2024 SCOTUS Rulings Thread

[UNI88]

9-0 ruling in win for the NRA
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sup ... 024-05-30/

That's impossible! There's no way that 3 trump hating lib donk judges voted that way. trump hating lib donk judges can't be trusted to vote based the actual law.

[BDKJMU]

So not just the prosecutors but the judge are in on the lawfare? It would seem this may be grounds for an appeal but it’s not exactly the slam dunk you make it out to be. He falsified records and attempted to defraud to win an election.



https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-ho ... rcna152361

Judges just judge. You think conservative justices are in the tank and purposely delaying Trump court cases so why would you express disbelief at judges leaning the other way with allowing cases to proceed? Again, as even the NY Times indicated, it's very unusual in NY for cases brought for felony level falsifying business records to not also include charges for the other crime they were falsifying business records for. They aren't charging him with any other crime - no charge for defrauding to win an election. No charge for campaign finance violations. And the Feds opted not to bring those charges as well despite investigating for them. So again, no actual charge of another crime, just the allusion to one. That's not normal in NY. Obviously, that will likely be the centerpiece of any appeal if convicted.

The bias of the judge in this case is obvious:
-Allowed it to come to trial in the 1st place when there were grounds for tossing it.
-Didn’t declare a mistrial after the Stormy Daniels testimony
-RIGGED the jury instructions against Trump by saying the jury didn’t even have to agree on what the secondary crime was. Guilty beyond a resonable doubt does not apply to the secondary crime.

[UNI88]

Judges just judge. You think conservative justices are in the tank and purposely delaying Trump court cases so why would you express disbelief at judges leaning the other way with allowing cases to proceed? Again, as even the NY Times indicated, it's very unusual in NY for cases brought for felony level falsifying business records to not also include charges for the other crime they were falsifying business records for. They aren't charging him with any other crime - no charge for defrauding to win an election. No charge for campaign finance violations. And the Feds opted not to bring those charges as well despite investigating for them. So again, no actual charge of another crime, just the allusion to one. That's not normal in NY. Obviously, that will likely be the centerpiece of any appeal if convicted.

The bias of the judge in this case is obvious:
-Allowed it to come to trial in the 1st place when there were grounds for tossing it.
-Didn’t declare a mistrial after the Stormy Daniels testimony
-RIGGED the jury instructions against Trump by saying the jury didn’t even have to agree on what the secondary crime was. Guilty beyond a resonable doubt does not apply to the secondary crime.

So you're saying this judge is almost as biased as Aileen Cannon?

[houndawg]

People can really ask anything they want. SCOTUS justices can also make their own determination on recusals. There are 7 other judges on the Court and these two aren't tipping the scales for any judgments for the Court. Heck, the Trump and 14th amendment case was 9-0. It wouldn't have carried any more weight if it was 7-0.

While I don't think issues like these (or the freebies they've received) have influenced Alito or Thomas' rulings I do think they damage the reputation of the SCOTUS. The appearance of bias should be taken seriously and I don't think Thomas or Alito have done that. SCOTUS needs clearer ethical standards and a process for applying/enforcing them. I would love to see Roberts help make that happen.

FTR - I think this is a pretty good court despite Alito, Thomas and Sotomayor's shortcomings. They ruled correctly on the 14th Amendment case and I think they'll rule correctly on Presidential immunity. I do worry about the impact of Alito and Thomas' bias on less clear cut cases.

I'm watching to see when they do it. If they want to rule in favor of immunity they need to wait until after he wins the election or Biden can have him arrested for his coup attempt and theft of classified information, which is likely already at he Kremlin being studied. I expect a fairly quick denial of immunity now

[UNI88]

I'm curious, what was the "objectionable and personally insulting language" on the yard signs that caused Martha-Ann Alito to fly the upside-down flag as a signal of distress?

You are a snowflake if you believe that “Trump Is a Fascist” and “You Are Complicit” constitute "objectionable and personally insulting language" worthy of flying your upside-down as a signal of distress.

Justice Alito’s Upside-Down Flag Claim Dismantled by Police, Neighbors: Report

Three days later, following the inauguration of President Joe Biden, the couple drove past the Alito household. Per the couple and messages they sent to friends at the time, Martha-Ann ran toward their car, yelled something unintelligible, and as they drove past the Alitos’ residence again to exit the cul-de-sac, she appeared to spit at their car.
...
Then on Feb. 15, 2021, as the couple was pulling trash bins, the Alitos walked by; Martha-Ann used an expletive and called them “fascists,” while Justice Alito remained quiet, according to the Badens and texts they sent at the time.

In response, Emily said she used a lewd expression and said something to the likes of: “How dare you behave this way. You’ve been harassing us, over signs. You represent the highest court in the land. Shame on you.” The report contradicts Justice Alito’s claim that his wife hung the flag after insults were flung.

The Badens called the police following the incident, recording the conversation, which the Times confirmed with Fairfax County authorities.

No one can tell me what the "objectionable and personally insulting language" on the yard signs that caused Martha-Ann Alito to fly the upside-down flag as a signal of distress was?

The U.S. flag code says that the flag should never be displayed upside-down “except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.” I seriously doubt Martha Ann's life or property were in extreme danger. If not, she was disrespecting the flag by flying it upside down. How is that different from knealing for the national anthem? Maybe we should call her Martha Ann Kaepernick.

[BDKJMU]

I don't like Alito. But I don't think he needs to be impeached. I don't see the ethical nor moral corruption, and certainly not in any of his rulings. Not liking a judge and his/her decisions doesn't have to devolve to eviscerating him/her personally. But each to their own.

I don't think he should be impeached either but I think it's fair to ask if he (and Thomas) should recuse himself from cases dealing with January 6 due to the appearance of bias.

Yet you and no one on the left was calling for Judge Merchan to recuse himself because of the appearamce of bias as he is a Biden donor, and his daughter is a big wig democrat fundraiser..Your hypocrisy runneth over..

[UNI88]

I don't think he should be impeached either but I think it's fair to ask if he (and Thomas) should recuse himself from cases dealing with January 6 due to the appearance of bias.

Yet you and no one on the left was calling for Judge Merchan to recuse himself because of the appearamce of bias as he is a Biden donor, and his daughter is a big wig democrat fundraiser..Your hypocrisy runneth over..

What was it? $25? You want to make a big deal about that lack of ethics but ignore the millions of dollars in "gifts" that thomas and alito have received over the years?

You don't have a lot of room to talk when it comes to hypocrisy. You've been bitching and moaning for months about trump-hating donk judges and say nothing about trump-sucking conk judges like alito, thomas and possibly cannon.

FTR I didn't call for alito or thomas to recuse themselves. I said it's fair to ask if they should "from cases dealing with January 6".

The connection between gini thomas and January 6 is rock solid in comparison to any connection between Merchan's daughter and trump's NY charges. If martha ann alito disrespected the US Flag by flying it upside down to signal faux outrage over trump's loss then her connection to January 6 is more solid compared to any connection between Merchan's daughter and trump's NY charges.

[BDKJMU]

One thing the Trump admin got wrong, and SCOTUS got right
in a 6-3 decision in Garland v Cargill, 1 of 3 decisions released today.

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority when it purported to ban bump stocks by classifying them as machine guns. Although the Court's decision in Garland v. Cargill does not involve the Second Amendment, it upholds the rule of law and the separation of powers by striking a blow against bureaucratic attempts to impose new gun controls without congressional approval. The bump stock ban is one of several such attempts, two of which faced judicial setbacks shortly before the Supreme Court's bump stock ruling.…

https://reason.com/2024/06/14/supreme-c ... stock-ban/

[UNI88]

One thing the Trump admin got wrong, and SCOTUS got right
in a 6-3 decision in Garland v Cargill, 1 of 3 decisions released today.

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority when it purported to ban bump stocks by classifying them as machine guns. Although the Court's decision in Garland v. Cargill does not involve the Second Amendment, it upholds the rule of law and the separation of powers by striking a blow against bureaucratic attempts to impose new gun controls without congressional approval. The bump stock ban is one of several such attempts, two of which faced judicial setbacks shortly before the Supreme Court's bump stock ruling.…

https://reason.com/2024/06/14/supreme-c ... stock-ban/

I wonder what the impact will be on future executive orders, Project 2025 for instance.

[BDKJMU]

One thing the Trump admin got wrong, and SCOTUS got right
in a 6-3 decision in Garland v Cargill, 1 of 3 decisions released today.

https://reason.com/2024/06/14/supreme-c ... stock-ban/

I wonder what the impact will be on future executive orders, Project 2025 for instance.

I don’t believe the ATF’s bumpstock ban was an exec order.

[UNI88]

I wonder what the impact will be on future executive orders, Project 2025 for instance.

I don’t believe the ATF’s bumpstock ban was an exec order.

Regardless, I think it's a good thing. These types of changes need to be voted on and approved by Congress not executive order or agency fiat.

[BDKJMU]

I don’t believe the ATF’s bumpstock ban was an exec order.

Regardless, I think it's a good thing. These types of changes need to be voted on and approved by Congress not executive order or agency fiat.

Well I agree (I know shocker ). As I understand it, Congress defined what an automatic weapon is in the 1934 NFA, and then the ATF tried to redefine it.

[UNI88]

Regardless, I think it's a good thing. These types of changes need to be voted on and approved by Congress not executive order or agency fiat.

Well I agree (I know shocker ). As I understand it, Congress defined what an automatic weapon is in the 1934 NFA, and then the ATF tried to redefine it.

I don't think it's a shocker.

We've become to dependent on executive order and agency fiat because Congress is dysfunctional. Congress needs to do it's job.

[UNI88]

Amy Coney Barrett Sounds Fed Up With Clarence Thomas’ Sloppy Originalism

In a separate opinion, Barrett agreed with Thomas’ bottom line but sharply disagreed with pretty much everything else. His history-only approach, she wrote, was “wrong twice over”: Thomas both botched the relevant history and failed to make a persuasive case for its use in the first place. Start with “the court’s evidence.” Thomas’ law-office history, Barrett explained, consists of “loosely related cases from the late-19th and early-20th centuries” that do not “establish a historical analogue for the names clause.” His analysis of these cases is shallow and often dubious; Barrett highlighted unfounded inferences in Thomas’ skim of the historical record, questioning his generalizations from a handful of archaic decisions. She also noted that Thomas declined to “fully grapple with countervailing evidence,” citing old decisions that cut against his conclusory assertions.

[kalm]

Not that Biden would or that SCOTUS won’t grant limited immunity.

This obviously should have been decided last winter. A fair and uncorrupted court would have.

[houndawg]

Not that Biden would or that SCOTUS won’t grant limited immunity.

This obviously should have been decided last winter. A fair and uncorrupted court would have.

Waterboard him. It isn't torture

[BDKJMU]

[kalm]

Like Gore V. Bush? Or the the 2020 election cards brought by Trump that were dismissed by SCOTUS in a month.

And it’s not as if this one is hard to decide. The ruling is “of course not you criminal.”

[kalm]

This is an interesting one. It doesn’t get to the root of the problem but certainly defines our ideals of freedom and compassion as a society.

Civil rights advocates and government officials have long observed that the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by considering how it treats its most vulnerable.

The United States famously has a singularly inhumane criminal justice and mass incarceration system, when compared to any fairly comparable country. Congress habitually fails to pass comprehensive gun control measures, even after children are brutally gunned down at school. And many state-level gun control measures that were enacted are now being rolled back by federal judges and rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, maybe as soon as today, another Court decision will likely give some cities the legal means to continue a shameful war against their poorest residents: those without homes to return to at night.

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” bars criminalizing homelessness, via so-called public camping bans that make it illegal to rest or sleep outside, even when there isn’t shelter space available. Generally speaking, current law makes it unconstitutional to criminalize an involuntary conduct or status, like being homeless; and it’s also unlawful to ban things like sitting or sleeping if the ban applies at all times, in all public spaces, and if alternative shelter isn’t reasonably available.

Oral arguments in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson that took place this April suggested that the Court’s right-wing majority will likely issue a ruling that does not find it unconstitutionally cruel to fine, jail, and convict poor and unhoused people for sleeping outside. The ruling will almost certainly make it easier for jurisdictions to take a draconian and ineffective criminal law enforcement approach to homelessness, even though the issue is more accurately viewed as a matter of economics, housing policy, and health. Given the Court’s remaining docket, a decision in Grants Pass can be expected within the next two weeks and it could be decided as soon as today.

At the same time, the Justice Department is negotiating with officials in Phoenix, Arizona, deciding whether to formally file a historic class-based discrimination case against the city. The DOJ announced last week that it found that Phoenix engaged in a pattern of biased law enforcement against homeless people. A yearslong investigation showed that the Phoenix Police Department regularly detains and arrests unhoused people without reasonable suspicion of any crime, while also seizing and destroying their property without notice.

“This behavior is not only unlawful, but it conveys a lack of respect for the humanity and dignity of some of the most vulnerable members of our society,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement on June 13.

The DOJ’s report lays bare the inner workings of the aggressive law enforcement campaigns in response to a nationwide epidemic of homelessness, including deploying police to “clear out” homeless encampments. It’s a stark contrast to the picture that the conservative justices apparently imagine in Grants Pass, Oregon’s public camping ban. The report makes clear that there are multiple constitutional provisions that can apply to prohibit the kinds of broad, forceful sweeps of homeless encampments seen in some cities.

https://prospect.org/justice/2024-06-20 ... r-phoenix/

Edit. Looks like we already have a decision. Hang ‘em high (for needing a place to sleep).

[UNI88]

This is an interesting one. It doesn’t get to the root of the problem but certainly defines our ideals of freedom and compassion as a society.

Civil rights advocates and government officials have long observed that the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by considering how it treats its most vulnerable.

The United States famously has a singularly inhumane criminal justice and mass incarceration system, when compared to any fairly comparable country. Congress habitually fails to pass comprehensive gun control measures, even after children are brutally gunned down at school. And many state-level gun control measures that were enacted are now being rolled back by federal judges and rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, maybe as soon as today, another Court decision will likely give some cities the legal means to continue a shameful war against their poorest residents: those without homes to return to at night.

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” bars criminalizing homelessness, via so-called public camping bans that make it illegal to rest or sleep outside, even when there isn’t shelter space available. Generally speaking, current law makes it unconstitutional to criminalize an involuntary conduct or status, like being homeless; and it’s also unlawful to ban things like sitting or sleeping if the ban applies at all times, in all public spaces, and if alternative shelter isn’t reasonably available.

Oral arguments in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson that took place this April suggested that the Court’s right-wing majority will likely issue a ruling that does not find it unconstitutionally cruel to fine, jail, and convict poor and unhoused people for sleeping outside. The ruling will almost certainly make it easier for jurisdictions to take a draconian and ineffective criminal law enforcement approach to homelessness, even though the issue is more accurately viewed as a matter of economics, housing policy, and health. Given the Court’s remaining docket, a decision in Grants Pass can be expected within the next two weeks and it could be decided as soon as today.

At the same time, the Justice Department is negotiating with officials in Phoenix, Arizona, deciding whether to formally file a historic class-based discrimination case against the city. The DOJ announced last week that it found that Phoenix engaged in a pattern of biased law enforcement against homeless people. A yearslong investigation showed that the Phoenix Police Department regularly detains and arrests unhoused people without reasonable suspicion of any crime, while also seizing and destroying their property without notice.

“This behavior is not only unlawful, but it conveys a lack of respect for the humanity and dignity of some of the most vulnerable members of our society,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement on June 13.

The DOJ’s report lays bare the inner workings of the aggressive law enforcement campaigns in response to a nationwide epidemic of homelessness, including deploying police to “clear out” homeless encampments. It’s a stark contrast to the picture that the conservative justices apparently imagine in Grants Pass, Oregon’s public camping ban. The report makes clear that there are multiple constitutional provisions that can apply to prohibit the kinds of broad, forceful sweeps of homeless encampments seen in some cities.

https://prospect.org/justice/2024-06-20 ... r-phoenix/

Edit. Looks like we already have a decision. Hang ‘em high (for needing a place to sleep).

You’re as good at oversimplification as BDK.

There is a difference between sleeping in a public place and taking it over with tents, campers and piles of garbage. Preventing other members of the public from using the space and creating hazards for disabled people to worry about to just be able to pass through the space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

This is an interesting one. It doesn’t get to the root of the problem but certainly defines our ideals of freedom and compassion as a society.



https://prospect.org/justice/2024-06-20 ... r-phoenix/

Edit. Looks like we already have a decision. Hang ‘em high (for needing a place to sleep).

You’re as good at oversimplification as BDK.

There is a difference between sleeping in a public place and taking it over with tents, campers and piles of garbage. Preventing other members of the public from using the space and creating hazards for disabled people to worry about to just be able to pass through the space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Freedom and compassion are oversimplifications? I think they’re guiding principles.

Vandalism, squatting, barring access to public right of ways are already illegal.

Criminalizing homelessness is not the answer nor does it match our supposed principles and likely constitution.

I’ll gladly join Sotomayor in this over simplification.

[BDKJMU]

SCOTUS 6-3 strikes down the Chevron Deference, a deferemce granted to federal agencies as long as their interpretations of fed rules were "reasonable" & Congress had not spoken directly on those rules. If Congress hasn’t spoken to it, then unelected DC bureacrats shouldn’t be allowed to rule on it, as they have been, with little oversight from Congress. This ruling is a huge blow to the overbearing govt regulatory state, and a victory for small businesses & American citizens.

[BDKJMU]

Going to end up tossing convictions of several hundred J6ers, and 2 of the 4 J6 counts against Trump.

WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Friday that federal prosecutors erred in how they charged a man for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol began to take effect on some of the 249 people convicted of obstructing an official proceeding.
A federal judge shortly after the ruling ordered the re-sentencing of one man found guilty of that offense, which Donald Trumpalso faces.

The court found that the Justice Department improperly used a law passed in the wake of energy firm Enron Corp's collapse when it charged defendant Joseph Fischer with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding - the congressional certification of President Joe Biden's victory over Trump.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/what-us-s ... -06-28/?n=@

[kalm]

SCOTUS 6-3 strikes down the Chevron Deference, a deferemce granted to federal agencies as long as their interpretations of fed rules were "reasonable" & Congress had not spoken directly on those rules. If Congress hasn’t spoken to it, then unelected DC bureacrats shouldn’t be allowed to rule on it, as they have been, with little oversight from Congress. This ruling is a huge blow to the overbearing govt regulatory state, and a victory for small businesses & American citizens.

It’s a victory for the corporate state. Also run by unelected people. Bought and paid for.

[houndawg]

SCOTUS 6-3 strikes down the Chevron Deference, a deferemce granted to federal agencies as long as their interpretations of fed rules were "reasonable" & Congress had not spoken directly on those rules. If Congress hasn’t spoken to it, then unelected DC bureacrats shouldn’t be allowed to rule on it, as they have been, with little oversight from Congress. This ruling is a huge blow to the overbearing govt regulatory state, and a victory for small businesses & American citizens.

It’s a victory for the corporate state. Also run by unelected people. Bought and paid for.

We can shit all over the landscape and we don't have to clean it up and fuck you