All Things SCOTUS

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,627
Reaction score
2,732
Yup. As long as she draws breath, she does not have to retire. No mechanism exists for removing a SCOTUS who is permanently incapacitated by illness/injury. One could argue that she could be in a coma for 5 years, and still could not be retired.

I think she'll do everything she can to hold on till 2020. If Trump gets another term, I think she'll retire.

WHEN Trump gets re-elected - she will cryogenically freeze herself, claim she ain't dead yet and demand her seat is still hers (via surrogates of course) with the demand he plug only gets pulled once a Dem is in office. Non-partisan judge of course.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/tns-scotus-religious-freedom-playground-missouri.html
In what some are calling a landmark ruling for religious freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided in favor of a Columbia, Mo., church that had been denied state assistance to improve its playground.

The high court's 7-2 ruling in a suit known as Trinity Lutheran of Columbia v. Comer undoes a Missouri constitutional ban on providing taxpayer-funded help to religious groups. Similar "no-aid" clauses exist in as many as 38 other state constitutions.

Ten Commandments amendment overwhelmingly approved (al.com)

Young Activists Can Sue Government Over Climate Change, Supreme Court Says (NPR, Nov 3, 2018)
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,620
Reaction score
20,104

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
We are no longer one nation under God. We are two nations under politicians.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Samoans born in American Samoa, a U.S. territory, are not American citizens. They can work in the U.S., pay taxes, and are similar in many other ways to Americans. They cannot vote. Native Americans were not U.S. citizens though subject to U.S. and state laws until 1924 when an Act of Congress - The Indian Citizenship Act - granted them that right.

Recently, some Samoans have filed lawsuits to gain the rights of citizenship under the 14th Amendment which says:
"...all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were declared citizens.

Over the years, Congress has decided on a per territory basis to allow those born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands to claim citizenship by birth. But not Samoans. Their children born in the U.S., however, are U.S. citizens.

The lawsuits also contends that a racial bias to a SCOTUS decision known as the "Insular Cases". SCOTUS distinguished between "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territories. The former, such as Arizona and New Mexico, mostly settled by white people, were thought destined to be a permanent part of the U.S. The latter, such as American Samoa, weren't considered candidates for statehood, whose inhabitants were described as "alien races" and "uncivilized," and thus weren't granted full constitutional rights.

President Trump recently said that he could end such birthright citizenship that Samoan children born in the U.S. currently have a right to by executive order. Congress disagrees and has always passed Congressional Acts to do this as noted above.

Thousands of Samoans live in Utah, whose Congressional delegation is divided on the issue. Sen Mike Lee has introduced a bill that would end birthright citizenship. Both candidates for the Rep of the 4th District, for instance, oppose any such bill. That includes Mia Love (R), whose parents escaped Haiti when they were targeted by the government and who obtained her right of citizenship by birth. Her parents were in the U.S. legally. The President has recently removed protected status from a number of nations by executive order, including Haiti, which he termed a "shithole country". As are many Samoans in Utah, Love is a Morman.

She has said in the past:
“I have always opposed presidential attempts to change immigration law unilaterally. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to ‘establish a uniform rule of naturalization’ and the 14th Amendment makes the conditions of citizenship clear: Individuals born in this country are citizens.”
Recently, Trump in a post-election news conference noting that Love had lost her election, attributing her "loss" to not asking for his support, saying:
“Mia Love gave me no love and she lost. Too bad. Sorry about that, Mia.”
As final ballots are being counted in her District, Love has pulled ahead of her Democratic opponent.

Today we do not consider Samoans to be an "alien race" and "uncivilized". They are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. as defined by the 14th Amendment, but Congress has not granted them citizenship. Should removal of birthright citizenship only apply to those whose parents are here illegally, or to those whose parents are here legally, including those who are from an American territory like Somoa, but are not citizens? Almost all legal scholars feel that removal of birthright citizenship as defined by the 14th Amendment cannot be done by EO. On this point, the Utah delegation is united.

Rep John Curtis (R) has said:
“Birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment and would require a constitutional amendment to revoke that protected right. As a firm believer in our constitutional form of government and the separation of powers, the president cannot unilaterally alter the Constitution.”
 
Last edited:

MJ12666

New member
Messages
794
Reaction score
60
Samoans born in American Samoa, a U.S. territory, are not American citizens. They can work in the U.S., pay taxes, and are similar in many other ways to Americans. They cannot vote. Native Americans were not U.S. citizens though subject to U.S. and state laws until 1924 when an Act of Congress - The Indian Citizenship Act - granted them that right.

Recently, some Samoans have filed lawsuits to gain the rights of citizenship under the 14th Amendment which says:
"...all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were declared citizens.

Over the years, Congress has decided on a per territory basis to allow those born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands to claim citizenship by birth. But not Samoans. Their children born in the U.S., however, are U.S. citizens.

The lawsuits also contends that a racial bias to a SCOTUS decision known as the "Insular Cases". SCOTUS distinguished between "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territories. The former, such as Arizona and New Mexico, mostly settled by white people, were thought destined to be a permanent part of the U.S. The latter, such as American Samoa, weren't considered candidates for statehood, whose inhabitants were described as "alien races" and "uncivilized," and thus weren't granted full constitutional rights.

President Trump recently said that he could end such birthright citizenship that Samoan children born in the U.S. currently have a right to by executive order. Congress disagrees and has always passed Congressional Acts to do this as noted above.

Thousands of Samoans live in Utah, whose Congressional delegation is divided on the issue. Sen Mike Lee has introduced a bill that would end birthright citizenship. Both candidates for the Rep of the 4th District, for instance, oppose any such bill. That includes Mia Love (R), whose parents escaped Haiti when they were targeted by the government and who obtained her right of citizenship by birth. Her parents were in the U.S. legally. The President has recently removed protected status from a number of nations by executive order, including Haiti, which he termed a "shithole country". As are many Samoans in Utah, Love is a Morman.

She has said in the past:

Recently, Trump in a post-election news conference noting that Love had lost her election, attributing her "loss" to not asking for his support, saying:
As final ballots are being counted in her District, Love has pulled ahead of her Democratic opponent.

Today we do not consider Samoans to be an "alien race" and "uncivilized". They are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. as defined by the 14th Amendment, but Congress has not granted them citizenship. Should removal of birthright citizenship only apply to those whose parents are here illegally, or to those whose parents are here legally, including those who are from an American territory like Somoa, but are not citizens? Almost all legal scholars feel that removal of birthright citizenship as defined by the 14th Amendment cannot be done by EO. On this point, the Utah delegation is united.

Rep John Curtis (R) has said:

All most all but obviously not all. I read several pieces that make a good argument that it can be done via EO. Ultimately, if Trump takes action on this issue the only opinions that really matter is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,412
Reaction score
5,839
All most all but obviously not all. I read several pieces that make a good argument that it can be done via EO. Ultimately, if Trump takes action on this issue the only opinions that really matter is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.

I think that it CAN be done by Executive Order.

That said, I think it would be a terrible mistake to do it by Executive Order. The Executive Branch has become waaaay too powerful and the Legislative a dud.

This needs to be debated and passed in Congress. Even a lame duck Congress.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
EOs are a bad way to govern. I posted a couple of articles in the Immigration thread on the frustrations Presidents have had, especially overcoming the Flores settlement (1993). The judicial then kicks it back to the legislative. There is a clause in the original Flores settlement that would have sunset-ended the agreement after five years, but it required the government to implement the terms of the settlement as a federal regulation. The government has had the ability for twenty-five years to extricate themselves from the requirements of the Flores settlement, but they've never had the will to institute the rules that are necessary for it to do so. Presidents can complain about the 9th Circuit, and issue their EOs but they haven't had any luck in appealing those rulings on this.

Without comment:
Trump hits back at Chief Justice Roberts, escalating an extraordinary exchange

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and President Donald Trump took swipes at each other Wednesday in an extraordinary exchange over just how partisan federal courts really are.

Roberts said Wednesday morning there are no “Obama judges or Trump judges” after the president attacked the judge who ruled against his attempt to restrict asylum seekers at the border earlier this week.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Later in the afternoon, Trump hit back with two posts on Twitter:

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ but if it is why.....,” the president wrote, followed by: “.....are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security — these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”he president had originally attacked a District Court judge who ruled against his asylum policy as an 'Obama judge.'
 
Last edited:

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Partisan Congress not legislating is an even worse way to govern. How long have immigration laws been broken, and how long will existing law be unenforced?
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,706
Reaction score
6,013
I think that it CAN be done by Executive Order.

That said, I think it would be a terrible mistake to do it by Executive Order. The Executive Branch has become waaaay too powerful and the Legislative a dud.

This needs to be debated and passed in Congress. Even a lame duck Congress.

Yep. I hate when the Executive Branch pulls shit(whether or not I agree with it) that really should be taken care of by Congress. Unfortunately, they punt on 3rd down.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,412
Reaction score
5,839
EO is bad and so is a single judge using his bench to open the door for a sweeping immigration policy change. One that is wildly radical to most.

Easy to see why Trump is irritated. Also, after the disgraceful behavior during the Kavanaugh confirmation, I think the Judiciary is politicized to everyone outside of it.

As long as FedSoc is the gatekeeper to the court, I’m ok with it.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,412
Reaction score
5,839
Case Watch: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-663/72489/20181119123335039_3-petition.pdf

Docket submitted today to challenge interstate handgun sale ban and asks whether or not it is a violation of the Second and Fifth Amendment.

The submission comes from Alan Gura, the attorney who won in the Heller and McDonald cases. A D.C. couple legally purchased a handgun in Texas to have transferred to D.C. , but DC has no firearms retailers (for obvious reason) putting a legal block on their ability to exercise their 2A rights.

The cert also does a good job pointing out inconsistencies in the application of 2A cases post heller and how it seems optional 3 of the circuits.

Enjoy for you SCOTUS and gun fans.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
That will be interesting. I would think that the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce and states' rights to pass legislation in the interests of their citizens have already been well established and protected by the Constitution. This seems to have been making its way from the 5th District in Texas, etc with the defendants changing from AGs Holder, Sessions, and now acting -AG Whitaker.

Appeals Court ruling. . (Mance v Sessions)

Finishing my thoughts. This would appear to be a second bite at the apple to contest the limitations in Heller that Scalia for the majority opinion of SCOTUS, well-documented of course, dating back to English law principles. The plaintiffs if succeeding would effectively eliminate all background checks, federal licensing of gun dealers, any Congressional restrictions that laws like the Gun Control Act placed on gun sales, any restriction on any types of arms purchasing, any state taxations and more. Having the defendant being an Acting Attorney General, who has stated he is a vigorous proponent of no restrictions on the Second Amendment and who has not been confirmed by the Senate, to mount a vigorous defense would seem to have constitutional issues.
 
Last edited:

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,412
Reaction score
5,839
That will be interesting. I would think that the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce and states' rights to pass legislation in the interests of their citizens have already been well established and protected by the Constitution. This seems to have been making its way from the 5th District in Texas, etc with the defendants changing from AGs Holder, Sessions, and now acting -AG Whitaker.

Appeals Court ruling. . (Mance v Sessions)

Finishing my thoughts. This would appear to be a second bite at the apple to contest the limitations in Heller that Scalia for the majority opinion of SCOTUS, well-documented of course, dating back to English law principles. The plaintiffs if succeeding would effectively eliminate all background checks, federal licensing of gun dealers, any Congressional restrictions that laws like the Gun Control Act placed on gun sales, any restriction on any types of arms purchasing, any state taxations and more. Having the defendant being an Acting Attorney General, who has stated he is a vigorous proponent of no restrictions on the Second Amendment and who has not been confirmed by the Senate, to mount a vigorous defense would seem to have constitutional issues.

It would be interesting to see what kind of defense the AG would mount. I'd think that it would be whoever the permanent AG is, not Whitaker.

I also look to see the scope of the ruling limited to defining heightened scrutiny for 2A cases and relaxing interstate restrictions on gun transfers. I would be shocked to see a majority opinion expand into background checks or other restrictions.

We're due for a 2A case and the mess in the lower courts should make something like this a prime candidate.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,412
Reaction score
5,839
Apple V. Pepper will be heard tomorrow.

iPhone users argue that Apple is violating federal antitrust laws by requiring them to buy apps only from Apple’s App Store, at inflated prices. But Apple counters that under the Supreme Court’s cases the iPhone users don’t have a case at all, because Apple is simply selling the apps to iPhone users at the prices that the app developers set. The implications of the case could be significant not only for Apple, which could face millions of dollars’ worth of damages if the case is allowed to go forward and the company is found liable, but also for other companies that operate similar “electronic marketplaces.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/a...trust-lawsuit-by-iphone-users-can-go-forward/

There’s no telling how this court will view this particular case, and it’s anyone’s guess what obscure legal theory could get pulled into the final opinion. But as far as the core issue goes, it seems perfectly reasonable to treat Apple as a direct seller to users because they have no other options for purchasing apps. If there’s a systemic issue with a digital marketplace’s competitive practices, it seems absurd for courts to expect users to sue every vendor individually. As far as the marketplace’s facing liability for the behavior of individual vendors, the courts are perfectly capable of making judgment calls about what would and wouldn’t be appropriate.

https://gizmodo.com/should-the-supreme-court-knock-the-first-brick-out-of-a-1830569176
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,706
Reaction score
6,013
dogMAGA

barrett_headshot.jpg
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
read this from Vanity Fair
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/ruth-bader-ginsburg-scotus-replacement

Given that Ginsburg is still very much alive—the 85-year-old justice’s exercise routine is intense enough to exhaust grown men decades younger—and widely expected to return to work by the end of February, the White House is treading carefully. “They’re doing it very quietly, of course, because the idea is not to be opportunistic, but just to be prepared so we aren’t caught flat-footed,” said the source.

lol at the bolded.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,706
Reaction score
6,013
Best candidate there is... but the Dems letting in another Catholic is not likely to happen.

Good thing the R's have a comfortable Senate majority. These soyboys couldn't stop Kavanaugh, they can't stop ACB either.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,620
Reaction score
20,104
Last edited:

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
I doubt she is doing her exercise routine having undergone surgery for lung cancer. Given it was lung cancer, I doubt she's been doing her routine for a while before the surgery. At her age, surgery is very hard to come back from.

not sure how intrusive the surgery was, but i doubt she's doing anything except practicing her nod & nap routine right now.

Good thing the R's have a comfortable Senate majority. These soyboys couldn't stop Kavanaugh, they can't stop ACB either.

the left meltdown will be epic. with all the stuff they tried to toss at BKav, i will be interesting to see how they attack a woman this time around if ACB is the pick.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,706
Reaction score
6,013
<iframe width="934" height="525" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iHpqoCmVbjU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A.) Barrett is a milf.
B.) Franken gets owned.
C.) I'm ready for SCOTUS Armageddon.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
<iframe width="934" height="525" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iHpqoCmVbjU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A.) Barrett is a milf.
B.) Franken gets owned.
C.) I'm ready for SCOTUS Armageddon.

The vultures are out.
 
Top