SCOTUS: sponsored by Harlan Crow

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

So, the case of the Maryland father wrongfully sent to El Salvador where the DOJ said "Whoopsies, our bad not giving him due process, but tough shit, we can't call on anyone to get him home?"

Justice Roberts just issued an administrative say asking for more info from the family lawyers.

Essentially as of right now, Roberts is okay with being whisked away in an unmarked van and never heard from again.

He’s given a stay until 5pm tomorrow

I can’t say I’m surprised that Robert’s court doesn’t seem concerned about one of the basic tenets of the constitution and society

If noem can do her pornstar photo shoot in the prison, they can get him back

 

[Handyman]

In the other case it sounds like the Supreme Court chickened out...said the administration has to give reasonable time before deporting (which is bs and easy to circumvent) but said nothing about bringing them back if they are already gone.

Sounds like ACB sided with the Liberals...

140. The Disturbing Myopia of Trump v. J.G.G.

In normal times, it might be possible to defend the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on Monday vacating a pair of temporary restraining orders in the Alien Enemy Act case. But these aren't normal times.

www.stevevladeck.com

 

[psych]

Way to show Trump, John Roberts, you spineless fuck. Skip the rebuke next time, you worthless piece of shit.

 

[Handyman]

Way to show Trump, John Roberts, you spineless fuck. Skip the rebuke next time, you worthless piece of shit.

That was what I said...with more swearing!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Anyone who expects the Court to save us, you're wrong. There is no where to run, and no where to hide. We are Hungary with worse people in charge.

 

[dxmnkd316]

In the other case it sounds like the Supreme Court chickened out...said the administration has to give reasonable time before deporting (which is bs and easy to circumvent) but said nothing about bringing them back if they are already gone.

Sounds like ACB sided with the Liberals...

140. The Disturbing Myopia of Trump v. J.G.G.

In normal times, it might be possible to defend the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on Monday vacating a pair of temporary restraining orders in the Alien Enemy Act case. But these aren't normal times.

www.stevevladeck.com

I wonder if this is enough for chucko to start acting like a goddamn opposition leader. (It’s probably not. Leather chairs are too comfy.)

I’m starting to wonder if ACB’s brain is being broken from all of this. My theory for a while now is she just wants to have a perfect nuclear family and go to church. The right is starting to threaten that. Someone on Bluesky made the point that she was also a law professor at one point and reportedly a good one.

There’s that video from the joint session where her face oozed with disgust and hatred of trump.

It’s possible and maybe likely we start to see a shift from her. Or rather, a continuation of the shift she’s already been showing signs of.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Also, John Roberts will twist himself into whatever shape he needs to have the trump admin not defy the court. He somehow has this idea that the scotus is still a place worthy of admiration.

 

[Handyman]

I wonder if this is enough for chucko to start acting like a goddamn opposition leader. (It’s probably not. Leather chairs are too comfy.)

I’m starting to wonder if ACB’s brain is being broken from all of this. My theory for a while now is she just wants to have a perfect nuclear family and go to church. The right is starting to threaten that. Someone on Bluesky made the point that she was also a law professor at one point and reportedly a good one.

There’s that video from the joint session where her face oozed with disgust and hatred of trump.

It’s possible and maybe likely we start to see a shift from her. Or rather, a continuation of the shift she’s already been showing signs of.

ACB was a well respected prof at Notre Dame Law...focusing on Constitutional Law. While she was wholly unqualified to be on the Supreme Court she is quite learned on the subject of the Law. Unlike frauds like Gorsuch and Thomas she actually does seem to follow what the founders intended in the Constitution.

(she btw is still a terrible judge with awful views on things...a less trolly Scalia whom she clerked for)

I think you are right though, I think unlike most of the GOP she really is a religious person and everything Trump represents makes her skin crawl. Plus I don't think she has any love for the Unified Executive Theory which apparently the rest of the Cons on the Court circle jerk too.

John Roberts is the worst Chief Justice in American History...and that is quite a feat when you look at the list.

