U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/immigration-case-hearings

Should Texas even have standing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHwVBirqD2s

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/04/the_supreme_court_might_let_bob_mcdonnell_off_the_hook.html

Looks like Breyer will vote with conservative Justices in giving sympathetic "vague" reading to corruption law, plus claiming everyone does it (accepts gifts from folks who want something). No such sympathy for most non-governors when laws are vague

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mcdonnell-conviction-should-stand/2016/04/22/53960d50-0350-11e6-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html

McDonnell’s constitutional argument trivializes the First Amendment. There may be legitimate constitutional concerns in a bribery case involving campaign contributions, but that’s not this case. It’s hard to see the Madisonian virtue in protecting the “right” of Williams secretly to buy McDonnell a Rolex or to take his wife shopping at Louis Vuitton in exchange for political favors.

This is the same legal theory that Jeff Skilling of Enron won on appeal but was remanded and deemed harmless error by the fifth circuit.

@RedState
Republicans Should Confirm Merrick Garland ASAP. bit.ly/1NVLxkB

lol

The Good Ship Trump already is sinking, eh?

Don't always like Toobin's commentary on the Supreme Court, but here he is agreeing with many re oral arguments at the McDonnell case.

As in Citizens United, the Justices appeared heading toward requiring a specific and obvious quid pro quo—a formalism that ignored the workings of the real world. Campaign contributors and favor-seekers, as well as the recipients of their largesse, don’t need to be explicit about their corrupt bargains. But the Supreme Court, worried about the tender vulnerabilities of the fat cats and their prey, seems to be requiring a mindless (and unlikely) spelling-out of the details. The logical result is a deregulation of corruption, which a victory for McDonnell will only accelerate.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-gets-ready-to-legalize-corruption

Breyer was in the minority in Citizen's United, yet he seemingly joined the 4 remaining conservatives in the McDonnell arguments. I wonder if any analysis has gone into more detail regarding Breyer.

it seems like the court needs to find that a literal sack of cash with a dollar sign on it was exchanged for political favors, otherwise its totally cool.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justices-send-obamacare-contraception-case-back-to-lower-courts/2016/05/16/84e5d6da-1b72-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_court-11am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

A shorthanded Supreme Court declined Monday to decide challenges to an Affordable Care Act requirement about providing contraceptive coverage, saying that there was a possibility of compromise between religious objectors and the government.

The court punted the issue back to lower courts, and said its unanimous ruling “expresses no view on the merits of the cases.”

In the unsigned opinion, the court emphasized: “In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.”

The unanimous, three-page decision maintains the status quo, and indicates that the court — evenly divided along ideological lines following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — could not reach agreement.

A week after oral arguments in the case, the justices took the highly unusual step of floating its own compromise about how to resolve the case, and asked the parties to weigh in.

“Both petitioners and the government now confirm that such an option is feasible,”said the opinion, a summary of which was read from the bench by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Women’s rights groups, which had won the vast majority of cases in the lower courts, worried that the court’s action was a setback.

“We are disappointed that the Court did not resolve once and for all whether the religious beliefs of religiously-affiliated non-profit employers can block women’s seamless access to birth control,” said Gretchen Borchelt, vice president of the National Women’s Law Center. “Eight of nine circuit courts of appeals have already upheld women’s access to birth control no matter where they work. We are confident that the government’s birth control accommodation once again will prevail.”

Lawyers representing the challengers saw the decision as a positive sign.

“The Supreme Court was right to protect the Christian colleges and other groups from not having to pay fines or fill out forms authorizing the objectionable coverage,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel David Cortman. “The government has many other ways to ensure women are able to obtain these drugs without forcing people of faith to participate in acts that violate their deepest convictions. We look forward to addressing the remaining details as we advance these cases in the lower courts.”

thanks, Nino!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/politics/supreme-court-racial-discrimination/index.html?adkey=bn

7-1

I am DYiNG to know who the 1 was

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/23/supreme-court-race-black-jury-discrimination-death-penalty/78642468/

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's lone African American member, cast the lone dissent. "Foster's new evidence does not justify this court's reassessment of who was telling the truth nearly three decades removed from voir dire," he said.

