Legal/scotus thread

Jaw said:
It seems like Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor are in constant lockstep agreement. Am I imagining that? Is there some of way seeing if any other three justices have voted together as often as those three (or 4 when RBG was there) over the past few years?
Click to expand...

The problem with breaking down the court by how often justices vote together is that the majority of their cases are not very partisan. Determining an ambiguity in patent law or settling a dispute between two states over water rights isn't something that breaks easily along partisan lines. So a lot of cases end up with a mixture of justices of different ideology.

That being said, Sotomayor is by far the most liberal member of the court. Breyer is probably the most moderate of the liberals and will break on certain issues. Kagan will break on law and order issues.

I would put Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan on par with Alito and Thomas in how often they stick together on partisan cases.
 
Jaw said:
And I agree with the minority that all this narrow ruling does is kick the can down the road a few feet. Philly will eliminate their right to provide exemptions in a few weeks and then start this all over again.
Click to expand...

Of course that's what happened but punting contentious issues is a time honored tradition of the SCOTUS.
 
I expect there is also a sense of wanting to get through to the other side of the mid-term elections without any closely decided, partisan split, major decisions. That benefits any left ideologues by not taking a loss, right ideologues by not becoming outnumbered, and true believers by not having their institution delegitimized.
 
One thing people forget is that the justices Trump named to the court weren't nearly as conservative as the fear mongering made them out. So much so that it actually baffled me as to why Kavanaugh was fought so hard against by the left. He was the best case scenario for them. Gorsuch is right of Kavanaugh but is closer to Roberts than to Thomas. Barrett seems to be falling in with that group.

So we're not seeing a far right court shaping up. We're seeing a center right court.
 
striker42 said:
One thing people forget is that the justices Trump named to the court weren't nearly as conservative as the fear mongering made them out. So much so that it actually baffled me as to why Kavanaugh was fought so hard against by the left. He was the best case scenario for them. Gorsuch is right of Kavanaugh but is closer to Roberts than to Thomas. Barrett seems to be falling in with that group.

So we're not seeing a far right court shaping up. We're seeing a center right court.
Click to expand...

You mean the doomsday meltdown crisis that was the end of the world if allowed didn't come to fruition????

I'm STUNNED
 
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...

sturg33 said:
Shouldn't all appointments be conservative due to the Constitution being inherently conservative?
Click to expand...

nsacpi said:
If I were nominating them, yes. But let's be real here. And I wouldn't call someone unqualified just because they have somewhat different views from me.

As a broad observation, I do think the courts have gotten involved in making decisions on matters that should be settled in the political arena. And this has been to the detriment of the courts and our political system generally.
Click to expand...

bumped from July 2018

i do think the allegations from Ford and Ramirez against Kavanaugh were credible and should have been investigated properly
 
QEPPHLUVI5AK7FLBKI42UP7JQI.jpg
 
nsacpi said:
Interesting to see Laurence Tribe praising Amy Coney Barrett.

[tw]1409960538998816773[/tw]
Click to expand...

That was a pretty interesting case and a good illustration of how the court often fails to break down easily on partisan lines.

This is also a great example of how the facts of the case are often not indicative of how the justices will decide. This being a case where a gas pipeline company wants to build a pipeline you'd think the right would support them and the left would be against them. But the questions of law didn't shake out like that. It was a much more nuanced question about the application of sovereign immunity and the takings clause. This was a very close case where 9 legal scholars split.
 
Justice Barrett, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Kagan, and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting.

 A straightforward application of our precedent resolves this case. Congress passed the Natural Gas Act in reliance on its power to regulate interstate commerce, and we have repeatedly held that the Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to strip the States of their sovereign immunity. Recognizing that barrier, the Court insists that eminent domain is a special case. New Jersey has no sovereign immunity to assert, it says, because the States surrendered to private condemnation suits in the plan of the Convention. This argument has no textual, structural, or historical support. Because there is no reason to treat private condemnation suits differently from any other cause of action created pursuant to the Commerce Clause, I respectfully dissent.

it would seem the four dissenting justices in this case are arguing for a more robust interpretation of the rights and powers of states vis a vis the federal government
 
more from ACB's dissent:

But the question before us is not whether Congress can authorize a private party to exercise the right of eminent domain against another private party, which is the proposition this history supports. Nor is it whether Congress can authorize a private entity to take state property through means other than a condemnation suit. The question is whether Congress can authorize a private party to bring a condemnation suit against a State. And on that score, the Court comes up dry.

