U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

alito?!

loooooooool this makes me very happy

oh, nm -- i thought alito had joined the majority for some reason

to the contrary, alito read his dissent aloud for like half an hour or something

Increasing minority enrollment may be instrumental to these educational benefits, but it is not, as petitioner seems to suggest, a goal that can or should be reduced to pure numbers. Indeed, since the University is prohibited from seeking a particular number or quota of minority
students, it cannot be faulted for failing to specify the particular level of minority enrollment at which it believes the educational benefits of diversity will be obtained.

http://i1.wp.com/usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/gty_541546580.jpg

Yeah this is great. I hope the GOP loses as much ground as possible on their hobby-horse issues thanks to their obstructionism.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClpKM8BXIAARoIo.jpg

(sry if hueg)

what the hell??

Thomas's concurrence in the dissent contains as much disingenuousness as some conservatives take a lifetime to produce.

This was announced today also

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-tie-dooms-obama-immigration-policy-n582961

The U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 Thursday over a challenge to President Obama's immigration policy, a result that prevents the administration from putting the program into effect during the rest of his term.

The split was reflected in a one sentence statement from the court: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

Announced in late 2014, it would shield more than four million people from deportation. But lower courts blocked its implementation after Texas and 25 other states sued, claiming the president had no power to order the changes.

Washington Post re U of Texas case:

Kennedy had never before voted to uphold a race-conscious plan, but he also had been reluctant to say race may never be used. He was joined by three of the courts liberal justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a 51-page dissent and summarized it by saying the majority’s conclusion is “remarkable — and remarkably wrong.”

Bye Alitia

This was announced today also

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-tie-dooms-obama-immigration-policy-n582961

shitty. hope to see Clinton continue with these efforts + appoint a liberal justice to the court and get this done. Seems like a really important and key thing to do to improve the lives of so many people.

yeah but the Constitution, etc

The 5th Circuit that interpreted the constitutionality of the Texas District court ruling on immigration ruled 2 to 1:

Judge Jerry E. Smith, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, and Judge Jennifer Elrod, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, voted to deny the request. Judge Carolyn Dineen King, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, cast the dissenting vote.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/09/fifth-court-strikes-down-immigration-program/

Justice Thomas often cites dictionaries in his opinions, but other books only rarely. He cited one on Monday, “Liberty’s Nemesis,” a newly published collection of essays compiled by Dean Reuter, an official of the conservative Federalist Society, and John Yoo, the former Bush administration Justice Department lawyer. The essays attack “the overgrowth of the administrative state,” in the words of the editors, since the beginning of the Obama administration, “liberty’s nemesis” itself.

Linda Greenhouse's interesting takes on this term

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/opinion/the-supreme-courts-post-scalia-term.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

god fucking damn it

affirmative action decision GRATE but god fucking dammit

all I need to know about Thomas and the intellects he attracts is that Laura Ingraham clerked for him.

Justice Thomas often cites dictionaries in his opinions, but other books only rarely. He cited one on Monday, “Liberty’s Nemesis,” a newly published collection of essays compiled by Dean Reuter, an official of the conservative Federalist Society, and John Yoo, the former Bush administration Justice Department lawyer. The essays attack “the overgrowth of the administrative state,” in the words of the editors, since the beginning of the Obama administration, “liberty’s nemesis” itself.

Linda Greenhouse's interesting takes on this term

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/opinion/the-supreme-courts-post-scalia-term.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

― curmudgeon, Thursday, June 23, 2016 3:31 PM (38 minutes ago)

hey now, it's wrong to suggest thomas is uniquely unqualified for his position

It's wrong to call Clarence Thomas a fucking Uncle Tom unless your viewpoint is "racial slurs are wrong unless I really dislike the person"

idk, I think it would be truthful to say that Pappy Bush found Clarence Thomas to be uniquely qualified for his position on the court

calling him an uncle tom is inexcusable obv

This is the way the term ends,

This is the way the term ends,

This is the way the term ends,

Not with a bang but a whimper.

With apologies to T. S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men”

ugh should I keep reading

based on that? no

anybody who riffs in any way on those hollow men lines should be physically placed into a garbage can

each one in a separate can or all crammed into the same can? would they be confined there until dead or just put there but left unattended - presumably to get back out again and walk away?

they can walk away. if they reoffend they must be returned to the trash can.

then forced to act in a production of End Game

poetic jiggery pokery

whoa! http://www.vox.com/2016/6/27/11713644/whole-womans-health-supreme-court-choice

so happy about this

from SCOTUSblog:

"Only Thomas would have upheld the statutes. Roberts and Alito would have remanded for additional findings." This is significant bc it suggests that Roberts and Alito may be willing to regard some abortion case law as essentially settles for stare decisis purposes."