I KNEW IT

damn

ice cold

When that guy goes he won't even get the sort of anti-fanfare that Scalia earned. He's just a sociopathic personality-free asshole.

america's carbuncle

carbuncle sam

you know what they say: when you've lost Alito, you throw a party

never forget: this man replaced Thurgood Marshall.

https://twitter.com/djperry1973/status/734758381206933504
https://twitter.com/djperry1973/status/734840228595175425

lol

in some ways the boneheadedness of his jurisprudence is fascinating - it's always the simplest, most absolutist position possible, totally devoid of nuance or context.

How did he produced clerks with minds as subtle as John Yoo and Laura Ingraham?

best/worst thomas decision was that schools should be allowed to strip search children to look for advil

DJP please be more consistent, is he a Marvel villain or a DC imp?

Slobbo the Cruel

http://urbanintellectuals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/cthomas.jpg

He transcends studios

Hmmmm, let me think about this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-allows-challenges-to-clean-water-act-restrictions-1464705519

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for landowners to contest the federal government’s ability to regulate their property under the Clean Water Act.

The court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, sided with North Dakota-based Hawkes Co., which wants to harvest peat from wetlands in a northern area of Minnesota. Those plans got off track when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined the property contained waters of the U.S., a finding that triggered application of the Clean Water Act.

Hawkes said the land was far away from the Red River of the North and had no connection to navigable waters. The Army Corps said the wetlands were of exceptional quality and had a significant nexus with the river, one of the components for claiming oversight.

If the Clean Water Act applies, Hawkes would need a permit from the Army Corps or it could face significant financial penalties if it disturbed the land without permission.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Hawkes could proceed immediately with a lawsuit that challenges the Army Corps’ claim to jurisdiction over the land, or whether it must go through a potentially lengthy and expensive permitting process before it could bring a case.

The court, in a 10-page opinion, said Hawkes could bring the challenge now. Chief Justice Roberts said landowners shouldn’t have to wait until the end of the permitting process, which “can be arduous, expensive and long.”

Six other justices joined the chief justice’s opinion, while a seventh, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined most of it.

The court rejected arguments by the government that lawsuits shouldn’t be allowed until after the Army Corps brings an enforcement action.

It isn’t a viable option to go forward without government permission because of the threat of criminal and civil penalties, the court said. Hawkes shouldn’t have to assume such risks while waiting for U.S. regulators “to drop the hammer in order to have their day in court,” the chief justice wrote.

Hawkes’s arguments attracted a broad array of support from home builders and other business groups, as well as from organizations representing state and municipal governments.

The case is a sign of the broader muddled state of U.S. environmental law on water regulation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, noted the reach of the Clean Water Act remained “notoriously unclear.” The law “continues to raise troubling questions regarding the government’s power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the nation,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

Determining whether federal environmental officials have jurisdiction over a particular tract of wetlands can be a complex task, and the Supreme C ourt hasn’t made things any easier.

In a major case a decade ago, no five justices could agree on the scope of federal authority, leaving the court without a majority opinion.

Chief Justice Roberts at the time said the “unfortunate” situation would leave landowners and lower court judges “to feel their way on a case-by-case basis.”

The Environmental Protection Agency last year issued a new regulation that attempted to clarify—and broaden—what wetlands and smaller waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act, but the agency’s effort attracted many legal challenges and courts have put the regulation on hold while litigation continues.

in a normal country parts of the CWA - and other environmental statutes and regulations - would have been amended decades ago to modernize and clarify ambiguous terms (like "waters of the U.S." and "hazardous waste"). too bad we live in this one, where one party constantly rails against environmental regulation but refuses to do anything to help improve them. they've long taken the position that EPA is evil, so they refuse to allow obvious incremental improvements because they'd also have the effect of making the federal government look useful.

