Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:35 am**

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:32 am 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.

I think this is a bit harsh - wouldn't the liberals on the court write some kind of opinion of their own if they really thought this was the case?

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:35 am**

From Scotusblog:

Justice Thomas dissents. He would hold that "Congress has no power to issue a legislative subpoena for private, nonofficial documents -- whether they belong to the President or not."

Jesus Christ. Bearing in mind that this is the future if Trump gets a second term and gets additional SCOTUS nominations.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:38 am**

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:35 am
El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:32 am 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.
I think this is a bit harsh - wouldn't the liberals on the court write some kind of opinion of their own if they really thought this was the case?

They probably don't have a choice - without Roberts I don't think that they had five votes for "comply with the subpoena immediately". Once that's the case, they're probably negotiating with Roberts (and Gorsuch / Kavanaugh to a lesser extent) to make the balancing test language as hostile to the president as possible. That there are no separate liberal opinions would suggest that they were satisfied with the balancing test language within the context of a decision that doesn't require immediate compliance.

I also wonder if part of the reason why Mazars and Vance waited until the last day is that they were negotiating over the test language.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:40 am**

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:35 am From Scotusblog:

Justice Thomas dissents. He would hold that "Congress has no power to issue a legislative subpoena for private, nonofficial documents -- whether they belong to the President or not."
Jesus Christ. Bearing in mind that this is the future if Trump gets a second term and gets additional SCOTUS nominations.

That thing that legislatures have been doing since we started this whole thing and is a practice stretching back hundreds of years through Parliament...yeah...I think that's too much power. He is a smart man but he is also a whack job.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:45 am**

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:38 am
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:35 am
El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:32 am 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.
I think this is a bit harsh - wouldn't the liberals on the court write some kind of opinion of their own if they really thought this was the case?
They probably don't have a choice - without Roberts I don't think that they had five votes for "comply with the subpoena immediately". Once that's the case, they're probably negotiating with Roberts (and Gorsuch / Kavanaugh to a lesser extent) to make the balancing test language as hostile to the president as possible. That there are no separate liberal opinions would suggest that they were satisfied with the balancing test language within the context of a decision that doesn't require immediate compliance.

I also wonder if part of the reason why Mazars and Vance waited until the last day is that they were negotiating over the test language.

This is how I take it. Alito complaining about it in Vance gives you a hint that this is the case. 'You sent back a test that you know will fail but isn't a sham - you jerk! He is the PRESIDENT'. Anyway, this was always the likely 'best case' outcome which is infuriating in the justice delayed sense. We have a lot to think about in regards to keeping this nation corruption-free and this is another glimpse that perhaps we are going to eventually lose that battle. The judges act in a reliable and somewhat predictable way but the system takes so long that they delay itself can be abused. That isn't great.

Also, one reason this is last also could be because it was the last case argued. SCOTUS tea reading is often perilous. We're all probably getting it wrong in the end.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:50 am**

This is helpful for dialing my irritation with Roberts down a bit. I do need to keep it in perspective that we did avoid the nightmare scenario, which was the SCOTUS declaring that the President is above having to comply with subpoenas full stop.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:06 am**

He's totally losing his shit on Twitter. This is amusing.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:23 am**

HOLY COW - this is big news.

never saw this coming.

edit: Not that we will see anything until after the elections.

lame

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:28 am**

There's still another bomb coming in the McGahn testimonial immunity case:

Most likely the full DC Circuit will rule in favor of the House, then SCOTUS will stay it until after the election.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:39 pm**

This decision is also huge:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1281227141707898881

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:50 pm**

If you have the time, read the Thomas dissents in the McGirt and Mazars case. He should probably retire if not to just preserve his legacy. They are beyond wacky.

In McGirt he goes out of his way to say that SCOTUS shouldn't even be reviewing the state case. Maybe I'm misreading it but he seems to be saying it is not even a matter of the jurisdiction. In other words, even if they didn't have jurisdiction we don't have the power to rule on that. Who does then? (Spoiler: It's God probably).

In Mazars he makes the claim that responding to House subpoenas is too hard. Wah. He writes, "In sum, the demands on the President’s time and the importance of his tasks are extraordinary <snip> A subpoena imposes both demands on the President’s limited time and a mental burden...." Ok. What can we say, being corrupt is too taxing? Also, you are writing about the laziest, dumbest President in American history so mental burden concerns are applicable but anything is a burden to this putz. That is why his lawyers deal with it.

Edit: Those are just the hot takes. I'm waiting on some better legal minds to dissect them but to a layman they sound...really off.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:58 pm**

malchior wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:50 pm If you have the time, read the Thomas dissents in the McGirt and Mazars case. He should probably retire if not to just preserve his legacy. They are beyond wacky.

In McGirt he goes out of his way to say that SCOTUS shouldn't even be reviewing the state case. Maybe I'm misreading it but he seems to be saying it is not even a matter of the jurisdiction. In other words, even if they didn't have jurisdiction we don't have the power to rule on that. Who does then? (Spoiler: It's God probably).

