Supreme Court watch

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
26,978
All commies, the US Supreme Court. It is strange though how no matter what the neocons do in trying to stack the US Supreme Court with individuals who would be seen as a 'safe pair of hands' for neocon concerns how at least one of their safe pair of hands turns out to be an unexpected dissenter. Perhaps there is something about the Supreme Court which gives incumbents pause for thought. After all, they can't be deselected by a political party so whatever impression they give the neocons in order to get the seat can easily be be reversed after appointment and there's nothing the Republicans or Democrats can do to reverse their pick.
It highlights the importance of persuasion on the Court. For all of her many qualities, Ginsburg is not noted for being able to win around wavering swing votes on the court. Kagan, by all accounts, on the other hand, is a dab hand at just that. When a President appoints they often have to choose between the firebrand like Ginsburg, who will write powerful judgments and (more often) stinging dissents; or a more low key appointee who can win folk over. There's a place for both on the Court.
 


NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,230
He is the "centre" of the court and the fifth vote in almost all cases with the current members but I would not call him a swing vote. His vote is conservative in most all circumstances just as Kagan's is liberal. But as the fifth vote in either direction on most things he decides how the cases come out. There is no swing vote currently on the court although Gorsuch has the most unusual jursiprudence. Roberts is playing the long game so he will not wish to strike down the ACA during/in the aftermath of a health crisis. The justices can make up any reason required to get the outcome they want, I am preety sure he will uphold the ACA. It goes if Ginsburg dies and is replaced.

Roberts has certainly become the swingiest of the judges on the culture war issues. I would agree that he is an absolute conservative at heart but is more likely to swing than any of the other judges. He has been around about 15 years so has a record to analyze. Roberts is only 65, and all going well should have many more years on the court, as the country is under going enormous change and will have an eye on his legacy and "the Roberts court". It is him that will be remembered for many of these judgements/opinions and whom history will remember.
 

arsenal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
381
Roberts is more country club republican in temperament it appears and probably enjoys his current position in the middle. Roberts is also more aware of history than most having originally studied it at Harvard before doing law so is thinking ahead to how he and his court will be remembered as well as how it is perceived at the moment. He is also a young justice so can afford to think ahead and plan things out as he has probably 10-15 years left as the chief as you say.
 
Last edited:

arsenal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
381
Crazy rumour started by a right wing guy that Alito is considering leaving the court. I assume it is nonsense as he is only 70 and has done less than 15 years. On the otherhand Alito is the most partisan and would want to be replaced by an arch conservative and apparently he does not enjoy DC. Many speculated that some of his angry dissents were at Roberts's perceived drift. He could be trying to help the GOP base as Trump is in big trouble at the moment and filling a seat would excite conservatives.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,230
Crazy rumour started by a right wing guy that Alito is considering leaving the court. I assume it is nonsense as he is only 70 and has done less than 15 years. On the otherhand Alito is the most partisan and would want to be replaced by an arch conservative and apparently he does not enjoy DC. Many speculated that some of his angry dissents were at Roberts's perceived drift. He could be trying to help the GOP base as Trump is in big trouble at the moment and filling a seat would excite conservatives.

I saw similar rumours about Alito and agree that they are likely nonsense. Hey, but you never know, when they do step down, it's typically at the end of the court's term, which is now.

In any event, it's an election year, so McConnell would hold the seat open and let the winning POTUS decide after next January. :)


-flying-pig-illustrating-the-phrase-when-pigs-fly-.jpg
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
11,367
The fact that this had to go before the Supreme court in the first place tells you what a shambles the US electoral system is.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
11,367
I saw similar rumours about Alito and agree that they are likely nonsense. Hey, but you never know, when they do step down, it's typically at the end of the court's term, which is now.

In any event, it's an election year, so McConnell would hold the seat open and let the winning POTUS decide after next January. :)


View attachment 26006
The same rumour is going around about Clarence Thomas and I think the Democratic response would have to be:

"Do, and if we win, we'll appoint four forty something year old former clerks of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. If you're just going to make up rules as you go along, so are we."
 

arsenal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
381
Final supreme court decisions due tomorrow (Thursday). 3 cases left to decide, the Oklahoma tribal lands case and the 2 Trump tax cases. I think Gorsuch joins the liberals in the Oklahoma case with Sotomayor writing and Breyer writing Vance and Roberts with Deutsche Bank/Mazars. Trump loses Vance but partially wins the congressional subpoena cases, unless the Conservatives are really brazen and give him a complete win and gut congressional oversight of the executive.
 

arsenal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
381
The fact that this had to go before the Supreme court in the first place tells you what a shambles the US electoral system is.
It was brought for some clarity before the 2020 election,to try and avoid potential faithless electors deciding the outcome if it was as close as 2000.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,192
SCOTUS has ruled that states can require Electors in Electoral College to vote with the popular vote in their states.

I am not sure if that is what it says.

Neither Nebraska nor Maine gives their EVs by the State popular votes, only the "Senatorial" two. The other Electoral Votes are then allocated by House District according to the popular vote in each e.g. in 2008, Nebraska as a whole voted for McCain, but its 2nd District voted for Obama, so 4 out of 5 Electoral Votes went to McCain, 1 to Obama. In 2016, Maine as a whole voted for Clinton, but its 2nd District voted for Trump, giving Clinton 3 Electoral votes, and Trump 1.

I think the decision says that the Electors must follow the process laid down by the State Legislature, whatever it is. They are not "free agents" like Congressmen or Senators to ultimately "vote their conscience" without suffering some sanction like a fine.

This means that Colin Powell, Ron Paul or Chief Spotted Eagle will not be getting Electoral Votes this year :(
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,192
Final supreme court decisions due tomorrow (Thursday). 3 cases left to decide, the Oklahoma tribal lands case and the 2 Trump tax cases. I think Gorsuch joins the liberals in the Oklahoma case with Sotomayor writing and Breyer writing Vance and Roberts with Deutsche Bank/Mazars. Trump loses Vance but partially wins the congressional subpoena cases, unless the Conservatives are really brazen and give him a complete win and gut congressional oversight of the executive.
One depressing decision today. Employers may cease paying for women employees' birth control under Obamacare out of "religious conviction". It opens the door to a wider denial of civil rights on specious grounds.

 

arsenal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
381
Major wins for Trump at the court today, bit of an anti climax. Trump "lost" both cases 7-2, but they were sent back for further inquiry, meaning no records or what not before the election. The delay tactics won.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,192
Major wins for Trump at the court today, bit of an anti climax. Trump "lost" both cases 7-2, but they were sent back for further inquiry, meaning no records or what not before the election. The delay tactics won.
As expected, they allowed the Manhattan US Attorney to see the tax documents, but not the Legislature, at least not yet.

It amounts to doing Trump another favour in ensuring he survives until November without another scandal. But you would think the voters should get to know how honest Trump has been with his tax returns before they voted.

Was that not the point of a candidate releasing tax returns in the first place? But this President is special - he is a Republican.
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
18,685
As expected, they allowed the Manhattan US Attorney to see the tax documents, but not the Legislature, at least not yet.

It amounts to doing Trump another favour in ensuring he survives until November without another scandal. But you would think the voters should get to know how honest Trump has been with his tax returns before they voted.

Was that not the point of a candidate releasing tax returns in the first place? But this President is special - he is a Republican.
The decision seems sensible , the request from Congress is purely political and rightly they have been denied access for now. If the records leak(they will) from the Manhattan Attorney office it will also show that this investigation is nothing but another political witch hunt as well.
 

Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
12,572
Major wins for Trump at the court today, bit of an anti climax. Trump "lost" both cases 7-2, but they were sent back for further inquiry, meaning no records or what not before the election. The delay tactics won.

That was my initial reaction too but Trump's fury in last 30 mins indicates to me he actually thought he was going to get the legal wins and we would never see his tax or financial affairs and even that he had almost unlimited immunity
We will now, for sure

Trump seems truly terrified by the SDNY getting his affairs
Cy Vance sounds very happy and bullish that this investigation is now going to power ahead

If there is toxic stuff in his affairs, we are going to see it for sure, it is now only a question of when
 
Last edited:

Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
12,572
The decision seems sensible , the request from Congress is purely political and rightly they have been denied access for now. If the records leak(they will) from the Manhattan Attorney office it will also show that this investigation is nothing but another political witch hunt as well.
So if information "leaks" that shows Trump is a crook, he isn't in fact a crook!
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
10,016
The decision seems sensible , the request from Congress is purely political and rightly they have been denied access for now. If the records leak(they will) from the Manhattan Attorney office it will also show that this investigation is nothing but another political witch hunt as well.

LOL!!
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
10,016
So if information "leaks" that shows Trump is a crook, he in't in fact a crook!

Can't reason with the cult, Jack. That's why they're a cult.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom