The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

All in all it was just another brick in the wall . . . . .

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion if the 9th Circuit made the exact same ruling, you'd call it judicial activism?

Because for convenience you have placed me into a categorial box to which I don't really belong?

I'm not a political partisan for either party, and I prefer to think of myself as "principled" rather than "ideogical," so that I can respect and ackowledge other people's principles when I see them even if we disagree on a solution....though I do become impatient with stridently ideological types, that is true....... anyway, I never use the term "judicial activism" because it has no clear unambiguous meaning, it's a loaded and charged term used to provoke reactions not to describe a consistent pattern of behavior.

Either the judges' rulings are based on what the law or the Constitution say, or the judges' rulings include a chain of interpretation and inference about what they law "actually" means so that we can set aside what it clearly says (or doesn't say, for that matter!)


...I still snort whenever I think of "penumbras emanating from"...egads, what kind of logic is that coming from a Supreme Court justice?

 

[duper]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Just out of curiosity, what specific circumstances are you citing that international water treaties have been broken, since you haven't cited specific cases to date.

I'm referring to the dumping of chemicals into the water as it crossed the Mexican border throughout the sixties and seventies. It may not technically be a violation, because the water crossed the border, but it was so polluted that a lot of people, including officials at the the US BOR, felt that it was a breach of the treaty of 1944.

On the other hand, I am given to understand that the shoe may now be on the other foot, as Mexico has fallen behind on water delivery to the US.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

A fairly significant 9 - 0 ruling on what superficially might seem a technical matter:

In their ruling on Freeman vs Quicken Loans,

... the Justices describ[ed] the Department of Housing and Urban Development's aggressive assertion of its regulatory authority a "palpable overreach."

....

[This ruling] uphold the idea that Congress makes laws and the bureaucracy implements them. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia declared the bureaucracy's Respa interpretation was "manifestly inconsistent with the statute HUD purported to construe." The law's text "clearly describes two distinct exchanges," he noted, not an exchange of fees of a company with itself.

In the unending battle against regulatory overreach, Freeman is a pretty big deal and has implications beyond the world of real-estate settlement. The Department of Justice, for example, is aggressively using so-called "disparate-impact" analysis, a type of statistical technique that ignores intent, to accuse financial institutions of discrimination under the 1968 Fair Housing Act and 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Neither law has text that supports these interpretations. Freeman suggests the Justices also would be inclined to curb these overreaches.

The Supreme Court's ideological divisions over abortion and the like are well known. Let it be noted, however, that this Court does not look favorably on regulators unabashedly assuming the powers of lawmakers. Freeman sends a clear message to regulators to do the job they're asked to do, and nothing more.

Source: Wall St. Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...93782507540.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Wall Street Journal story on three 9-0 decisions limiting the extent of Federal government powers:

in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission....The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in January that punishing a church for failing to retain an unwanted teacher "interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs." Such interference, it concluded, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.

In United States v. Jones....While the justices had differing opinions on why this action violated the Fourth Amendment...all agreed it was unconstitutional.

in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, ... the court unanimously rejected [the Federal government's] position.

The author of this article then sees a trend, with which you may or may not agree:

The government's arguments across a wide variety of cases would essentially allow Congress and the executive branch to do whatever they wanted without meaningful constitutional restraint. This view is at odds with another unanimous Supreme Court decision, Bond v. United States (2011). Bond vindicated a criminal defendant's right to challenge the use of federal power to prosecute her. As Justice Kennedy wrote, "[F]ederalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake."

If the government loses in the health-care or immigration cases, it won't be because its lawyers had a bad day in court or because the justices ruled based on their political preferences. It will be because the Obama administration continues to make legal arguments that don't pass the smell test.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'm referring to the dumping of chemicals into the water as it crossed the Mexican border throughout the sixties and seventies. It may not technically be a violation, because the water crossed the border, but it was so polluted that a lot of people, including officials at the the US BOR, felt that it was a breach of the treaty of 1944.

On the other hand, I am given to understand that the shoe may now be on the other foot, as Mexico has fallen behind on water delivery to the US.

Just to clarify, where along the U.S. border were chemicals being dumped in as water crossed into Mexico in the 60s and 70s? I know on the Colorado, the main issue has been the volume of water at times that has crossed the border into Mexico (though that's been mandated by treaty and followed as far as I know for a good while now). There aren't very many places water even crosses the border with Mexico.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

lots of cases left to be decided in the next 2 weeks.

5 biggies:
Obamacare
Arizona immigration law
Citizens United 2 (does it apply to the states - in this case, Montana has a century-old law barring corporations from spending on elections)
8th amendment & life sentences to minors
stolen valor act (can the government make it illegal to lie about military service, even where there is no personal gain being sought?)

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

stolen valor act (can the government make it illegal to lie about military service, even where there is no personal gain being sought?)

Of all the cases, I find this one to be the most interesting.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Of all the cases, I find this one to be the most interesting.

I would assume the Court finds it illegal - it's a pro 1st Amendment court and, in the absence of fraud, I dont see how the government can make it illegal to say whatever the hell you want to say, truthful or not.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I would assume the Court finds it illegal - it's a pro 1st Amendment court and, in the absence of fraud, I dont see how the government can make it illegal to say whatever the hell you want to say, truthful or not.

Agreed. I see it as akin to burning the flag. It's a barometer to see just how much this court is willing to go in terms of defending the First Amendment.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

A 5-4 ruling today on whether a defendant's right to cross-examination was violated when an expert testified on DNA evidence while the same expert was not the person who collected the DNA sample.

Three distinct groups of judges, and what a mish-mash compared to what we might expect:

Four justices—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy—joined in a strong opinion that would give prosecutors more leeway in using lab reports without having to put the analysts who prepared them on the witness stand.

Four others—Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Antonin Scalia and Sonia Sotomayor—said the Constitution doesn't permit the use of the lab analysis that helped convict Mr. Williams.

In the middle was Justice Thomas, writing only for himself, but controlling the outcome of the case. He said the lab report used in this case couldn't be considered testimonial and so doesn't fall under the Constitution's cross-examination requirement. The report "lacks the solemnity of an affidavit or deposition, for it is neither a sworn nor a certified declaration of fact," Justice Thomas said. It may be used at trial, but the judge who presided at Mr. Williams's bench trial in the absence of a jury didn't have to lend it much credence.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...74531254315216.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_US

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I would assume the Court finds it illegal - it's a pro 1st Amendment court and, in the absence of fraud, I dont see how the government can make it illegal to say whatever the hell you want to say, truthful or not.

You can't say you're a cop. Knowing nothing about the law involved, it seems to me that the "impersonating an officer" angle might be a way in completely skirting the First Amendment.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You can't say you're a cop. Knowing nothing about the law involved, it seems to me that the "impersonating an officer" angle might be a way in completely skirting the First Amendment.

It's illegal to impersonate a cop to use the authority associated with it. It's not illegal to say "I'm a cop" in some context where it doesn't matter. (I can't think of such a context off hand, but then I'm also not a pathological liar).

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It's illegal to impersonate a cop to use the authority associated with it. It's not illegal to say "I'm a cop" in some context where it doesn't matter. (I can't think of such a context off hand, but then I'm also not a pathological liar).

On-line dating? Pickup line in bar? Resumé? ("I worked undercover so they won't verify that I was there if you ask them.....")

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

They mean well, but they put pink stars on undesireables a ways back. http://fxn.ws/M8krFX

I don't think this will pass judicial review.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Thanks to Old Pio for this link:

Supremes rule 7 - 2 that unions must give members opt-out notice when increasing dues solely to fund political activity:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-21-10-12-54

5 voted yes under one opinion, Ginsberg and Sotomayor voted yes under a different opinion, Breyer and Kagan the 2 no votes.


My bet is that Sotomayor is going to surprise a lot of people, this "wise Latina woman" has her own mind. She'll be the Democrats' version of Souter....which would be doubly ironic, since she replaced him!

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It's illegal to impersonate a cop to use the authority associated with it. It's not illegal to say "I'm a cop" in some context where it doesn't matter. (I can't think of such a context off hand, but then I'm also not a pathological liar).

On-line dating? Pickup line in bar? Resumé? ("I worked undercover so they won't verify that I was there if you ask them.....")

Hot lady cop strippers.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It's illegal to impersonate a cop to use the authority associated with it. It's not illegal to say "I'm a cop" in some context where it doesn't matter. (I can't think of such a context off hand, but then I'm also not a pathological liar).

Then there is this guy in my home state: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ficer/2012/06/21/gJQA5k01tV_blog.html?hpid=z3

OOPS!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

SCOTUS rules 8 - 0 (Kagan recused herself) to uphold one key portion of Arizona immigration law. Three other parts were struck down by a 5 - 3 vote; the minority would have upheld them as well.

Interesting alignment of Justices: Roberts + Kennedy + three liberals > three conservatives.

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.

The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.

That section was one of four at issue before the high court. The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment; make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. Those other three provisions were struck down.

Five justices were in the majority choosing to strike down the three provisions. Dissenting justices argued that the whole law should have been upheld.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The dissenters were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice Elena Kagan was recused in the case.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Let the spinmeisters begin.