Octopus Overlords

I don't think anything has been announced on the final 5 cases. I saw a pundit indicate that this still isn't in weird territory from a timeline perspective between when the case is argued and an opinion is released. It was just later than usual overall. An explanation offered was that they had taken on a large case load and remote work seemed to draw out the calendar.

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:02 pm I don't think anything has been announced on the final 5 cases. I saw a pundit indicate that this still isn't in weird territory from a timeline perspective between when the case is argued and an opinion is released. It was just later than usual overall. An explanation offered was that they had taken on a large case load and remote work seemed to draw out the calendar.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense of when they are going to release the next batch of opinions. Presumably not today, at least.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:04 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:02 pm I don't think anything has been announced on the final 5 cases. I saw a pundit indicate that this still isn't in weird territory from a timeline perspective between when the case is argued and an opinion is released. It was just later than usual overall. An explanation offered was that they had taken on a large case load and remote work seemed to draw out the calendar.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense of when they are going to release the next batch of opinions. Presumably not today, at least.

The experts seem to be saying they announce next day schedule/drop opinions in the morning so don't expect anything tomorrow at this point. It could be Thursday, etc.

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:08 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:04 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:02 pm I don't think anything has been announced on the final 5 cases. I saw a pundit indicate that this still isn't in weird territory from a timeline perspective between when the case is argued and an opinion is released. It was just later than usual overall. An explanation offered was that they had taken on a large case load and remote work seemed to draw out the calendar.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense of when they are going to release the next batch of opinions. Presumably not today, at least.

The experts seem to be saying they announce next day schedule/drop opinions in the morning so don't expect anything tomorrow at this point. It could be Thursday, etc.

LOL. As is apropos, they just announced that opinions will be released tomorrow at 10 AM.

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:11 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:08 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:04 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:02 pm I don't think anything has been announced on the final 5 cases. I saw a pundit indicate that this still isn't in weird territory from a timeline perspective between when the case is argued and an opinion is released. It was just later than usual overall. An explanation offered was that they had taken on a large case load and remote work seemed to draw out the calendar.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense of when they are going to release the next batch of opinions. Presumably not today, at least.

The experts seem to be saying they announce next day schedule/drop opinions in the morning so don't expect anything tomorrow at this point. It could be Thursday, etc.

LOL. As is apropos, they just announced that opinions will be released tomorrow at 10 AM.

I will start bracing myself immediately.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:24 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:11 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:08 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:04 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:02 pm I don't think anything has been announced on the final 5 cases. I saw a pundit indicate that this still isn't in weird territory from a timeline perspective between when the case is argued and an opinion is released. It was just later than usual overall. An explanation offered was that they had taken on a large case load and remote work seemed to draw out the calendar.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense of when they are going to release the next batch of opinions. Presumably not today, at least.

The experts seem to be saying they announce next day schedule/drop opinions in the morning so don't expect anything tomorrow at this point. It could be Thursday, etc.

LOL. As is apropos, they just announced that opinions will be released tomorrow at 10 AM.

I will start bracing myself immediately.

It feels like the supremes are timing Mazars to be announced on Friday, just before the Congressional break.

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:24 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:11 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:08 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:04 pm

malchior wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:02 pm I don't think anything has been announced on the final 5 cases. I saw a pundit indicate that this still isn't in weird territory from a timeline perspective between when the case is argued and an opinion is released. It was just later than usual overall. An explanation offered was that they had taken on a large case load and remote work seemed to draw out the calendar.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense of when they are going to release the next batch of opinions. Presumably not today, at least.

The experts seem to be saying they announce next day schedule/drop opinions in the morning so don't expect anything tomorrow at this point. It could be Thursday, etc.

LOL. As is apropos, they just announced that opinions will be released tomorrow at 10 AM.

I will start bracing myself immediately.

It feels like the supremes are timing Mazars to be announced on Friday, just before the Congressional break.

Begs the question a bit of who gets to decide when a decision is released. I assume that would be Roberts' unilateral call, but I'm not sure.

Everything else is getting released tomorrow. Setting up for quite the climax.

Given the decision breakdown it seems very likely that Roberts wrote Mazars. Which isn't surprising (hard to see how he wouldn't be in the majority, one way or the other), and given the institutional importance it's not surprising that he would assign it to himself. Unfortunately doesn't tell us too much about the outcome, I think.

We'll see whether we still have a kind of functioning governmental system tomorrow!

Yup - I've been waiting for this one patiently but can't get the dread out even if I think Roberts punts on it somehow to after the election.

I think today's decisions reinforce just how much we need to decouple healthcare from our jobs.

Scotusblog said that SCOTUS announced tomorrow was the last day for opinions.

stessier wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:25 pm Scotusblog said that SCOTUS announced tomorrow was the last day for opinions.

This is phrased kind of ominously when our democracy is in the balance.

stessier wrote:I think today's decisions reinforce just how much we need to decouple healthcare from our jobs.

Yeah, given that ACA only mandated coverage, which individuals could decide not to take advantage of, these are rulings which again favor corporate/theocratic entity rights over the individual.

Today is the day. When I didn't know with absolute certainty the ruling would drop I was pretty relaxed about it. Now I've got an alarm set because this is one of the more important rulings in years and I've got that pit in my stomach. In potentially good news though, the morning started with Trump having an absolute meltdown about harassment and prosecutor misconduct. I have a belief he got tipped by someone to the ruling and is freaking out completely. We'll see what happen today but it's the worst timeline and hope is but an echo.

