The Supremes

[DigglerontheHoof 21183]

So when do maga politicians start calling the SCOTUS "woke" and blaming Biden?

[Biff Tannen 45665]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't want to diminish what a big win this is for American democracy, but a ruling the other way would have been so completely at odds with the entire structure of American law and government and so inconsistent with the entirety of American legal history (in other words, so insanely and clearly wrong) that it would've made the Dobbs decision look like serious, reasoned judicial practice by comparison.  It's not so much a make up call as it is simply calling a fastball that was as dead center in the strike zone as possible a strike. 

This is how Roberts gives the left "wins" and it's how he's trying to restore the court's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. He's not suddenly good. But he does care about he court's reputation and its perceived legitimacy.  He prefers to carry out his legal sabotage in a more methodical and pragmatic way, to maintain a pretext that it's all about the law, so that the changes he makes endure without serious public objection.

And yet THREE of the NINE justices went the other way.  I was told there would be no math, but that's like 30% of the highest court in the land just said they don't give a fuck.  That seems problematic.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Biff Tannen
.33 repeating of course

[Js1 85293]

11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

And yet THREE of the NINE justices went the other way.  I was told there would be no math, but that's like 30% of the highest court in the land just said they don't give a fuck.  That seems problematic.

More like 2.  Thomas didn't want to rule on it at all, I guess, by just calling it moot and saying he'd have just tossed the whole thing. 

[chainsaw 9859]

53 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Hah, everyone quoting Vladeck at the same time.

My theory is that Roberts is extraordinarily pissed at Thomas and Alito for embarrassing him and this is basically a brushback aimed near their heads. 

I like your theory except I don't think the timing lines up. Their opinions in this case probably had been drafted many months before the harlan crow stuff came to light. If I remember correctly the Dobbs leak was April 2022 even though the opinion was late June (like Moore)?

[Js1 85293]

5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I like your theory except I don't think the timing lines up. Their opinions in this case probably had been drafted many months before the harlan crow stuff came to light. If I remember correctly the Dobbs leak was April 2022 even though the opinion was late June (like Moore)?

Maybe not *exactly* because of the Harlan Crow stuff, but I think overall, Roberts has been watching the legitimacy of his court and his court's legacy swirl around the toilet bowl and he seems to care a lot about how his court will be depicted in future history books*

 

 

*if those are still allowed in the future

[Bateshorn 9927]

It's a big win in aggregate for democracy, but to play the cynic a bit:  the GOP has gerrymandered virtually every state it controls to the max, Jack.  With the NC Supreme court flipping conservative and overruling the previous state Supreme Court anti-gerrymander decision, the GOP controlled legislature is likely to push the map to 11-3 or even 12-2.  The last ungerrymandered GOP state is about to be dealt with. 

OTOH, a ruling in favor of independent legislature theory makes the state constitutional anti gerrymandering statutes/laws in Maryland, NY, California, and Colorado very dicey suddenly.  That's probably 20 competitive seats right there. And that doesn't account for if Gretchen Whitmer and the MI legislature decided to do a mid decade redistrict as well, or if Oregon strikes the Senate qourum rule preventing the unified government from doing what it wants.   Again:  it's a good thing in total, but they also very quietly shut another door for the Democracts to get out their self imposed habit of fighting with a hand tied behind their back.  

Edited June 27, 2023 by Bateshorn

[Brisketexan 105079]

37 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't want to diminish what a big win this is for American democracy, but a ruling the other way would have been so completely at odds with the entire structure of American law and government and so inconsistent with the entirety of American legal history (in other words, so insanely and clearly wrong) that it would've made the Dobbs decision look like serious, reasoned judicial practice by comparison.  It's not so much a make up call as it is simply calling a fastball that was as dead center in the strike zone as possible a strike. 

This is how Roberts gives the left "wins" and it's how he's trying to restore the court's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. He's not suddenly good. But he does care about he court's reputation and its perceived legitimacy.  He prefers to carry out his legal sabotage in a more methodical and pragmatic way, to maintain a pretext that it's all about the law, so that the changes he makes endure without serious public objection.

This.  Roberts wants to slip us a mickey, and rape the people while we sleep, all Bill Cosby-like, so we just wake up and slowly realize we were raped.

Alito and Roberts want to rape the people while we're conscious, because they get off on the look of terror and suffering in our eyes.

Never forget that they the GQP justices are ALL pieces of shit who want to rape our democracy.  Roberts is just more polite about it.

['stache 21799]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Gorsuch on Indian Law vs. Gorsuch on literally everything else is so weird.

Gorsuch has some okay qualities but he’s really fixated on states rights and I assume it has to do with the traditional conservative view that the federal government has more power these days than originally intended (true to some extent but times change) and tends to take it to weird and problematic extremes. He’s pretty good in Indian law because it has always been a responsibility of the federal government. He’s also had some decent thoughts on immigration since it also is a federal responsibility, and he’s been willing to push back on states that whine about federal immigration policy. His insistence that federal agencies should not be given deference in policy making goes along with his views to limit federal authority in most areas and he’s itching to overturn decades of decisions in that area. Just my observations from reading some of his opinions over the years.

[Bateshorn 9927]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Gorsuch has some okay qualities but he’s really fixated on states rights and I assume it has to do with the traditional conservative view that the federal government has more power these days than originally intended (true to some extent but times change) and tends to take it to weird and problematic extremes. He’s pretty good in Indian law because it has always been a responsibility of the federal government. He’s also had some decent thoughts on immigration since it also is a federal responsibility, and he’s been willing to push back on states that whine about federal immigration policy. His insistence that federal agencies should not be given deference in policy making goes along with his views to limit federal authority in most areas and he’s itching to overturn decades of decisions in that area. Just my observations from reading some of his opinions over the years.

I always interpret it as he has a weird strike zone, but he calls it pretty consistently. As opposed to Thomas and Alito, who are Angel Hernandez on roids. 

[Js1 85293]

Summary of the big ones left:

• Students for Fair Admissions - race based admissions (affirmative action in higher ed)
• 303 Creative - free speech (creating a website for gay marriages)
• Biden v. Nebraska & Department of Ed vs Brown - student loan debt relief
• Abitron Austria gmbH v. Hetronic International - copyright issue
• Groff v. Dejoy - workplace religious discrimination

Definitely have low hopes for the gay marriage website and workplace religious discrimination ones.  Think they uphold the student loan debt relief due to standing issue. 

 

[BrickHorn 18217]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Court says: (taken from SCOTUS Blog)

• It has the power to review the case despite the SCONC reversal
• Elections clause DOES NOT insulate state legislatures from ordinary exercise of judicial review
• State legislatures may not create congressional districts independently of requirements by the state constitution with respect to the enactment of laws
• State courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the legislature's role in the elections clause - but SCOTUS is not deciding whether that happened here or not

So was this just an advisory opinion? It’s been a while since I took Civ Pro and Federal Courts, but that’s a big no-no, right?

[tx 3 putt 76874]

Roberts is trying to save his legacy and the reputation of the Supreme Court 

['stache 21799]

We already know how the affirmative action and gay wedding website cases will go. I don't think there is even remotely enough standing for the student loan plan to be killed, though we know for certain that Thomas and Alito will perform their mental gymnastics to dissent. I'd be surprised, but not too surprised, if they get one or more of the other conservatives to dissent with them. 

[TwiceHorn 31440]

Big whew on Moore v. Harper.  Really glad they didn't dodge it on mootness or standing.

[Dahobbs 17527]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

And yet THREE of the NINE justices went the other way.  I was told there would be no math, but that's like 30% of the highest court in the land just said they don't give a fuck.  That seems problematic.

I think it is more like 2 of nine, Thomas and Gorsuch. 