 

[dxmnkd316]

ACB was a well respected prof at Notre Dame Law...focusing on Constitutional Law. While she was wholly unqualified to be on the Supreme Court she is quite learned on the subject of the Law. Unlike frauds like Gorsuch and Thomas she actually does seem to follow what the founders intended in the Constitution.

(she btw is still a terrible judge with awful views on things...a less trolly Scalia whom she clerked for)

I think you are right though, I think unlike most of the GOP she really is a religious person and everything Trump represents makes her skin crawl. Plus I don't think she has any love for the Unified Executive Theory which apparently the rest of the Cons on the Court circle jerk too.

John Roberts is the worst Chief Justice in American History...and that is quite a feat when you look at the list.

I guess I disagree that she was entirely unqualified. I think they thought she was a stepford wife (admittedly, I and probably a lot of other lefties thought the same thing) and there's a decent chance she exposes all of us.

Either way, I guess we'll see what happens in the coming months!

 

[Handyman]

Sorry academics who never (or briefly) practiced should not be in the upper federal system as judges. If you are on the Supreme Court (or appellate like how she got her start) you should have years if not decades of experience arguing case law in various courts so that your opinion is above reproach even if disagreed with. Clerking for Scalia, playing the Stepford Wife at Federalist Society and Hertiage Foundation dinners and being a great professor is not enough. She qualifies more for elected positions like State Supreme Court...which is a stepping stone to better jobs like solicitor general. Then you qualify...

I remember when people liked the idea of Obama on the Court because he too was a respected Constitutional Law Professor and I hated that too. The Supreme Court should be the creme de la creme of the legal profession. It's arguably the last job you will have in law so it should be something you have spent your career building towards. You need as much real world experience as you do academic.

Note: none of this is to say she is not a great teacher or well learned. I bet studying law in her class is great. But DGF and I had great Law profs at the U too but I woud not want them writing opinions for the country that said ACB is at least somewhat honorable which is great to see.

 

[LynahFan]

Sorry academics who never (or briefly) practiced should not be in the upper federal system as judges. If you are on the Supreme Court (or appellate like how she got her start) you should have years if not decades of experience arguing case law in various courts so that your opinion is above reproach even if disagreed with. Clerking for Scalia, playing the Stepford Wife at Federalist Society and Hertiage Foundation dinners and being a great professor is not enough. She qualifies more for elected positions like State Supreme Court...which is a stepping stone to better jobs like solicitor general. Then you qualify...

I remember when people liked the idea of Obama on the Court because he too was a respected Constitutional Law Professor and I hated that too. The Supreme Court should be the creme de la creme of the legal profession. It's arguably the last job you will have in law so it should be something you have spent your career building towards. You need as much real world experience as you do academic.

Note: none of this is to say she is not a great teacher or well learned. I bet studying law in her class is great. But DGF and I had great Law profs at the U too but I woud not want them writing opinions for the country that said ACB is at least somewhat honorable which is great to see.

Well said. I wouldn't fly in any airplane designed by my very distinguished Ivy League aerospace engineering professors, either. Give me an airplane designed by a C student from State U....who has 35 years of experience designing airplanes!

 

[busterman62]

Also, John Roberts will twist himself into whatever shape he needs to have the trump admin not defy the court. He somehow has this idea that the scotus is still a place worthy of admiration.

Serious question.
What is SCOTUS to do when Trump decides that his is going to defy their rulings? IIRC, US Marshall service is under the DOJ which is part of the Executive branch (Being an Old, I last took a Civics class long before most of you were born). As such, Trump will stop them from doing anything. Congress put their Yarbles in a jar on Trump's fireplace many moons ago so the chances of an impeachment and conviction is about like my chances of winning the PowerBall. I can't think of anything substantial actually happening once Trump decides to flip off SCOTUS and recite the lyric from Stairway to Cleveland. Unfortunately, I fear it's just a matter of time before it happens.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Everything I've read says there is nothing they can do, AND Roberts does not have an appetite for that at all. Expect them to shield him any way they can.

