Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:10 pm SCOTUS news today is that Clarence Thomas did not attend today's court session where the rest of the Justices were hearing arguments. Neither he nor the court has offered an explanation.

Is this something that sometimes happens, or is it truly unusual? (Rampant speculation is of course that Thomas is dead or off enjoying a billionaire-funded vacation.)

Justice Samuel Alito at one point even outright declared Snyder — not by name — irrelevant to the larger question of whether federal law prohibits the payment of after-the-fact "gratuities" to state and local public officials, and other people associated with entities receiving federal funds, on the same basis as bribes paid in exchange for specific acts.

"We didn't really take this case just to decide whether this particular case was correctly decided. We took it to explore the meaning of this provision," Alito said. "I don't want to talk about the circumstances of this case. I want to talk about what the law means and what the government's position has been."

The Supreme Court handed down a strange set of opinions on Monday evening, which accompanied a decision that largely reinstates Idaho’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The ban was previously blocked by a lower court.

None of the opinions in Labrador v. Poe spend much time discussing whether such a ban is constitutional — although Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion does contain some language suggesting that he and Justice Amy Coney Barrett will ultimately vote to uphold the ban.

Rather, seven of the nine justices split into three different camps, each of which proposes a different way that the Court should handle cases arising on its “shadow docket,” a mix of emergency motions and other matters that the Court decides on an expedited basis — often without full briefing or oral argument. The Labrador case arose on the Court’s shadow docket.

Indeed, Idaho’s lawyers did not even attempt to defend its restrictions on gender-affirming care on the merits. Instead, they argued that the lower court went too far by prohibiting the state from enforcing its ban against any patient or any doctor.

A majority of the justices agreed with the state, ruling that the ban cannot be enforced against the actual plaintiffs in this case, two trans children and their parents, but that it can be enforced against anyone who has not yet sought a court order allowing them to receive gender-affirming care.

disarm wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2024 9:14 pm Don't worry, I'm sure we'll all get an explanation eventually...and it will likely involve him being on the private yacht of one of participants in the hearing. But that's business as usual, so nothing to worry about.

AUSTIN, Texas — Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Friday that U.S. history shows court decisions unpopular in their time later can become part of the “fabric of American constitutional law.”

Kavanaugh spoke Friday at a conference attended by judges, attorneys and other court personnel in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi and is one of the most conservative circuits.

In a question-and-answer session, he was not asked about any of the current court’s nationally divisive rulings, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade federal abortion protections in 2022 that has become a key political issue in elections across the country this year. He was part of the conservative majority in that ruling.

However, he was asked how judges and the courts can help boost public confidence in the judiciary.

In his answer, Kavanaugh said some high court decisions from the 1950s and ‘60s on monumental issues spanning civil and criminal rights, free speech and school prayer — including the iconic Brown v. Board of Education case that ended legal segregation in public schools — were unpopular when they were issued.

However, he was asked how judges and the courts can help boost public confidence in the judiciary.

In his answer, Kavanaugh said some high court decisions from the 1950s and ‘60s on monumental issues spanning civil and criminal rights, free speech and school prayer — including the iconic Brown v. Board of Education case that ended legal segregation in public schools — were unpopular when they were issued.

“The Warren court was no picnic for the justices. … They were unpopular basically from start to finish from ’53 to ’69,” Kavanaugh said. “What the court kept doing is playing itself, sticking to its principles. And you know, look, a lot of those decisions (were) unpopular, and a lot of them are landmarks now that we accept as parts of the fabric of America, and the fabric of American constitutional law.”

“What the court kept doing is playing itself, sticking to its principles. And you know, look, a lot of those decisions (were) unpopular, and a lot of them are landmarks now that we accept as parts of the fabric of America, and the fabric of American constitutional law.”

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 16, 2024 4:55 pm Some good news. The court declined to annihilate the CFPB and declined to enforce a rigid time deadline in arbitration appeals.

“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Alito said in an emailed statement to the Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

Dogstar wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 9:26 am Upside down flag flew at Alito's house post 2020 election. While it can be used to indicate a nation in distress, it also happens to be a symbol of the "stop the steal" movement. Alito quickly threw his wife under the bus:

“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Alito said in an emailed statement to the Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

$iljanus wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 12:43 pm I can see the wife getting fed up and engaging in this sort of counter protest which is fine except it so happens that a Supreme Court Justice lives there as well. But the guidelines regulating the issue of political displays don't clearly apply to Supreme Court justices so what are ya gonna do?

Pyperkub wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 1:03 pm

$iljanus wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 12:43 pm I can see the wife getting fed up and engaging in this sort of counter protest which is fine except it so happens that a Supreme Court Justice lives there as well. But the guidelines regulating the issue of political displays don't clearly apply to Supreme Court justices so what are ya gonna do?

