SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:06 am

BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:46 pm
I feel like both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have weird little quirks in their shitcon ideology that make it pretty likely that one or the other will join the lib justices in criminal justice cases, and I guess that's about as much as anyone could hope for.
Prophetic?



JUSTICE GORSUCH, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded that the application of §3583(k) in this case violated Mr. Haymond’s right to trial by jury.

Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 2_5hek.pdf

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:21 am

Nebby wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:06 am
BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:46 pm
I feel like both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have weird little quirks in their shitcon ideology that make it pretty likely that one or the other will join the lib justices in criminal justice cases, and I guess that's about as much as anyone could hope for.
Prophetic?



JUSTICE GORSUCH, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded that the application of §3583(k) in this case violated Mr. Haymond’s right to trial by jury.

Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 2_5hek.pdf
It's been a really good week. A single judge in my district issued orders for the government to show cause as to why prisoners in 10 cases should continue to be detained in light of Davis, and it seems likely that those will keep coming.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:23 am

9-0 decision (with Justices joining some parts and not others)

Last edited by Nebby on Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:24 am

This seemed like a no-brainer


User avatar
abyss
Posts: 1666
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:32 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by abyss » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:29 am

Auer deference stands. Really thought that one might go the other way after oral arguments.

User avatar
MKC
Posts: 3455
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:45 am

Nebby wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:23 am
9-0 decision (with Justices joining some parts and not others)

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito:
It should have been easy for the Court to say goodbye to Auer v. Robbins.1 In disputes involving the relationship between the government and the people, Auer requires judges to accept an executive agency’s interpretation of its own regulations even when that interpretation doesn’t represent the best and fairest reading. This rule creates a “systematic judicial bias in favor of the federal government, the most powerful of parties, and against everyone else.” Nor is Auer’s biased rule the product of some congressional mandate we are powerless to correct: This Court invented it, almost by accident and without any meaningful effort to reconcile it with the Administrative Procedure Act or the Constitution. A legion of academics, lower court judges, and Members of this Court—even Auer’s author—has called on us to abandon Auer. Yet today a bare majority flinches, and Auer lives on.

Still, today’s decision is more a stay of execution than a pardon. The Court cannot muster even five votes to say that Auer is lawful or wise. Instead, a majority retains Auer only because of stare decisis. And yet, far from standing by that precedent, the majority proceeds to impose so many new and nebulous qualifications and limitations on Auer that THE CHIEF JUSTICE claims to see little practical difference between keeping it on life support in this way and overruling it entirely. So the doctrine emerges maimed and enfeebled—in truth, zombified.

Respectfully, we owe our colleagues on the lower courts more candid and useful guidance than this. And judges owe the people who come before them nothing less than a fair contest, where every party has an equal chance to persuade the court of its interpretation of the law’s demands. One can hope that THE CHIEF JUSTICE is right, and that whether we formally overrule Auer or merely neuter it, the results in most cases will prove the same. But means, not just ends, matter, and retaining even this debilitated version of Auer threatens to force litigants and lower courts to jump through needless and perplexing new hoops and in the process deny the people the independent judicial decisions they deserve. All to what end? So that we may pretend to abide stare decisis?

Consider this case. Mr. Kisor is a Marine who lost out on benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder when the court of appeals deferred to a regulatory interpretation advanced by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court of appeals was guilty of nothing more than faithfully following Auer. But the majority today invokes stare decisis, of all things, to vacate that judgment and tell the court of appeals to try again using its newly retooled, multi-factored, and far less determinate version of Auer. Respectfully, I would stop this business of making up
excuses for judges to abdicate their job of interpreting the law, and simply allow the court of appeals to afford Mr. Kisor its best independent judgment of the law’s meaning.

The Court’s failure to be done with Auer, and its decision to adorn Auer with so many new and ambiguous limitations, all but guarantees we will have to pass this way again. When that day comes, I hope this Court will find the nerve it lacks today and inter Auer at last. Until then, I hope that our judicial colleagues on other courts will take courage from today’s ruling and realize that it has transformed Auer into a paper tiger.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:04 am



From SCOTUSBlog correspondence:

Justice Alito's opinion is only for four Justices, it appears, because Justice Thomas would enact a per se rule that all draws are permissible in these circumstances. Thomas's opinion is actually broader than the plurality, so the plurality rule is going to control here.