 

[Handyman]

Serious question.
What is SCOTUS to do when Trump decides that his is going to defy their rulings? IIRC, US Marshall service is under the DOJ which is part of the Executive branch (Being an Old, I last took a Civics class long before most of you were born). As such, Trump will stop them from doing anything. Congress put their Yarbles in a jar on Trump's fireplace many moons ago so the chances of an impeachment and conviction is about like my chances of winning the PowerBall. I can't think of anything substantial actually happening once Trump decides to flip off SCOTUS and recite the lyric from Stairway to Cleveland. Unfortunately, I fear it's just a matter of time before it happens.

As someone who spends half the school year teaching Government I can answer your question with one word:

Nothing.

Your understanding of this is correct. Article III of the Constitution gives the courts (any courts) zero ability to enforce the laws...they are only given power to interpret the laws. (I am keeping it simple here) A court can find that you violated a law but there is no mechanism for them to do anything about it. Enforcement of the laws is under the purview of the Executive Branch. That is why Trump purged the DOJ of those disloyal and put people like Pondi and Kash Patel in charge.

And it has already devalued all courts. They are openly defying court orders on all levels that stop his actions.

Even worse...Congress is moving to completely destroy the courts by restricting the reach of lower court judges. Once that happens the Judiciary is all but dead anyways. (I wonder if they will challenge when that prick in Texas rules in MAGAts favor(

The question isnt what will SCOTUS do...the question is will it matter. The answer is no.

 

[Handyman]

In other news the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the Garcia Case...you know the guy deported because of an administrative error. Apparently they will rule "soon" not that it will matter. In fact I put the odds at 90/10 they dont even pretend to say the President needs to bring him home.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

In other news the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the Garcia Case...you know the guy deported because of an administrative error. Apparently they will rule "soon" not that it will matter. In fact I put the odds at 90/10 they dont even pretend to say the President needs to bring him home.

"Need" and "must" are too strong for Roberts unless it involves giving corporations more rights (his fave). Maybe a sternly-toned "should", or even a firm "it would be nice" will fit whatever pointless garbage he writes.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

How can they just sit there and let that injustice just continue?

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

How can they just sit there and let that injustice just continue?

Because they've got theirs, and fuck everyone else.

They're gutless cowards and frauds, pathetically exposed by a conman.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Well said. I wouldn't fly in any airplane designed by my very distinguished Ivy League aerospace engineering professors, either. Give me an airplane designed by a C student from State U....who has 35 years of experience designing airplanes!

I guess I reject this as a comparison because it's just not analogous. THe more apt analogy is whether you'd want your distinguished ivy league professor to be your lawyer for trial. The answer there is generally not. Amicus briefs sure. BUt not the trial lawyer.

I would definitely want someone who was a law professor who studies and teaches the law as theory to be writing the opinions. I really don't understand why this is remotely controversial. Law professors have a better understanding of the bases of law and the more theoretical questions and bounds of them. Those are the people who should be on the higher courts. Or rather, that kind of qualification is something we should be seeking.

In the lower courts, fine, you probably don't need a professorship to be ruling on basic cases. That's where having experience practicing the law is much more useful.

 

[dxmnkd316]

As someone who spends half the school year teaching Government I can answer your question with one word:

Nothing.

Your understanding of this is correct. Article III of the Constitution gives the courts (any courts) zero ability to enforce the laws...they are only given power to interpret the laws. (I am keeping it simple here) A court can find that you violated a law but there is no mechanism for them to do anything about it. Enforcement of the laws is under the purview of the Executive Branch. That is why Trump purged the DOJ of those disloyal and put people like Pondi and Kash Patel in charge.

And it has already devalued all courts. They are openly defying court orders on all levels that stop his actions.

Even worse...Congress is moving to completely destroy the courts by restricting the reach of lower court judges. Once that happens the Judiciary is all but dead anyways. (I wonder if they will challenge when that prick in Texas rules in MAGAts favor(

The question isnt what will SCOTUS do...the question is will it matter. The answer is no.

This is objectively wrong. If the US marshals refuse to enforce a court order the courts can deputize anyone they want to carry out the orders.