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

More like 2.  Thomas didn't want to rule on it at all, I guess, by just calling it moot and saying he'd have just tossed the whole thing. 

Thomas still wrote 11 pages on why he would adopt the theory (all of it complete nonsense). Gorsuch joined that opinion in its entirely (I really don't understand Gorsuch). Alito, surprisingly to me, only joined the first part on the case being moot. 

[jimmyjazz 45893]

Apropos of little, a question for the law dogs:  how do you think Thomas' typical written opinion would go over at UT Law were he a student?  He sure seems to use tortured logic, and often.

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Gorsuch on Indian Law vs. Gorsuch on literally everything else is so weird.

But also wrote the opinion expanding Title VII rights to prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation… so umm yeah. 
 

If I have it correct, this case was about a NC Supreme Court case that was overturned recently and so Gorsuch was saying the matter is moot- as compared to wanting a ruling coming out the other way on the merits 

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think it is more like 2 of nine, Thomas and Gorsuch. 

Thomas still wrote 11 pages on why he would adopt the theory (all of it complete nonsense). Gorsuch joined that opinion in its entirely (I really don't understand Gorsuch). Alito, surprisingly to me, only joined the first part on the case being moot. 

Hmm maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention this morning 

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Roberts is trying to save his legacy and the reputation of the Supreme Court 

['stache 21799]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Roberts is trying to save his legacy and the reputation of the Supreme Court 

The legacy of "The Roberts Court" is already fucked, and I think he knows that to be true. If anything, he might be trying to salvage his personal legacy, but then again, maybe not. Voting to take away bodily autonomy from women will be looked at terribly in the future.

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The legacy of "The Roberts Court" is already fucked, and I think he knows that to be true. If anything, he might be trying to salvage his personal legacy, but then again, maybe not. Voting to take away bodily autonomy from women will be looked at terribly in the future.

That and the rampant unchecked corruption 

[DDD Dad 14327]

On 6/26/2023 at 4:47 PM, Planet Houston said:

It’s times like this I really wonder why we don’t have an eye roll reaction. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

[Voldemort86 2259]

Clarence Thomas is the ultimate troll. The guy is a black as can be, but his politics and viewpoints line up with some crazed hard right white power esque minority hating racist cruel motherfucker.

 

I can’t wait until this guy retires. I hope it becomes personally necessary for him to do so as soon as possible, but will probably have to wait awhile.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

 

[SydneyCarton 48063]

8 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

Clarence Thomas is the ultimate troll. The guy is a black as can be, but his politics and viewpoints line up with some crazed hard right white power esque minority hating racist cruel motherfucker.

 

I can’t wait until this guy retires. I hope it becomes personally necessary for him to do so as soon as possible, but will probably have to wait awhile.

He will die on the bench. I view it more likely that he is expelled somehow than he retires. He’s just getting angrier and voting for wilder shit and gumming up the works as much as passible, and the more he’s critiqued the harder he will fight. He won’t willingly give up his one cudgel of power. 

[Chad Fuck 17659]

I don't want to diminish what a big win this is for American democracy, but a ruling the other way would have been so completely at odds with the entire structure of American law and government and so inconsistent with the entirety of American legal history (in other words, so insanely and clearly wrong) that it would've made the Dobbs decision look like serious, reasoned judicial practice by comparison.  It's not so much a make up call as it is simply calling a fastball that was as dead center in the strike zone as possible a strike. 
This is how Roberts gives the left "wins" and it's how he's trying to restore the court's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. He's not suddenly good. But he does care about he court's reputation and its perceived legitimacy.  He prefers to carry out his legal sabotage in a more methodical and pragmatic way, to maintain a pretext that it's all about the law, so that the changes he makes endure without serious public objection.

Exactly this. Roberts only cares about the legitimacy of the Court in so far as it gives him the fig leaf to cover doing things like gutting the VRA. Alito and Thomas are so brazen they conflict with Robert’s frog in a boiling pit goals. So really, it’s just so much window dressing.