The justices also have a festive dinner before the State of the Union address.

“One year, Justice Kennedy came with a couple of bottles of Opus One,” Justice Ginsburg said, referring to a very good wine. “That was the first time I fell asleep during the State of the Union.”

In Chief Justice John Marshall’s time in the early 1800s, when the justices lived together in a boardinghouse, they took a vow of temperance, saying they would drink their beloved Madeira wine only on rainy days. This was a flexible rule, Justice Ginsburg said.

“The chief justice looked out the window, and the sun was shining brightly,” she said. “And he said, ‘Somewhere in the world, it’s raining.’ ”

The regular lunches these days feature a distinct protocol.

“We don’t talk about cases,” Justice Sotomayor said. “That’s our absolute rule.”

“There is no topic that’s off limits, but we try to avoid controversial ones,” she added. “We’re very guarded about raising topics that might create hostility.”

Instead, she said, they talk about books, vacations and grandchildren.

Justice Ginsburg interrupted. “You left out one favorite topic, to which I never contribute,” she said. “And that’s sports.”

The tradition of guest lunch speakers has fallen away. Only two were invited back for a second visit: Alan Greenspan, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and James Wolfensohn, who was president of the World Bank. “Those two had the uncanny ability to eat lunch and speak,” Justice Ginsburg said.

The two justices ticked off favorite foods of current and former colleagues.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired in 2006, used to bring beef jerky. Justice David H. Souter, who retired in 2009, would subsist on a lunch of “plain yogurt,” Justice Ginsburg said, with distaste. “Just plain yogurt.”

Justice Sotomayor, who succeeded Justice Souter, said he might have brought the occasional apple. Justice Ginsburg said that was for “later in the day.”

Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010, favored cheese sandwiches on white bread with the crust cut off.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. orders a salad for lunch from the court’s cafeteria, Justice Sotomayor said, while Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. bring food from home. “And sometimes I see Sam’s fare and think maybe I should eat dinner with him,” she said.

As for Justice Ginsburg, her colleague said, “the treat she’s most fond of is muffins.”

Food delivery to the court has apparently improved since 2013, when Justice Sotomayor complained about the difficulty of getting takeout.

“I go to New York, I order food, it’s at my door in 10 to 15 minutes. O.K.?” she said. But in Washington, she said, “there isn’t a place I call where it doesn’t take 45 minutes.”

“One year, Justice Kennedy came with a couple of bottles of Opus One,” Justice Ginsburg said, referring to a very good wine.

New York Times, I presume?

How did you guess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/us/politics/for-a-collegial-court-justices-lunch-together-and-forbid-talk-of-cases.html

"that style tic always cracks me up, I want there to be a name for it," he posted, referring to the explanatory clauses that often follow quotes

The scariest part of the article was learning they called Alito "Sam," about Justice Samuel Alito, confirmed in 2006.

Opus One is a fantastic wine, though

would not get smashed with Sam, Tony, and Clarence though

Food delivery to the court has apparently improved since 2013, when Justice Sotomayor complained about the difficulty of getting takeout.

“I go to New York, I order food, it’s at my door in 10 to 15 minutes. O.K.?” she said. But in Washington, she said, “there isn’t a place I call where it doesn’t take 45 minutes.”

Speed of government amirite

Drivers stuck in DC traffic circles tbrr

Just trying to get through fifteen layers of security with some pad thai more like

Court rules 5-3 that a state supreme court judge's failure to recuse himself in an appeal, after having been a DA in the original case at hand, was a violation of due process.

See if you can guess who the three were. No, guess.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-5040

Er, 6-2. Sorry.

You were right the first time

I'm never right the first time.

But you were here...it's : Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Wondering how Roberts and Thomas dressed up their naked self-interest there.

I don't want to think of Roberts and Thomas naked

liar

"I see you're interested in myself."

liar

― STOP KILLING ANIMALS, THEY'RE MINT (DJP), Thursday, June 9, 2016 3:49 PM

shall I post SCOTUS COITUS slash fiction