SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post Reply
User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:52 pm

Pretty disgusting opinion imo


User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:53 pm


User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:05 am


User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:16 am

Ginsburg writing for a unanimous Court


User avatar
abyss
Posts: 2036
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:32 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by abyss » Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:32 am


User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:14 pm

One of the more interesting 5-4 splits this session. Ginsburg, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch in the majority.


User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:29 am

Nebby wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:14 pm
One of the more interesting 5-4 splits this session. Ginsburg, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch in the majority.

I haven't read any analysis of this yet but is there a chance this could be used to undermine challenges to gerrymandering more generally?

User avatar
MKC
Posts: 4035
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:45 am

BlendedUnicorn wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:29 am
Nebby wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:14 pm
One of the more interesting 5-4 splits this session. Ginsburg, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch in the majority.

I haven't read any analysis of this yet but is there a chance this could be used to undermine challenges to gerrymandering more generally?
It means that you need the entire state legislature for standing (or the attorney general). You don't get standing with just the state house or just the state senate.

ETA: So I if I read it right, a Dem state house can't sue to challenge gerrymandering in its state.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:24 am

Talk about a convoluted opinion with people joining some parts not others. Of the part where 5 joined, the only rule I can devise is that "if a christian monument has been around for a long time, even if it would have been deemed unconstitutional at the time it was erected based on current case law, it is not unconstitutional due to the passage of time."


User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:21 am

Good


User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:22 am


User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:25 am


User avatar
abyss
Posts: 2036
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:32 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by abyss » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:32 am

Nebby wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:21 am
Good

From Thomas' dissenting opinion:
Much of the Court’s opinion is a paean to Batson v. Kentucky, which requires that a duly convicted criminal go free because a juror was arguably deprived of his right to serve on the jury. That rule was suspect when it was announced, and I am even less confident of it today. Batson has led the Court to disregard Article III’s limitations on standing by giving a windfall to a convicted criminal who, even under Batson’s logic, suffered no injury. It has forced equal protection principles onto a procedure designed to give parties absolute discretion in making individual strikes. And it has blinded the Court to the reality that racial prejudice exists and can affect the fairness of trials.
Could this asshole be more loathsome?

User avatar
Nony
Posts: 7230
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nony » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:17 pm

That seems pretty disingenuous too - it’s not the juror’s right to be on the jury that’s at issue, but the defendant’s right to a fair/representative jury.

User avatar
abyss
Posts: 2036
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:32 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by abyss » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:41 pm

Nony wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:17 pm
That seems pretty disingenuous too - it’s not the juror’s right to be on the jury that’s at issue, but the defendant’s right to a fair/representative jury.
Yeah that is my beef with that paragraph.

User avatar
Kümmel
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:07 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Kümmel » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:44 pm

But you don't have the right to a representative jury, just a representative venire, so while lol wrong in so many ways, Thomas is right that you're invoking the juror's right

User avatar
Nony
Posts: 7230
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nony » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:49 pm

That’s true. It just still rubs me the wrong way to distance this entirely from the defendant’s rights. (Like I get that the absence of a juror of a particular race doesn’t mean that the jury is actually unfair. It’s just the rhetoric of it.)

User avatar
Kümmel
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:07 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Kümmel » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:00 pm

I can't believe (tho I can) that Thomas wrote this, and even Gorsuch thought it was too much and didn't join this part:
In sum, as other Members of this Court have recognized,
Batson charted the course for eliminating peremptory
strikes. See, e.g., Rice v. Collins, 546 U. S. 333, 344 (2006)
(BREYER, J., concurring); Batson, supra, at 107–108 (Marshall, J., concurring). Although those Justices welcomed
the prospect, I do not. The peremptory system “has always been held essential to the fairness of trial by jury.”
Lewis, supra, at 376. And the basic premise of Strauder—
that a juror’s racial prejudices can make a trial less fair—
has not become “obsolete.” McCollum, 505 U. S., at 61
(opinion of THOMAS, J.). The racial composition of a jury
matters because racial biases, sympathies, and prejudices
still exist. This is not a matter of “assumptions,” as Batson said. It is a matter of reality.13 The Court knows
these prejudices exist. Why else would it say that “a
capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the
victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias”? Turner
v. Murray, 476 U. S. 28, 36–37 (1986).14 For that matter, why else say here that “Flowers is black” and the “prosecutor is white”? Ante, at 3. Yet the Court continues to
apply a line of cases that prevents, among other things,
black defendants from striking potentially hostile white
jurors. I remain “certain that black criminal defendants
will rue the day that this Court ventured down this road
that inexorably will lead to the elimination of peremptory
strikes.” McCollum, supra, at 60 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).
Instead of focusing on the possibility that a juror will
misperceive a peremptory strike as threatening his dignity,
I would return the Court’s focus to the fairness of trials for
the defendant whose liberty is at stake and to the People
who seek justice under the law.