In Mazars he makes the claim that responding to House subpoenas is too hard. Wah. He writes, "In sum, the demands on the President’s time and the importance of his tasks are extraordinary <snip> A subpoena imposes both demands on the President’s limited time and a mental burden...." Ok. What can we say, being corrupt is too taxing? Also, you are writing about the laziest, dumbest President in American history so mental burden concerns are applicable but anything is a burden to this putz. That is why his lawyers deal with it.

Edit: Those are just the hot takes. I'm waiting on some better legal minds to dissect them but to a layman they sound...really off.

Also like...he understands that Trump himself wouldn't be compiling the subpoena response?

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:12 pm**

I think Thomas is hoping that we can adopt the fuero system.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:45 pm**

David Frum on the subpoena decisions.

Basically what I was talking about - a victory for the rule of law, a further defeat on the idea that institutions will be able to hold Trump accountable at times when it matters.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:45 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:58 pm
malchior wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:50 pm<snip> A subpoena imposes both demands on the President’s limited time and a mental burden...." Ok. What can we say, being corrupt is too taxing? Also, you are writing about the laziest, dumbest President in American history so mental burden concerns are applicable but anything is a burden to this putz. That is why his lawyers deal with it.
Also like...he understands that Trump himself wouldn't be compiling the subpoena response?

We should ask him how he feels golf impacts the President's limited time.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:58 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:45 pmBasically what I was talking about - a victory for the rule of law, a further defeat on the idea that institutions will be able to hold Trump accountable at times when it matters.

Eh, at this point, I'll take upping the odds of eventually facing the music over a slight bump in November. It's not like this would have moved the needle with anyone anyway.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:15 pm**

Little Raven wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:58 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:45 pmBasically what I was talking about - a victory for the rule of law, a further defeat on the idea that institutions will be able to hold Trump accountable at times when it matters.
Eh, at this point, I'll take upping the odds of eventually facing the music over a slight bump in November. It's not like this would have moved the needle with anyone anyway.

Yeah, Nate Silver was raising the question of whether Trump would really be worse off if we spent time in the fall debating his tax returns instead of debating his massive public failures on coronavirus, the economy, and racism. It's unknowable, of course (particularly without seeing the records), but it's at least an open question about whether this stuff coming out would actually hurt his electoral prospects.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:26 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:15 pmIt's unknowable, of course (particularly without seeing the records), but it's at least an open question about whether this stuff coming out would actually hurt his electoral prospects.

I just can't imagine anyone in 2020 America thinking...

You know, I'm really on the fence about Trump. Sure...we've had a horribly managed pandemic that is up to 30 9-11s and counting, our cities have been literally burning with the pent up rage of a entire demographic, and our economy is facing the bleakest outlook since the Great Depress...and yes, it's true that the President is not just tone-deaf in relation to these problems but actively engaged to make things worse at every junction....but I sure did like him on Apprentice...soooo....I dunno.....

Oh wait? He's a tax cheat? Why I never suspected such a thing! That does it....I'm voting for Biden!

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:40 pm**

I'm ignorant of the law , so I have to ask if there is anything absolutely baked into the Mazars "test" that prevents things from moving fast enough for documents to be on the House desk before the election.

What would happen if the House put together a solid package that satisfied all the terms of the test by the end of August, then spent the whole of September and October arguing the need for celerity so that the American people might make an informed choice? What factors (beyond intentional and all-too-obvious Court foot-dragging) would block it from moving quickly?

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:40 pm**

We already know nobody cares about his tax returns. We beat this dead horse after he was elected, and all we got from the public was a collective shrug.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:45 pm**

Holman wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:40 pmWhat factors (beyond intentional and all-too-obvious Court foot-dragging) would block it from moving quickly?

Even under normal circumstances, the idea that you could push this through the lower courts in 3 months would be....well, the nice word is optimistic. I suspect a more accurate word would be delusional.

But with COVID shutting everything down? Absolutely, 100% impossible.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:58 pm**

Little Raven wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:45 pm
Holman wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:40 pmWhat factors (beyond intentional and all-too-obvious Court foot-dragging) would block it from moving quickly?
Even under normal circumstances, the idea that you could push this through the lower courts in 3 months would be....well, the nice word is optimistic. I suspect a more accurate word would be delusional.

But with COVID shutting everything down? Absolutely, 100% impossible.

Also, given the Mazars opinion I think it's reasonably likely that Roberts doesn't *want* this stuff to be released before the election.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:27 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:58 pm
Little Raven wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:45 pm
Holman wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:40 pmWhat factors (beyond intentional and all-too-obvious Court foot-dragging) would block it from moving quickly?
Even under normal circumstances, the idea that you could push this through the lower courts in 3 months would be....well, the nice word is optimistic. I suspect a more accurate word would be delusional.

But with COVID shutting everything down? Absolutely, 100% impossible.
Also, given the Mazars opinion I think it's reasonably likely that Roberts doesn't *want* this stuff to be released before the election.

