Legal/scotus thread

Legal eagles: what happens if Mulvaney is called as a witness during the Senate trial. How does Roberts rule? Can his ruling be appealed to the courts?
 
Why would he appear in the Senate trial when he hasn't for the House? Republicans control the process. In a sense it will be Trump through McConnell writing the rules for his own trial. I am not sure how much Chief Justice Robert's had a say in it but Trump is going to go off on him at some point. Pretty sure he will go back to the Nevertrumper well.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Why would he appear in the Senate trial when he hasn't for the House? Republicans control the process. In a sense it will be Trump through McConnell writing the rules for his own trial. I am not sure how much Chief Justice Robert's had a say in it but Trump is going to go off on him at some point. Pretty sure he will go back to the Nevertrumper well.
Click to expand...

The Chief Justice presides and makes rulings. Senate can override his rulings with 51 votes. If Mulvaney is called, I would imagine the Chief Justice would rule that he is a relevant fact witness.

It is a no lose move by the Democrats. Either they get their witness or they don't. And if they don't it certainly looks like suppression of relevant information.

I think they will also ask the Chief Justice to rule on document requests. Such requests are a routine part of most trials.

This could be an important part of the trial. How Roberts rules on those requests. And whether the Senate votes to override him if he rules favorably on them.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
The Chief Justice presides and makes rulings. Senate can override his rulings with 51 votes. If Mulvaney is called, I would imagine the Chief Justice would rule that he is a relevant fact witness.

It is a no lose move by the Democrats. Either they get their witness or they don't. And if they don't it certainly looks like suppression of relevant information.

I think they will also ask the Chief Justice to rule on document requests. Such requests are a routine part of most trials.

This could be an important part of the trial. How Roberts rules on those requests. And whether the Senate votes to override him if he rules favorably on them.
Click to expand...

And is there any way the GOP could spin overruling a GOP Chief Justice on evidentiary rulings to not be a political disaster?
 
Last edited:
Snowman said:
And there is any way the GOP could spin overruling a GOP Chief Justice on evidentiary rulings to not be a political disaster?
Click to expand...

It would be hard. And if 3 GOP senators defected they couldn't muster the 51 votes needed to overrule the Chief Justice's rulings.
 
Snowman said:
RBG hospitalized in B'more with "chills and a fever." Fortunately her name is not Molly Malone.
Click to expand...

If she died tomorrow there would be idiots on the right celebrating her death. I find that repugnant. I don't care if you think she's the worst judge that ever lived and has been complicit in the destruction of countless lives, no one should celebrate at her death. It was despicable when the left celebrated Scalia's death and it will be despicable if the right celebrates Ginsburg's.

I hope she recovers and returns to the bench. I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy but I don't wish her ill.
 
The SCOTUS returns to the bench today to hear cases. The first case up is an interesting one. It's a great example of how public rhetoric and legal arguments are often vastly different. The case centers on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. This is a proposed natural gas pipeline that will run up part of the east coast. The public arguments are over the benefits and costs of such a project. Proponents argue it will reduce energy costs in the mid-Atlantic region and provide cleaner energy. Opponents say it is a commitment to a future of fossil fuels, puts people at risk of leaks, and will require compression stations that will release toxic fumes.

The legal arguments are quite different. The path of the pipeline runs through a National Forest. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, the US Forest Service has the power to grant mineral leasing rights in National Forests. This pipeline would qualify under that and so the company building it sought and received rights to build the pipeline through the National Forest.

However, also running through that forest is the Appalachian Trail and the path of the pipeline crosses the trail. When the Appalachian Trail was created, the administration of the trail was given to the Park Service. The Park Service does not have the power to grant mineral leasing rights. So suit was brought saying the rights to build the pipeline through the National Forest do not grant the pipeline company rights to build the pipeline across the Appalachian Trail as the US Forest Service has no authority over the Appalachian Trail. The pipeline company has argued back that the Appalachian Trail in this area is on National Forest land and so the US Forest Service does have the authority.

I'll be interested to see how the justices come down on this. The larger, environmental issue is one susceptible to ideological split. The legal question (which Federal agency has authority over a piece of land) does not.
 
Also happening today in the SCOTUS, certiorari was granted in the case Fulton v. Philadelphia. This checks several culture war boxes. Essentially, Catholic Social Services has been excluded from participating in Philadelphia's foster care system because they wont put children with same sex couples. So they've sued and the SCOTUS has taken up the case.

The SCOTUS had to tackle this issue as the circuits have split on how religious discrimination claims of this kind are proven. It's possible the court could sidestep answering the question of whether conditioning participation in the program on a religious group violating their beliefs violates the first amendment. The Court could answer the question on how free exercise claims are proven in such a way that requires them to send the case back down for further proceedings making the other questions unripe for determination.
 
What a huge disappointment in the verdicts of the Harvey Weinstein case. The degree to which money and power weighs into the exercise of justice shows just how corrupt America is at its core.
 
It's probably the best you could hope for in the Weinstein case. Proving sexual assaults without rape kits or independent witnesses is difficult. The older they are the harder it becomes.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny.../politics/charges-cia-breach-vault-7.amp.html




The Vault 7 leaker who exposed the CIA's hacking tools and operations was convicted of lying to investigators and contempt but it was a hung jury on the serious charges. I wholeheartedly support all leakers no matter what. The government is not our friend, they actively work to tell is what opinions and views we can have. Democracy is not manipulating the vote to get the governments desired outcome. That's kind of the opposite of Democracy.
 
nsacpi said:
As a moderate conservative with libertarian leanings, I'm happy with the selection of Kavanaugh. I think he'll be a bit more conservative than Roberts but not as conservative as Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Not that conventional liberal-conservative categories are always a useful way of looking at the issues that come before the court. Certainly, in terms of credentials, intellect and temperament, Kavanaugh seems to be well qualified. I would say the same of candidates that were not located at the same point in the political spectrum if they met the requirements. Garland was well qualified. Gorsuch too.
Click to expand...

Bump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top