SCOTUS Watch

[Moliere]

9-0

[Isgrimnur]

Section 5 has no leeway.

[Zaxxon]

[waitingtoconnect]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

[Jaymann]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

If so then they will unleash Dark Brandon.

[Kurth]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

[Scraper]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

[Kurth]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

I'm also really worried about that dipshit, Alito.

[Dogstar]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right as well. Or at least I hope that you are. Roberts really has a sense of the Court's legacy/reputation, but he's also battling a ultra conservative section of the Court that would minimize his role as Chief Justice if they could. I think (but I may be misremembering) there were articles around the overturning Roe decision about how either Alito or Thomas was the "shadow" Chief Justice and that Roberts had lost the ability to control that part of the court. I suspect that there's a lot of horse trading behind the scenes. A 9-0 ruling against immunity helps Roberts and the Court. I only wish it might come quicker.

[El Guapo]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

I'm also really worried about that dipshit, Alito.

Yeah I wouldn't be shocked if the decision is 8-1 or 7-2. Honestly either of those isn't the end of the world. Setting aside for the moment the small but consequential chance of a ruling in Trump's favor, it only gets embarrassing for the court if it's 5-4 or maybe 6-3.

[El Guapo]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right as well. Or at least I hope that you are. Roberts really has a sense of the Court's legacy/reputation, but he's also battling a ultra conservative section of the Court that would minimize his role as Chief Justice if they could. I think (but I may be misremembering) there were articles around the overturning Roe decision about how either Alito or Thomas was the "shadow" Chief Justice and that Roberts had lost the ability to control that part of the court. I suspect that there's a lot of horse trading behind the scenes. A 9-0 ruling against immunity helps Roberts and the Court. I only wish it might come quicker.

One thing of note is that apparently metadata in the ruling indicates that three of the justices (two liberals plus Barrett) concurred in part and dissented in part, which was changed to a pure concurrence. One possibility is that they agreed to change to a concurrence in exchange for something else (which could be an immunity decision more to their liking).

[Montag]

Trump has been accused of insurrection, but has not been convicted. We can accuse people easily and if that is the threshold to keep people from being on the ballot, you got problems. I want Trump out and I want to see his clothes match his orange face, but I want presumed innocence and due process.

[Alefroth]

Trump has been accused of insurrection, but has not been convicted. We can accuse people easily and if that is the threshold to keep people from being on the ballot, you got problems. I want Trump out and I want to see his clothes match his orange face, but I want presumed innocence and due process.

This has been gone over here plenty. Several courts and judges have ruled he committed insurrection after a trial of the facts.

[Zaxxon]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

I'm also really worried about that dipshit, Alito.

Yeah I wouldn't be shocked if the decision is 8-1 or 7-2. Honestly either of those isn't the end of the world. Setting aside for the moment the small but consequential chance of a ruling in Trump's favor, it only gets embarrassing for the court if it's 5-4 or maybe 6-3.

I don't know; having any non-zero number of justices on the highest court voting to crown a king is a pretty embarrassing number.

[Alefroth]

“In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

She only seems to abide by that when she wants to. I really don't think that line of reasoning should be part of any decision. As divided as the country is, any ruling is going to raise the temperature in some sector.

Also, a majority of both chambers of congress concluded he engaged in insurrection.

[LordMortis]

“In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

Just like when they shot holes through RvW? Good times. Or when they turned a blind eye to Thomas not excusing himself to proceedings when his wife participated in meetings on how to overturn a fair election. Or that same blind eye to the millions in gifts they receive from billionaires with cases before the courts who like the cut of their jib. Right on. I get ya. Thank goodness McConnell was there to make sure the courts work this way potentially for the rest of my life.

[El Guapo]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

I'm also really worried about that dipshit, Alito.

Yeah I wouldn't be shocked if the decision is 8-1 or 7-2. Honestly either of those isn't the end of the world. Setting aside for the moment the small but consequential chance of a ruling in Trump's favor, it only gets embarrassing for the court if it's 5-4 or maybe 6-3.

I don't know; having any non-zero number of justices on the highest court voting to crown a king is a pretty embarrassing number.