At 5-3, it at least suggests that Scalia's presence would not have made a difference.

but don't worry: Sam's picking up the slack. From his dissent:

The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter.

hallelujah

for the decision, not the dissent

Alito's dissent shows more worry about...fire alarms:

By forgoing severability, the Court strikes down numer ous provisions that could not plausibly impose an undue burden. For example, surgical center patients must “be treated with respect, consideration, and dignity.” Tex. Admin. Code, tit. 25, §135.5(a). That’s now enjoined. Patients may not be given misleading “advertising regard­ ing the competence and/or capabilities of the organiza­ tion.” §135.5(g). Enjoined. Centers must maintain fire alarm and emergency communications systems, §§135.41(d), 135.42(e), and eliminate “[h]azards that might lead to slipping, falling, electrical shock, burns, poisoning, or other trauma,” §135.10(b). Enjoined and enjoined.

Alito's dissent shows more worry about...fire alarms:

By forgoing severability, the Court strikes down numer ous provisions that could not plausibly impose an undue burden. For example, surgical center patients must “be treated with respect, consideration, and dignity.” Tex. Admin. Code, tit. 25, §135.5(a). That’s now enjoined. Patients may not be given misleading “advertising regard­ ing the competence and/or capabilities of the organiza­ tion.” §135.5(g). Enjoined. Centers must maintain fire alarm and emergency communications systems, §§135.41(d), 135.42(e), and eliminate “[h]azards that might lead to slipping, falling, electrical shock, burns, poisoning, or other trauma,” §135.10(b). Enjoined and enjoined.

In other news, SCOTUS unanimously vacates Bob McDonnell's conviction.

Supreme Court let former VA governor McDonnell off from his corruption conviction...ugh.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-fraud-corruption-mcdonnell-virginia-governor/85886626/

The Supreme Court granted a reprieve Monday to a former Republican governor of Virginia convicted of corruption, and in doing so made it harder for prosecutors to use federal fraud statutes against public officials.

In a sweeping decision that could have an impact on politicians and prosecutors who tangle over bribery, extortion and fraud statutes, the justices unanimously sided with former governor Bob McDonnell. Once seen as a potential Republican vice presidential candidate, McDonnell was convicted in 2014 and sentenced to two years in prison for accepting luxury gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for government favors.

It was an unlikely, but not unexpected, ruling from an eight-member court no longer dominated by conservatives in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February. At oral argument in April, a clear majority of justices expressed concern that current laws allow prosecutors to characterize common favors as criminal acts.

"Our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecution corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court."

In McDonnell's case, more than $175,000 in gifts he and his wife, Maureen, received were legal under Virginia law, no matter how unseemly. The issue was whether his actions — giving Jonnie Williams, the CEO of a Virginia company marketing vitamins and dietary supplements, exclusive access to government officials— constituted a quid pro quo.

When Roberts wants to define something very narrowly, he does:

“Setting up a meeting, calling another public official or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act,’ ” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.

Res judicata also does not preclude facial relief here. In addition to requesting as-applied relief, petitioners asked for other appropriate
relief, and their evidence and arguments convinced the District Court of the provision’s unconstitutionality across the board. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) provides that a “final judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings,” and this Court has held that if the arguments and evidence show that a statutory provision is unconstitutional
on its face, an injunction prohibiting its enforcement is “proper,” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310,
333. Pp. 10–15.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/04/0438bce0e45bfc23421041cce5752c6dc0aa58a5239d22af7f15add0f509bb35.jpg

Court also rules 6-2 to uphold law preventing domestic abusers from getting firearms. A good Monday!

Wow, this abortion ruling is a serious pick-me-up. I always felt good about the chances of those statutes getting struck down, because they so nakedly failed rational-basis testing and wear their desire to subvert the spirit of the law on their sleeves... kinda thing that just wouldn't sit right even with justices who are lukewarm on abortion... but still.

as usual with Breyer his opinions are impossible to read without uploading a legalese app into my brain

I know HB2 is the big story but can anyone tell me why Sotomayor dissented against gun bans for people convicted of domestic violence? All the news stories just lay out Thomas' (dumb) dissent without detailing her logic.

I'm looking at her bit now but was coming to quote Thomas' dissent, which fills three pages with hypotheticals concerning The Angry Plate Thrower and The Angry Door Slammer.