I'm trying to think of signs that the tax cases will come out the right way. Like, maybe they waited until the last day because they are going to rule against Trump but wanted to delay it to increase the odds that the stuff winds up coming out after the election?

I dunno. I should just expect the worst and hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Ya I'm pretty sure he got tipped off. We shall see.

malchior wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:58 am Today is the day. When I didn't know with absolute certainty the ruling would drop I was pretty relaxed about it. Now I've got an alarm set because this is one of the more important rulings in years and I've got that pit in my stomach. In potentially good news though, the morning started with Trump having an absolute meltdown about harassment and prosecutor misconduct. I have a belief he got tipped by someone to the ruling and is freaking out completely. We'll see what happen today but it's the worst timeline and hope is but an echo.

I dunno. Seems like an angry morning rant is pretty normal for him. Also his legal exposure is so significant that he could've received a lot of different news re: prosecutor interest in him.

First opinion of the day is McGirt vs Oklahoma, where Gorsuch joined the liberal justices siding with the Native American tribes that the land remains "Indian country". Gorsuch writes, "Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word."

The SCOTUSblog summation: "#SCOTUS rules 5-4 that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute a major crime involving an Indian within the historical boundaries of the Creek Indian reservation in eastern Oklahoma."

Interesting breakdown in the McGirt vs. Oklahoma which essentially sides with the Native Tribe. *Gorsuch* wrote the opinion and was joined by the liberals. Early reports are that he included a call out to the fact that we've broken a lot of past promises here. I wonder if we should expect right-wing howling about purity of justices.

7-2 against Trump in the Vance case!

SCOTUSblog: "Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President."

Trump loses in Trump v. Vance, in a 7-2 decision.

Great! Though Vance was the one I was less worried about. But still good! And 7-2, which is nice.

malchior wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:10 am Interesting breakdown in the McGirt vs. Oklahoma which essentially sides with the Native Tribe. *Gorsuch* wrote the opinion and was joined by the liberals. Early reports are that he included a call out to the fact that we've broken a lot of past promises here. I wonder if we should expect right-wing howling about purity of justices.

Apparently Gorsuch has a long track record of siding with native tribes.

Poor Trump. Twitter aneurysm incoming.

Re: Vance:

End of majority says issue here was limited to absolute immunity and heightened need, and 2d Circuit ordered case returned to District Court for other possible issues. So SCOTUS remands and presumably the case still goes back to 2d Circuit and then District Court.

Probably another reason the court felt fine going against Trump here. It's not the end of the road for Vance's subpoena, so this can be strung out past Nov. still.

Someone on SCOTUSblog indicated that Alito's dissent references Mazars, hinting that SCOTUS will not rule in favor of Trump there, either.

I predict a 5-4 ruling on the tax case. There is no doubt Thomas, Alito, and Kavenaugh will side with whatever the Potus wants. They almost always do. That leaves Gorsuch and Roberts as the deciding votes.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:19 am Someone on SCOTUSblog indicated that Alito's dissent references Mazars, hinting that SCOTUS will not rule in favor of Trump there, either.

Seeing that too. Though a lot depends on the details, even if that's right.

It's time...

7-2 on Mazars!

7-2 ruling in Mazars "against" Trump.

I feel something almost like hope!

Whew. Not Hungary. Trump is going to melt down. Fucking burn you POS. As expected it remands the case back so Congress doesn't get it immediately.

Kavanaugh went against Trump.

From SCOTUSblog: "More of a win for the president, it appears. The question presented, Roberts writes, is whether the subpoeas issued exceed the authority of the House under the Constitution."

Looks like David Frum nailed his predictions on the results here. Vance firmly against Trump. Mazars rejects Trump's heightened standards argument but basically tells the court to slightly tweak the language on Congressional subpoenas, so that SCOTUS can preserve rule of law while saving Trump from this stuff coming out before the election.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:25 am Looks like David Frum nailed his predictions on the results here. Vance firmly against Trump. Mazars rejects Trump's heightened standards argument but basically tells the court to slightly tweak the language on Congressional subpoenas, so that SCOTUS can preserve rule of law while saving Trump from this stuff coming out before the election.

Yup - Roberts definitely threaded the needle with precision here as expected. Rejecting the new standards was very important though. I take that as a major victory. We now know that the judiciary isn't severely compromised.

Edit: What does disappoint me is that the court system is exposed as this creaking mechanism that essentially future autocrats can still attack. Trump wins long-term because his records release were delayed for the entirety of his entire term. It is a crack in the system that has certainly been exposed.

This seems apt:

malchior wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:28 am

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:25 am Looks like David Frum nailed his predictions on the results here. Vance firmly against Trump. Mazars rejects Trump's heightened standards argument but basically tells the court to slightly tweak the language on Congressional subpoenas, so that SCOTUS can preserve rule of law while saving Trump from this stuff coming out before the election.

Yup - Roberts definitely threaded the needle with precision here as expected. Rejecting the new standards was very important though. I take that as a major victory. We now know that the judiciary isn't severely compromised.

Yeah, and I hate to complain when we've dodged the "end of the world" type result, BUT still. This is the footnote language from Vance that people were referencing before:



Alito is pointing out - "yeah, you've set up a new standard, and you're saying that the president has arguments under this standard, but be real - you've written this so that the president will lose under your standard." Which is true. So it's still kind of f'ing disgusting that Roberts is playing games seemingly just to protect Trump during the current election.