Supreme Court

[Dickc]

Didn't RBG have issues with Dobbs?

If the judges on SCOTUS were interested in doing the right thing and respecting precedent, they could have chosen Roberts' opinion as the majority. That opinion wouldn't have totally overturned Roe, but still would have decided the case in favor of abortion restrictions. Instead, the Court took the much more radical path of completely overruling a longstanding precedent.

I think Roberts was right on that position and wish he had come out with that opinion and reduced the majority vote by one. As to the current question about affirmative action, the conservative justices seemed to spend a lot of time asking the same question a majority of Americans are asking and that is when does it go away and become completely color blind. They also intoned that the schools can filter on socioeconomic issues. I believe that Harvard could do that and just not claim race went into the decision.

[easyrider16]

I think Roberts was right on that position and wish he had come out with that opinion and reduced the majority vote by one.

Technically he did. he issued a concurring opinion, which means he agreed with the majority's disposition (i.e. decided in favor of Dobbs) but for different reasons. But since there are five other conservative justices on the court, it doesn't really matter what Roberts says.

As to the current question about affirmative action, the conservative justices seemed to spend a lot of time asking the same question a majority of Americans are asking and that is when does it go away and become completely color blind. They also intoned that the schools can filter on socioeconomic issues. I believe that Harvard could do that and just not claim race went into the decision.

I'm not suggesting affirmative action is right or wrong. But if the Court overrules another major precedent like they did Roe, it's going to delegitimize them further. That's why the Court is supposed to be very careful when overruling precedent, and is supposed to take an approach that least disturbs precedent. If the Court just starts overturning precedent left and right, then precedent loses all its meaning and people are left trying to guess what the Court is going to do.

[boston_e]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/0 ... n-00064592

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a Dec. 31, 2020, email to Trump’s legal team.

One can only wonder what type of communications they were having with Ginni and Clerance Thomas behind the scenes.

[easyrider16]

This is some real questionable sh!t:

The emails from December 2020 show the lawyers discussing ways to delay the certification of results in Georgia, a closely contested state won by Democrat Joe Biden. One lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, suggested that an appeal to Thomas, as the justice who handles emergency appeals from Georgia, could “end up being the key here."

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Chesebro wrote. “Realistically, our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress, is from Thomas.”

Another lawyer, John Eastman, responded that he was in agreement, saying that if Thomas were to act, “that may be enough to kick the Georgia Legislature into gear.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA13FjB8

Maybe we should be investigating Thomas' connections to this whole thing, and consider impeachment.

[deadheadskier]

This is some real questionable sh!t:

The emails from December 2020 show the lawyers discussing ways to delay the certification of results in Georgia, a closely contested state won by Democrat Joe Biden. One lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, suggested that an appeal to Thomas, as the justice who handles emergency appeals from Georgia, could “end up being the key here."

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Chesebro wrote. “Realistically, our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress, is from Thomas.”

Another lawyer, John Eastman, responded that he was in agreement, saying that if Thomas were to act, “that may be enough to kick the Georgia Legislature into gear.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA13FjB8

Maybe we should be investigating Thomas' connections to this whole thing, and consider impeachment.

Impeachment? No. Jail? Yes.

Anyone shown to be involved with trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election should rot in a cage. That includes Thomas, Trump, anyone. Sometimes I wonder if the reason this isn't being taken more seriously is the international optics.

[Bubba]

There was nothing in the emails directly linking Thomas to the plan.

[easyrider16]

Right. It raises questions, but it doesn't prove guilt. Given Ginny Thomas' involvement in the plot and Thomas' failure to recuse himself, these emails suggest to me that something might not be right with Thomas. I'm not sure he's involved in a conspiracy, but I'm not ruling it out, either.

BTW that stay that Thomas imposed on Graham's testimony? The full SCOTUS lifted it. Unfortunately it's an unsigned opinion so we don't know who voted for what, but like I said, I doubt any of the other justices would have imposed that stay. I think this further raises questions about Thomas' bias and his judgment.

In the end, even if Thomas did nothing criminal, he might still be subject to impeachment. Violating of the judicial code of ethics isn't necessarily a criminal act, but it is grounds for removal.

[easyrider16]

Here's a pretty clear and concise analysis of the issue with Thomas:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA13HaJw

[boston_e]

Sounds like it was most likely Alito who leaked the Dobbs opinion. He must have figures he could distract by pretending to be outraged over the leak instead of having to focus on the content itself. What a scumbag.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/us/s ... &smtyp=cur

[boston_e]

On Tuesday, Alito was answering a question at a forum at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington when he said that “someone also crosses an important line" when saying "that the court is acting in a way that is illegitimate.”

“I don't think anybody in a position of authority should make that claim lightly,” he said without citing Kagan by name. Alito, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, joined the court in 2006. Kagan, picked by President Barack Obama, joined in 2010.

Polls show public trust in the court is at historic lows. A Gallup Poll released in late September found the level of trust and confidence in the judicial branch was at 47%, the lowest since the organization began surveying the public on the topic in the 1970s. It was 67% in 2020.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 67d5ab0c94

I agree with Alito that people in positions of authority should not make the claim lightly that the Court is acting in a way that is illegitimate. However, when public confidence in the Supreme Court is at the historical low of 47%, maybe a little self-reflection is in order. I also think that questions surrounding the legitimacy of the Court should be expected when it overrules a fifty-year-old line of case law that protected a right that an overwhelming majority of people think should be protected.

Interesting how the whole Roe leak investigation vanished.

Evidently once republicans justices figured out it was Alito who leaked it, they quietly made the investigation go away.

[easyrider16]

It would make a lot of sense for Alito to be the source given that he was drafting the opinion. Why is it that many of these Republican-appointed judges who profess to care so much about morality are so ethically challenged?

Given that the legislature has the constitutional power to impeach judges, I think the legislature should pass a law codifying the judicial code of conduct applicable to supreme court justices. Then the justices will have a clear set of rules to abide by, and if they fail to do so, the legislature will have solid grounds to remove them. That's how checks and balances are supposed to work, right?

[deadheadskier]

So now the Supreme Court is taking cases based upon future hypothetical situations?

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/05/11395708 ... ess-rights

Is Alito's goal to turn the US into a theocracy?

Unbelievable

[easyrider16]

There does seem to be a legitimate question as to whether there is an actual case or controversy, here.

These cases are weird. I get that people should be free to decline to do business when it violates their personal ethics. But some things are universally unethical, like denying to do business with someone because of the color of their skin. I don't care what your personal ethics are, that one's just wrong.

Declining to design a web-site for same-sex couples because it's against your personal ethics? That seems wrong to me. These folks are doing something perfectly legal, that harms no one, that denigrates no one, etc. What's the ethical conundrum? You believe your religion prohibits this behavior - so what? You're not engaging in it. If you believed your religion prohibited black people from marrying white people (which some people did believe once), that wouldn't justify denying black people your services. How is this different?

[deadheadskier]

The bigger issue I have is this woman hasn't been wronged. No one has forced her to make a gay marriage website. She's concerned someone may do that someday.

So where's the court case?

Come back when you have an actual issue

[easyrider16]

Results of investigation on Dobbs leak: we couldn't find who did it and don't care anymore.

“After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the ’82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion,'” the introduction reads.

The team was unable to identify a person responsible.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... r-AA16wQqO