U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

rbg should've retired a long time ago

this shit of people staying in offices into their 70s & 80s, i am not really a fan

otm

net harm done by Supreme Court over its history + likely future harm dramatically outweighs net good

All you have to do is google "Melvin Fuller Court"

Also, the Supreme Court's "desegregation" of schools is not really effective unless you have state and local support

*Melville, sorry

brown v board was obv a v important symbol but it didnt do shit without federal enforcement. it was basically ignored for a good decade.

too bad framers forgot to include SC tactical enforcement unit

(btw Ike was sending in National Guard to enforce in Little Rock 3 years after the decision so it wasn't exactly just treated as a suggestion)

im familiar with the little rock 9 which was at that point an exceptional case and not the norm (hence the qualifier "basically").

Gorsuch fans are going to enjoy today’s SCOTUS arguments over civil asset forfeiture. When the Indiana Solicitor General said the Excessive Fines Clause doesn’t apply to the states, Gorsuch looked incredulous and said: “Come on, General. Really?!”

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) November 28, 2018

…General?

i'm assuming it's general counsel but idk

apparently Mmes. and Messers. J. traditionally address Solicitors General as "General" in contravention of all logic

That is good news. I passionately hate civil asset forfeiture.

Yeah based on Stern's whole thread there, with both Gorsuch and Sotomayor going in, it's going to be shredded at long last. I almost wish Sessions was still in office just to choke on that.

"Gorsuch fans"

can't wait to see who dissents here

Thomas and Alito

Thomas will probably argue that police unilaterally have the right to claim poor minority people's property

THOMAS: It's not in the 1787 Constitution? *checks with clerk* JUSTICE THOMAS DISSENTS

lol now imagining him referring to himself in the third person all the time a la Bob Dole

JUSTICE THOMAS HAS NEVER BEEN A FAN OF LONG DONG SILVER

JUSTICE THOMAS WOULD LIKE A GLASS OF ORANGE JUICE

Also a joy

Civil asset forfeiture is such a farce that it took Stephen Breyer no more than a single transcript page to twist the government's lawyer into arguing that speeding tickets could be grounds for forfeiture lololololol pic.twitter.com/3ODsw9dFks

— Eric Boehm (@EricBoehm87) November 28, 2018

Thomas will probably argue that police unilaterally have the right to claim poor minority people's property

Uh.

https://www.axios.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cancerous-growths-removed-lung-bad8e0ec-18c1-4605-9530-15c892945ab8.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

"removed lung bad"

has beaten colon, pancreatic, and now lung cancer. lord what a battler

jfc plz don't die

yes, always in the back of my mind these days.

kinda holding out hope she's one of the protagonists in The Stand

Big news: SCOTUS just rejected Exxon Mobil's appeal to stop Massachusetts' attorney general from forcing the oil giant to turn over documents detailing what and when it knew about burning fossil fuels causing climate change. https://t.co/wUdKso7fXF

— Alexander Kaufman (@AlexCKaufman) January 7, 2019

sweet

meanwhile, Ginsberg didn't show up today cuz she wasn't feeling up to it, reportedly.

kickin it watching Price is Right.

At her age recovering from thoracic surgery is no picnic. Her energy level will probably take a hit going forward.

I think unfortunately there is a very good chance her energy level will dip to 0 within the next two years.

So transgender ban in military allowed to proceed while existing cases continue in lower courts.

Seems pretty stupid

outrageously cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-transphobic-face stupid, yes

The first John Roberts bio

Biskupic reports in detail for the first time on the machinations of the Obamacare case, revealing that Roberts started out in a different place. She writes that he initially voted with the four other conservatives to strike down the ACA, on the grounds that it went beyond Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Likewise, he initially voted to uphold the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid. But Roberts, who kept the opinion for himself to write, soon developed second thoughts.

Biskupic, who interviewed many of the justices for this book, including her subject, writes that Roberts said he felt “torn between his heart and his head.” He harbored strong views on the limitations of congressional power, but hesitated to interject the Court into the ongoing health-insurance crisis. After trying unsuccessfully to find a middle way with Kennedy, who was “unusually firm” and even “put off” by the courtship, Roberts turned to the Court’s two moderate liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. The threesome negotiated a compromise decision that upheld the ACA’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power, while striking down the Medicaid expansion. Future scholars will endlessly probe this fascinating moment in judicial history, but Biskupic deserves credit for writing the first draft.

Good news:

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a Louisiana law that its opponents say could have left the state with only one doctor in a single clinic authorized to provide abortions.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing.

The law, enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. In 2017, Judge John W. deGravelles of the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge struck down the law, saying that such doctors were often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence and that the law created an undue burden on women’s constitutional right to abortion.

The Louisiana law, Judge deGravelles ruled, was essentially identical to one from Texas that the Supreme Court struck down in a 2016 decision, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority in the 2016 decision, said courts must consider whether the claimed benefits of laws putting restrictions on abortion outweigh the burdens they placed on the constitutional right to the procedure.

This allows Roberts to shift the blame to the abortion providers for “letting” the law go into effect, while obtaining the same end-result as a merits ruling that would green-light other states to enact similar lawshttps://t.co/YAJqtlGEiR

— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) February 7, 2019

it couldn't be made more obvious that the future of abortion rights rests for the moment on the health of a 85-year-old woman.

stupid system imo.

This month is the 2nd anniversary of the time I was on Fox News talking about the Supreme Court!

...are you glenn greenwald?

that would be an interesting twist

9-0!

The Supreme Court today unanimously rules for Tyson Timbs, a small-time drug offender whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by the state of Indiana as a civil forfeiture.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court rules that the U.S. Constitution's 8th amendment clause on excessive fines clause applies to states and local governments, and curbs their power to levy fines and seize property.

Here is a link to the full Opinion by Justice Ginsburg.

This is the first time the highest court of the nation has weighed in so directly on the issue of excessive fines and civil assets forfeiture, an issue that has grown increasingly controversial as awareness of cases such as Timbs' grows online.

very cool

Interesting:

Thomas concurs in the judgment, but would apparently hold that the right against excessive fines applies only to American *citizens.*

That's because he thinks the right applies to the states through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which does not protect non-citizens. pic.twitter.com/WRZRAIUIU3

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) February 20, 2019