U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

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

it it cynical to think that one thing the SC could unite around in 2019 would be the inalienable right to private property

So this basically means that state civil asset forfeiture will now be under the same standards as federal civil asset forfeiture, correct? I'm a little confused as to what those standards actually are.

https://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/ap_17207401762199_1.jpg?itok=9pYRQRrC

Something else to chew on, via this thread:

There are now two justices who believe 14th Amendment's privileges & immunities clause (not its due process clause) is mechanism for binding states to Bill of Rights. That would have two huge implications. https://t.co/cnbesaVELZ pic.twitter.com/cZFef78p4J

— Steve Klepper (@MDAppeal) February 20, 2019

all you need to know is that that makes no particular sense at all -- there is no logical reason that projections aimed at ALL people at the federal level would only be aimed at citizens at the state level. They just want to limit the rights of non-citizens.

but, you know, it's constitutional jurisprudence

lol are the Slaughterhouse Cases still precedent?

only if five justices say so

ugh

Yesterday, while we were all focusing on Cohen hearing, Justice Thomas & Gorsuch issued a terrifying dissenting opinion. Would undermine the well-established constitutional right to appointed counsel in criminal cases. They’d overturn Gideon v. Wainwright. Goodbye public defense. pic.twitter.com/g4ZdFdVR6R

— Scott Hechinger (@ScottHech) February 28, 2019

I already knew Justice Thomas's jurisprudence was terrifying. Here is proof, if any were needed, that Justice Gorsuch will prove to be his match. Long may they be the authors of dissenting opinions only.

yeah I agree about Gorsuch

The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a victory Tuesday by making it easier to detain undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

The justices reversed a lower court decision that required immigration officials to detain those immigrants upon release from jail or prison, rather than months or even years later. Advocates for immigrants had argued that such detentions must occur within 24 hours.

The 5-4 ruling was a victory for the Trump administration and the court’s conservative justices, who complained during oral argument in October that the government cannot detain every immigrant immediately – particularly when money and manpower are limited, and state and local governments may be opposed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/19/supreme-court-illegal-immigrants-criminal-records-deport-trump/2505543002/

Today's death sentence decision was a real doozy. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, suggests that if the petitioner wanted a less painful method of execution, he should come up with one. Kavanaugh, taking a Sotomayor remark out of deliberate context, possibly to mock her, wonders if she doesn't have a point about using firing squads.

In other words, an inmate who contends that a particular method of execution is very likely to cause him severe pain should ordinarily be able to plead some alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce the risk of severe pain. At oral argument in this Court, the State suggested that the firing squad would be such an available alternative, if adequately pleaded. Tr. of Oral Arg. 63–64 (“He can plead firing squad. . . . Of course, if he had . . . pleaded firing squad, it’s possible that Missouri could have executed him by firing squad”). JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR has likewise explained that the firing squad is an alternative method of execution that generally causes an immediate and certain death, with close to zero risk
of a botched execution. See Arthur, 580 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 17–18). I do not here prejudge the question whether the firing squad, or any other alternative method of execution, would be a feasible and readily implemented alternative for every State. See McGehee v. Hutchinson, 854 F. 3d 488, 493–494 (CA8 2017). Rather, I simply emphasize the Court’s statement that “we see little likelihood that an inmate facing a serious risk of pain will be unable to identify an available alternative.”

fucking scum

only the best

slow clap

Constitution: No cruel punishments allowed.

Gorsuch: Hey! If it's cruel, that's your problem, not ours.

killing people is cruel and unusual punishment /trench

The Supreme Court's 5–4 death penalty decision today is beyond appalling. It legalizes torture and effectively reverses 60 years of progressive precedent. It transforms a barbaric view of the 8th Amendment into the law of the land. It is horrific. https://t.co/qYTlgQHT8b @Slate

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 1, 2019

meanwhile:

In arguments by turn technical and passionate, the Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether the Trump administration may add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census form that will be sent to every household in the nation.

By the end of the arguments, which lasted 80 minutes instead of the usual hour, the justices seemed divided along the usual lines, suggesting that the conservative majority would allow the question.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that adding the question would do damage to the fundamental purpose of the census, which is to count everyone in the nation.

“There is no doubt that people will respond less,” she said. “That has been proven in study after study.”

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, acknowledged that adding the question could depress participation. But he said the information it would yield was valuable.

“You’re always trading off information and accuracy,” he said.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh noted that questions about citizenship had been asked on many census forms over the years and were commonplace around the world.

Much of the argument concerned statistical modeling. “This gets really, really technical,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said.

this could be really bad

mitchmcconnellsmirk.jpg

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, acknowledged that adding the question could depress participation. But

uh-huh.

don't worry about nancy, we can just vote him out. we can, right?

Why not take a page from the late, sainted Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and go back to examine the intentions of the Founding Gods Who Wrote the Perfect Constitution and ask the court to notice how they felt about counting undocumented immigrants in the census as opposed to just counting US residents?

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Hmmm. Nothing in there about sacrificing accuracy of "counting the whole number of persons" in favor gaining information about what those persons are doing there. Case closed.

Excellent piece on Leonard Leo.

Also: let it be said that John Paul Stevens at 99 is sharper than every person in the Cabinet.

Yeah, the piece on Leonard Leo is eye opening. Or not, after all, the corruption is all out in the open. But the idea that this is legal, and even 'charitable' and worthy tax exemption, is a joke.

I (and others) wonder how America(ns) will react (or if they'll notice) when the current admin is gone but the courts from the SC on down have been remade as right-wing tribunals largely at odds with (as polled, at least) cultural trends. The argument I've heard is blah blah blah, Federal judges are independent etc., but that's not why they're being chosen.

No, they've been very open about wanting a certain kind of judge, one who interprets the law differently than the majority of Americans. The idea that everyone will just agree that it's okay and there's nothing to do about it seems far fetched. Especially once they chose a rapist as the SC pick.