SCOTUS Watch

[Unagi]

That’s actually pretty awesome. IMO.

[hepcat]

I may find some of her demeanor too trump like (the divisive, abusive part), but she does not back down....ever. She owns whatever she does/says. I give her that.

[Kurth]

I find that Lori Lightfoot “speech” to be kind of pathetic. That’s not a great show of leadership.

[LawBeefaroni]

I find that Lori Lightfoot “speech” to be kind of pathetic. That’s not a great show of leadership.

Where have you been? The game has no rules anymore. Is playing to the crowd really worse than lying under oath in order to subvert the highest court in the land?

[Zarathud]

I have heard that Lori is a bully used to getting her way, and does not make friends in negotiations. It’s astonishing that she’s in politics, but Chicago is a tough city.

[malchior]

The tyrants in robes said that Louisiana's heavily gerrymandered maps go back into effect and they'll get around to looking at it next session. You know...after the election already happened.

[Blackhawk]

I have heard that Lori is a bully used to getting her way, and does not make friends in negotiations. It’s astonishing that she’s in politics, but Chicago is a tough city.

It sounds like she's playing out of the GOP rulebook - which is what a lot of people are saying should happen party-wide.

[malchior]

If she has little ambition outside Chicago this probably doesn't hurt her too much. If she has a lot of ambition this feels like a mistake. But who knows in a nation where standards have been gleefully set on fire.

[malchior]

The first case released today out of the remaining 4 was Castro v. Huerta. 5-4 with most of the Conservatives in the opinion. Gorsuch lead the liberals penning a dissent that argued against the majority overturning almost 150 years of precedent about jurisdictional issues relating to 'Indian country' sovereignty. Gorsuch wrote the dissent since he was the majority on a similar case in...check notes....2020 where he wrote the majority opinion upholding native American sovereignty rights. The only difference between Native Americans retaining a measure of their sovereignty? Barrett.

Edit: A few lawsplainers said this might indicate they won't stop states from banning abortion on native American territory as well. Just reading of tea leaves but mood is still fuck these tyrants.

[Isgrimnur]

Castro v. Huerta.

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA

[malchior]

Castro v. Huerta.

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA

Thank you - clear case of a memory transfer failure!

[malchior]

In any case that leaves the Title 42 case and the EPA case tomorrow or Friday probably. Seeing as how things are going they very well might dismantle the administrative state and kill our children's future. No big deal.

[Zaxxon]

In any case that leaves the Title 42 case and the EPA case tomorrow or Friday probably. Seeing as how things are going they very well might dismantle the administrative state and kill our children's future. No big deal.

With such a gaping holiday weekend news sinkhole, surely they'll drop it late Thurs or Fri.

[Kurth]

I find that Lori Lightfoot “speech” to be kind of pathetic. That’s not a great show of leadership.

Where have you been? The game has no rules anymore. Is playing to the crowd really worse than lying under oath in order to subvert the highest court in the land?

That’s not a legitimate argument, but I think you know that already.

[Little Raven]

Where have you been? The game has no rules anymore. Is playing to the crowd really worse than lying under oath in order to subvert the highest court in the land?

I recognize the passion here, LawBeef, but you of all people know that nobody lied under oath in confirmation hearings. Whatever we think of their political positions, everyone on the Court is a first-rate lawyer. They know exactly where the line is and how to dance around it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Where have you been? The game has no rules anymore. Is playing to the crowd really worse than lying under oath in order to subvert the highest court in the land?

I recognize the passion here, LawBeef, but you of all people know that nobody lied under oath in confirmation hearings. Whatever we think of their political positions, everyone on the Court is a first-rate lawyer. They know exactly where the line is and how to dance around it.

What lawyers call "dancing around the line" we mortals typically call bullshit. They conveyed information they was counterfactual but not technically a "lie". Sure it's not actionable in a legal sense but bullshit is bullshit.

Should be noted that Lightfoot is a lawyer and former federal prosecutor, so she knows the game. FWIW.

[El Guapo]

Where have you been? The game has no rules anymore. Is playing to the crowd really worse than lying under oath in order to subvert the highest court in the land?

I recognize the passion here, LawBeef, but you of all people know that nobody lied under oath in confirmation hearings. Whatever we think of their political positions, everyone on the Court is a first-rate lawyer. They know exactly where the line is and how to dance around it.

I actually do think that one or more of the sitting justices misrepresented their views on Roe during their confirmation hearings. For Kavanaugh, I think he fully expected to vote to overturn Roe if they had five votes for doing so. Now, the level of evidence that you would need to bring a perjury charge against a sitting SCOTUS judge for misrepresenting their position on a specific precedent would have to be so astronomically high that functionally it would never, ever, ever happen (at a minimum you'd need something like an e-mail from Kavanaugh saying "Don't worry I lied to Congress about my views on Roe!").

But that's different from the question of whether they lied about their position on Roe.

[El Guapo]

Where have you been? The game has no rules anymore. Is playing to the crowd really worse than lying under oath in order to subvert the highest court in the land?

I recognize the passion here, LawBeef, but you of all people know that nobody lied under oath in confirmation hearings. Whatever we think of their political positions, everyone on the Court is a first-rate lawyer. They know exactly where the line is and how to dance around it.

What lawyers call "dancing around the line" we mortals typically call bullshit. They conveyed information they was counterfactual but not technically a "lie". Sure it's not actionable in a legal sense but bullshit is bullshit.

Should be noted that Lightfoot is a lawyer and former federal prosecutor, so she knows the game. FWIW.

Also just to be clear formalistic bullshitting that's not literally false can absolutely be legally actionable. Like if you are selling a car and you tell someone "it has never failed an inspection!" when the reality is that you know the car doesn't work and as a result you've never taken it to an inspection, that's fraud even though your statement is literally true.

Obviously it's a much easier case if they lie about specific factual information, but the formalistic dancing makes the case (much, much) harder but doesn't mean that it's not perjury.

[malchior]

Where have you been? The game has no rules anymore. Is playing to the crowd really worse than lying under oath in order to subvert the highest court in the land?

I recognize the passion here, LawBeef, but you of all people know that nobody lied under oath in confirmation hearings. Whatever we think of their political positions, everyone on the Court is a first-rate lawyer. They know exactly where the line is and how to dance around it.

I actually do think that one or more of the sitting justices misrepresented their views on Roe during their confirmation hearings. For Kavanaugh, I think he fully expected to vote to overturn Roe if they had five votes for doing so.

I agree. At best Kavanaugh used stare decisis and phrases like well-settled law as a rhetorical shield. He wasn't being truthful or honest about his views or intentions for joining the court. This is a good example of how they shielded questions about their disregard for judicial temperance. That is probably the most galling thing I'm seeing. The disregard for precedent, conservative values, and such highlights that many of them lied about their judicial principles.

Now, the level of evidence that you would need to bring a perjury charge against a sitting SCOTUS judge for misrepresenting their position on a specific precedent would have to be so astronomically high that functionally it would never, ever, ever happen (at a minimum you'd need something like an e-mail from Kavanaugh saying "Don't worry I lied to Congress about my views on Roe!").

But that's different from the question of whether they lied about their position on Roe.

Yeah this perjury stuff is pure wishcasting. It's not a serious thing.

[Little Raven]

I actually do think that one or more of the sitting justices misrepresented their views on Roe during their confirmation hearings.

Really?

Gorsuch: "a good judge will consider [Roe] as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other," - A simple statement of fact - but of course the Court can and does overturn precedent.
Kavanaugh: "I do not get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents I get to follow." "Roe is an “important precedent” that has been “reaffirmed many times."" - These are just facts. They say nothing about what he would do.
Amy Coney Barrett: "Roe is not a super-precedent...but that does not mean it should be overruled." - More facts.

Nobody ever comes anywhere close to misrepresenting their views, because they never reveal anything about their views. No potential justice ever does. All they need to do is invoke the spirit of Ginsburg.

Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

Of course, unless you're Susan Collins, you knew exactly what all of these people thought about Roe long before they were nominated.

[El Guapo]

I actually do think that one or more of the sitting justices misrepresented their views on Roe during their confirmation hearings.

Really?

Gorsuch: "a good judge will consider [Roe] as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other," - A simple statement of fact - but of course the Court can and does overturn precedent.
Kavanaugh: "I do not get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents I get to follow." "Roe is an “important precedent” that has been “reaffirmed many times."" - These are just facts. They say nothing about what he would do.
Amy Coney Barrett: "Roe is not a super-precedent...but that does not mean it should be overruled." - More facts.

Nobody ever comes anywhere close to misrepresenting their views, because they never reveal anything about their views. No potential justice ever does. All they need to do is invoke the spirit of Ginsburg.

Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

Of course, unless you're Susan Collins, you knew exactly what all of these people thought about Roe long before they were nominated.

Right, these are all examples of them saying literally true things in a misleading way, which is another way of saying that they misrepresented their position, aka they lied.

I don't think we really disagree all that much, since what you say is all great reasons why any perjury case is wishcasting, as malchior put it. I also think that hearings into this would be a complete waste of time. But I am just saying that I do regard them as having basically lied to Congress.

[ImLawBoy]

FWIW, my legal department held an explainer session hosted by one of our outside law firms, using members of that firm's appellate/Supreme Court practice. This question came up, and the consensus was that while the left would certainly claim they perjured themselves, the right would claim that they were simply confirming that this was established and confirmed precedent, which would need both the determination that it was the wrong interpretation of the Constitution and an extra "plus" factor in order to overturn it (grossly oversimplified here). The idea that there could be a successful prosecution or impeachment proceeding based on perjury given this facially correct interpretation of what happened is exceedingly remote.

[Unagi]

Pretty much what I thought.

Like the justices that swore under oath that Roe was established legal precedent. They just didn’t tell us they were not beholden to legal precedent.

[malchior]

FWIW my take is that focusing on individual statements about individual cases is the wrong approach to calling them out. To expand on what I said above, what matters more is how they explained their judicial philosophy and temperance. And this group collectively LIED about it. In the sense that all of them within their respective sphere of judicial expertise all sold themselves as mainstream judges. However, we now have more than enough evidence to show that at least 5 of them are collectively and individually are relatively radical. And a little more expansively every one of the 6 could have stepped back to nudge interpretation of the law in a more measured, judicious approach. All of them generally failed to do that across multiple cases.

It isn't just about Roe. It's Bruen. It's Oklahoma. It'll probably be the EPA case. It is what they have done on the shadow docket to give the GOP advantages in the upcoming election. All of these things aren't just a new direction. They took questions of law put in front of them and went well past the question asked, past addressing the issue at hand, and instead went right to radical transformation of the law and society. Multiple times just this session. And it doesn't look like it'll slow down any time soon. VRA and more are on the block for next session.

For example, Roe. They were asked to evaluate a case that challenged the time frame limits established in Casey in 1994. Roberts would have let that law stand and kept Roe. A sensible middle of the road course. These radicals couldn't resist overreaching. And it'll get women killed and arrested. Horrifying.

In Bruen, they very well could have said that 'may issue' procedures didn't allow enough due process and they could have mandated judicial oversight. They could have left it to the states to work out moderate reform to make sure arbitrary, corrupt issuance wasn't an issue. Instead, they nuked states' rights to regulate the militia from orbit. Radical action that'll lead to more and more gun violence. Horrifying.

Etc. Etc. They very much set policy and that isn't their job. But they also did it in the most nakedly political and ham-fisted ways possible. They have increased pressure that might lead to violence, civil war, or even the dissolution of the United States. They have established a blatant tyranny of the minority on us.

I don't think that's perjury but it is something that has to be addressed or the stability of this nation will inevitably continue to decline. The majority isn't going to let their society become more unjust and inequal at the whims of these robed tyrants. It is just a matter of time.

[Zaxxon]

I keep getting confused--are we in awe of how the old folks viewed things back in the early days, or are we not?

[malchior]

I keep getting confused--are we in awe of how the old folks viewed things back in the early days, or are we not?

The constitution means whatever the radical right wants it to be.

[Isgrimnur]

Reuters

Ketanji Brown Jackson, picked by President Joe Biden to become the first Black woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, is set to be sworn in to begin serving the lifetime job on Thursday with the formal retirement of liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.

Jackson, 51, was confirmed by the Senate on April 7. Breyer, 83, has served on the court since 1994 and announced his plans to retire in January. Breyer will officially retire and Jackson will take her two oaths of office at noon (1600 GMT) on Thursday shortly after the court issues the last of its rulings of its current term.

[Octavious]

Sweet so they EPA should be gone tomorrow. Good to know.

[malchior]

Sweet so they EPA should be gone tomorrow. Good to know.

First they'll tell Biden how to run the border. Then they'll dismantle the EPA...or possibly not do anything. No one is really sure what will happen with chaos court.

[Octavious]

There doesn't seem for any reason for them to take the case unless they were planning on doing something. when I looked there was no point to take it in the first place.

[Drazzil]

FWIW my take is that focusing on individual statements about individual cases is the wrong approach to calling them out. To expand on what I said above, what matters more is how they explained their judicial philosophy and temperance. And this group collectively LIED about it. In the sense that all of them within their respective sphere of judicial expertise all sold themselves as mainstream judges. However, we now have more than enough evidence to show that at least 5 of them are collectively and individually are relatively radical. And a little more expansively every one of the 6 could have stepped back to nudge interpretation of the law in a more measured, judicious approach. All of them generally failed to do that across multiple cases.

It isn't just about Roe. It's Bruen. It's Oklahoma. It'll probably be the EPA case. It is what they have done on the shadow docket to give the GOP advantages in the upcoming election. All of these things aren't just a new direction. They took questions of law put in front of them and went well past the question asked, past addressing the issue at hand, and instead went right to radical transformation of the law and society. Multiple times just this session. And it doesn't look like it'll slow down any time soon. VRA and more are on the block for next session.

For example, Roe. They were asked to evaluate a case that challenged the time frame limits established in Casey in 1994. Roberts would have let that law stand and kept Roe. A sensible middle of the road course. These radicals couldn't resist overreaching. And it'll get women killed and arrested. Horrifying.

In Bruen, they very well could have said that 'may issue' procedures didn't allow enough due process and they could have mandated judicial oversight. They could have left it to the states to work out moderate reform to make sure arbitrary, corrupt issuance wasn't an issue. Instead, they nuked states' rights to regulate the militia from orbit. Radical action that'll lead to more and more gun violence. Horrifying.

Etc. Etc. They very much set policy and that isn't their job. But they also did it in the most nakedly political and ham-fisted ways possible. They have increased pressure that might lead to violence, civil war, or even the dissolution of the United States. They have established a blatant tyranny of the minority on us.

I don't think that's perjury but it is something that has to be addressed or the stability of this nation will inevitably continue to decline. The majority isn't going to let their society become more unjust and inequal at the whims of these robed tyrants. It is just a matter of time.

If I were Biden I would tell the country that until the SC regained it's sanity, they could collectively kiss 5/9th's of my ass. If it's a choice between a grand legal arbiter court and a functioning country, I know which side I want him to choose, every time.

[LawBeefaroni]

Aaaand....fossil fuel beats EPA 6-3.

Responsibility rests solely with Congress. SEC, FTC, etc now in jeopardy.

[Octavious]

Yup we're in super duper duper dark times. This is a silent coup.

[LawBeefaroni]

Sauce:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the EPA does not have authority to set standards on climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants.

The 6-3 ruling said that Congress, not the Environmental Protection Agency, has that power.

[Octavious]

So we will just all fry to death because we know Congress will never pass anything. That's cool.

[Carpet_pissr]

/me checks passport expiration date

[malchior]

Aaaand....fossil fuel beats EPA 6-3.

Responsibility rests solely with Congress. SEC, FTC, etc now in jeopardy.

Yep this was what I expected. I expected they'd go well beyond the question and just slash and burn the administrative state - they didn't go all the way but it's close. I hadn't seen this before I said I had faith in the long-term state of our economy a little earlier. That actually could be in danger. We could be facing a post-Soviet era problem where we completely re-write and re-organize the rules of how business happens here. What the fuck does that look like. The vast majority of business leaders ought to be about panicking now.

At least the Christofascist junta didn't go all the way through with burning down Chevron. It is a bit narrower but they still chopped the legs right out under the EPA and a lot of other regs are probably at risk.

I expect a flurry of lawsuits aimed at attacking financial sector protections. What could go wrong there?

[Blackhawk]

This one doesn't just hurt US citizens, this one is a crippling blow to the species.

[Carpet_pissr]

Thanks, Mitch!

[Octavious]

I can't wait to see what they slot up for the next term. Minimum wage? Obamacare? The Republicans must be drooling at everything they can wish for now.