In short, fuck that guy.

[hpslugga 4058]

3 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

Clarence Thomas is the ultimate troll. The guy is a black as can be, but his politics and viewpoints line up with some crazed hard right white power esque minority hating racist cruel motherfucker.

 

I can’t wait until this guy retires. I hope it becomes personally necessary for him to do so as soon as possible, but will probably have to wait awhile.

Uncle Ruckus ain't retiring. Ever. 

[hornmpa96 2618]

They granted cert in Moore v. United States which is a tax case over a $14,000 liability (which means the plaintiffs aren’t funding this). The Court’s handlers want to preempt a wealth tax through a 16th Amendment argument. In the international tax area, the US has been taxing certain unrealized income since JFK was President. Clearly Harlan Crow and others think this group of justices can deliver a victory.

[Captainant 27638]

14 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

They granted cert in Moore v. United States which is a tax case over a $14,000 liability (which means the plaintiffs aren’t funding this). The Court’s handlers want to preempt a wealth tax through a 16th Amendment argument. In the international tax area, the US has been taxing certain unrealized income since JFK was President. Clearly Harlan Crow and others think this group of justices can deliver a victory.

And of course the courts would need to stack up a few rulings in favor of the general population of the US before they really sell out for the oligarchs. It's the only way to explain their recent face turn

[jimmyjazz 45893]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

He will die on the bench. I view it more likely that he is expelled somehow than he retires.

The only mechanism is impeachment.  This House won't do that, but that balance of power can (and does) flip.  The senate will never convict, as it takes "concurrence of two thirds of the members present".  I'd be shocked if the Democrats could get close to 67 senators in my lifetime.

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

3 hours ago, hpslugga said:

Uncle Ruckus ain't retiring. Ever. 

Ginni will roll his rotting corpse out there as long as she possibly can. She knows the second he's pronounced dead or unable to perform his duties any power she ever held in this life will be gone. 

[Js1 85293]

1 minute ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Ginni will roll his rotting corpse out there as long as she possibly can. She knows the second he's pronounced dead or unable to perform his duties any power she ever held in this life will be gone. 

I imagine she has blackmail on everyone she needs to keep power behind the scenes 

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I imagine she has blackmail on everyone she needs to keep power behind the scenes 

ISWYDT

[Js1 85293]

Unintentional. But you know that Karen keeps receipts. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Clarence Thomas is the ultimate troll. The guy is a black as can be, but his politics and viewpoints line up with some crazed hard right white power esque minority hating racist cruel motherfucker.
 
I can’t wait until this guy retires. I hope it becomes personally necessary for him to do so as soon as possible, but will probably have to wait awhile.

If you’ve read anything about Thomas, you’ll know he will never ever retire.

He’s gonna die on that bench.

[SydneyCarton 48063]

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

If you’ve read anything about Thomas, you’ll know he will never ever retire.

He’s gonna die on that bench.

Jesus, why would anyone do that? Masochism? Ledge fetish?

[tx 3 putt 76874]

37 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I imagine she has blackmail on everyone she needs to keep power behind the scenes 

['stache 21799]

13 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

Clarence Thomas is the ultimate troll. The guy is a black as can be, but his politics and viewpoints line up with some crazed hard right white power esque minority hating racist cruel motherfucker.

 

I can’t wait until this guy retires. I hope it becomes personally necessary for him to do so as soon as possible, but will probably have to wait awhile.

The real troll was Bush Sr. appointing him to replace Thurgood Marshall. 

"We need a black guy, but someone who won't be all "black guy" about stuff like Marshall."

Voila, Uncle Clarence.

You can also bet the farm that he'll draft the opinion declaring "affirmative action" in college admissions dead. And he'll go off about how it actually hurts black people if you dare take our countries past into consideration, while of course refusing to acknowledge he only got the seat because he was black and replacing the court's only black member at the time.  