This raises a question: is Roberts merely a conservative, or is he a full-on Trumpist?

If I'm a conservative Chief Justice immune to political pressure, and I'm interested in an independent judiciary as well as my own legacy, it's not inconceivable that I might prefer Biden to Trump in 2020.

But course this is merely a theoretical question since we know the Supreme Court is far above petty political machinations...

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:48 pm**

I find the idea of even suggesting that John Roberts is a full on Trumpist to be laughable.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:33 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:15 pm
Little Raven wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:58 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:45 pmBasically what I was talking about - a victory for the rule of law, a further defeat on the idea that institutions will be able to hold Trump accountable at times when it matters.
Eh, at this point, I'll take upping the odds of eventually facing the music over a slight bump in November. It's not like this would have moved the needle with anyone anyway.
Yeah, Nate Silver was raising the question of whether Trump would really be worse off if we spent time in the fall debating his tax returns instead of debating his massive public failures on coronavirus, the economy, and racism. It's unknowable, of course (particularly without seeing the records), but it's at least an open question about whether this stuff coming out would actually hurt his electoral prospects.

I'm with Frum here but that is why I think down the field we've set a terrible precedent. Congress was stonewalled for basically half his Presidency and the courts gave us little help. The new normal will be stonewalling Congress if the other party is in charge. Even more dysfunction.

Posted: **Tue Jul 14, 2020 5:43 pm**

Ginsburg hospitalized again

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:52 am**

I can hear McConnell salivating at this news.

We just need her to hang on a little longer and then retire after January 21st. If she quit the gig 3 days before then, McConnell would ram through a new justice without any process, and every Republican in there would stand by his side.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:53 am**

Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?

And I’m only joking in the sense that I don’t think it would be safe.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:37 am**

Unagi wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:53 am Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?

What's the opposite of a DNR? And I'm not joking - she needs to make it to 2021.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:06 am**

Unagi wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:53 am Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?

And I’m only joking in the sense that I don’t think it would be safe.

Weekend at Bernie's if necessary.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:10 am**

stessier wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:37 am
Unagi wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:53 am Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?
What's the opposite of a DNR? And I'm not joking - she needs to make it to 2021.

This is what the wife and I were talking about, and I believe there is something just like that.

Perhaps it's an RSVP

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:20 am**

If, God forbid, something were to happen to this American icon, what are the chances the dems could stall a replacement until after the election a la Moscow Mitch with Garland?

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:29 am**

hepcat wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:20 am If, God forbid, something were to happen to this American icon, what are the chances the dems could stall a replacement until after the election a la Moscow Mitch with Garland?

If she died today? Zero. If she died on January 20th at 11:59 pm? *Maybe*.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:04 am**

coopasonic wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:06 am
Unagi wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:53 am Could she voluntarily be placed in stasis somehow?

And I’m only joking in the sense that I don’t think it would be safe.
Weekend at Bernie's if necessary.

Weekend at Bader's.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:23 am**

If Trump and McConnell get to replace RBG, I think the odds of Democratic court-packing go to 100%.

We should probably do it anyway.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:29 am**

Holman wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:23 am If Trump and McConnell get to replace RBG, I think the odds of Democratic court-packing go to 100%.

We should probably do it anyway.

Yeah, this is probably true. I think in general Biden's not inclined to do court packing, but if the GOP crams through an RBG replacement the demand for some type of court packing response would be overwhelming among Democrats.

Though that assumes that the Democrats retake the Senate.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:22 am**

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:29 am
hepcat wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:20 am If, God forbid, something were to happen to this American icon, what are the chances the dems could stall a replacement until after the election a la Moscow Mitch with Garland?
If she died today? Zero. If she died on January 20th at 11:59 pm? *Maybe*.

I assume you meant am, since Biden (if elected) would be sworn in at noon.

But the Senate switches at the start of January, so it could be that Mitch isn't in control for several weeks before then.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:27 am**

Defiant wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:22 am
El Guapo wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:29 am
hepcat wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:20 am If, God forbid, something were to happen to this American icon, what are the chances the dems could stall a replacement until after the election a la Moscow Mitch with Garland?
If she died today? Zero. If she died on January 20th at 11:59 pm? *Maybe*.
I assume you meant am, since Biden (if elected) would be sworn in at noon.

But the Senate switches at the start of January, so it could be that Mitch isn't in control for several weeks before then.

Ah, for some reason I thought inauguration day was the 21st, so I was thinking the night before. And I forgot that the Senate changes earlier.

So maybe we're safe if it happens at 11:59 pm on December 31st.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:08 pm**

Can we all just agree that we are fucked if for any reason one of the "liberal" judges retires or dies at any point while the Republicans control the Senate? Timing doesn't matter. I'm sure they have something set up for if it happens seconds before they are supposed to turn over the keys. Wouldn't surprise me if they have some plan in place to delay handing control over if it even looks likely to happen.

Posted: **Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:20 pm**

[Stomach unclenches somewhat.]

Octopus Overlords

SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch