US Supreme Court Discussions

[Inanna]

Ah, thanks V.

Jude, I think you meant that lower courts deemed it *not* liable.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Jude, yes that is basically correct, with Inanna's correction. The only "relief" available in a situation in which their is a finding of age discrimination but not "but-for" causation is what the Court described as "forward-looking" relief, such as an injunction barring the employer from taking future actions. Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate concurring opinion pointing out that there could be situations where monetary damages would still be appropriate, "even when the Government engages in nondispositive 'age discrimination in the ‘ma[king]’ of a personnel decision.' If an applicant incurs costs to prepare for the discriminatorily administered aptitude test, a damages award compensating for such out-of-pocket expenses could restore the applicant to the “position tha[t] he or she would have enjoyed absent discrimination.”

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Supreme Court To Hold Arguments By Teleconference

There was some question as to whether the cases involving Mr. Trump's tax returns (among other cases) would get punted to after the election as a result of the cancelled oral arguments due to the pandemic. Now it appears that that case and other important cases will go forward this term (though I won't be surprised if the traditional end of June date for the most important decisions gets moved back).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

More from SCOTUSBLOG, with a specific description of the cases that have been scheduled for tele-argument:

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who had been scheduled to argue a pair of cases in March that were not included on today’s list, noted on Twitter that lawyers in the remaining cases had been informed by the Supreme Court that those cases would be argued in the fall.

Here is the full list of cases scheduled for argument in May, along with a short description of the issues involved in each one:

McGirt v. Oklahoma — Whether land that was set up in the 19th century as a reservation in eastern Oklahoma for the Creek Nation remains a reservation for purposes of a federal law that requires some major crimes committed on a reservation by or against Indians to be prosecuted as federal crimes.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com – Whether the addition of “.com” to an otherwise generic term by an online business can create a protectable trademark.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International — Whether the federal government can require foreign affiliates of U.S.-based groups that receive federal funds to have policies expressly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.

Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel — Whether courts can hear employment discrimination claims brought by teachers at Catholic schools.

Little Sisters of the Poor Sts. Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania — Whether the expansion of the conscience exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate violated the Affordable Care Act and the laws governing federal administrative agencies.

Chiafalo v. Washington — Whether state “faithless elector” laws, which require presidential electors to vote the way that state law directs, are constitutional.

Colorado Department of State v. Baca — Whether state “faithless elector” laws, which require presidential electors to vote the way that state law directs, are constitutional (Justice Sonia Sotomayor is recused).

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants — Whether an exception for government-debt collection to a federal law that prohibits calls to cellphones using auto-dial systems or an artificial or prerecorded voice is constitutional.

Trump v. Vance – Whether the Manhattan district attorney can obtain the president’s tax returns as part of a state grand-jury investigation.

Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank— Whether congressional committees have the authority to issue subpoenas to the president’s accountant and creditors for financial records belonging to the president and his business entities.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/cour ... ore-293034

[Inanna]

Interesting, V, thanks.

What are the faithless elector laws?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As the description states, “faithless elector” laws require presidential electors to vote the way that state law directs. A "faithless elector" is a member of the electoral college who does not vote for the candidate for whom they had pledged to vote. In 2016, there were ten attempted faithless electors, seven of which were validated. One from Hawaii who was pledged to Clinton cast his vote for Sanders instead. Two electors from Texas pledged to Trump cast their votes for Ron Paul and John Kashich. Three Clinton electors from Washington state cast their votes for Colin Powell, and a fourth cast his for someone named Faith Spotted Eagle. In addition, Clinton electors electors from Maine and Minnesota attempted to vote for Sanders, and one from Colorado attempted to vote for Kasich, but the Maine elector's vote was changed to Clinton, and the other two were replaced by alternative electors who voted for Clinton.

The two cases in front of the Supreme Court stem from Colorado and Washington (while the Washington faithless electors were not compelled to vote for the candidate they were pledged to vote for, they were fined $1000 each). The cases have remained separate in the SCOTUS because Justice Sotomayor had a friendship with one of the respondents in the Colorado case. Basically, the cases are about whether states can constitutionally compel electors to vote for the candidate that they were elected to vote for based on the popular vote of the state that they come from.

[Inanna]

Wow. Thanks!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I am listening to the Supreme Court hear oral argument, while sitting here typing this. That is an extraordinary development, unheard of, resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, which forced the court to hear oral argument in important cases that couldn't be delayed indefinitely. I hope that when things go back to "normal" the same kind of transparency continues.

The case that they are hearing right now is an important one to my practice, discussing the scoped of the "ministerial exception" to employment discrimination laws, basically deciding when an employer can get away with discrimination by arguing that it is based on religious believes. I am not hopeful for the result in this court.

Tomorrow, however, the court will be hearing one of the most important set of cases of our time, deciding (if they do decide) whether the president can be compelled to release his tax returns by congress and/or a local prosecutor investigating potential crimes. This case is basically about whether or not the president of the United States is above the law.

The reason why I say "if they do decide" is that the court asked the parties and others "to file supplemental briefs addressing whether the political-question doctrine applies to the cases – that is, whether courts should stay out of the fight over the subpoenas because it is fundamentally a political dispute between the branches of government. If the justices were to conclude that the doctrine applies, they could dismiss the cases without ruling on the merits of the dispute – which might be a particularly appealing outcome for some justices in the lead-up to the presidential election. Such a decision could have mixed results for Trump: Without a ruling in his favor, he might not be able to block the accountant or lenders from turning over the records, but on the other hand Congress would not be able to enforce a subpoena if the companies holding the records opted not to comply." (Quoting from SCOTUSBLog.) I suspect that this is exactly what the court is going to do.

[RoseMorninStar]

It SHOULD be interesting to see what happens, but I fear that it will yet be one more unspoken rule/norm broken. One more check & balance to be done away with. One more demoralizing decision for our democracy and the rule of law.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm listening to the faithless elector cases that I mentioned above now. I suspect that not many people realize that an issue that could easily change the result of the election is being discussed right now.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Justice Thomas just asked the lawyer for one of the faithless electors whether an elector could choose to vote for Frodo Baggins!

[elengil]

Justice Thomas just asked the lawyer for one of the faithless electors whether an elector could choose to vote for Frodo Baggins!

I mean... if enough people wrote in...
Personally, I think Galadriel is a better choice though

[RoseMorninStar]

Justice Thomas just asked the lawyer for one of the faithless electors whether an elector could choose to vote for Frodo Baggins!

I mean... if enough people wrote in...
Personally, I think Galadriel is a better choice though

[Inanna]

Justice Thomas just asked the lawyer for one of the faithless electors whether an elector could choose to vote for Frodo Baggins!

I mean... if enough people wrote in...
Personally, I think Galadriel is a better choice though

But she doesn’t want to rule....

[elengil]

Justice Thomas just asked the lawyer for one of the faithless electors whether an elector could choose to vote for Frodo Baggins!

I mean... if enough people wrote in...
Personally, I think Galadriel is a better choice though

But she doesn’t want to rule....

That's what makes her the perfect candidate.

[Inanna]

Yes, that's true (as the quote below by DNA highlights) but not if she won't accept "it".

The quote by Douglas Adams:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Justice Thomas just asked the lawyer for one of the faithless electors whether an elector could choose to vote for Frodo Baggins!

I mean... if enough people wrote in...
Personally, I think Galadriel is a better choice though

To be clear, we are not talking about voters writing in. We are talking about electoral college electors voting for a different person that the candidate they were pledged to vote for.

Why Frodo Baggins made an appearance at the Supreme Court

[elengil]

Justice Thomas just asked the lawyer for one of the faithless electors whether an elector could choose to vote for Frodo Baggins!

I mean... if enough people wrote in...
Personally, I think Galadriel is a better choice though

To be clear, we are not talking about voters writing in. We are talking about electoral college electors voting for a different person that the candidate they were pledged to vote for.

Why Frodo Baggins made an appearance at the Supreme Court

Yeah, I realize that was the issue... didn't mean to detail that, sorry.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I was sure that you did realize that was the issue, but my mania to clarify things refused to allow me to not say something nonetheless.

(directed at myself)

[elengil]

I was sure that you did realize that was the issue, but my mania to clarify things refused to allow me to not say something nonetheless.

(directed at myself)

No worries, my nearly compulsive need to post some kind of humorous (though more likely smartarse) comment usually wins out as well.