SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

User avatar
duke baloney
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by duke baloney » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:38 pm

BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:35 pm
dcc617 wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 12:49 pm
I have 4 theories about why the Trump tax return decision is taking so long:

1) Roberts wants them to be unanimous/8-1 and is trying to come up with a decision that can be signed on by everyone.

2) Roberts is trying to write a decision where Trump wins and is struggling because there's no legal argument for Trump.

3) Roberts is going to decide against Trump but is set on dragging out the process so that the returns won't be available before the election.

4) Trump has told Roberts that he doesn't care what the decision is, he's not going to let the returns be released.
Re: 4, they're third party subpoenas, he can't not let them do shit.
OLC lawyers furiously researching whether releasing the president's tax returns makes you an enemy combatant

User avatar
duke baloney
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by duke baloney » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:39 pm

BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:59 pm
honestly it would be great if the court found some way to send it back for reconsideration or something like that. Trump's running into a landslide defeat and there's no way his tax returns contain overt evidence of law breaking -- more likely it's tax lawyer nerd porn that will amount to a lot of boundary pushing and gray area that means almost nothing out of context. Getting them released would be a distraction.
I still have ptsd from that Maddow special


User avatar
icechicken
Lost in the sauce
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:14 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by icechicken » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:39 am

I think you were right that C.J. had been gunning for unaminity - Roberts opinion, joined by the libs, Kavanaugh/Gorsuch with a literal "both sides" concurrence, only Thomas/Alito dissenting

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 12075
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:42 am

icechicken wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:39 am
I think you were right that C.J. had been gunning for unaminity - Roberts opinion, joined by the libs, Kavanaugh/Gorsuch with a literal "both sides" concurrence, only Thomas/Alito dissenting
due credit where credit is due, it was d many cs that called the searching for unanimity point. But I'm pretty happy with the result given my expressed preference above for this to lead to more litigation in the lower courts.

User avatar
icechicken
Lost in the sauce
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:14 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by icechicken » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:48 am

BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:42 am
icechicken wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:39 am
I think you were right that C.J. had been gunning for unaminity - Roberts opinion, joined by the libs, Kavanaugh/Gorsuch with a literal "both sides" concurrence, only Thomas/Alito dissenting
due credit where credit is due, it was d many cs that called the searching for unanimity point. But I'm pretty happy with the result given my expressed preference above for this to lead to more litigation in the lower courts.
my bad lol, and apologies to dcc; my brain struggles with quote chains for some reason

User avatar
Nony
Posts: 7468
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nony » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:54 am

So basically, “you can’t simply say ‘I’m the president and you can’t ever subpoena me,’ but you *can* go into court and challenge the enforcement of this particular subpoena based on bad faith/undue breadth or burden, in light of your particular responsibilities as president.”

It’s breathtaking to me how badly Trump’s people argue for stuff. They keep trying to issue these bald universal edicts about what the president can/can’t do, and losing, rather than actually taking the standard legal steps to be able to get the outcome they want. I mean, I get that asserting absolute authority for everything is a feature to Trump, not a bug, but it seems like such a dumb approach. (The travel ban cases seem to have gone this way - the president *does* have a lot of power to regulate who comes into the country, and if he’d just actually put in the work to promulgate the initial ban as a legit expression of that power, he’d have faced weaker legal challenges than when he just said “I can do this because I want to.” That’s not an endorsement of the travel bans, just an example of Trump’s approach. It just seems so wasteful and dumb.)

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 12075
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:58 am

Nony wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:54 am
So basically, “you can’t simply say ‘I’m the president and you can’t ever subpoena me,’ but you *can* go into court and challenge the enforcement of this particular subpoena based on bad faith/undue breadth or burden, in light of your particular responsibilities as president.”

It’s breathtaking to me how badly Trump’s people argue for stuff. They keep trying to issue these bald universal edicts about what the president can/can’t do, and losing, rather than actually taking the standard legal steps to be able to get the outcome they want. I mean, I get that asserting absolute authority for everything is a feature to Trump, not a bug, but it seems like such a dumb approach. (The travel ban cases seem to have gone this way - the president *does* have a lot of power to regulate who comes into the country, and if he’d just actually put in the work to promulgate the initial ban as a legit expression of that power, he’d have faced weaker legal challenges than when he just said “I can do this because I want to.” That’s not an endorsement of the travel bans, just an example of Trump’s approach. It just seems so wasteful and dumb.)
You’re thinking about this from a perspective where neither side benefits by keeping things tied up forever. In civil lit, making maximalist but colorable arguments that you know will ultimately fail but will delay resolution for months, if not years, is often the entire game. Running out the clock is absolutely the strategy here.

User avatar
stego
Posts: 4339
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by stego » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:03 am

BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:58 am
Nony wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:54 am
So basically, “you can’t simply say ‘I’m the president and you can’t ever subpoena me,’ but you *can* go into court and challenge the enforcement of this particular subpoena based on bad faith/undue breadth or burden, in light of your particular responsibilities as president.”

