The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[dislaxxic]

Why Is SCOTUS Playing Along With DOJ’s Aggressive Tactics In The Census Case?

"The case is not the only example of the Justice Department moving aggressively to put any setbacks it suffers in a lower court in front of the Supreme Court. It also sought unsuccessfully for the Supreme Court block a trial in a climate change lawsuit, leapfrogging over an appeals court in making the request. The Justice Department tried similarly unorthodox tactics in a case over whether it can rollback protections for undocumented immigrants, known as DACA, where it asked the Supreme Court to take up the case before the lower court review was done. Likewise, in the military transgender ban case, the Justice Department has indicated it would be willing to go directly to the Supreme Court, sidestepping the appellate court.

But the census case took that already unusual strategy to the extreme. The Justice Department was at least partially rewarded for its fast-track tactics by Supreme Court Friday. The court announced that it would hear arguments in February over whether the lower court can order discovery examining Ross’ mindset when adding the citizenship question. Bafflingly, the Supreme Court’s intervention in the case came as the trial was wrapping up, but well before Furman would hand down his decision or an appeals court would have a chance to review it. It’s worth noting that a move to take up a case needs only the support of four justices; it’s unclear what the vote break down was on Friday’s grant in the census case.

The typical process — in which the Supreme Court serves as the final review of how a case was handled, rather than a referee in the midst of the game — has been turned upside down."

..

[seacoaster]

Cert Petition pending on this one:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... -below.pdf

From SCOTUSBlog: "Issues: In determining whether a felon is entitled to lodge an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of a felon disarmament law such as 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), (1) what does the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” in District of Columbia v. Heller mean; and (2) what does it mean that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” are “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” under Heller.

[Trinity]

Trump’s fighting with Chief Justice John Roberts, insisting judges are forever partisan, whining about Obama judges and ignoring the incredible amount of “looking the other way” required to seat Boof Kavanaugh.

[seacoaster]

This:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... c3f09a13bb

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. directed a rare and pointed shot at President Trump on Wednesday, defending the federal judiciary in the wake of Trump’s criticism of an “Obama judge” who ruled against the administration’s attempt to bar migrants who cross the border illegally from seeking asylum.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement released by the court’s public information office. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

The Thanksgiving eve statement added: “That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Supreme Court justices, and the chief in particular, hardly ever issue statements on news events. But it appeared Roberts was eager to counter Trump’s criticism when asked to comment by the Associated Press. The statement did not mention the president."

It didn't need to mention him. Even the Chief knows that the President is a disgrace.

[dislaxxic]

Double Down Tickhead can’t keep his mouth shut...bleats back at Roberts.

#enoughisenough

..

[runrussellrun]

This:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... c3f09a13bb

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. directed a rare and pointed shot at President Trump on Wednesday, defending the federal judiciary in the wake of Trump’s criticism of an “Obama judge” who ruled against the administration’s attempt to bar migrants who cross the border illegally from seeking asylum.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement released by the court’s public information office. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

The Thanksgiving eve statement added: “That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Supreme Court justices, and the chief in particular, hardly ever issue statements on news events. But it appeared Roberts was eager to counter Trump’s criticism when asked to comment by the Associated Press. The statement did not mention the president."

It didn't need to mention him. Even the Chief knows that the President is a disgrace.

Nothing from trump about the judge that says FGM (female genital mutilation) isn't a Federal thing, but a state thing. FGM in Michigan is now against state law, so the judge has a point. But, this fits into the Muslim bashing by trump. If only a reporter would have asked trump or Kav. about dark money, Citizens united, etc.......stuff that matters.

Pink snow balls is better than no balls. book1

[seacoaster]

At around the same time the Chief is carefully speaking out in response to Trump's usual destructive and ill-informed comments, four other Justices of a nine-member Court have recently attended the Federalist Society's annual gala: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh to a standing ovation when he was introduced.

I wonder that, now of all times, these blokes would do this. The Court's institutional integrity and reputation is one of the most important things tying together the various strands that make up the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances, which are themselves in need of a tune-up with this President and the (happily) outgoing Congress. Since Bush v. Gore, the Court's institutional reputation has been in rebuild mode, and appearances at the gala of an archly partisan organization would seem like a serious and obvious bit of bad judgment. Optics matter, especially in our current atmosphere.

[cradleandshoot]

This:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... c3f09a13bb

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. directed a rare and pointed shot at President Trump on Wednesday, defending the federal judiciary in the wake of Trump’s criticism of an “Obama judge” who ruled against the administration’s attempt to bar migrants who cross the border illegally from seeking asylum.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement released by the court’s public information office. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

The Thanksgiving eve statement added: “That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Supreme Court justices, and the chief in particular, hardly ever issue statements on news events. But it appeared Roberts was eager to counter Trump’s criticism when asked to comment by the Associated Press. The statement did not mention the president."

It didn't need to mention him. Even the Chief knows that the President is a disgrace.

I remember when Roberts was being confirmed. There were a whole lotta folks on the Democrat side saying he was just another radical far right wing nut. It turns out Roberts may be a more conservative justice but he sure seems to have a great deal of integrity when it comes to defending all judges. Does this mean that Roberts is not the far right wing nut job he was initially made out to be?

[seacoaster]

Good morning Grumpy.

I don't personally know anyone -- and I mean anyone, irrespective of political leanings -- who thought that Roberts was anything but super qualified for the Court. He was confirmed 78-22, with Democrats splitting exactly down the middle.

[cradleandshoot]

Good morning Grumpy.

