U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

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

follow yr muse

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

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

don't read "america: the book"

how has #scoitus not been a thing yet

I've written SCOTUS fic before, but I've never considered slash tbh.

Former girlfriend of Clarence Thomas claims she had threesomes with the controversial Supreme Court justice and some of his female colleagues

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3543232/Former-girlfriend-Clarence-Thomas-claims-threesomes-controversial-Supreme-Court-justice-female-colleagues.html

Better put some ointment on that GINSBURN

On May 14, Justice Clarence Thomas gave the commencement address at Hillsdale College.

SCOTUSBlog has a link to the video of this but I don't think I want to watch it

Oh whew I thought your post was referencing a different Clarence Thomas-related news item.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/13/supreme-court-rejects-case-challenging-key-white-house-air-pollution-regulation/?wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

The Supreme Court on Monday left intact a key Obama administration environmental regulation, refusing to take up an appeal from 20 states to block rules that limit the emissions of mercury and other harmful pollutants that are byproducts of burning coal.

The high court’s decision leaves in place a lower-court ruling that found that the regulations, put in place several years ago by the Environmental Protection Agency, could remain in effect while the agency revised the way it had calculated the potential industry compliance costs. The EPA finalized its updated cost analysis in April.

Radiolab has a new podcast about the Supreme Court. Pretty cool stuff if you're interested in the history of the thing and key decisions and so on.

Supreme Court nominee tutors twice a month (as do his clerks) and does 5th grade commencement speech at elementary school in DC. He's been doing it for 18 years. I don't think this will impress Mitch McConnell enough to give him a hearing.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482206242/merrick-garland-delivers-5th-grade-commencement-address

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/06/15/merrick-garland-tells-5th-grade-graduates-to-work-hard-dreams-dont-come-true-by-magic/

at this point I'm kinda hoping after Hillary wins Garland's nomination is withdrawn and someone even leftier gets Scalia's spot

odds seem low but one can dream

If RBG announces she's retiring the day after the election, I would accept Garland PLUS someone leftier. Or two lefties, whatev.

that scenario maybe more likely, yeah

Any nominee still needs Senate confirmation. HRC's coattails may not stretch far enough to take the Senate away from McConnell & Co, even with Donald the Menace heading the ticket.

Yeah, there's no reason to assume that this nonsense will end post-Obama

this executive jiggery pokery you mean?

as it stands now, there's no way the GOP is keeping the Senate

lol Alfred