U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

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.

well, she joined the first two parts of Thomas' dissent.

Don't forget the Texting Father!

See, this is when I miss Nino most: when he's dissenting.

he's decomposing now, which is much better imo

rip boo

https://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscotusmemes.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F09%2Fscalia2.gif&width=810

so does the TX abortion ruling make it more difficult for states to pass similar laws? or does it just mean that every time a state passes something like this, there will be another multi-year process for it to wind through the courts until maybe it gets struck down again?

asking as someone fairly ignorant about how SC precedents get applied to the state lawmaking process

It establishes precedent; it's the most far-reaching abortion rights case since Casey.

it means similar laws are likely to be struck down, and new laws will have to recognize it as established precedent

the anti-choice machine was prepared to start installing TRAP laws in states throughout the south/midwest if this passed through the court
curious to see how texas rebounds this on both sides of the issue

yeah the big thing is that there's a clear, applicable, and stringent precedent which limits any and all state laws restricting abortion rights. i don't know the national scene, but i can say for sure that indiana just this year passed a law placing some pretty severe restrictions on abortion access, restrictions which seem unlikely to pass the test the court established in this opinion.

yeah, I guess my question is whether this will stop states from passing similar laws or will we see more laws like this and a protracted effort to fight it out in the courts despite the ruling.

it will stop states from passing similar laws for the same reason states don't pass laws for other things that supreme court has ruled illegal - it will be instantly challenged in court and struck down at the circuit level

ok, that makes sense

LA/MS/AL, which have restrictions similar to TX, will have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

Yeah IIRC it's basically like, if some other state passes a similar law, much lower-level courts can rule it out right away like "look, this is already settled and we're busy, your law is unconstitutional, open-and-shut case" and higher courts can deny appeal pretty straightforwardly. The ruling reaffirms Casey, which was a shaky compromise ruling, by a court swinging rapidly rightwards; a different court would have used today's case as an opportunity to gut it entirely. Instead we've been told that Casey's "substantial obstacle/undue burden" language has teeth, and applies to weasely and arbitrary real-world laws. Medical-expert testimony trumps vague assertions by legislators as to the purpose and effects of abortion legislation. Huge win for common sense (invoked throughout to cut through the fog of lame counterarguments).

xpost

in other news the alabama supreme court is still claiming that obergefell is invalid, to no apparent effect.