Maybe not have people who Gov't who support this?

$iljanus wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 1:29 pm One would think that but unfortunately there's the whole Justice for Life thing and I don't see Alito stepping down or even being impeached over this. Same goes for Clarence Buddy of Billionaires Thomas.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 1:40 pm

$iljanus wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 1:29 pm One would think that but unfortunately there's the whole Justice for Life thing and I don't see Alito stepping down or even being impeached over this. Same goes for Clarence Buddy of Billionaires Thomas.

We should probably note that Clarence's wife has direct leadership and financial connections to insane right-wing groups and nothing happened. Flying a flag upside down at your house? It's almost quaint in comparison.

Last summer, two years after an upside-down American flag was flown outside the Virginia home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., another provocative symbol was displayed at his vacation house in New Jersey, according to interviews and photographs.

This time, it was the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which, like the inverted U.S. flag, was carried by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Also known as the Pine Tree flag, it dates back to the Revolutionary War, but largely fell into obscurity until recent years and is now a symbol of support for former President Donald J. Trump, for a religious strand of the “Stop the Steal” campaign and for a push to remake American government in Christian terms.

Three photographs obtained by The New York Times, along with accounts from a half-dozen neighbors and passers-by, show that the Appeal to Heaven flag was aloft at the Alito home on Long Beach Island in July and September of 2023. A Google street view image from late August also shows the flag.

Records show that the Alitos have owned the beach house since 2014, and he is a well-known presence in the waterfront community. Residents said they recalled seeing the justice last summer, though it is unclear how much time he spent there. Neighbors said that once they realized what the flag signified, they were surprised to see it displayed, particularly in a prominent spot where many boaters glide by. The six people who shared their accounts and photographs asked not to be identified because they didn’t want to antagonize a longtime neighbor. When The Times visited the house on Wednesday, the flagpole was bare.

Until about a decade ago, the Appeal to Heaven flag was mostly a historical relic. But since then it has been revived to represent “a theological vision of what the United States should be and how it should be governed,” said Matthew Taylor, a religion scholar at the Institute of Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies. He is also the author of a forthcoming book tracing how a right-wing Christian author and speaker who repopularized the flag helped propel Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election.

Since its creation during the American Revolution, the flag has carried a message of defiance: The phrase “appeal to heaven” comes from the 17th-century philosopher John Locke, who wrote of a responsibility to rebel, even use violence, to overthrow unjust rule. “It’s a paraphrase for trial by arms,” Anthony Grafton, a historian at Princeton University, said in an interview. “The main point is that there’s no appeal, there’s no one else you can ask for help or a judgment.”

Dogstar wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 9:26 am Upside down flag flew at Alito's house post 2020 election. While it can be used to indicate a nation in distress, it also happens to be a symbol of the "stop the steal" movement. Alito quickly threw his wife under the bus:

“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Alito said in an emailed statement to the Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

Justices allowed a contested voting map in South Carolina
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority cleared the way today for South Carolina to keep using a congressional map that a lower court had deemed an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. All three liberal justices dissented.

The ruling handed a victory to the state’s Republicans by allowing them to maintain a stronghold on a district in Charleston County. A panel of federal judges had previously found that district to be illegal because redistricting had removed 62 percent of its Black voters. The immediate effect will be limited: This year’s elections were already set to take place under the contested map.

But today’s decision could have a broader impact in the years to come. Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, said that courts should generally presume that lawmakers are telling the truth when they say their goal in redistricting is partisan, which is permissible, rather than based on race, which is not. That distinction can be difficult because Black voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats.

Alito’s position could make it “easier for Republican states to engage in redistricting to help white Republicans maximize their political power,” said Richard Hasen, an election law expert. In dissent, the liberal justices argued that it could become all but impossible to challenge voting maps as racial gerrymanders.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 6:15 pm To me it feels like he's part of a religious group that's been told for decades "the thing" they've been hoping for is finally the closest it's ever been to happening, and it's their job to make the final push toward the America they envision.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 9:14 pm Let's settle down - we don't want to suggest he should step down or be impeached - along with Thomas. We certainly don't want to make the SCOTUS political.

Just imagine a world where TFG is re-elected and he is able to seat two more Supreme Court justices. It's unthinkable.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has rejected calls for him to recuse from a pending case involving former President Donald Trump and others related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, rebuffing critics who said that two controversial flags flown at his homes violated judicial ethics.

Alito explained that his wife flew the American flag upside-down due to “a very nasty neighborhood dispute” and he wasn’t involved in her decision to do so. “As soon as I saw it, I asked my wife to take it down, but for several days, she refused,” Alito wrote.