What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Handyman said:
Good that program is wrong. The intention is good but the State doesnt get to lock you up for the same crime twice and that is exactly what that program does.
Click to expand...

Yep. Couldn't agree more.

What's worse though is the second lockup has an indefinite hold as well. It's awful.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

There was a 4-2 ruling today that federal government officials cannot be sued personally for administrative actions taken immediately after 9-11 to inordinately detain Arabs on legitimate lesser charges while they were being investigated for more serious charges.

Sotomayor and Kagan both recused themselves as they had been involved in some of the original cases, and the case was heard before Gorsuch was seated.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

FreshFish said:
There was a 4-2 ruling today that federal government officials cannot be sued personally for administrative actions taken immediately after 9-11 to inordinately detain Arabs on legitimate lesser charges while they were being investigated for more serious charges.

Sotomayor and Kagan both recused themselves as they had been involved in some of the original cases, and the case was heard before Gorsuch was seated.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I would have thought that you couldn't sue federal government officials personally for administrative actions in any event, as long as they followed USG policy. Seems odd to me that the case even went forward, so I must be missing something important.
 
Kepler said:
Interesting. I would have thought that you couldn't sue federal government officials personally for administrative actions in any event, as long as they followed USG policy. Seems odd to me that the case even went forward, so I must be missing something important.
Click to expand...

What you're missing is that the officials were sued in their official capacity, so the plaintiffs were essentially suing the USG.

The court essentially said "you should've brought a habeas petition to get free sooner, but you can't sue for money even if your detention was unlawful"
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
What you're missing is that the officials were sued in their official capacity, so the plaintiffs were essentially suing the USG.

The court essentially said "you should've brought a habeas petition to get free sooner, but you can't sue for money even if your detention was unlawful"
Click to expand...

OK, so they weren't being sued personally, they were placeholders for a suit against the USG. That makes sense.

I never quite understand how and when political entities can be sued. Certainly you can sue claiming your rights have been abridged, but you can't sue if, say, Congress bans asbestos and you own Asbestos Kwik-E-Mart, right?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Pedantic, but you can sue, but you probably don't have standing. ;)
 
Kepler said:
OK, so they weren't being sued personally, they were placeholders for a suit against the USG. That makes sense.

I never quite understand how and when political entities can be sued. Certainly you can sue claiming your rights have been abridged, but you can't sue if, say, Congress bans asbestos and you own Asbestos Kwik-E-Mart, right?
Click to expand...

In not going to be able to cram an entire civil procedure course into a single post, but the short short short version is:

Start with presumption of sovereign immunity. If the sovereign violates your constitutional rights, you can ask for that to be remedied. Mostly that doesn't mean monetary compensation, but instead equitable relief (stop doing X, and/or do Y instead)

If you want monetary compensation, you have to fall into a specific exemption to sovereign immunity created by statute. This primarily means something like the Tort Claims Act, but there are also court created (common law) exceptions, too. the big one when it comes to the Fourth Amendment are called Bivens actions.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
Interesting. I would have thought that you couldn't sue federal government officials personally for administrative actions in any event, as long as they followed USG policy. Seems odd to me that the case even went forward, so I must be missing something important.
Click to expand...

unofan said:
What you're missing is that the officials were sued in their official capacity, so the plaintiffs were essentially suing the USG.

The court essentially said "you should've brought a habeas petition to get free sooner, but you can't sue for money even if your detention was unlawful"
Click to expand...

What is interesting about that is that government officials in some jurisdictions (like Wisconsin) do not enjoy immunity for tort actions or omissions that are purely ministerial in nature but do enjoy immunity for actions that involve official discretionary decision making. For instance, if a hiker is injured in a fall as a result of a missing warning sign by a cliff, he may be able to sue the appropriate governmental official if the sign was designed into the plan (and probably initially installed) but not replaced when it deteriorated and fell down or if it was installed in a way that was dangerous and did not conform with the plan. He would not be able to sue based on what he felt was a faulty exercise of judgment if the government official decided not to use a sign in that location in the first place. In any case, though (and as you suggest, Kep), the official is being sued in his or her governmental capacity, not individually.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
In not going to be able to cram an entire civil procedure course into a single post, but the short short short version is:

Start with presumption of sovereign immunity. If the sovereign violates your constitutional rights, you can ask for that to be remedied. Mostly that doesn't mean monetary compensation, but instead equitable relief (stop doing X, and/or do Y instead)

If you want monetary compensation, you have to fall into a specific exemption to sovereign immunity created by statute. This primarily means something like the Tort Claims Act, but there are also court created (common law) exceptions, too. the big one when it comes to the Fourth Amendment are called Bivens actions.
Click to expand...

From what I read of the commentary on the ruling, these comments appear to apply only to the federal government, not to state governments. It read as if the same defendants had been detained under state law rather than under federal law, then the state could have been sued for monetary damages while the feds cannot be.
 
FreshFish said:
From what I read of the commentary on the ruling, these comments appear to apply only to the federal government, not to state governments. It read as if the same defendants had been detained under state law rather than under federal law, then the state could have been sued for monetary damages while the feds cannot be.
Click to expand...

States are sovereigns as well. Complete with their own immunities and exceptions thereto.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I do recall that while I was working for USDA that a recent court case held that federal managers could be held liable if they were found to be negligent.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The Sicatoka said:
I put this in the Prez-thread also, but ...

Chris Hayes of MSNBC is claiming there's a non-zero chance of Justice Kennedy resigning on Monday.

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/sta...s.com/report-justice-kennedy-retiring-monday/
Click to expand...

It looks like every right wing crank website is reporting this as gospel. Here's hoping it's just fever swamp speculation.

How any judge could deliberately hand another nomination to this sh-tbird is beyond me.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
It looks like every right wing crank website is reporting this as gospel.

How any judge could deliberately hand another nomination to this sh-tbird is beyond me.
Click to expand...

If you made me put down $20 on this, I'd bet the under (as in not happenin').
However, Kennedy is 80 years old. Maybe he wants to actually have a day of retirement.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The Sicatoka said:
If you made me put down $20 on this, I'd bet the under (as in not happenin').
However, Kennedy is 80 years old. Maybe he wants to actually have a day of retirement.
Click to expand...

I would be shocked for a couple reasons:

1. Kennedy is a drama queen, and right now the Court breaks so that his decisions will have maximum impact and visibility.

2. Kennedy is, despite his various blindnesses, still a serious judge. He's not going to want to give Dump another pick unless he's ill.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
... unless he's ill.
Click to expand...

"Just asking the question" ... are we? ;) :)


In retrospect, Notorious RBG should've bailed when she hit 80 (four years ago) and let Mr. Obama fill her seat. There'd be far less fear and loathing right now.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The Sicatoka said:
"Just asking the question" ... are we? ;) :)


In retrospect, Notorious RBG should've bailed when she hit 80 (four years ago) and let Mr. Obama fill her seat. There'd be far less fear and loathing right now.
Click to expand...

If we're doing shoulda couldas, SCOTUS shouldn't have become a fully owned subsidiary of the RNC in 2000 and we might have avoided the last 17 years of hell.

But the rich got their tax cut, and that's what matters.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

No retirements. Court will hear the discriminatory cake baker case (he didn't want to make a same sex wedding cake). Court will hear the travel ban in October, leaves current injunctions in place for most people.

Gorsuch writes/joins a number of opinions putting him right of Alito and on par with Thomas.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
No retirements.
Click to expand...

Are we sure? I mean, he could just announce tomorrow or the next day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top