SCOTUS Rulings Seasons, 2019

[boutons_deux]

Clarence Thomas’s Astonishing Opinion on a Racist Mississippi Prosecutor

A Mississippi prosecutor went on a racist crusade to have a black man executed. Clarence Thomas thinks that was just fine.

“A court confronting that kind of pattern cannot ignore it.“

But Thomas can, and he did.

Indeed, he filed a dissenting opinion that was genuinely outraged—not by the prosecutor but by his fellow-Justices, who dared to grant relief to Flowers,

Thomas said that the prosecutor’s behavior was blameless, and

he practically sneered at his colleagues,

asserting that the majority had decided the Flowers case to “boost its self-esteem.” wow

Thomas also found a way to blame the news media for the result.

“Perhaps the Court granted certiorari because the case has received a fair amount of media attention,”

he wrote, adding that

“the media often seeks to illate rather than to educate and inform.”

In his Flowers dissent, Thomas all but called for the overturning of the Court’s landmark decision in Batson v. Kentucky, from 1986, which

prohibits prosecutors from using their peremptory challenges in racially discriminatory ways.

Thomas made the case that

the Court should be more willing to overturn its precedents.

It’s customary for the Justices to at least pretend to defer to past decisions,

but Thomas apparently no longer feels obligated even to gesture to the Court’s past.

As he put it last fall, in a concurring opinion in Gamble v. United States,

“We should not invoke stare decisis to uphold precedents that are demonstrably erroneous.”

Erroneous, of course, in the judicial world view of Thomas.

The Supreme Court’s war on its past has begun, and Clarence Thomas is leading the charge.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...term=TNY_Daily

Gorsuch was seen to be a nasty mother er from his pre-SCOTUS rulings, and he continues 100% with mother ing Thomas

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court Hands Total Wine, Other Out-Of-State Liquor Retailers A Big Win

In a case with consequences for fans of wine and liquor, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has

struck down a two-year residency requirement for anyone seeking an initial license to operate a liquor store in Tennessee.

There is no doubt that if a state had such a restrictive provision involving the sale of any other product, it would be deemed a violation of the Cons ution's ban on erecting barriers to interstate commerce.

But the 21st Amendment, which repealed the national prohibition of liquor sales, left to the states the right to regulate those sales within state borders.

Mississippi was the last dry state in the country, finally allowing the sale of liquor in 1966.

The practical effect of the decision will be that more big-box compe ors are likely to move into the state, forcing some local stores out of business.

But liquor prices may go down, and there will be more product choices for consumers.

The last major court decision on state regulation of liquor sales was in 2005, when the high court struck down state laws that allowed in-state wineries to ship directly to consumer out of state but barred out-of-state wineries from shipping to consumers in the state.


https://www.npr.org/2019/06/26/732524432/supreme-court-hands-total-wine-other-out-of-state-liquor-retailers-big-win

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court rules for sex offender in child pornography case testing power of judges, juries

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that even sex offenders deserve to have the reasons for their sentences determined by a jury, not a judge.

The justices ruled 5-4 that a federal law requiring sex offenders to return to prison based on a judge's new findings is uncons utional. Supreme Court precedent gives juries, not judges, the power to determine criminal conduct.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of President Donald Trump's two nominees on the court, wrote the opinion and

was joined by the court's four liberal justices – for the fourth time this term. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"A jury must find every fact that is essential to an individual's punishment," Gorsuch said.

In the case before the court, the accused received "a new prison term based instead only on facts found by a judge by a mere preponderance of the evidence."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/26/supreme-court-rules-sex-offender-child-pornography-case/1564204001/

[boutons_deux]

How the DOJ just asked the Supreme Court to essentially become a ‘branch of the Trump administration’

at the last minute, Justice Department Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote new

a new plea to the justices asking them to take an even more extraordinary step than simply ruling on the issue before them.
Indeed, law professor Richard Hasen wrote in Slate on Tuesday that if the court goes along with Francisco’s request, it will essentially act as a part of the Trump administration.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/how..._sour%E2%80%A6

[boutons_deux]

NY SG Tells SCOTUS To Deny DOJ’s ‘Extraordinary’ Request In Census Case

Less than 17 hours before the Supreme Court is expected to decide the legality of the census citizenship question, the justices were still getting bombarded by filings related to the discovery of new evidence linked to the case.

New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood asked the court on Wednesday evening not to resolve the issue of whether the question was added for discriminatory reasons.

The Justice Department on Tuesday had requested that the court resolve to claim, so to head off additional litigation that could occur around it.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/how-the-doj-just-asked-the-supreme-court-to-essentially-become-a-branch-of-the-trump-administration/?utm_sour%E2%80%A6

[boutons_deux]

Fuct Yeah! The Supreme Court Addresses Scandalous Trademarks

For now, the PTO will be forced to register just about any mark thrown its way, regardless of content.

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/06/fuct-yeah-the-supreme-court-addresses-scandalous-trademarks/

[boutons_deux]

ING HUGE for the "Administrative State"

Justices uphold precedent backing government regulators

The legal drive to rein in the power of federal regulators hit an unexpected stumbling block on Wednesday as the

Supreme Court narrowly rejected an opportunity to overturn a controversial legal precedent under which

courts let federal agencies interpret their own regulations.
Conservatives have been railing and battling against that principle, known as Auer deference, for years, but in the new, late-term ruling,

Chief Justice John Roberts split with his Republican-appointed colleagues by refusing to strike down the longstanding legal rule.


Roberts did not join all of Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion upholding Auer, but he joined enough of it to give the doctrine a reprieve.

However, Roberts’ conservative colleagues signaled that they believed that the approach — which critics say gives the so-called administrative state unchecked power — was effectively gutted by the new decision. B U L S H I T

” the chief justice wrote.

“The majority catalogs the prerequisites for, and limitations on, Auer deference:

The underlying regulation must be genuinely ambiguous;

the agency’s interpretation must be reasonable and must reflect its authoritative,

expertise-based, and

fair and considered judgment; and

the agency must take account of reliance interests and avoid unfair surprise.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/26/supreme-court-precedent-government-regulators-1383718

Steve ing Bannon, YOU

[boutons_deux]

SCOTUSblog‏Verified account @SCOTUSblog2m2 minutes agoMore

#SCOTUS

rules that state law assuming driver’s consent to blood test for drugs/alcohol, even when driver is unconscious, provides exception to 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement, allowing law enforcement to draw blood from unconscious drivers w/o warrant

[boutons_deux]

Partisan gerrymandering is legal

Josh Gerstein‏Verified account @joshgersteinFollowFollow

@joshgerstein

#SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable. Straight-line ideological vote. Roberts writes for the majority. Kagan for the dissenters. Both cases at the court covered by this ruling

===

The oligarchy's anti-democratic partisan S are delivering.

Your votes don't ing count EVER, but esp true if you've partisanly gerrymandered

[Winehole23]

Party line SCOTUS vote locks in GOP minority rule

[boutons_deux]

...

[boutons_deux]

Party line SCOTUS vote locks in GOP minority rule

in practice, we have seen where the vote is very close, or Dems actually win the vote, Repugs win, maintain (big) majority in states legislatures.

That will get much worse now.

Worst will be in purple states.

eg, TX flipping blue? G M A F B

America is ed and un able, as the oligarchy strengthens is anti-democratic, anti-Cons ution wealth-extractive domination.

[boutons_deux]

Congress and state legislatures to take on partisan gerrymandering"

In response to the Supreme Court's ruling on the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Sam Berger, vice president of Democracy and Government Reform at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement:

Today, the Supreme Court failed to set a reasonable standard to protect American democracy from extreme partisan gerrymandering.

Allowing lawmakers to choose their voters, rather than ensuring that the voters choose them,

results in noncompe ive elections that do not represent the views of the American people.