Roberts, Breyer, and Kavanaugh join Alito's opinion; Thomas concurs in the judgment. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Kagan. Gorsuch dissents.

Justice Sotomayor in dissent would hold that "there is no categorical exigency exception for blood draws, although exigent circumstances might justify a warrantless blood draw on the facts of a particular case."

Gorsuch says he would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted.
Last edited by Nebby on Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:06 am

Note that this is the third opinion this week on criminal justice issues where Gorsuch is opposite of the other court's conservative justices.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:11 am

Sigh


User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:21 am

RIP representative democracy, we never knew you.

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:28 am

So obviously the response as dems is to pull a maryland and gerymander the fuck out of blue states, right?

User avatar
necho2
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:57 am

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by necho2 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:29 am

Yeah like at some point you just gotta resolve to win the race to the bottom right?

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:38 am

necho2 wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:29 am
Yeah like at some point you just gotta resolve to win the race to the bottom right?
or at the very least at least try to keep up

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:43 am


User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:43 am

Thank God for printing deadlines?

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:53 am

Nebby wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:43 am
Thank God for printing deadlines?
Much like every other argument the government advanced in that case, those are almost certainly bullshit.

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:19 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by ggocat » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:09 am

Nebby wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:04 am


From SCOTUSBlog correspondence:

Justice Alito's opinion is only for four Justices, it appears, because Justice Thomas would enact a per se rule that all draws are permissible in these circumstances. Thomas's opinion is actually broader than the plurality, so the plurality rule is going to control here.

Roberts, Breyer, and Kavanaugh join Alito's opinion; Thomas concurs in the judgment. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Kagan. Gorsuch dissents.

Justice Sotomayor in dissent would hold that "there is no categorical exigency exception for blood draws, although exigent circumstances might justify a warrantless blood draw on the facts of a particular case."

Gorsuch says he would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted.
This is a train-wreck of a decision. The plurality really stretched to try to create a bright-line rule, which as Thomas points out, really isn't a bright-line rule at all.

It shifts the burden to the defendant to prove a lack of exigency, which is contrary to current law.

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:19 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by ggocat » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:14 am

Also JFC, the ScotusBlog tweet is very misleading. This case has nothing to do with implied consent laws and everything to do with exigency. Sotomayor really shows how results-oriented the plurality is:
Rather than simply applying this Court’s precedents to address—and reject—Wisconsin’s implied-consent theory, the plurality today takes the extraordinary step of relying on an issue, exigency, that Wisconsin has affirmatively waived.4 Wisconsin has not once, in any of its briefing before this Court or the state courts, argued that exigent circumstances were present here. In fact, in the state proceedings, Wisconsin “conceded” that the exigency exception does not justify the warrantless blood draw in this case. App. 66; see 2018 WI 84, ¶12, 383 Wis. 2d 192, 202,914 N. W. 2d 151, 155 (“The State expressly stated that it was not relying on exigent circumstances to justify the blood draw”).
ETA and yeah, that's the whole point of Gorsuch's dissent, too.

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 3457
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by pancakes3 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:17 pm

That Mississippi dipshit who refuses to do 1-on-1 interviews w women is teeing up a religious freedom v. gender discrimination suit

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:25 pm


User avatar
Nony
Posts: 5671
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nony » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:57 pm

god, for a moment I mixed up Stevens with Stephen (Breyer) and was going to be really freaked out. (My brain is done for the day.)

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 7959
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:01 pm



User avatar
stego
Posts: 3665
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by stego » Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:00 pm

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... anzin-rfra

I haven’t read anything else about this case, but it sounds like the only religious liberty at issue here is Tanvir’s right to be Muslim without becoming a government informant against other Muslims. Seems pretty distinguishable from the Christian discrimination cases

User avatar
MKC
Posts: 3455
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:53 pm

stego wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:00 pm
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... anzin-rfra

I haven’t read anything else about this case, but it sounds like the only religious liberty at issue here is Tanvir’s right to be Muslim without becoming a government informant against other Muslims. Seems pretty distinguishable from the Christian discrimination cases
It's not about the particular RFRA violation. It's about whether you can sue government officials for money damages under the RFRA. Right now you can't. If Tanvir wins, you can, which potentially means that instead of Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cake Shop getting an order from the court saying the government can't do stuff, they get to recover money damages from government officials personally.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests