicted under the MCA. I also don't see this as impacting civil cases. 

It rights a wrong. That is justice. 

We need Western states justices like Gorsuch to guide the Court when it comes to the unique Western US situations, like this one. Glad to see he stepped up. 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by washparkhorn

[TwiceHorn 31283]

28 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

So why did they hear the Vance case?  It seems to me this entire thing was just to shield Trump until after the election.  If they really thought he wasn't above the law, why not simply deny cert.  Instead they've given Trump however many extra months to hide his taxes.

Note that the Supreme Court only gave effect to the Second Circuit's remand.  So yeah, it did delay the remand by however long the Supreme Court proceeding took.  Eight months from petition for cert, seven from grant with an extra month of COVID delay.

But it is an important case and now there won't be 11 different regional formulations in the event he got criminal subpoenas everywhere else.  It also put a bullet in Younger abstention on such an issue as this, which is nice.

We still wouldn't see his taxes even if it was faster and even if we did, we wouldn't really know what to do with them.

I'm happy that executive privilege got smacked down a degree and you should be too.

Edited July 9, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31283]

A nice side benefit of the Mazar's decision is that this is Neomi Rao's first judicial smackdown.  So that's nice.

[DanRydell 799]

Now that the term is over, it's that fabulous time of year where the ScotusBlog twitter account replied to all the morons who angry tweeted at them thinking it was the Supreme Court's twitter account.

[wildcat09 29257]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

A nice side benefit of the Mazar's decision is that this is Neomi Rao's first judicial smackdown.  So that's nice.

Maybe she'll learn something fro.... I can't finish, the idea is just too ridiculous.

['stache 21774]

3 hours ago, Xian said:

Ha. That’s funny. 
 

lawyers, is this really as big of a deal as it sounds?  If so, it seems to have huge implications.

I practice Indian law. No, it is not that big of a deal for non-Indians living in Tulsa. It's biggest impact will be that the federal courts will need to beef up their prosecutors team a little to handle major crimes committed by Indians in Eastern Oklahoma.

[RexWilson 1341]

^^^

Sounds like we have the next Law & Order spin-off show.

[wildcat09 29257]

Some more problems with Mazars:

 

 

[Ghost of LL 15492]

3 hours ago, Xian said:

Ha. That’s funny. 
 

lawyers, is this really as big of a deal as it sounds?  If so, it seems to have huge implications.

I don't think anybody really knows.  There are a whole bunch of state and federal laws that carve out "Indian Country" (the term used in the United States Code) from their coverage.  And I don't think anybody has a full catalog of just what that would include.

3 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

The Creek Reservation case is significant for the fact it does away with the notion that federal "adverse possession" trumps written federal law.

I am not seeing the parade of horribles described by the dissent. There is a limit on post-conviction remedies, so I doubt we will see any wide release of prisoners convicted under the MCA. I also don't see this as impacting civil cases. 

It rights a wrong. That is justice. 

We need Western states justices like Gorsuch to guide the Court when it comes to the unique Western US situations, like this one. Glad to see he stepped up. 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf

 

I don't know.  I understand that there may be some real question about the legal authority of local governmental entities.  Things like cities and counties derive their authority from the sovereignty of the State.  But if the State is not sovereign, then what authority does it have to grant any power to, say, the City of Tulsa?

Regardless, I think this is something that is going to get papered up in a real hurry.  The State apparently has been in advanced talks with the Creek Nation about some sort of agreement on these issues.

For the record--I think the biggest question is left unanswered.  Is Oklahoma's suckitude reduced by 1/3rd proportionate to the territory it just lost?  And if so, what is 1/3rd of infinity?

Or is the same amount of suck just condensed into a smaller area?  Presumably collapsing into a singularity of suck centered somewhere around Norman.  

21 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I practice Indian law. No, it is not that big of a deal for non-Indians living in Tulsa. It's biggest impact will be that the federal courts will need to beef up their prosecutors team a little to handle major crimes committed by Indians in Eastern Oklahoma.

If you listen closely, you can hear every law clerk in the Eastern District of Oklahoma chugging a handle of vodka.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Ghost of LL

[wildcat09 29257]

 

"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law" sounds great, but did Gorsuch just eliminate adverse possession?