User avatar
ymmv
pregnant with a better version of myself
Posts: 17601
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:24 am
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by ymmv » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:11 pm

There’s a really good Current Affairs with Corey Robin I think that helped me understand what the hell Clarence Thomas’s deal might be in a more concrete way. Tl;dr being that, yes, he’s a huge reactionary, but as with a lot of hoteps it’s born out of a certain understanding of America’s racist history. He believes and acknowledges—possibly more coherently than even some of the liberal justices—that every facet of American life and society is built on the foundation of white supremacy. The cynical part, though, is that he believes the rot is so deep and so pervasive that there’s absolutely no point in attempting to address any of it: any and all anti-racism efforts, whether through the courts or congress or private action, are merely symptoms-alleviating efforts doomed to ultimate failure.

This cynicism in turn leads him to the part of his beliefs that he shares with white supremacists: segregationism. Robin thinks this is an aspect of Thomas that kinda warped its way out of his black nationalist sympathies. Thomas basically holds to a libertarian-style bootstrap fantasy of free market salvation. That there’s no point in the US government trying to level the uneven playing field it’s created, because it will always perpetuate more racism in doing so. Instead, (wait for it) the miracle of ~unchecked capitalism~ (no idea how this is supposed to happen in an insolubly racist initial distribution of capital) will allow a few powerful black men (and the “men” part is important) to rise to the top and create alternative black patriarchies within which black folks are protected mob boss style from some of the ravages of white supremacism and other racialized attacks on their communities.

Anyway, like any free market fantasy it’s pretty clearly rotten to the core. The patriarchal aspects of Thomas’s idealized society in particular are grim AF. But thinking about Thomas’s goals as kind of a warped supervillain way of trying to get towards black liberation at least let me hate the man a little less. Or at least a little less than Scalia.

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:47 pm

Kümmel wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:00 pm
I can't believe (tho I can) that Thomas wrote this, and even Gorsuch thought it was too much and didn't join this part:
In sum, as other Members of this Court have recognized,
Batson charted the course for eliminating peremptory
strikes. See, e.g., Rice v. Collins, 546 U. S. 333, 344 (2006)
(BREYER, J., concurring); Batson, supra, at 107–108 (Marshall, J., concurring). Although those Justices welcomed
the prospect, I do not. The peremptory system “has always been held essential to the fairness of trial by jury.”
Lewis, supra, at 376. And the basic premise of Strauder—
that a juror’s racial prejudices can make a trial less fair—
has not become “obsolete.” McCollum, 505 U. S., at 61
(opinion of THOMAS, J.). The racial composition of a jury
matters because racial biases, sympathies, and prejudices
still exist. This is not a matter of “assumptions,” as Batson said. It is a matter of reality.13 The Court knows
these prejudices exist. Why else would it say that “a
capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the
victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias”? Turner
v. Murray, 476 U. S. 28, 36–37 (1986).14 For that matter, why else say here that “Flowers is black” and the “prosecutor is white”? Ante, at 3. Yet the Court continues to
apply a line of cases that prevents, among other things,
black defendants from striking potentially hostile white
jurors. I remain “certain that black criminal defendants
will rue the day that this Court ventured down this road
that inexorably will lead to the elimination of peremptory
strikes.” McCollum, supra, at 60 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).
Instead of focusing on the possibility that a juror will
misperceive a peremptory strike as threatening his dignity,
I would return the Court’s focus to the fairness of trials for
the defendant whose liberty is at stake and to the People
who seek justice under the law.
This isn't the worst point in the world but the obvious answer is that the government should never get to exercise peremptory challenges, gov challenges should all be subject to scrutiny, and the defense should be allowed a handful. Government represents "the people," allowing them to strike a juror for no cause is insane.

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:52 pm

Like Thomas is 100% correct that Batson as a prophelylactic has been an unmitigated failure that does basically nothing to protect defendants from racist juries.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:59 pm

What a procedural mess


User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Hardening Democrat
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » 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.

User avatar
ymmv
pregnant with a better version of myself
Posts: 17601
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:24 am
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by ymmv » Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:55 pm

Breyer is hot garbage on con crim issues anyway, so defections still overwhelmingly work out in the right’s favor.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 9121
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Nebby » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:29 am

Some big cases expected today

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests