All Things SCOTUS

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Dems opposing a gay judge? I guess they aren't ask "woke" as they thought.

Being pro-gay and accepting only matters when want to throw stones at the right lol.

They're just fuming over Trump ignoring past practice of home state senate consultation. It's funny AF that Trump will have appointed more judged in 4 years than Obama in 8. That's pretty impressive stuff. And Obama's appointees where on average 10 years older. Orange man did very good in transforming the courts. Truly lasting impact. I'd love another four years of retooling, especially in the 9th.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Notorious <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RBG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RBG</a> with the party shoes ftw <a href="https://t.co/3lv6eeimZb">https://t.co/3lv6eeimZb</a></p>— Lindsay Jean Purcell (@Lindsajean) <a href="https://twitter.com/Lindsajean/status/1229916965948530694?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,009
Being pro-gay and accepting only matters when want to throw stones at the right lol.

They're just fuming over Trump ignoring past practice of home state senate consultation. It's funny AF that Trump will have appointed more judged in 4 years than Obama in 8. That's pretty impressive stuff. And Obama's appointees where on average 10 years older. Orange man did very good in transforming the courts. Truly lasting impact. I'd love another four years of retooling, especially in the 9th.

These same people tried tanking Naomi Rao(I think is the name) even though shes a minority.

I think some emails got leaked once upon a time that Schumer and the boys tanked Miguel Estrada because they feared the GOP would eventually nominate him, a Hispanic immigrant from Honduras, to the Supreme Court.

They voted against Clarence Thomas ("high tech lynching").

Libs are very pro-diversity until the minority candidate has positions they dont like.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Another "we're losing, so let's change the rules" moment for dems....


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">18 years is enough for an unelected official - Supreme Court justice - wielding such power. Each president gets two picks which will decrease the political pressure in confirmation. Can be done by statute. Ask each candidate their position - including Trump. Reform is necessary <a href="https://t.co/SKapGfgliB">https://t.co/SKapGfgliB</a></p>— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/1230235044989546497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
Another "we're losing, so let's change the rules" moment for dems....


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">18 years is enough for an unelected official - Supreme Court justice - wielding such power. Each president gets two picks which will decrease the political pressure in confirmation. Can be done by statute. Ask each candidate their position - including Trump. Reform is necessary <a href="https://t.co/SKapGfgliB">https://t.co/SKapGfgliB</a></p>— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/1230235044989546497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This doesn’t exist if Merrick Garland was sitting on the bench.

Holder objects to anything he doesn’t think helps democrats. He’s a partisan hack and I’m glad he is no longer AG.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
Another "we're losing, so let's change the rules" moment for dems....


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">18 years is enough for an unelected official - Supreme Court justice - wielding such power. Each president gets two picks which will decrease the political pressure in confirmation. Can be done by statute. Ask each candidate their position - including Trump. Reform is necessary <a href="https://t.co/SKapGfgliB">https://t.co/SKapGfgliB</a></p>— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/1230235044989546497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Every time Eric Holder claims to be fighting for “fair maps”, remember that on the form his group filed with the IRS it describes the organization’s mission as: “FAVORABLY POSITION DEMOCRATS FOR THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS.” <a href="https://twitter.com/TheNRRT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheNRRT</a> <a href="https://t.co/vrbS2bHarC">pic.twitter.com/vrbS2bHarC</a></p>— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottWalker/status/1161663396757983232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 14, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,009
Another "we're losing, so let's change the rules" moment for dems....


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">18 years is enough for an unelected official - Supreme Court justice - wielding such power. Each president gets two picks which will decrease the political pressure in confirmation. Can be done by statute. Ask each candidate their position - including Trump. Reform is necessary <a href="https://t.co/SKapGfgliB">https://t.co/SKapGfgliB</a></p>— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/1230235044989546497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Its genuinely beautiful.

Also, what's the point in suggesting "term limits" on SCOTUS. It's in the Constitution...pretty clear..they stay in office.

"Shall hold their offices during good behaviour". How the fuck do you make an argument that good behaviour has a time limit lmao

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Every time Eric Holder claims to be fighting for “fair maps”, remember that on the form his group filed with the IRS it describes the organization’s mission as: “FAVORABLY POSITION DEMOCRATS FOR THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS.” <a href="https://twitter.com/TheNRRT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheNRRT</a> <a href="https://t.co/vrbS2bHarC">pic.twitter.com/vrbS2bHarC</a></p>— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottWalker/status/1161663396757983232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 14, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Hes a wingman... the guy who never gets laid.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Sotomayor issues scathing dissent in Supreme Court order that could reshape legal immigration
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/sotomayor-dissent-supreme-court/index.html

This is pretty rich. The dems absolutely abuse the courts to slow and stop all kinds of shit. And everything is a freaking crisis/emergency to the dems. Sotomayor is just miffed that her liberal minority can no longer play politics. If she wants to be outraged, let her be outraged at the whole House and Senate for not getting shit done via the designed process.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,409
Reaction score
5,833
Sotomayor issues scathing dissent in Supreme Court order that could reshape legal immigration
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/sotomayor-dissent-supreme-court/index.html

This is pretty rich. The dems absolutely abuse the courts to slow and stop all kinds of shit. And everything is a freaking crisis/emergency to the dems. Sotomayor is just miffed that her liberal minority can no longer play politics. If she wants to be outraged, let her be outraged at the whole House and Senate for not getting shit done via the designed process.

This is why Mitch and Trump winning again in 2020 is so important.

If Trump wins, I think it’s a fair guess that Clarence Thomas steps down by 2024.
RBG isn’t young.

The 9th circuit can no longer en banc our rights away.

If it were the other way, the Libs would be running us down the tracks of activism for decades.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,009
This is why Mitch and Trump winning again in 2020 is so important.

If Trump wins, I think it’s a fair guess that Clarence Thomas steps down by 2024.
RBG isn’t young.

The 9th circuit can no longer en banc our rights away.

If it were the other way, the Libs would be running us down the tracks of activism for decades.

A Trump White House with Mitch at the helm could easily replace 3 more justices.

Thomas is not a spring chicken and seems to be pretty dedicated to his cause of limited government. He might like to get a shot at choosing an acolyte.

RBG is old af. Constantly has new health problems. Breyer is 81 years old.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,608
Reaction score
20,090
Sotomayor issues scathing dissent in Supreme Court order that could reshape legal immigration
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/sotomayor-dissent-supreme-court/index.html

This is pretty rich. The dems absolutely abuse the courts to slow and stop all kinds of shit. And everything is a freaking crisis/emergency to the dems. Sotomayor is just miffed that her liberal minority can no longer play politics. If she wants to be outraged, let her be outraged at the whole House and Senate for not getting shit done via the designed process.

Reading that article makes me wonder how much communication goes on behind the scenes at the SC and what it's like?
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
31,521
Reaction score
17,403
Another "we're losing, so let's change the rules" moment for dems....


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">18 years is enough for an unelected official - Supreme Court justice - wielding such power. Each president gets two picks which will decrease the political pressure in confirmation. Can be done by statute. Ask each candidate their position - including Trump. Reform is necessary <a href="https://t.co/SKapGfgliB">https://t.co/SKapGfgliB</a></p>— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/1230235044989546497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Or, we could just oust the 3 Supreme Court Justices that have served 18+ years and let Trump replace them all.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
This is why Mitch and Trump winning again in 2020 is so important.

If Trump wins, I think it’s a fair guess that Clarence Thomas steps down by 2024.
RBG isn’t young.

The 9th circuit can no longer en banc our rights away.

If it were the other way, the Libs would be running us down the tracks of activism for decades.

They were very content stacking the nutty 9th for years, and more than satisfied when the SC leaned their way. Now it's a crisis and rules need to be changed. Par for the course. It's simply awesome that the 9th is being equalized. Dems can't run there every time they want to obstruct.

Reading that article makes me wonder how much communication goes on behind the scenes at the SC and what it's like?

I imagine it's contentious more than we think. Being it's a life appointment, I'm sure they've learned to live with each other, but I'm sure some can't stand each either.

Or, we could just oust the 3 Supreme Court Justices that have served 18+ years and let Trump replace them all.

The dems just want to alternate now, and hand out participation trophies in lieu of following the Constitution. They'd be more than happy with the Constitution had HRC won. It's completely shallow.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Chief Justice Roberts issues rare rebuke to Schumer's 'dangerous' and 'irresponsible' comments; Schumer fires back
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...-calling-comments-kavanaugh-gorsuch-dangerous


Roberts replied in his remarkable written statement, obtained by Fox News: "This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that 'You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'"

Roberts continued: "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."

Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman quickly responded by accusing Roberts of bias, further escalating the confrontation. Goodman insisted that Schumer was addressing Republican lawmakers when he said a "price" would be paid -- even though Schumer had explicitly named Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WATCH: Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer threatens U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.<br><br>"You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!"<a href="https://t.co/e1qKzocJDj">pic.twitter.com/e1qKzocJDj</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1235274753302200322?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,009
Chief Justice Roberts issues rare rebuke to Schumer's 'dangerous' and 'irresponsible' comments; Schumer fires back
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...-calling-comments-kavanaugh-gorsuch-dangerous

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WATCH: Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer threatens U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.<br><br>"You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!"<a href="https://t.co/e1qKzocJDj">pic.twitter.com/e1qKzocJDj</a></p>— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1235274753302200322?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Obviously I want SCOTUS to do the right thing here and allow a state to put the screws to abortion providers.

But what would make it even better is I go to a very lib law school. And oh the tears of unfathomable sadness from people here who would never be caught dead in a place like Louisiana would make it all the sweater.

One of my classmates is a super lib abortion advocate and asked me if I knew that in "republican states" it's common for women to have the "burden" of driving "like 100 miles" to have an abortion.

This would be lit AF. SCOTUS are people too. I hope any conservative minded justices who were considering striking down the law take a look at the animals we are up against and uphold the law now.

Eat shit chuck Schumer lmao.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
Chuck Schumer should be censured. Completely inappropriate.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Obviously I want SCOTUS to do the right thing here and allow a state to put the screws to abortion providers.

But what would make it even better is I go to a very lib law school. And oh the tears of unfathomable sadness from people here who would never be caught dead in a place like Louisiana would make it all the sweater.

One of my classmates is a super lib abortion advocate and asked me if I knew that in "republican states" it's common for women to have the "burden" of driving "like 100 miles" to have an abortion.

This would be lit AF. SCOTUS are people too. I hope any conservative minded justices who were considering striking down the law take a look at the animals we are up against and uphold the law now.

Eat shit chuck Schumer lmao.

Liberal tears are always tasty, but they are simply delicious when the good guys get a win on the abortion front. Really hope SCOTUS holds. And super duper delicious when Pencil Neck looks bad and is exposed for the shill he is.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,608
Reaction score
20,090
Legacy, looks like one from your team just took a play out of Trump's playbook.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,009
Legacy, looks like one from your team just took a play out of Trump's playbook.

Not even Trump's playbook.

Unless we are talking about Trump's "Fire and fury" comment about destroying...North Korea I think? Schumer had that level of statement about two members of SCOTUS though.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Legacy, looks like one from your team just took a play out of Trump's playbook.

Where do you get that I agree with Schumer or Obama? Repost any of mine that praise their work.. Do you think I agree with S’s comments?
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,608
Reaction score
20,090
Where do you get that I agree with Schumer or Obama? Repost any of mine that praise their work.. Do you think I agree with S’s comments?

I didn't say you agreed with Schumer's comments. My point is you have been bashing Trump for threatening states and here Schumer is personally threatening two members of the SC. Let's be honest. If that had been DJT speaking about the justices, you'd be calling for immediate removal from office.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I didn't say you agreed with Schumer's comments. My point is you have been bashing Trump for threatening states and here Schumer is personally threatening two members of the SC. Let's be honest. If that had been DJT speaking about the justices, you'd be calling for immediate removal from office.

"Let's be honest." ??

Let's not duck the question, shall we? Where have I ever praised Obama or Schumer? You really have no idea of what I feel about them, O's presidency or policies, or what I would say about Schumer's remarks, do you?

Your original statement to me was "your team just took a play out of Trump's playbook."

Now you are projecting that I would be calling for DJT to immediately be removed from office for similar remarks?
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
"Let's be honest." ??

Let's not duck the question, shall we? Where have I ever praised Obama or Schumer? You really have no idea of what I feel about them, O's presidency or policies, or what I would say about Schumer's remarks, do you?

Your original statement to me was "your team just took a play out of Trump's playbook."

Now you are projecting that I would be calling for DJT to immediately be removed from office for similar remarks?

"Let's be honest"

If we focus on what you have said, which is limited to negative Trump, negative conservative policy, pro progressive policy, and crediting Obama for the economy and other stuff, it's not surprising that some folks would link you to a team.

But please, enlighten us.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,608
Reaction score
20,090
"Let's be honest." ??

Let's not duck the question, shall we? Where have I ever praised Obama or Schumer? You really have no idea of what I feel about them, O's presidency or policies, or what I would say about Schumer's remarks, do you?

Your original statement to me was "your team just took a play out of Trump's playbook."

Now you are projecting that I would be calling for DJT to immediately be removed from office for similar remarks?

Nice try at a spin. A fail, but a good try. You'd give Fred a good run for his money.

Z30la3m.gif
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
A good discussion in a Podcast of the legalities and limitations involved in the federal government penalizing states and localities from the Federalist Society.

Sanctuary Cities
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum


In 2015, 32-year old Kate Steinle was shot in San Francisco by an Illegal Immigrant. The immigrant was previously deported five times and had seven prior felony convictions. This incident, along with additional stories of criminal behavior by illegal aliens, drew national attention to the issue of sanctuary cities.The Center for Immigration Studies defines sanctuary cities as localities which, by statute or action, seek to shield information regarding illegal aliens from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Sanctuary counties, however, vastly outnumber sanctuary cities, and seven states have adopted statewide sanctuary policies. As of 2017, undocumented immigrants were estimated to number about 12.5 million, with the largest populations of such immigrants in California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Of the illegal immigrants arrested by ICE in 2017, 74% had criminal histories and 16% faced criminal charges. In light of the data, concerns arise that sanctuary cities, by withholding information from ICE, protect illegal aliens who are also dangerous criminals from deportation and thereby pose national security risks.

Furthermore, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits state and local governments or officials from inhibiting the flow of information regarding immigrants to ICE. Seeking to enforce §1373, President Trump in 2017 issued an executive order conditioning federal grants to states and municipalities upon cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Subsequent legal challenges brought by cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia have successfully blocked the order’s enforcement, citing the Constitution’s requirement that Congress must approve any new conditions on federal funding. State and local governments, however, have also launched their own anti-sanctuary initiatives. Tennessee, for instance, banned sanctuary cities in May of this year, following Texas, whose law mandating full local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement was upheld by the Fifth Circuit, and numerous municipalities in California have declared opposition to their state’s sanctuary policies. California’s sanctuary laws have also been challenged in a lawsuit brought by the United States, which claims that these laws violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Making Federalism Great Again How the Trump Administration’s Attack on Sanctuary Cities Unintentionally Strengthened Judicial Protection for State Autonomy
ARTICLE - by Ilya Somin - SYMPOSIUM ISSUE (Texas LawReview)

Introduction
Over the last few years, “sanctuary cities”—jurisdictions that refuse to assist federal government attempts to deport undocumented immigrants—have been at the center of the growing political conflict over immigration policy. Donald Trump targeted sanctuary cities for special opprobrium in his 2016 presidential campaign, and his Administration has made a priority of forcing them to comply with federal dictates. The Trump Administration’s efforts to punish these jurisdictions have led to multiple legal battles over constitutional federalism.

The resulting court decisions have dealt a series of defeats for the Administration that have significant implications going beyond the field of immigration policy. This is the first academic article to attempt a comprehensive evaluation of the federalism issues at stake in the Trump-era litigation on sanctuary cities. The Trump Administration’s crackdown on sanctuary jurisdictions has helped make federalism great again. It achieved this unintended outcome by generating a series of court decisions protecting state and local governments against federal coercion, and by leading many on the political left to take a more favorable view of judicial enforcement of constitutional limits on federal power.

Part I of the Article summarizes the three main sets of cases that have been the focus of sanctuary litigation under the Trump Administration: legal challenges to Trump’s January 2017 executive order on sanctuary cities; challenges to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s July 2017 policy of conditioning federal law enforcement grants on state and local government cooperation with federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants;44See and the Administration’s lawsuit against California’s “sanctuary state” law.

All three sets of cases raise crucial issues for federalism. If the Administration were to prevail in the litigation over either Executive Order (EO) 13768 or the Sessions policy, the Executive would have broad power to impose new conditions on federal grants to state and local governments that have not been authorized by Congress. That would give the President immense leverage over states and localities, which are dependent on federal funds on a variety of issues. It would also undercut Congress’s control of the power of the purse.

Many of the decisions ruling against the Administration also address the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1373, a federal law barring state and local governments from instructing their employees to refuse to provide federal officials “information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Entirely aside from its use as a grant condition in the Trump Executive Order and the Sessions policy, § 1373 may be unconstitutional under Supreme Court decisions barring federal “commandeering” of state and local governments under the Tenth Amendment. Should § 1373 be upheld by the courts, it would enable the federal government to use similar strategies to circumvent the anti-commandeering rule in other contexts.

In Part II, I examine the results of the litigation to date. With rare exceptions, courts have ruled against the Administration on all the major federalism issues at stake in the sanctuary cases. I explain why these results are largely justified, and also why the Administration’s opponents deserve to prevail on the one key issue in the sanctuary state case that has so far gone in the Administration’s favor: the dispute over the constitutionality of Assembly Bill (AB) 450, a provision of California’s sanctuary state law restricting private-employer cooperation with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

Part III considers the broader implications of the sanctuary litigation for federalism. Should the Administration prevail, it would have very dangerous implications for constitutional limits on federal power more generally. The consequences would extend far beyond the specific context of immigration policy. Even conservatives who sympathize with the Trump Administration’s campaign against sanctuary cities are likely to have reason to fear the ways in which future administrations—including liberal-Democratic ones—could use these same powers.

The sanctuary cities litigation is also a striking example of the potentially shifting ideological valence of judicial enforcement of federalism. For most of the period since the New Deal, such enforcement has often been viewed favorably by the political right and opposed by the left. One of the main reasons for left-of-center skepticism of federalism has been its apparent historic association with discrimination against unpopular racial and ethnic minorities. The sanctuary cities cases are among the recent developments indicating that we can no longer assume that federal power is necessarily the friend of minorities, and state and local authorities their enemies. In these cases, liberal “blue” jurisdictions have been relying on Supreme Court federalism precedents, authored by conservative Justices, to protect (primarily) Latino undocumented immigrants against a Republican administration asserting a broad view of federal power historically associated with the left.

The sanctuary cities cases suggest that the traditional ideological division over judicial review of federalism may be outdated. But the extent to which the left and right shift their positions on these issues remains to be seen.

In this Article, I do not consider issues raised in the sanctuary cities litigation that are not directly related to constitutional-federalism limits on federal power. Thus, I do not consider procedural questions such as standing and ripeness, nor do I address the debate over whether nationwide injunctions are appropriate remedies in these cases—a hotly contested issue that goes beyond the federalism context. I also do not consider issues of preemption raised by the California sanctuary state case, which do not directly pertain to the structural scope of federal power relative to the states, as opposed to interpretations of the scope of particular statutes.

Finally, this Article does not attempt to ascertain the correct original meaning of the relevant constitutional provisions, though I do briefly explain how the sanctuary decisions are at least roughly consonant with it. (cont)

Any engagement over the important principles involved in these constitutional issues? I expect the courts to continue to rule against every one of the Admin's attempts to commandeer state and local governments except in rare instances and against providing a President the immense power of the purse to leverage over them.
 
Last edited:

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
You Know Something's Up When Neil Gorsuch Sounds—For a Moment—Like Thurgood Marshall
By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair trial also guarantees a unanimous verdict for conviction in state courts.


BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
APR 20, 2020

Working from home Monday, the Supreme Court handed down an interesting decision concerning the rights of criminal defendants, a decision that split the Court in rather a unique way. The case was Ramos v. Louisiana, in which a convicted murderer challenged that state’s law that a unanimous jury verdict was not required in a criminal case. (Ramos was convicted by a 10-2 jury vote.) At issue was whether or not the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees required unanimous verdicts in criminal cases arising in state courts. In 1972, in Apodaca v. Oregon, a badly split Court had ruled that it did not. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have treated Apodaca like a red-headed stepchild, layering on ambiguity and avoiding the subject until nobody was really sure of Apodaca's value as a precedent. As of Monday, it has none.

By a vote of 6-3, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair trial also guarantees a unanimous verdict for conviction in state courts. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion in which he was joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, as well as three of the four liberal justices. The fourth, Justice Elena Kagan, joined Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent. (Kagan’s dissent leaned hard into stare decisis.) Ultimately, the debate on the court apparently centered on the application of the doctrine of stare decisis to Apodaca. It's a decision nobody ever really liked, and one that had at its heart the fundamental absurdity that unanimous jury verdicts should be required in federal criminal cases, but not in state criminal cases, where the majority of criminal cases are adjudicated.

In his majority opinion, Gorsuch was quite clear that it was time for Apodaca to go. He even cited the fact that Louisiana’s reliance on non-unanimous verdict had been born in the days of Jim Crow, coupling it with other laws adopted at the time, including the poll tax, at a “Redeemer” state constitutional convention called for the express purpose of "establish[ing] the supremacy of the white race.” (Oregon, the only other state to allow non-unanimous verdicts, adopted the policy at the instigation of the Ku Klux Klan.) You know a decision is odious when Neil Gorsuch starts sounding like Thurgood Marshall, even for only a moment. If you are nervous that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas joined up to hand-wave stare decisis, you have a right to be. But this was the correct call.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,009
Anytime Alito, Roberts, and Kagan are on the same side..I'm intrigued.

I think unanimous verdicts are probably good but not for racial reasons.
 
Top