[hpslugga 4058]

2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Exactly this. Roberts only cares about the legitimacy of the Court in so far as it gives him the fig leaf to cover doing things like gutting the VRA. Alito and Thomas are so brazen they conflict with Robert’s frog in a boiling pit goals. So really, it’s just so much window dressing.

In short, fuck that guy.

It's not that I disagree with this, but I would like to point out that any time Roberts crosses the aisle is a huge win for the population. Reason? Kavanaugh votes with him well over 90% of the time. In fact last year, he voted with him exactly 100% of the time. Those two are birds of a feather, even more so than when Thomas was eating Scalia's shit and legit loving the taste of it for nearly a quarter century. If any lawyer is paying attention to this dynamic, they'd know full well any and all briefs and oral arguments they submit have to be tailored to essentially pander to Roberts, much like the whole goal of winning a SCOTUS case in the early days of the Roberts court was to target Kennedy. So yes, let's all please continue to throw shade on the SCOTUS if that's what it takes for him to actually go to fucking work instead of just coasting by as he did but for all of like 5 cases since his appointment. 

Now, would it be better for all of us if (at a bare minimum) Alito and Steven Clarence got hit by a bus and/or drowned in a fishing accident while they were on vacation this year? Absolutely. But even with those two soccer hooligans, there is a path (however small) to victory in even the most sensitive/serious cases, and that path runs right through the Chief Justice. Ideal scenario? No. Realistically speaking, I'd love nothing more than for 1) Biden to win re-elect, 2) for the D Senate lead to expand, 3) for them to kill the filibuster and 4) for Biden to begin his Legacy Years Tour by unpacking the court vis a vis appointing 4 young, flaming environmental lawyers to the SCOTUS to square things up. However unlikely that scenario may end up being, it's far more likely than Uncle Ruckus' and/or Fredo's removal by way of impeachment. For now, I'll take what I can get. I'd rather Roberts rule right for the wrong reasons than to rule wrong for even wronger reasons. 

Btw for those that have yet to read Thomas' dissent in Moore v. Harper, it reads like 27 pages of an Eric Cartman-style rant in legalese about how "the case is moot goddamnit!!!" Even Stevie Wonder could plainly see that he was simply pandering to Massa Harlan by trying to backdoor a scenario where "Pence has the right to send the issue back to the states" essentially becomes a reality instead of a mere batshit John Eastman "theory." It's pathetic. Even when Trump is dead and gone, those 3 are still going to be butthurt-like-shit that Biden won in 2020. This is the three of them admitting they will never get over that, especially Alito. Honestly, I think the reason Thomas wrote the dissent is because Alito was incapable of resisting the verbalization of his anger over this. 

Question for the lawyers: when you heard the decision was 6-3, and before you saw the names, did any of you guess that the 3 would include anyone other than the 3 who did dissent? In other words, were you expecting a combination of anyone else?

34 minutes ago, 'stache said:

while of course refusing to acknowledge he only got the seat because he was black and replacing the court's only black member at the time.  

Clarence is the poster child for affirmative action. He's legitimately the very last being on this planet that has any business railing against that concept...which is exactly why he will do it.

['stache 21799]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Clarence is the poster child for affirmative action. He's legitimately the very last being on this planet that has any business railing against that concept...which is exactly why he will do it.

He's been doing it his whole SCOTUS career, but usually in dissent. He'll get to go all out for the majority next week. It's truly sad and pathetic.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Jesus, why would anyone do that? Masochism? Ledge fetish?

lol

I like to stay informed

[Bama Chick 28596]

He's been doing it his whole SCOTUS career, but usually in dissent. He'll get to go all out for the majority next week. It's truly sad and pathetic.

He’s been doing it since he was in undergrad at Holy Cross and Harvard Law.

He got told to his face that he only got in both places because of his race.

And that sucks.

