SCOTUS

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
njbill
Posts: 6835
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:35 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by njbill »

Only two decisions today. No word yet on additional opinion days.

Trump tax return cases not decided today.

The shortest of summaries for the two cases decided today: no robocalls, no faithless electors.
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by seacoaster »

njbill
Posts: 6835
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:35 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by njbill »

The Court has updated its calendar to now list tomorrow as being an opinion issuance day.
njbill
Posts: 6835
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:35 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by njbill »

Chief Justice Roberts had a fall on June 21 that required a brief, overnight hospitalization. Sounds like he is OK but, boy, has he had an eventful year.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics ... index.html
CU88
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by CU88 »

SCOTUS is issuing at least one more decision today at 10 am Eastern.

3 of the last 6 cases are Trump financials.
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by seacoaster »

CU88 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:24 am SCOTUS is issuing at least one more decision today at 10 am Eastern.

3 of the last 6 cases are Trump financials.
Preview:

http://amylhowe.com/2020/07/06/after-op ... decisions/
CU88
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by CU88 »

"And if tradition means anything, it won't be the last day because the court always gives notice when the final opinions are coming. 5 cases left, including 2 o Trump financial records."
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by seacoaster »

Two religion cases decided today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

The Trump cases, and a case from Oklahoma about tribal jurisdiction, are all that remain
User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 4440
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Kismet »

seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:24 am Two religion cases decided today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

The Trump cases, and a case from Oklahoma about tribal jurisdiction, are all that remain
All will be decided/published tomorrow - which has been announced as the last day of the term.
Last edited by Kismet on Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jhu72
Posts: 13877
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jhu72 »

seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:24 am Two religion cases decided today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

The Trump cases, and a case from Oklahoma about tribal jurisdiction, are all that remain
… the Little Sister of the Poor decision just drives one more nail into Trump's and the republicans coffin. Thanks guys! :D

... the other case is not really a surprise, a corporatist court deciding for the corporation's ability to ignore employment law.
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25749
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:35 am
seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:24 am Two religion cases decided today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

The Trump cases, and a case from Oklahoma about tribal jurisdiction, are all that remain
… the Little Sister of the Poor decision just drives one more nail into Trump's and the republicans coffin. Thanks guys! :D

... the other case is not really a surprise, a corporatist court deciding for the corporation's ability to ignore employment law.
Someone will need to explain to me why the religious institutions shouldn't need to follow employment law that does not involve religion, but I agree that the religious exception for contraceptives decision only hastens a public option and ultimately the removal of employer provided insurance supported by tax deductions. It simply makes no sense for health insurance to not be transportable, and for corporations to be in the position of deciding what insurance to provide, with or without 'moral' claims.
jhu72
Posts: 13877
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jhu72 »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:49 am
jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:35 am
seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:24 am Two religion cases decided today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

The Trump cases, and a case from Oklahoma about tribal jurisdiction, are all that remain
… the Little Sister of the Poor decision just drives one more nail into Trump's and the republicans coffin. Thanks guys! :D

... the other case is not really a surprise, a corporatist court deciding for the corporation's ability to ignore employment law.
Someone will need to explain to me why the religious institutions shouldn't need to follow employment law that does not involve religion, but I agree that the religious exception for contraceptives decision only hastens a public option and ultimately the removal of employer provided insurance supported by tax deductions. It simply makes no sense for health insurance to not be transportable, and for corporations to be in the position of deciding what insurance to provide, with or without 'moral' claims.
yup. The electoral effect of the LSoP decision just energizes the democratic base more. The other decision may have a similar effect, but is far less of a hot button. Certainly does not make me feel any warmer about republican court corporatism and religious bias. I am thinking of starting a Church, The First Church of the Quantum Singularity. Fatty accuses science of being a religion, might as well get the perks and benefits. :lol:
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by seacoaster »

jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:03 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:49 am
jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:35 am
seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:24 am Two religion cases decided today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

The Trump cases, and a case from Oklahoma about tribal jurisdiction, are all that remain
… the Little Sister of the Poor decision just drives one more nail into Trump's and the republicans coffin. Thanks guys! :D

... the other case is not really a surprise, a corporatist court deciding for the corporation's ability to ignore employment law.
Someone will need to explain to me why the religious institutions shouldn't need to follow employment law that does not involve religion, but I agree that the religious exception for contraceptives decision only hastens a public option and ultimately the removal of employer provided insurance supported by tax deductions. It simply makes no sense for health insurance to not be transportable, and for corporations to be in the position of deciding what insurance to provide, with or without 'moral' claims.
yup. The electoral effect of the LSoP decision just energizes the democratic base more. The other decision may have a similar effect, but is far less of a hot button. Certainly does not make me feel any warmer about republican court corporatism and religious bias. I am thinking of starting a Church, The First Church of the Quantum Singularity. Fatty accuses science of being a religion, might as well get the perks and benefits. :lol:
Right; you just need to publish your doctrine expansively enough to be able to ascribe your religious mandates to your employees' conditions of employment.

These cases are part of a trend by the Court, where the Free Exercise Clause is, whenever in something like conflict or contact with Establishment issues, Free Exercise wins.

Here is a snip from OLG:

"What matters, at bottom, is what an employee does. And implicit in our decision in Hosanna-Tabor was a recognition that educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private
religious school. As we put it, Perich had been entrusted with the responsibility of “transmitting the Lutheran faith to the next generation.” One of the concurrences made the same point, concluding that the exception should include “any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”

And these employees, the record showed, the following:

"There is abundant record evidence that they both performed vital religious duties. Educating and forming students in the Catholic faith lay at
the core of the mission of the schools where they taught, and their employment agreements and faculty handbooks specified in no uncertain terms that they were expected to help the schools carry out this mission and that their work would be evaluated to ensure that they were fulfilling that responsibility. As elementary school teachers responsible for providing instruction in all subjects, including religion, they were the members of the school staff who were entrusted most directly with the responsibility of educating their students in the faith."

So, what about the accountant or bookkeeper? The custodial staff? The CFO? My guess is that every religious institution will be working on job descriptions -- "The Lacrosse Coach's duties are directly related the central mission of the School...."
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25749
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:19 am
jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:03 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:49 am
jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:35 am
seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:24 am Two religion cases decided today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

The Trump cases, and a case from Oklahoma about tribal jurisdiction, are all that remain
… the Little Sister of the Poor decision just drives one more nail into Trump's and the republicans coffin. Thanks guys! :D

... the other case is not really a surprise, a corporatist court deciding for the corporation's ability to ignore employment law.
Someone will need to explain to me why the religious institutions shouldn't need to follow employment law that does not involve religion, but I agree that the religious exception for contraceptives decision only hastens a public option and ultimately the removal of employer provided insurance supported by tax deductions. It simply makes no sense for health insurance to not be transportable, and for corporations to be in the position of deciding what insurance to provide, with or without 'moral' claims.
yup. The electoral effect of the LSoP decision just energizes the democratic base more. The other decision may have a similar effect, but is far less of a hot button. Certainly does not make me feel any warmer about republican court corporatism and religious bias. I am thinking of starting a Church, The First Church of the Quantum Singularity. Fatty accuses science of being a religion, might as well get the perks and benefits. :lol:
Right; you just need to publish your doctrine expansively enough to be able to ascribe your religious mandates to your employees' conditions of employment.

These cases are part of a trend by the Court, where the Free Exercise Clause is, whenever in something like conflict or contact with Establishment issues, Free Exercise wins.

Here is a snip from OLG:

"What matters, at bottom, is what an employee does. And implicit in our decision in Hosanna-Tabor was a recognition that educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private
religious school. As we put it, Perich had been entrusted with the responsibility of “transmitting the Lutheran faith to the next generation.” One of the concurrences made the same point, concluding that the exception should include “any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”

And these employees, the record showed, the following:

"There is abundant record evidence that they both performed vital religious duties. Educating and forming students in the Catholic faith lay at
the core of the mission of the schools where they taught, and their employment agreements and faculty handbooks specified in no uncertain terms that they were expected to help the schools carry out this mission and that their work would be evaluated to ensure that they were fulfilling that responsibility. As elementary school teachers responsible for providing instruction in all subjects, including religion, they were the members of the school staff who were entrusted most directly with the responsibility of educating their students in the faith."

So, what about the accountant or bookkeeper? The custodial staff? The CFO? My guess is that every religious institution will be working on job descriptions -- "The Lacrosse Coach's duties are directly related the central mission of the School...."
I can imagine a compelling argument that someone whose role is religious instruction would need to conform to certain guard rails for such instruction, but if I understood my quick skim correctly, these folks were claiming their dismissal was due for non-religious reasons.

Did I misunderstand?
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by seacoaster »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:32 am
seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:19 am
jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:03 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:49 am
jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:35 am
seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:24 am Two religion cases decided today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

The Trump cases, and a case from Oklahoma about tribal jurisdiction, are all that remain
… the Little Sister of the Poor decision just drives one more nail into Trump's and the republicans coffin. Thanks guys! :D

... the other case is not really a surprise, a corporatist court deciding for the corporation's ability to ignore employment law.
Someone will need to explain to me why the religious institutions shouldn't need to follow employment law that does not involve religion, but I agree that the religious exception for contraceptives decision only hastens a public option and ultimately the removal of employer provided insurance supported by tax deductions. It simply makes no sense for health insurance to not be transportable, and for corporations to be in the position of deciding what insurance to provide, with or without 'moral' claims.
yup. The electoral effect of the LSoP decision just energizes the democratic base more. The other decision may have a similar effect, but is far less of a hot button. Certainly does not make me feel any warmer about republican court corporatism and religious bias. I am thinking of starting a Church, The First Church of the Quantum Singularity. Fatty accuses science of being a religion, might as well get the perks and benefits. :lol:
Right; you just need to publish your doctrine expansively enough to be able to ascribe your religious mandates to your employees' conditions of employment.

These cases are part of a trend by the Court, where the Free Exercise Clause is, whenever in something like conflict or contact with Establishment issues, Free Exercise wins.

Here is a snip from OLG:

"What matters, at bottom, is what an employee does. And implicit in our decision in Hosanna-Tabor was a recognition that educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private
religious school. As we put it, Perich had been entrusted with the responsibility of “transmitting the Lutheran faith to the next generation.” One of the concurrences made the same point, concluding that the exception should include “any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”

And these employees, the record showed, the following:

"There is abundant record evidence that they both performed vital religious duties. Educating and forming students in the Catholic faith lay at
the core of the mission of the schools where they taught, and their employment agreements and faculty handbooks specified in no uncertain terms that they were expected to help the schools carry out this mission and that their work would be evaluated to ensure that they were fulfilling that responsibility. As elementary school teachers responsible for providing instruction in all subjects, including religion, they were the members of the school staff who were entrusted most directly with the responsibility of educating their students in the faith."

So, what about the accountant or bookkeeper? The custodial staff? The CFO? My guess is that every religious institution will be working on job descriptions -- "The Lacrosse Coach's duties are directly related the central mission of the School...."
I can imagine a compelling argument that someone whose role is religious instruction would need to conform to certain guard rails for such instruction, but if I understood my quick skim correctly, these folks were claiming their dismissal was due for non-religious reasons.

Did I misunderstand?
You did not; you have only to read Sotomayor's dissent to understand that the terminations, from the employees' perspectives, were due to age and infirmity. The majority opinion doesn't care, and forbids any meaningful examination of the actual basis for the employment decision. It is a Church Autonomy mandate.
jhu72
Posts: 13877
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jhu72 »

seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:38 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:32 am
seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:19 am
jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:03 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:49 am
jhu72 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:35 am
seacoaster wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:24 am Two religion cases decided today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

The Trump cases, and a case from Oklahoma about tribal jurisdiction, are all that remain
… the Little Sister of the Poor decision just drives one more nail into Trump's and the republicans coffin. Thanks guys! :D

... the other case is not really a surprise, a corporatist court deciding for the corporation's ability to ignore employment law.
Someone will need to explain to me why the religious institutions shouldn't need to follow employment law that does not involve religion, but I agree that the religious exception for contraceptives decision only hastens a public option and ultimately the removal of employer provided insurance supported by tax deductions. It simply makes no sense for health insurance to not be transportable, and for corporations to be in the position of deciding what insurance to provide, with or without 'moral' claims.
yup. The electoral effect of the LSoP decision just energizes the democratic base more. The other decision may have a similar effect, but is far less of a hot button. Certainly does not make me feel any warmer about republican court corporatism and religious bias. I am thinking of starting a Church, The First Church of the Quantum Singularity. Fatty accuses science of being a religion, might as well get the perks and benefits. :lol:
Right; you just need to publish your doctrine expansively enough to be able to ascribe your religious mandates to your employees' conditions of employment.

These cases are part of a trend by the Court, where the Free Exercise Clause is, whenever in something like conflict or contact with Establishment issues, Free Exercise wins.

Here is a snip from OLG:

"What matters, at bottom, is what an employee does. And implicit in our decision in Hosanna-Tabor was a recognition that educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private
religious school. As we put it, Perich had been entrusted with the responsibility of “transmitting the Lutheran faith to the next generation.” One of the concurrences made the same point, concluding that the exception should include “any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”

And these employees, the record showed, the following:

"There is abundant record evidence that they both performed vital religious duties. Educating and forming students in the Catholic faith lay at
the core of the mission of the schools where they taught, and their employment agreements and faculty handbooks specified in no uncertain terms that they were expected to help the schools carry out this mission and that their work would be evaluated to ensure that they were fulfilling that responsibility. As elementary school teachers responsible for providing instruction in all subjects, including religion, they were the members of the school staff who were entrusted most directly with the responsibility of educating their students in the faith."

So, what about the accountant or bookkeeper? The custodial staff? The CFO? My guess is that every religious institution will be working on job descriptions -- "The Lacrosse Coach's duties are directly related the central mission of the School...."
I can imagine a compelling argument that someone whose role is religious instruction would need to conform to certain guard rails for such instruction, but if I understood my quick skim correctly, these folks were claiming their dismissal was due for non-religious reasons.

Did I misunderstand?
You did not; you have only to read Sotomayor's dissent to understand that the terminations, from the employees' perspectives, were due to age and infirmity. The majority opinion doesn't care, and forbids any meaningful examination of the actual basis for the employment decision. It is a Church Autonomy mandate.
… if a church decided that human sacrifice was a sacrament, they are Autonomous, what does the court do?
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
CU88
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by CU88 »

Thoughts for o d tax returns tomorrow:

1.They find a way to kick this can down the road, to a post-election opinion, just like everyone else in DC these days

2. If not, Congress’s appeal gets denied because they have other means of compelling their production via inherent contempt & not that they’re not entitled to them.

3. Vance gets them because their production relates to a criminal prosecution.

Can anyone tell me, if Vance does get them, how & when??? Or is there even another method for o d to appeal and delay their release?
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
njbill
Posts: 6835
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:35 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by njbill »

If Vance flat out wins tomorrow, I think he gets the documents quite quickly. This is the end of the road for Trump. No appeals.

On the other hand, as I expect, the court may rule that Vance has to satisfy a heightened need standard in order to get these documents. Under this theory, the court will remand the case to the lower courts to determine whether the heightened need standard has been met.

I think the court may also impose a heightened need standard on one or more of the congressional cases which also would get remanded.

Wouldn’t shock me if Trump wins one of the congressional cases out right, but I don’t think he will win them all.

It’s about time for all of the speculating to come to an end. We will know in fewer than 24 hours.
User avatar
CU77
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:49 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by CU77 »

CU88 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm Can anyone tell me, if Vance does get them, how & when??? Or is there even another method for o d to appeal and delay their release?
OD can just refuse to turn them over.

The Constitutional remedy for POTUS defying SCOTUS is impeachment by the House followed by removal by the Senate.
jhu72
Posts: 13877
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jhu72 »

CU77 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:21 am
CU88 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm Can anyone tell me, if Vance does get them, how & when??? Or is there even another method for o d to appeal and delay their release?
OD can just refuse to turn them over.

The Constitutional remedy for POTUS defying SCOTUS is impeachment by the House followed by removal by the Senate.
Yeah, that works really well with these scumbags. :lol:
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”