I agree, but I'm just saying that 8-1 for example is not the end of the world. Part of that being that my expectations for Alito and Thomas are so low at this point that I wouldn't assume that they would rule in favor of apple pie.

[waitingtoconnect]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

If they believed that then I have a bridge to sell them. My prediction is for a 5-4 win for immunity.

[Alefroth]

“In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

Just like when they shot holes through RvW?

Yeah, that sure turned the temp down, didn't it?

[El Guapo]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

If they believed that then I have a bridge to sell them. My prediction is for a 5-4 win for immunity.

That's not this court's style. They give Trump wins through process, not so much with substance. The high likelihood is that they'll rule against him on immunity. That said, I expect that they'll find a way (through the timing of the decision or otherwise) to give him a good shot at having the verdict come after the election.

[Victoria Raverna]

I think based on this they are seriously going to rule for presidential immunity based on its up to congress to convict and if they don’t tough.

I think it's the opposite, but who knows. I have a feeling we may get two unanimous decisions, one restoring Trump to the ballot and the other throwing out his bullshit absolute immunity garbage. But who knows . . .

I think you're right. You can tell the liberal justices went along with this decision begrudgingly. So why did they? My guess is Roberts twisted their arms with the promise that the immunity ruling will go their way. Two 9-0 rulings will make sense in that light. The big question is if Thomas will go along with that plan or be the lone dissent in the immunity case.

If they believed that then I have a bridge to sell them. My prediction is for a 5-4 win for immunity.

They don't remember Biden is the one in charge right now? If Trump is immune then Biden is to. Maybe Biden can be a dictator for a day and execute Trump and the members of supreme court that support immunity since he is immune.

[El Guapo]

We're going to play this game again with Sotomayor's health.

[waitingtoconnect]

Be interesting to see if Biden could get a nomination through republicans being idiots.

And then if someone like manchin lets Biden have a pick without a new coal mine in West Virginia or someone like Sanders without a Gaza ceasefire.

[El Guapo]

Be interesting to see if Biden could get a nomination through republicans being idiots.

And then if someone like manchin lets Biden have a pick without a new coal mine in West Virginia or someone like Sanders without a Gaza ceasefire.

Yeah, it wouldn't be straightforward, but Biden could almost certainly get a reasonable center-left justice confirmed. The problem is if Sotomayor doesn't retire, and if Democrats don't hold both the presidency and the Senate in the fall (neither of which is a sure thing), then god knows when there will be another democratic president & Senate pairing.

[Alefroth]

At this point I don't really think 7-2 is any worse than 6-3.

[El Guapo]

At this point I don't really think 7-2 is any worse than 6-3.

Oh, you better believe it would be worse, especially if it's Trump appointing the replacement. Like right now a pro-Trump result in the immunity case is pretty unlikely, but the odds of that would be much, much higher if it was a 7-2 conservative majority.

[Blackhawk]

We're going to play this game again with Sotomayor's health.

From the article:

If she retires between now and January, she would be replaced by a much younger Democratic appointee.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what would happen.

[Kraken]

We're going to play this game again with Sotomayor's health.

From the article:

If she retires between now and January, she would be replaced by a much younger Democratic appointee.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what would happen.

It should. Dems control the Senate and the filibuster doesn't apply to SCOTUS confirmations (thanks, Republicans!). If they stand united the Dems can do it without any R support.

Let's just hope she doesn't pull a RBG. Dems are almost certain to lose the Senate and the presidency is a tossup. Handing trump another appointment, or denying Biden one, entrenches and perpetuates our broken timeline.

[Zarathud]

Mitch’s entire purpose was to stack the SCOTUS. Why risk giving him one last chance to stick it to the Dems, especially when he has zero to lose. Turtles don’t grow a conscience before they head off to die.

Neither will Sinema or Manchin.

This is why Democrats lose — they repeatedly fall into traps from underestimating the GOP.

[waitingtoconnect]

They lose because they are still willing to compromise like things used to be.

Much of it is because of our gerrymandered districts. Fix that and make 70-80% of seats contestable and we’ll get moderates back in Congress.

