Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    Seeing any trends? Lurch to the Right? Full on theocracy? Asking for a friend.
    These were all fairly minor - a couple of related immigration cases, an international arbitration case, a habeas one, and a criminal case that implicated tribal rights.

    Nothing stood out except for Gorsuch's dissent voicing his long standing support for tribal rights. It's a wierd niche of his.

    I mean, it's apparent the Court is shifting right, but we won't know how much until the major cases come out.

    Comment


    • It’s clear gorsuch feels need to try and protect natives. Just wish it also extended to other humans

      Comment


      • Originally posted by unofan View Post

        These were all fairly minor - a couple of related immigration cases, an international arbitration case, a habeas one, and a criminal case that implicated tribal rights.

        Nothing stood out except for Gorsuch's dissent voicing his long standing support for tribal rights. It's a wierd niche of his.

        I mean, it's apparent the Court is shifting right, but we won't know how much until the major cases come out.
        Is he about tribal rights v. federal the way many Rs are about states' rights v. federal?

        Indian law is fascinating stuff. Tragic and shameful, but fascinating.
        Last edited by burd; 06-13-2022, 02:37 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by burd View Post

          Is he about tribal rights v. federal the way many Rs are about states' rights v. federal?
          Near as I can tell it's just his thing.

          Like Scalia has a sane spot for privacy.

          Even monsters have their moments.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • 3 more out this morning with at least 1 more to come. Still minor stuff, though in another tribal case Gorsuch was able to bring Barrett with him for a 5-4 ruling in favor of the tribe.

            Comment


            • 4th one out, still at least one more to come. Still nothing major.

              Comment


              • Why are they holding back the abortion ruling?
                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                  Why are they holding back the abortion ruling?
                  Perhaps they're planning to drop that one on Friday at 5pm?

                  Comment


                  • 5th one out. Still at least one more to come today. Still nothing major.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                      Why are they holding back the abortion ruling?
                      Short answer, only they know.

                      Long answer, i don't think anything untoward is going on there. But for the leak, we'd have expected it to come out near the end of the term. The fact that an early draft was leaked shouldn't change that expectation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post

                        Perhaps they're planning to drop that one on Friday at 5pm?
                        Next opinion day is next Tuesday (Monday being a federal holiday).

                        Comment


                        • 6th and final one of the day is out. Nothing major, other than the last case that was dismissed as improvidently granted involved a bunch of R states trying to intervene to defend a Trump decision after Biden's administration declined to do so.

                          Comment


                          • Out of the 18 left to decide, I'd characterize these as the major ones left:

                            NY Rifle: gun control
                            Dobbs: abortion
                            Kennedy: religion in public schools
                            Biden v Texas: remain in Mexico policy

                            Could be major depending on ruling:
                            Carson: tuition assistance for religious schools
                            WVa v EPA: scope of agency power
                            Berger: Right of legislators to intervene in court cases

                            Comment


                            • Ok, is this true? SC may overturn Miranda? First I’ve heard
                              https://twitter.com/dlcc/status/1537...GVWvSDkna9AvlA

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
                                Ok, is this true? SC may overturn Miranda? First I’ve heard
                                https://twitter.com/dlcc/status/1537...GVWvSDkna9AvlA
                                It's a gross exaggeration of what is likely or what the Court is actually poised to do. Could the Court rule so broadly? Sure, in so much as anytime there's a case involving one is the Miranda rights there's a chance it could nullify them.

                                But realistically, the case was about whether a person can bring a 1983 action against a cop when the only alleged violation was not Mirandizing them and the resulting confession was used to help convict them. The Court, including Sotomayor and Kagan, seemed united that was not enough to support a 1983 action, since the there are intervening causes of the harm there - the prosecutor had to introduce it, the judge had to allow it, your own attorney may or may not have failed to try to suppress it, the jury had to believe it, etc - and you can't prove the cop's actions legally caused the harm to you fire purposes of a resulting civil case.

                                In any event, nothing about the case suggested Miranda would disappear as a staple in criminal cases.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X