It’s breathtaking to me how badly Trump’s people argue for stuff. They keep trying to issue these bald universal edicts about what the president can/can’t do, and losing, rather than actually taking the standard legal steps to be able to get the outcome they want. I mean, I get that asserting absolute authority for everything is a feature to Trump, not a bug, but it seems like such a dumb approach. (The travel ban cases seem to have gone this way - the president *does* have a lot of power to regulate who comes into the country, and if he’d just actually put in the work to promulgate the initial ban as a legit expression of that power, he’d have faced weaker legal challenges than when he just said “I can do this because I want to.” That’s not an endorsement of the travel bans, just an example of Trump’s approach. It just seems so wasteful and dumb.)
You’re thinking about this from a perspective where neither side benefits by keeping things tied up forever. In civil lit, making maximalist but colorable arguments that you know will ultimately fail but will delay resolution for months, if not years, is often the entire game. Running out the clock is absolutely the strategy here.
But running out the clock can't be the game when you have a travel ban that the courts won't let you implement

I think Nony is saying the Trump admin could implement their policies faster if they settled for making reasonable arguments

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 4873
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by pancakes3 » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:15 am

trump doesn't actually care about implementing those policies (miller might). trump just cares about his base seeing him trying, bc that's good enough. if he can delay the decision and play the card that the DEEP STATE is working against him? all the better.

User avatar
duke baloney
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by duke baloney » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:25 am

I also doubt they're complying with the lower court orders against them

User avatar
Nony
Posts: 7468
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nony » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:36 am

Those are all fair points. Stego’s right that my main point was he could accomplish these things pretty easily if he just went about it reasonably. I get all the reasons why that’s not actually the point - though I think running the clock out makes more sense if you’re going to lose. I agree that Trump cares about the appearance rather than the actual outcome and likes to present as this persecuted embattled figure so why not present these ridiculous legal stances, I guess - I just find it infuriating.

User avatar
duke baloney
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by duke baloney » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:46 am

also a secondary objective of all these policies is to destroy the administrative state, so i can see why working within the regulatory procedures doesn't make sense for them. like yeah they can easily build a pipeline or whatever by going through N&C and coming up with some BS environmental analysis to justify it, but they want to tear that system down entirely and probably thought they could get the courts to do that since they've appointed like half the judiciary at this point.

User avatar
dcc617
Posts: 1433
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:04 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by dcc617 » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:48 am

I didn't realize that the prosecutor in the tax case was the same one who dropped the case against Ivanka and Don Jr. after he got bribed.

User avatar
Nony
Posts: 7468
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nony » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:55 am

duke baloney wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:46 am
also a secondary objective of all these policies is to destroy the administrative state, so i can see why working within the regulatory procedures doesn't make sense for them. like yeah they can easily build a pipeline or whatever by going through N&C and coming up with some BS environmental analysis to justify it, but they want to tear that system down entirely and probably thought they could get the courts to do that since they've appointed like half the judiciary at this point.
Yeah, that’s fair too. Still infuriating, but accurate.

User avatar
dcc617
Posts: 1433
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:04 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by dcc617 » Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:13 pm

Skimming Mazars, it looks like just an enormous punt. And it doesn't make sense to punt since it looks like it still leaves it up to Congress to determine a valid legislative purpose. It's just basically Roberts saying that he'd really love it if Congress and the prez worked it out. Which could make sense unless you remember that the president is a lawless would he autocrat.

User avatar
beep
Posts: 3187
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by beep » Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:19 pm

drake meme

something about taxes | no
half of Oklahoma is Creek reservation land | yes

User avatar
haus
Posts: 1184
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by haus » Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:00 pm

So, help me out here.

What we have learned in the tax case is that no future administration ever needs to respond to any request made by congress or anyone else. All they need to do is find the dumbest attorney available, have them scrawl some completely unsupported bullshit in crayon and submit that to the courts.

The courts will eventually say that the scribbled mess makes no sense, but don't worry we will let you try again.

At some possible future point something may happen, but by then you are either dead, or at least out of office, so who cares?

What am I missing?

User avatar
MKC
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:09 pm

haus wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:00 pm
So, help me out here.

What we have learned in the tax case is that no future administration ever needs to respond to any request made by congress or anyone else. All they need to do is find the dumbest attorney available, have them scrawl some completely unsupported bullshit in crayon and submit that to the courts.

The courts will eventually say that the scribbled mess makes no sense, but don't worry we will let you try again.

At some possible future point something may happen, but by then you are either dead, or at least out of office, so who cares?

What am I missing?
Worked for Phillip Morris for a solid 40-50 years.

User avatar
beep
Posts: 3187
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by beep » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:29 pm


User avatar
duke baloney
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by duke baloney » Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:03 am

this must be zizek's favorite supreme court in a while


User avatar
duke baloney
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by duke baloney » Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:19 pm

Lemon test uno reverse card

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests