2024 SCOTUS Rulings Thread

[GannonFan]

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.

[UNI88]

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.

[GannonFan]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[GannonFan]

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.

The problem with bias complaints is that they are almost exclusively brought forward by people who don't like particular rulings and want to undermine those rulings as a result. I don't know if I've ever read an article where the author agrees with the ruling, but also makes the case one or more of the justices shouldn't have sat for the case. And like I said, I can't think of a case that would've been decided differently if one or more justices had recused themselves from the case. I understand the angst and the opinion regarding recusals, but at the same time they are relatively non-consequential issues.

[UNI88]

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.

The problem with bias complaints is that they are almost exclusively brought forward by people who don't like particular rulings and want to undermine those rulings as a result. I don't know if I've ever read an article where the author agrees with the ruling, but also makes the case one or more of the justices shouldn't have sat for the case. And like I said, I can't think of a case that would've been decided differently if one or more justices had recused themselves from the case. I understand the angst and the opinion regarding recusals, but at the same time they are relatively non-consequential issues.

I don't disagree.

I hope I live to see the day where the Court flips to liberal control and it's conservatives screaming about bias and ethical standards while liberals try to dismiss their complaints so that I can chuckle about the hypocrisy of it all.

[BDKJMU]

The problem with bias complaints is that they are almost exclusively brought forward by people who don't like particular rulings and want to undermine those rulings as a result. I don't know if I've ever read an article where the author agrees with the ruling, but also makes the case one or more of the justices shouldn't have sat for the case. And like I said, I can't think of a case that would've been decided differently if one or more justices had recused themselves from the case. I understand the angst and the opinion regarding recusals, but at the same time they are relatively non-consequential issues.

I don't disagree.

I hope I live to see the day where the Court flips to liberal control and it's conservatives screaming about bias and ethical standards while liberals try to dismiss their complaints so that I can chuckle about the hypocrisy of it all.

You had that recently. Years could be sleightly off because of when justices died or resigned and when the seat was filled.

2004-2006
Conservative
Rehinquist (died 2005)
Scalia
Thomas

Moderate/Swing
O’Connor
Kennedy

Liberal
Stevens
Souter
Ginsberg
Breyer

2010 to 2017
Conservative
Scalia
Thomas
Alito

Moderate/Swing
O’Connor
Kennedy

Liberal
Ginsberg
Breyer
Sotomayor
Kagan

[UNI88]

I don't disagree.

I hope I live to see the day where the Court flips to liberal control and it's conservatives screaming about bias and ethical standards while liberals try to dismiss their complaints so that I can chuckle about the hypocrisy of it all.

You had that recently. Years could be sleightly off because of when justices died or resigned and when the seat was filled.

2004-2006
Conservative
Rehinquist (died 2005)
Scalia
Thomas

Moderate/Swing
O’Connor
Kennedy

Liberal
Stevens
Souter
Ginsberg
Breyer

2010 to 2017
Conservative
Scalia
Thomas
Alito

Moderate/Swing
O’Connor
Kennedy

Liberal
Ginsberg
Breyer
Sotomayor
Kagan

Were there judges known to be getting vacations and other freebies from liberal activists (Soros, Planned Parenthood, etc.)? Were liberal judges accused of activities/behavior outside of the courtroom which would lead to questions about their ability to rule without bias?

I'm not sure that's happened but it will and conks will be the ones screaming for ethics standards/reform when it does. Let's just do it now and minimize the risk in the future.

[houndawg]

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.

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.

That's not the point, the point is that judges are expected to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality in every other court in the land. Alito and especially Thomas should recuse themselves from cases about January 6 based on appearance of their wives behavior alone. And blaming your wife when your agenda includes seeking to control the life of every other woman in the nation.....

History will remember the Roberts Court as the junior varsity

[houndawg]

1 or 2 cases might be lawfare. The documents case and the cases around his attempts to STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION are absolutely worth pursuing.

Maybe if his daddy hadn't bailed him out early in life he would have learned personal responsibility and not grown up believing that he could buy his way out of every dumb and/or illegal thing he did.

The case in NY for overvaluing his assets - textbook example of lawfare.
The current case in NY for hush money - more of a gray area, probably an easier path to a misdemeanor, likely tough path to a felony conviction given the contortions to even classify it as a felony - arguable lawfare.
The documents case and Trump's efforts to resist collection of these - not lawfare at all, Trump's own stupidity and stubbornness is to blame for this. Agree to give back the documents when they asked for them and this wouldn't have even been a thing. Not lawfare at all.
Jack Smith's case against some of Trump's Jan 6th actions - not lawfare. Trump should've been removed from office following impeachment for this. He's got no leg to stand on for his brazen abdication of responsibility over this. If we handled this properly at the time we wouldn't have him running again now.

More clear is the timing of many of these cases for maximum effect in an election year. There's little doubt that political calculus went into this. It may backfire, as Trump is top news basically every day now, but we'll find out in November. We have two extremely unpopular candidates with gaping holes in their qualifications for office - it's a crapshoot.

The prosecution put up a pretty solid case and backed it up with witnesses and documentation and the law in NY is explicit about hush money related to elections being elevated to a felony, no contortions there at all.

[GannonFan]

The case in NY for overvaluing his assets - textbook example of lawfare.
The current case in NY for hush money - more of a gray area, probably an easier path to a misdemeanor, likely tough path to a felony conviction given the contortions to even classify it as a felony - arguable lawfare.
The documents case and Trump's efforts to resist collection of these - not lawfare at all, Trump's own stupidity and stubbornness is to blame for this. Agree to give back the documents when they asked for them and this wouldn't have even been a thing. Not lawfare at all.
Jack Smith's case against some of Trump's Jan 6th actions - not lawfare. Trump should've been removed from office following impeachment for this. He's got no leg to stand on for his brazen abdication of responsibility over this. If we handled this properly at the time we wouldn't have him running again now.

More clear is the timing of many of these cases for maximum effect in an election year. There's little doubt that political calculus went into this. It may backfire, as Trump is top news basically every day now, but we'll find out in November. We have two extremely unpopular candidates with gaping holes in their qualifications for office - it's a crapshoot.

The prosecution put up a pretty solid case and backed it up with witnesses and documentation and the law in NY is explicit about hush money related to elections being elevated to a felony, no contortions there at all.

The contortion is that generally, in NY, falsification of business records being tried as a felony also include charges of another crime. To my knowledge, Trump isn't being accused of any other crime. There are allusions to them (i.e. violation of federal campaign finance law, unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, or tax fraud), but in no instance is the prosecutor bringing legal charges of any of those alleged crimes. So rather than having the burden of proving the second crime, the prosecution is simply assuming the presence and automatic guilt of those crimes, skipping any prosecution of them, and using the assumption of them to drive the felony charge on the business records. Even the NY Times was skeptical of that approach. And the federal government, even Biden's own Justice Department, didn't pursue any of those federal crimes that are simply being assumed here because they didn't think they could win in court. That seems to be a pretty big contortion.

[kalm]

The prosecution put up a pretty solid case and backed it up with witnesses and documentation and the law in NY is explicit about hush money related to elections being elevated to a felony, no contortions there at all.

The contortion is that generally, in NY, falsification of business records being tried as a felony also include charges of another crime. To my knowledge, Trump isn't being accused of any other crime. There are allusions to them (i.e. violation of federal campaign finance law, unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, or tax fraud), but in no instance is the prosecutor bringing legal charges of any of those alleged crimes. So rather than having the burden of proving the second crime, the prosecution is simply assuming the presence and automatic guilt of those crimes, skipping any prosecution of them, and using the assumption of them to drive the felony charge on the business records. Even the NY Times was skeptical of that approach. And the federal government, even Biden's own Justice Department, didn't pursue any of those federal crimes that are simply being assumed here because they didn't think they could win in court. That seems to be a pretty big contortion.

This all might be true, but you’re still risking prosecution when you commit a crime.

EG: possession of even a tiny amount of weed back in the day in two separate baggies would have been intent to distribute and a felony. Felony possession for 1 gram misdemeanor for 28 as long as it was in the same container.

And with this one, if the stormy story had broke in October, it may have swung the election.

[houndawg]

The prosecution put up a pretty solid case and backed it up with witnesses and documentation and the law in NY is explicit about hush money related to elections being elevated to a felony, no contortions there at all.

The contortion is that generally, in NY, falsification of business records being tried as a felony also include charges of another crime. To my knowledge, Trump isn't being accused of any other crime. There are allusions to them (i.e. violation of federal campaign finance law, unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, or tax fraud), but in no instance is the prosecutor bringing legal charges of any of those alleged crimes. So rather than having the burden of proving the second crime, the prosecution is simply assuming the presence and automatic guilt of those crimes, skipping any prosecution of them, and using the assumption of them to drive the felony charge on the business records. Even the NY Times was skeptical of that approach. And the federal government, even Biden's own Justice Department, didn't pursue any of those federal crimes that are simply being assumed here because they didn't think they could win in court. That seems to be a pretty big contortion.

If what you say is true then it should be any easy acquital, or at least hung, given the fact that the jury has two lawyers on it.

[GannonFan]

The contortion is that generally, in NY, falsification of business records being tried as a felony also include charges of another crime. To my knowledge, Trump isn't being accused of any other crime. There are allusions to them (i.e. violation of federal campaign finance law, unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, or tax fraud), but in no instance is the prosecutor bringing legal charges of any of those alleged crimes. So rather than having the burden of proving the second crime, the prosecution is simply assuming the presence and automatic guilt of those crimes, skipping any prosecution of them, and using the assumption of them to drive the felony charge on the business records. Even the NY Times was skeptical of that approach. And the federal government, even Biden's own Justice Department, didn't pursue any of those federal crimes that are simply being assumed here because they didn't think they could win in court. That seems to be a pretty big contortion.

This all might be true, but you’re still risking prosecution when you commit a crime.

And with this one, if the stormy story had broke in October, it may have swung the election.

Not really "might", all of that is true. If they wanted the misdemeanor charge that looks relatively simple to prove they'd likely already have that conviction. But where the lawfare part comes into play is that it isn't just about prosecuting the crime, it's about trying to get the conviction to have an impact politically, hence the need to contort to get to the felony charge and not just a misdemeanor. Again, since houndie wanted to ground this in NY law, to get to the felony charge you need to have a second charge of a crime to bring the first charge, the business falsification, up to felony level. They either couldn't prove it, or didn't want to prove it, so they've gone with the "it's proven without bringing it to court" approach. Again, considering that multiple federal prosecutors, even ones opposed to Trump, looked at it and decided not to pursue it because they couldn't prove it, it certainly seems dubious to just assume it's proven and moving ahead with the felony charge.

Again, through all of this, I don't like Trump, I've never and will never vote for him, and I'm sure he's guilty of all sorts of crimes throughout the years and his business dealings. However, in the interest of keeping faith and respect in our legal systems, I prefer we actually use those systems to prove the things I'm and others are "sure" of rather than just using the assumption method. When we make contortions like this to pursue political outcomes we want, it degrades the legal system, it reduces the faith people have in the legal system, and it strengthens the appeal demagogues like Trump have over wide swaths of the public that are already pre-disposed to distrust the legal system because of the contortions and games that folks in power do to use the legal system to their advantage.

[kalm]

This all might be true, but you’re still risking prosecution when you commit a crime.

And with this one, if the stormy story had broke in October, it may have swung the election.

Not really "might", all of that is true. If they wanted the misdemeanor charge that looks relatively simple to prove they'd likely already have that conviction. But where the lawfare part comes into play is that it isn't just about prosecuting the crime, it's about trying to get the conviction to have an impact politically, hence the need to contort to get to the felony charge and not just a misdemeanor. Again, since houndie wanted to ground this in NY law, to get to the felony charge you need to have a second charge of a crime to bring the first charge, the business falsification, up to felony level. They either couldn't prove it, or didn't want to prove it, so they've gone with the "it's proven without bringing it to court" approach. Again, considering that multiple federal prosecutors, even ones opposed to Trump, looked at it and decided not to pursue it because they couldn't prove it, it certainly seems dubious to just assume it's proven and moving ahead with the felony charge.

Again, through all of this, I don't like Trump, I've never and will never vote for him, and I'm sure he's guilty of all sorts of crimes throughout the years and his business dealings. However, in the interest of keeping faith and respect in our legal systems, I prefer we actually use those systems to prove the things I'm and others are "sure" of rather than just using the assumption method. When we make contortions like this to pursue political outcomes we want, it degrades the legal system, it reduces the faith people have in the legal system, and it strengthens the appeal demagogues like Trump have over wide swaths of the public that are already pre-disposed to distrust the legal system because of the contortions and games that folks in power do to use the legal system to their advantage.

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.

First, a refresher on how the misdemeanor case becomes a felony. The misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records in the second degree says that a person is guilty when, with intent to defraud, he “makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.” The first-degree felony charge says that the state must prove that the intent to defraud “includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”


That raises the question of which other crime prosecutors would cite; one that they’ve pointed to is an election law that bars conspiring “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” That, in turn, raises the question of what the “unlawful means” are, which could include campaign finance violations like the ones Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to over the hush money scheme (though the state should emphasize the precise theory in its summation).

So, there are layers to felony charges that don’t exist with misdemeanors. The state has sought to simplify the felony narrative to an election conspiracy covered up with false records, and it may succeed in doing so. The defense, meanwhile, wants to at least complicate that narrative in the hopes of a hung jury

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

[Caribbean Hen]

Joey Bananas said

"The next president, they’re going to be able to appoint a couple justices, and I’ll be damned — if in fact we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges....."

Just what we don’t need

[UNI88]

Joey Bananas said

"The next president, they’re going to be able to appoint a couple justices, and I’ll be damned — if in fact we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges....."

Just what we don’t need

The best court is a 5-4 court where moderates can keep the zealots from extreme rulings.

[GannonFan]

Not really "might", all of that is true. If they wanted the misdemeanor charge that looks relatively simple to prove they'd likely already have that conviction. But where the lawfare part comes into play is that it isn't just about prosecuting the crime, it's about trying to get the conviction to have an impact politically, hence the need to contort to get to the felony charge and not just a misdemeanor. Again, since houndie wanted to ground this in NY law, to get to the felony charge you need to have a second charge of a crime to bring the first charge, the business falsification, up to felony level. They either couldn't prove it, or didn't want to prove it, so they've gone with the "it's proven without bringing it to court" approach. Again, considering that multiple federal prosecutors, even ones opposed to Trump, looked at it and decided not to pursue it because they couldn't prove it, it certainly seems dubious to just assume it's proven and moving ahead with the felony charge.

Again, through all of this, I don't like Trump, I've never and will never vote for him, and I'm sure he's guilty of all sorts of crimes throughout the years and his business dealings. However, in the interest of keeping faith and respect in our legal systems, I prefer we actually use those systems to prove the things I'm and others are "sure" of rather than just using the assumption method. When we make contortions like this to pursue political outcomes we want, it degrades the legal system, it reduces the faith people have in the legal system, and it strengthens the appeal demagogues like Trump have over wide swaths of the public that are already pre-disposed to distrust the legal system because of the contortions and games that folks in power do to use the legal system to their advantage.

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.

First, a refresher on how the misdemeanor case becomes a felony. The misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records in the second degree says that a person is guilty when, with intent to defraud, he “makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.” The first-degree felony charge says that the state must prove that the intent to defraud “includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”


That raises the question of which other crime prosecutors would cite; one that they’ve pointed to is an election law that bars conspiring “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” That, in turn, raises the question of what the “unlawful means” are, which could include campaign finance violations like the ones Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to over the hush money scheme (though the state should emphasize the precise theory in its summation).

So, there are layers to felony charges that don’t exist with misdemeanors. The state has sought to simplify the felony narrative to an election conspiracy covered up with false records, and it may succeed in doing so. The defense, meanwhile, wants to at least complicate that narrative in the hopes of a hung jury

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.

[GannonFan]

Joey Bananas said

"The next president, they’re going to be able to appoint a couple justices, and I’ll be damned — if in fact we’re able to change some of the justices when they retire and put in really progressive judges....."

Just what we don’t need

The best court is a 5-4 court where moderates can keep the zealots from extreme rulings.

It would be nice not to have any zealots but then again, I tend to be anti-zealot.

[UNI88]

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.

kalm and BDK criticizing conservative/liberal judges:

[kalm]

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.

kalm and BDK criticizing conservative/liberal judges:

Guilty. But I don’t see see liberal/conservative as inheritantly bad. It just so happens that Ailito and Thomas are at the forefront of law and tipping the scales on critical cases that deal with democracy, separation of powers, women’s rights, presidential immunity…

But yeah…go ahead and defend their sophistry and false equivalencies.

[kalm]

As if on cue:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice Roberts rejects request by Democratic senators to discuss Supreme Court ethics and Alito flag controversy

.

https://x.com/mikepesoli/status/1796242 ... LLEdWL4H3w

[UNI88]

As if on cue:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice Roberts rejects request by Democratic senators to discuss Supreme Court ethics and Alito flag controversy

.

FYI - if you change the x to twitter (x.com/ to twitter.com/) the tweet will be imbedded in the post and not just a link.

[kalm]

As if on cue:

.

FYI - if you change the x to twitter (x.com/ to twitter.com/) the tweet will be imbedded in the post and not just a link.

Thanks, Homie. It had changed again recently for me.

[BDKJMU]

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