I don't personally know anyone -- and I mean anyone, irrespective of political leanings -- who thought that Roberts was anything but super qualified for the Court. He was confirmed 78-22, with Democrats splitting exactly down the middle.

During the oral arguments there was very much skepticism from the democrats as to what kind of judge he would be. He was questioned over and over about Roe v Wade. I remember it was the first time I had ever heard the term stare decisis used. Judge Roberts had to use the term repeatedly because apparently some of the senators didn't believe him. Like all SCOTUS confirmation hearings of the last few decades it was not all sunshine, lollipops and roses for Judge Roberts. When you are grumpy like me all you can go by is what you read or listened to at the time. IMO any nominee to the SCOTUS in this day and age should be eligible for a purple heart when they through the process.

[seacoaster]

"During the oral arguments there was very much skepticism from the democrats as to what kind of judge he would be. He was questioned over and over about Roe v Wade."

And perhaps rightly so; we will see in the coming years how much stare decisis matters to the Court as it banks into a Federalist Society gathering. But that the job of giving "advice and consent" to the President's nominations, isn't it?

[cradleandshoot]

The same word game plays out over and over again. A potential candidate is asked a question. The candidate replies that they can't answer because the issue could come up in front of the court. The candidate is then scolded for being evasive in their answers. The SCOTUS confirmation process should be thorough and tough questions should be asked. IMO the process should not evolve into an inquisition of any candidate. which is exactly what happened the last time around and the same sheetshow will likely play out for every potential nominee that wants to jump into the frying pan. That is how the game is now played.

[seacoaster]

From the Washington Post, a postscript on the little skirmish between a guy with a brain and a guy without one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 0946c937c7

"Trump’s post-World War II predecessors in the White House tried to bolster the public’s sense that the courts act in good faith, even when they disagreed with them. These presidents adhered to unwritten rules such as the taboo against expressing anything stronger than “disappointment” with rulings that didn’t go their way.

At his 2010 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama famously, and inappropriately, chided the Supreme Court for its Citizens United ruling deregulating campaign finance, but even he did not accuse the justices of bad faith.

Presidents respected these norms not only because they thought it was right, but also because it was in their interest. The favorable ruling of a neutral arbiter is worth much more than one from your own judicial poodle.

Trump seems not to care that his own words make it more likely his future victories at the Supreme Court will be regarded as the handiwork of “Trump justices.”

You almost want to tip your hat to Trump for finally putting the truth, as he sees it, ahead of self-interest.

Almost. Trump’s allegations of partisanship add nothing to public discussion of judicial independence, except a fresh justification for Democrats to treat the courts as their political plaything once they get back in power.

Roberts’s plea to respect the good faith of honest judges lacks populist drama. But it is what the country actually needs."

[runrussellrun]

I tried to twitter about the Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu and my favorite Buck vs Bells decisions.....but it was futile.

Foxtrot, Uniform, Charlie and Kelo vs New London was "great" too icon_puke (5th amendment )

What the heck is going on with treating the Supremes as superiour beings. Congress and Executive branch are open to scorn, but the third pillar of mostly lunacy rulings isn't?

[jhu72]

Good morning Grumpy.

I don't personally know anyone -- and I mean anyone, irrespective of political leanings -- who thought that Roberts was anything but super qualified for the Court. He was confirmed 78-22, with Democrats splitting exactly down the middle.

I don't remember anyone on the left thinking Roberts was hard right at time of confirmation. It was clear then and even more clear now, the guy is an institutionalist. His behavior should surprise no one.

[foreverlax]

Trump Misjudges America’s Courts

His attack on a federal judge revealed his own ignorance of the U.S. legal system.

The president’s contention about the Ninth Circuit is misleading at best. Over the past five years, the Supreme Court overturned 92.3% of the Third Circuit decisions it reviewed, 85.1% for the Sixth Circuit and 81.8% for the 11th. The Ninth Circuit clocked in at 77.4%. The picture looks much the same if only the past year’s cases are taken into account.

In addition to being misleading, Mr. Trump’s claim is irrelevant. The Supreme Court doesn’t use much of its docket to hear cases in which it agrees with the lower courts’ holdings. It accepts cases with which it is likely to disagree, or when the lower courts are divided. That is why such a high percentage of the cases it reviews are overturned.

Since 2000 the Supreme Court has decided 36% of its cases unanimously, and another 15% by margins of 8-1 or 7-2, but only 19% by a vote of 5-4.

As law professor Peter Margulies has recently shown, Congress has legislated comprehensively on the asylum issue for more than 20 years, carving out special protections for asylum seekers not enjoyed by other kinds of foreign nationals. At no point did Congress suggest, either explicitly or through silence, that presidents enjoy the kind of sweeping authority asserted by Mr. Trump’s proposed rule.

[seacoaster]

Right, exactly. The Court hears and decides about 100 to 150 cases a year. It receives around 6,000-7,500 petitions from lower court cases, and takes that 100-150.

What this really points out is the importance of the federal courts of appeal, which heard 27,900-plus cases this year. In many respects, these courts and those judges are the courts of final effective appeal.

[seacoaster]

This is a nice overview of the double jeopardy/separate sovereigns case that was in the news a while back. Set for argument next week:

http://amylhowe.com/2018/11/29/argument ... exception/

[dislaxxic]

Kavanaugh’s Court begins its inevitable power grab with Kisor v. Wilkie

Comments from the barrister crowd?

..

[Trinity]

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are fruits of the poisoned tree, along with all those lower court judges.