It is now up to Congress and state legislatures to take on partisan gerrymandering, such as by establishing independent redistricting commissions and requiring them to draw districts that best represent the will of the people.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-opinions-june-27-2019/index.html

[boutons_deux]

"contrived" reason, aka A ING LIE "justifying" the citizenship question placed on the census after violating govt regulations

No citizenship question on the census.

[Thread]

Partisan gerrymandering is legal

Josh Gerstein‏Verified account @joshgersteinFollowFollow

@joshgerstein

#SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable. Straight-line ideological vote. Roberts writes for the majority. Kagan for the dissenters. Both cases at the court covered by this ruling

===

The oligarchy's anti-democratic partisan S are delivering.

Your votes don't ing count EVER, but esp true if you've partisanly gerrymandered

Thought you was gonna win that one, eh, _? Uh, uh. The old man didn't go to all that time, trouble & money setting Gorsuch & Kavanaugh in there for nothing.
tee, hee.

[Winehole23]

"contrived" reason, aka A ING LIE "justifying" the citizenship question placed on the census after violating govt regulations

No citizenship question on the census.

Roberts basically told DOC to resubmit the paperwork with more plausible lies -- which in effect probably means there is no more time to include it for the 2020 census.

[boutons_deux]

holy

Trump says he will see if Census can be delayed after court ruling

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-census-trump/trump-says-he-will-see-if-census-can-be-delayed-after-court-ruling-idUSKCN1TS2PJ?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&u tm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign= Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics +News%29

[boutons_deux]

The Roberts Court Continues to Debase Democracy, With a Miserable Gerrymandering Decision

The Supreme Court refusal to address extreme gerrymandering is just the latest example of how this Court majority champions political privilege.

Roberts concluded that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.”

Kagan concluded that “In giving such gerrymanders a pass from judicial review, the majority goes tragically wrong.”

when it comes to fundamental questions of

whether the judicial branch will sustain American democracy, the answer from the Roberts Court is invariably “no.”

consider the record of the Roberts Court on cases that define the framework and functionality of our electoral processes:

With the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the Roberts Court effectively gutted campaign finance protections, clearing the way for corporate interests to flood the political process with money.

With the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, the Roberts Court gutted key sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

With this week’s decisions on the cases of Rucho v. Common Cause (from North Carolina) and Lamone v. Benisek (from Maryland), the Court has rejected a call for judicial intervention to address corruption of the political process by legislative charlatans at the state and local levels.

“They had a rare opportunity to strengthen, if not save, fair representation in our democracy and they categorically failed.”

HR 1, the For the People Act that has been backed by the US House, “would curb extreme partisan gerrymandering by ensuring that states draw congressional districts using independent redistricting commissions

the measure in being blocked in the Senate by majority leader Mitch McConnell and the same hyper-partisan Republicans who mangled the nomination process in 2016 to assure that Roberts could maintain an antidemocratic majority.

This is precisely where the courts should step in as defenders of democracy—to, in Kagan’s words, address “worst-of-the-worst cases of democratic subversion” that are “causing blatant cons utional harms.”

the Roberts Court has made itself the champion of these worst-of-the-worst cases of democratic subversion

https://www.thenation.com/article/john-nichols-supreme-court-john-roberts-democracy-gerrymandering-decision/

The oligarchy's SCOTUS Repug s assuring America (of the non-oligarchy) is ed and un able.

[spurraider21]

Party line SCOTUS vote locks in GOP minority rule

this one they did rule on the merits. and as expected, and aligned with precedent, partisan gerrymandering is affirmed. it was a stupid challenge unless you thought a conservative court would actually overturn it. best way to ditch a gerrymander is to argue and demonstrate a racial intent

[boutons_deux]

"this one they did rule on the merits"

oligarchy SCOTUS5 have not been bound by stare decisis, precedent or anything else when they want to rule in favor of the oligarchy.

[spurraider21]

"this one they did rule on the merits"

oligarchy SCOTUS5 have not been bound by stare decisis, precedent or anything else when they want to rule in favor of the oligarchy.

because in the racial gerrymandering case from virginia they ruled on procedural grounds, not on merits

[boutons_deux]

because in the racial gerrymandering case from virginia they ruled on procedural grounds, not on merits

racial gerrymandering is, has been illegal

partisan gerrymandering, extreme and disenfranchising as the parties can wrangle, has been, is now legal.

(political) Congress could pass a law killing partisan gerrymandering, and (judicial) SCOTUS5 says they would not rule on it.

[boutons_deux]

Here’s Why Trump Just Had a Meltdown Over the Supreme Court’s Crucial Census Ruling

Trump reacted on Twitter, saying that he’s “asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long” until SCOTUS gets “additional information” needed to ensure his Adminstration’s victory.

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census, in this case for 2020. I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the.....

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

.....United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter. Can anyone really believe that as a great Country, we are not able the ask whether or not someone is a Citizen. Only in America!
12:37 PM - Jun 27, 2019

he totally missed the part where it can be asked, Trash doesn't do "close reading or listening" or nuance.

As Vox noted:

The Commerce Department has acknowledged that in an emergency, with “extraordinary effort,”

it could finalize the census forms as late as October 30 and still run the census in time in 2020.

So in theory, it could spend some time gathering new evidence, issue a new decision adding the question to the census, and then get the courts to review that decision and uphold it as correct.

But it would have to do all that within four months, tops.

The existing case took a year to adjudicate at trial, and another five months from the initial ruling to Thursday’s SCOTUS decision.

In other words, the strategy on timing totally backfired.


2. His Administration got called out for lying.

Secretary of Commerce Ross (who decided to include the citizenship question in the census)

argued the need for the question by saying he was trying to better enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

Ross’ real motivation appears to be derailing the counting of Hispanics and immigrants, thus providing those communities less-than-fair amounts of government representation.

Reviewing the District Court’s decision, SCOTUS lined up Ross’ story with the evidence adduced in court. And that didn’t go so well for the Trump Administration.

The citizenship question had been planned for quite a while:

That evidence showed that the Secretary was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office;

Then later, Ross explained his decision by citing enforcement of the VRA. SCOTUS wasn’t buying it.

We share the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA.

And down came the hammer:

Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision

3. The Administration could’ve won, but they totally bungled this. It could also get worse.

SCOTUS was tasked with answering whether inclusion of the census question violates the Cons ution in various ways;

it ruled that the question could be permissible.

The problem wasn’t that it was illegal per se, but

that the Administration was bull ting about why they wanted the question included.

but where his people forgot to show a non-discriminatory purpose in their thought process. What’s more, what’s been dismissed as a conspiracy theory by the DOJ may end up proving the real motivation for the census question’s inclusion.

After new do ents from the estate of recently deceased Republican operative Thomas Hofeller went public,

it was alleged that these records showed that Hofeller specifically orchestrated

the addition of the citizenship census question to achieve certain advantages.

Hofeller notoriously specialized in gerrymandering maps to ensure Republican advantages.

“These newly discovered do ents…

eliminate any colorable doubt about the link between Hofeller and government employees involved in the citizenship question approval process.”

Judge Hazel agreed on Monday that the

Hofeller evidence “potentially connects the dots between a discriminatory purpose–diluting Hispanics’ political power–and Secretary Ross’s decision.”

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/here...census-ruling/

[spurraider21]

racial gerrymandering is, has been illegal

partisan gerrymandering, extreme and disenfranchising as the parties can wrangle, has been, is now legal.

already was considered cons utional

(political) Congress could pass a law killing partisan gerrymandering, and (judicial) SCOTUS5 says they would not rule on it.

that was never in question

[Winehole23]

this one they did rule on the merits. and as expected, and aligned with precedent, partisan gerrymandering is affirmed. it was a stupid challenge unless you thought a conservative court would actually overturn it. best way to ditch a gerrymander is to argue and demonstrate a racial intent

One perhaps is code for the other.

Who are "traditional democrat cons uencies"?