The US Supreme Court Thread

Like healthcare = broccoli?

 

Thank you for saying how early students apply. Can judges decide well when students aren't even halfway through law school? I would think there would be times when a student's grades decline, they run out of money and drop out, or for any other reason don't graduate or make judges change their mind. Applying early also increases the rate at which judges could pick clerks and then die or retire before the clerks can start. Does Barrett have the clerks who RBG chose? Five of the current justices started in January, April, or October, so many changes don't happen in the summer when justices choose to retire. In terms of feeder judges, I would think that clerking for a chief judge or a judge who was there a long time would be good. Congress authorized 179 circuit judges excluding those with senior status. I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to name all 179 (minus vacancies), but SCOTUS justices might be able to name every chief judge. Circuits use the term "judge," which is different from SCOTUS using the term "justice." Do you know why SCOTUS has a different term?

I didn't mean that all Supreme Court cases came from federal court. I meant that cases from state court will only be taken if there is a federal question.

It could be easy to make an argument that sounds good in a vacuum but fails analogy questions that justices ask because cases make precedent. I skimmed a book that Scalia cowrote with Thomas or Kennedy (I forgot who) that had one page tips for attorneys arguing to the Supreme Court. It included telling attorneys not to say "good question" because the justices consider all of their questions good, not to say "I'll answer that later" because it sometimes doesn't get answered, and when asked an analogy question not to complain "that's not the situation." Nobody knows in advance how much of oral arguments will be answering questions, so I would expect that many attorney leave arguments with other things they wish they said. I would also think attorneys would sometimes discover that they would have prepared differently if they knew what questions the justices would ask and/or knew what the opposing attorney would say.

 

Soooo... carrot Bunny:

“That Supreme Court ruling on the religious gatherings is more illustrative of the Supreme Court than anything else,” NY Gov Cuomo said https://t.co/F9ae5OuZjd

— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) November 26, 2020

 

The current SCOTUS is so ********ed, its insane.

The fact they can vote to support the certain slaughter of hundreds of people, in the name of religious freedom is ********inv asinine..

That decision upsets me more than any stupid Trump decree the past 4 years, and I'm not even an American!

 

It’s like a decision from the equivalent court in Iran.

No other country in the Western Democratic sphere would even entertain this.

 

The majority used Cuomo's public comments to help it reach its decision. This contradicted the precedent it set in the Muslim ban cases, where it decided Trump's public comments were not relevant for figuring out the motivation for the policy.

They're partisan hacks, about as intellectually consistent as a national party chair.

 

SCOTUS may be ducking a ruling on whether the Trump administration must count all residents of a state in the Census, or just the legal ones. The conservative Justices are doubting that the Trump administration can complete the tabulation of the Census by 12/31, which may result in the tabulation falling to the Biden administration and that since the Trump administration hasn't actually not counted illegal immigrants and the congressional appropriation hasn't been committed, the states can't show harm.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/census-supreme-court-oral-arguments/index.html

 

SCOTUS have done it again.

Basically ruling against California now, in a similar judgemeent to the one above against NYS. 5 to 4 again.

 

The Supreme Court has launched a ‘holy war on science and reason’: NY attorney

partial:
“Writing in The Daily Beast, Lurie looks at the court’s recent decision overturning some of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions on religious gatherings and finds that the conservative justices view all public health guidelines with deep suspicion.

“The court majority’s unsigned ‘per curiam’ majority opinion, likely authored by Barrett, used relatively anodyne language; “The court majority’s unsigned ‘per curiam’ majority opinion, likely authored by Barrett, used relatively anodyne language; yet it made a startling claim, suggesting, without any evidence whatsoever, that Cuomo harbors anti-Semitic prejudice, and deliberately ‘gerrymandered’ the zones to target certain synagogues,” he notes.r, that Cuomo harbors anti-Semitic prejudice, and deliberately ‘gerrymandered’ the zones to target certain synagogues,” he notes.”


https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/th...a-holy-war-on-science-and-reason-ny-attorney/

 

Why isn’t the USA on this list. Bad omission when the overriding law is religious.

Today, there aren’t many theocracies globally, but there are a few nations with this type of government. These nations are:

• Vatican City
• Yemen
• Saudi Arabia
• Sudan
• Iran
• Mauritania
• Afghanistan

 

This doesn’t give me warm fuzzy feels

1337523783440150534 is not a valid tweet id

it really sucks no knowing whether or not you’re about to live through the death of democracy in the US.

 

Another thing I saw was someone wishing that the SCOTUS takes a "stand" on the number of frivolous lawsuits being filed. They want the Court to not just dismiss the case, but also do the legal equivalent of a fisking and explain exactly why they won't be taking up the case and exactly what issues Texas's filing has. They basically want SCOTUS to tell Republicans and Trump to stop wasting the legal system's time and to accept that Trump lost.

 

It’s because they are fake theocrats, they’re really just power hungry trash

 

SCOTUS rejects Texas's filing with Alito and Thomas dissenting.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has denied Texas' last-ditch effort to overturn the election results in four battleground states that voted for Joe Biden. https://t.co/tZ1Vepu0Oh

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) December 11, 2020

Alito and Thomas don't believe SCOTUS has the discretion to deny the filing of a case that falls within their original jurisdiction, which is odd, because I understand they reject them quite frequently.

 

The legal term is ‘Convenient Dissent’

 

Most religious leader are.

I need another Gulfstream G5.

 

Yet 78% of trumpeters want them to decide the other way. Bless their twisted little minds.

 

Well now we know who the worst two Court members are. Thomas was a given. I had not realized, however, that Alioto was worse than both Brett and Amy.

 

Si none of Trump's appointees went along with the Texas bullshit? I gotta say, imagining the level of temper tantrum that must have caused makes me smile.