 The Court cannot muster even a single decision involving a private condemnation suit against a State, let alone any decision holding that the States lack immunity from such suits. It relies exclusively on suits brought by States, suits brought by the United States, suits brought by private parties against other private parties, and suits brought by Indian tribes against private parties—none of which implicate state sovereign immunity.
 
nsacpi said:
more from ACB's dissent:

But the question before us is not whether Congress can authorize a private party to exercise the right of eminent domain against another private party, which is the proposition this history supports. Nor is it whether Congress can authorize a private entity to take state property through means other than a condemnation suit. The question is whether Congress can authorize a private party to bring a condemnation suit against a State. And on that score, the Court comes up dry.

 The Court cannot muster even a single decision involving a private condemnation suit against a State, let alone any decision holding that the States lack immunity from such suits. It relies exclusively on suits brought by States, suits brought by the United States, suits brought by private parties against other private parties, and suits brought by Indian tribes against private parties—none of which implicate state sovereign immunity.
Click to expand...

The majority took the proposition that Congress delegated the power to a private entity and since the Federal Government can sustain a condemnation suit against states, someone acting with their power can.

It's a really close case. Valid points on both sides. This is more indicative of how the law usually works.
 
Two interesting cases coming down today. One involves voting rights and the other involves non-profit disclosures of donors.

The voting rights case is from Arizona. They have laws limiting who can collect ballots on behalf of others (ballot harvesting) and preventing counting ballots cast at the wrong precinct. The 9th Circuit struck the restrictions down but the expectation is the SCOTUS will reverse and uphold the restrictions. The bigger question will be whether they put any new standards in place for suits challenging voting restrictions. They could create a new standard for such challenges that make them more difficult. My prediction is that they'll make the decision as narrow as possible. This court hasn't had much appetite for wholesale change.

The other case comes from California. California has a requirement where non-profits must disclose their donors to the state. The information is already disclosed to the IRS. The non-profits claim this disclosure could lead to people not donating for fear of their names being leaked by the State. The court seems ready to strike this requirement down. This is another one where people are watching to see if it's a broad decision that could affect federal laws as well. Again I expect we'll see the court take a narrower approach.

I could be incredibly wrong though.
 
Arizona election laws upheld.

Great day for the nation. Each case will be different but this sets up nice momentum for other states laws to be upheld.

Cheating is being rooted out at all levels.
 
Last edited:
Roberts court has been incredibly careful to create pretty narrow rulings at virtually every turn.

A question based on the Arizona ruling. My understanding is that the primary use of ballot harvesting was to help count the votes of Native American groups living mostly in northern and western AZ. They are often 50+ miles from the closest polling location (if you've ever driven around the Grand Canyon, you know how long it takes to get anywhere) and lack any means of transportation to get there. To solve that problem, they've had their ballots collected and taken to the closest polling place. Regardless of your views on the SC case in question, I would imagine that everyone is in agreement these people should be able to vote.

So what is the solution to ensure that can happen? Add more polling places? Provide government transportation for them? Have an elections official collect ballots on their behalf? Genuinely asking for answers assuming that everyone is aligned they should be able to vote without having to pay money (rent a car, pay for a 50 mile Uber in the desert, etc.) to do so.

In my view, getting rid of 'ballot harvesting' is fine as long as we properly accommodate in some other way to ensure that everyone has equal access to the ballot box.
 
McCann'sCans said:
Roberts court has been incredibly careful to create pretty narrow rulings at virtually every turn.

A question based on the Arizona ruling. My understanding is that the primary use of ballot harvesting was to help count the votes of Native American groups living mostly in northern and western AZ. They are often 50+ miles from the closest polling location (if you've ever driven around the Grand Canyon, you know how long it takes to get anywhere) and lack any means of transportation to get there. To solve that problem, they've had their ballots collected and taken to the closest polling place. Regardless of your views on the SC case in question, I would imagine that everyone is in agreement these people should be able to vote.

So what is the solution to ensure that can happen? Add more polling places? Provide government transportation for them? Have an elections official collect ballots on their behalf? Genuinely asking for answers assuming that everyone is aligned they should be able to vote without having to pay money (rent a car, pay for a 50 mile Uber in the desert, etc.) to do so.

In my view, getting rid of 'ballot harvesting' is fine as long as we properly accommodate in some other way to ensure that everyone has equal access to the ballot box.
Click to expand...

I've been to the Grand Canyon area and it is really spread out. But I would imagine there is mail there, correct?
 
The Arizona case isn't as controversial as it was made out to be. The restrictions being argued over are pretty tame.

I am very, very against ballot harvesting though. I do think that practice has the potential for incredible abuse and could lead to new versions of political machines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top