[Smoove_B]

It's insane that this is at stake...again. "For the sake of all of us, Sonia Sotomayor needs to retire from the US supreme court" -

If there is to be a change to the supreme court in 2024, Biden and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, have only a few months left to make it happen. And yet they don’t seem too bothered about Sotomayor’s age or health. Last week, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, called it “a personal decision for her to make”.

A personal decision? The prospect of a 7-2 conservative supreme court, with a far-right Federalist Soceity apparatchik having taken “liberal queen” Sotomayor’s seat on the bench, should fill us all with dread.

[Blackhawk]

It's a personal decision if there's nobody that her that can make the call, short of formal proceedings.

[Kraken]

Sure it's personal, but there's a right decision and a wrong one if she holds liberal values, especially in light of RBG's experience. The fear, as I understand it, is that she might be blinded by the belief that SCOTUS is nonpartisan and nonpolitical. One hopes she doesn't just like judging so much that liberals can go pound sand.

She needs to fall on her sword for the good of the republic, but apparently she doesn't see it that way.

[Kurth]

Sure it's personal, but there's a right decision and a wrong one if she holds liberal values, especially in light of RBG's experience. The fear, as I understand it, is that she might be blinded by the belief that SCOTUS is nonpartisan and nonpolitical. One hopes she doesn't just like judging so much that liberals can go pound sand.

She needs to fall on her sword for the good of the republic, but apparently she doesn't see it that way.

I also wish she'd retire rather than risk another Trump appointment, but I don't think it's so simple. For her to do so because "she holds liberal values" and wants to prevent a further slide to the right flies in the face of the cherished legal myth that the federal judiciary is apolitical. If she times her retirement for partisan reasons, she's basically blowing up that myth and admitting the politicization of the court.

I know we all look at what's been going on and think: How could anyone not think the court is a partisan beast at this point? But I'm telling you that there are a lot of judges and quite a few lawyers out there who cling to the notion that SCOTUS is - or should be - above the political fray. Giving up on that is hard to do.

[Isgrimnur]

So we’re all supposed to pretend so that the fragile lawyers and judges that influence our daily lives don’t have their worldview shattered?

[Kraken]

Sure it's personal, but there's a right decision and a wrong one if she holds liberal values, especially in light of RBG's experience. The fear, as I understand it, is that she might be blinded by the belief that SCOTUS is nonpartisan and nonpolitical. One hopes she doesn't just like judging so much that liberals can go pound sand.

She needs to fall on her sword for the good of the republic, but apparently she doesn't see it that way.

I also wish she'd retire rather than risk another Trump appointment, but I don't think it's so simple. For her to do so because "she holds liberal values" and wants to prevent a further slide to the right flies in the face of the cherished legal myth that the federal judiciary is apolitical. If she times her retirement for partisan reasons, she's basically blowing up that myth and admitting the politicization of the court.

I know we all look at what's been going on and think: How could anyone not think the court is a partisan beast at this point? But I'm telling you that there are a lot of judges and quite a few lawyers out there who cling to the notion that SCOTUS is - or should be - above the political fray. Giving up on that is hard to do.

Yeah, I said that. From what I can parse, she doesn't want to politicize the court. That's adorable but you can't close the barn door if it's already in ashes. But I'm ascribing beliefs to her the same way I do to my cat.

[GreenGoo]

So we’re all supposed to pretend so that the fragile lawyers and judges that influence our daily lives don’t have their worldview shattered?

[Kurth]

So we’re all supposed to pretend so that the fragile lawyers and judges that influence our daily lives don’t have their worldview shattered?

Nope. Just sharing my understanding of what might be motivating an incredibly smart and accomplished and progressive and, by all accounts, decent judge to risk the court sliding further into rightwing lunacy.

[Unagi]

It's insane that this is at stake...again. "For the sake of all of us, Sonia Sotomayor needs to retire from the US supreme court" -

If there is to be a change to the supreme court in 2024, Biden and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, have only a few months left to make it happen. And yet they don’t seem too bothered about Sotomayor’s age or health. Last week, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, called it “a personal decision for her to make”.

A personal decision? The prospect of a 7-2 conservative supreme court, with a far-right Federalist Soceity apparatchik having taken “liberal queen” Sotomayor’s seat on the bench, should fill us all with dread.

Welcome Back!!!

[Smoove_B]

Welcome Back!!!