But it also has a grain of truth and Thomas HATES that. He was literally in the first class at Holy Cross that actively recruited Black students - there were almost 40 in his class. Prior to that there was one Black student in the entire student body.

Same deal at Harvard.

But instead of taking that insult and using it for positive motivation to go out and succeed and prove them wrong, he let it fester and turn sour and bitter.

So he wants to dismantle the entire system so no one can ever say that again - despite the fact that it won’t erase his personal history.

That man never met a personal grievance he couldn’t nurture into a political cudgel.

And that’s why I read! So I have background for the batshittiness of the present.

[wildcat09 29347]

19 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

He’s been doing it since he was in undergrad at Holy Cross and Harvard Law.

He got told to his face that he only got in both places because of his race.

And that sucks.

But it also has a grain of truth and Thomas HATES that. He was literally in the first class at Holy Cross that actively recruited Black students - there were almost 40 in his class. Prior to that there was one Black student in the entire student body.

Same deal at Harvard.

But instead of taking that insult and using it for positive motivation to go out and succeed and prove them wrong, he let it fester and turn sour and bitter.

So he wants to dismantle the entire system so no one can ever say that again - despite the fact that it won’t erase his personal history.

That man never met a personal grievance he couldn’t nurture into a political cudgel.

And that’s why I read! So I have background for the batshittiness of the present.

He went to Yale law, but otherwise this is basically correct. He dealt with a lot of racism and when he graduated law school none of the top firms wanted him, which he blamed on affirmative action rather than that they were all incredibly racist.

There was a time where he could actually be a somewhat interesting thinker (though he tended not to demonstrate that much, as he was on the black Republican grift train from a very early point in his professional career). But a lifetime of personal grievances and decades surrounding himself in the rightwing grift and propaganda complex has turned him into exactly what it turns every other Republican who marinates in that shit long enough into.  

[tx 3 putt 76874]

All schools have shitty grads 

[Js1 85293]

16 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

All schools have shitty grads 

Yeah, UT has Greg Abbott and Swam

[gmr548 16576]

Question for more informed observers/lawyers on the student loan case:

Let’s say the court does indeed throw out the suit against the Biden debt forgiveness plan based on standing. Should it be assumed that a MOHELA or whoever they signal might actually have standing (a loan servicer is really the only party I can think would have an argument that they are suffering injury) will sue the Biden administration instantly and the plan will go back on hold, and work its way through the courts again?

My thinking as an untrained observer is that even if the court says the states don’t have standing in this suit, the conservative majority will likely lay out a road map to getting them to a place where they would kill the plan.

[scottsins 1966]

And of course the courts would need to stack up a few rulings in favor of the general population of the US before they really sell out for the oligarchs.

Why would they need to do that? They have lifetime appointments and a shit ton or perks.

ETA: By “perks”, I mean corrupt grift.

[SydneyCarton 48063]

3 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

Why would they need to do that? They have lifetime appointments and a shit ton or perks.

 

Becuase if they don't theyll stop getting all the illegal perks they've been getting. Do you have any idea how much a martini made with glacier ice probably costs? Do you think Clarence Thomas is actually going to start vacationing in an RV?

Edited June 28, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[Js1 85293]

11 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Question for more informed observers/lawyers on the student loan case:

Let’s say the court does indeed throw out the suit against the Biden debt forgiveness plan based on standing. Should it be assumed that a MOHELA or whoever they signal might actually have standing (a loan servicer is really the only party I can think would have an argument that they are suffering injury) will sue the Biden administration instantly and the plan will go back on hold, and work its way through the courts again?

My thinking as an untrained observer is that even if the court says the states don’t have standing in this suit, the conservative majority will likely lay out a road map to getting them to a place where they would kill the plan.

If they throw it out for standing, I could see MOHELA or another provider filing suit. But like Moore v Harper, there may be 5 votes to actually rule on the constitutionally instead. But who knows with this chaotic court. Maybe a “we’re throwing out but IF we heard it, this is what we’d say” 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Js1