U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

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.

that piece going around on teh vitter/deripaska/mcconnell connect line to the federal judgeship is one of the more amazing things where i'm going 'that has to be circumstantial right? it does right, because that's some cartoon level grift shit, and i can keep from crying about politricks, but cmon, that judge, mannnnn.'

we all know that undoing what's getting to done is gonna be as tough as anything else i guess.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/politics/rusal-investment-kentucky.html
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/444179-senate-confirms-trump-judge-who-faced-scrutiny-over-abortion-views

those are the stories, the link between them is david vitter, spouse of the new judge.

Thomas went apeshit again today.

Do you mean he actually spoke from the bench?

In today's opinion on abortion, Clarence Thomas focuses on the racism of Margaret Sanger's movement, particularly her work in Harlem & the South. He deals w/ DuBois & the NAACP's concerns about the "ghetto approach" of Planned Parenthood. What's going on? https://t.co/7pwbsM4pPs

— corey robin (@CoreyRobin) May 28, 2019

Adam Cohen, whose book on Buck v. Bell (a bestseller a couple years ago) got cited by Thomas in a footnote, has responded:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/clarence-thomas-used-my-book-argue-against-abortion/590455/

Clarence Thomas needs to go back to investigating pubic hairs on his cola cans and die already.

Is there an RIP thread for him yet? because dreaming is free.

just bumped it :)

darling

no deaths on the Supreme Court until February 2021 at the earliest, please

and even then why wouldn’t the senate just repeat the Garland episode

Because the Republicans control the Senate as of today and they only require 50 votes plus Pence to confirm any damn young fool of a conservative to keep that seat warm for another 25 to 30 years. Why would McConnell ever do anything but that?

love that cohen article title

highly probable the senate doesn't change hands for several election cycles. they could keep this shit up for years regardless of who's in the WH.
if it's a Dem then that person is clearly 'illegitimate'

I'm sure Biden and Mitch will work something out. Probably a pro-life Democrat.

How will the RBG cult deal? https://t.co/CdFEIpaXYy

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) June 9, 2019

More important.

If Kavanaugh hired an all-female group of law clerks, why wouldn't RBG approve of that, even if it was done for motives that have more to do with Kavanaugh openly preening himself on his liberality and open-mindedness than the actual presence of liberality or open-mindedness in his judicial thinking? At least those women have been given a chance to actively demonstrate their ability.

*future alien historians* "it's a little weird but very human. these x-x females wrote tons of pieces for this x-y male boss, named ka-va-nah, in support of overturning that "Roe" opinion. and later, in recognition of fetal personhood."