Someone posited that some of these 'wins' (on the liberal side) are because the Supreme court is worn out with all the crap being thrown at them that hasn't even gone through the lower courts and suspect these may be 'gimme's' because there are going to be some big 'wins' (on the conservative/Trump side) coming soon.
Honestly, I don't even know what that means. Can you point me to whoever "posited" this? I would like to understand it, because it doesn't make any sense to me.
I shouldn't have said anything. Hubby is usually watching the news while I make supper in the adjoining room and I only get half of the story so I wasn't quite sure of all of the details.. but I finally tracked the bit down: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/wat ... 5124677949
Thanks, Rose. I'm unlikely to actually watch the video. While I agree that Trump is likely to win some, most, or all of the big cases that are in the pike, I think that it is ridiculous to suggest that in some way the decision in the Bostock and related cases is in some way, or the refusal to hear the sanctuary case or the second amendment cases has anything at all to do with that. If that is really what Dahlia Lithwick is saying that clip, I'm surprised, as I usually agree with her.
In any event, in my opinion the Bostock case is a BFD, and is arguably more important long-term than any of the other cases that are in the pike. I would have expected big losses in this Supreme Court regardless of what happened yesterday, so I will continue to be pleasantly pleased with a surprising win. (To be clear, Bostock won't impact my practice much or at all, because California was one of the first states to explicitly include sexual orientation and sexual identity as protected classes.)
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Yes, I'd overheard the bit below plus, if I correctly recall, she mentioned that the administration/Trump had been opting not to have cases first heard by lower courts as is customary and as such was flooding the Supreme court with cases, leaving them overwhelmed.
"Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of workplace protections for the LGBTQ community, and refused to hear a federal challenge to California's sanctuary laws and ten cases on Second Amendment rights. Slate's Dahlia Lithwick says that while liberal causes may have won the day, there are many other cases on the horizon this election year: "I think the court is giving us something today on the left, a relatively easy win ... it suggests we need to brace for some big, big losses. I think Trump may win big in some of the other cases that are coming down the pike."
I wonder what else is 'coming down the pike'? The only thing I'm aware of is Trumps taxes. I don't know what she was referring to.
When I have more time, I'll list out the important cases that are on the docket. There are quite a few.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Before I list some of the pending cases, I'll mention that in the past two days, the court has blocked two separate executions in Texas.
So, among the big cases before the court are (these are all big cases, but I've bolded the biggest of the big cases. And there are other important cases before the court that I didn't list):
1. California v. Texas
Does the elimination of Affordable Care Act's individual mandate with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 invalidate other parts of the law?
Not argued this term, so it won't be decided until next year.
2. Chiafalo v. Washington/Colorado Department of State v. Baca
The faithless electors cases that I have spoke of before.
Argued May 13, 2020, should be decided by end of June or shortly thereafter.
3. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
(1) Is DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy judicially reviewable? (2) Is DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy lawful?
Argued back on November 12, 2019; should be decided by end of June or shortly thereafter.
4. Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Whether a federal statute limiting habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution.
Argued March 2, 2020; should be decided by end of June or shortly thereafter.
5. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Does it violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools?
Argued January 22, 2020; should be decided by end of June or shortly thereafter.
6. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
(1) Does copyright protection extend to a software interface? (2) Does petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitute fair use?
Not yet argued, so it won't be decided until next year.
7. Jones v. Mississippi
Does the Eighth Amendment require the sentencing authority to find that a juvenile is incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole?
Not yet argued.
8. June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo
Does the Fifth Circuit's decision, upholding Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, conflict with the Court's binding precedent in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt? (or should the binding precedent, up to and including Roe v. Wade, be reversed?)
Argued March 4, 2020; should be decided by the end of June or shortly thereafter.
9. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru
Do the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment discrimination claims by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee performed important religious functions?
Argued May 11, 2020 (I talked about this one then); should be decided by the end of June or shortly thereafter.
10.Seila Law, LLC v. CFPB
(1) Does the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violate the separation of powers? (2) If the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, can 12 U.S.C. § 5491(c)(3) be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act?
Argued March 3, 2020; should be decided by the end of June or shortly thereafter.
11. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP/Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG/Trump v. Vance
The Trump tax return cases.
Argued May 12, 2020; should be decided by the end of June or shortly thereafter.
12. United States v. Briggs
Does the Uniform Code of Military Justice allow prosecution of a rape committed between 1986 and 2006 if it was not discovered and charged within five years?
Not yet argued.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Yeah. I mean the Supreme Court always has a lot of important cases on its docket, but it seems to me that it is particularly so right now. The ACA, DACA, abortion, and Trump tax cases all potentially veer into the territory of "momentous" and the faithless electors cases has the potential (albeit small) of completely throwing our electoral system into chaos.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I think that is the point Dahlia Lithwick was trying to make. That some of these cases, under ordinary circumstances/administrations, should have gone through other/lower courts first. The deluge of high profile cases is causing a problem.
Every single one of these cases have gone through the normal process, through the lower courts. The only ones that have been fast-tracked at all are the Trump tax cases, but even they have gone from District Court to Court of appeals to Supreme Court. The court explicitly refused to fast-track the ACA case so that it could be heard this year.
So that makes no sense at all.
Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
To be clear, the court didn't say that Trump didn't have the power to end DACA. It said that he couldn't do so in an arbitrary and capricious manner. There is a great quote from Oliver Wendall Holmes that Roberts cites, which I will did up and post later.
Trump is pissed. No conciliatory language from him this time, like after the Bostock case. If no one else does so before I get a chance, I'll post his tweets. They are classic Trump. But I need to get to work!
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Huh. I'm super duper pro-immigration so the ruling is pleasant to hear, but I don't understand the legal reasoning.
“The dispute before the Court is not whether [the Department of Homeland Security] may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, joined in full or part by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
He added that the decision didn’t address “whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” which wasn’t the court’s concern. But the government failed its duty under the Administrative Procedure Act to “provide a reasoned explanation for its action,” including “what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”
Considering DACA is not a law passed by Congress but instead a policy created by the prior executive administration, why wouldn't the current administration be free to change or not follow that policy if it chooses?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Again, as I said above, the court is not saying that the current administration is not free to change or not follow that policy if it chooses. It is saying that the administration can't do so without giving reasons for doing so that make a modicum of sense. This decision is very similar to the census case decision that went down last year, in which Roberts was also the deciding vote.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Because governments are not supposed to be able to do things arbitrarily and capriciously. Period. End of story.
From the decision:
Justice Holmes famously wrote that “[m]en must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.” Rock Island, A. & L. R. Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141, 143 (1920). But it is also true, particularly when so much is at stake, that “the Government should turn square corners in dealing with the people.” St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U. S. 208, 229 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting). The basic rule here is clear: An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted. This is not the case for cutting corners to allow DHS to rely upon reasons absent from its original decision.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I think "arbitrary and capricious" sums up Trump's entire modus operandi. He should probably make it his motto.
yovargas wrote:
Considering DACA is not a law passed by Congress but instead a policy created by the prior executive administration, why wouldn't the current administration be free to change or not follow that policy if it chooses?
There is a process in changing policies. Most previous administrations were pretty good at this process so if it looked like things happened at the stroke of a pen it was because the people involved in writing up and implementing the orders were good at what they did. The Trump Admin is completely incompetent at this aspect of the job, though, which is how this thing ended up in front of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, "That's wrong! You're an idiot! Get back to work and try again!"
It’s similar to the way SC threw out the initial travel ban, and then allowed a better argued one to stand. Might just be the same this time around too.
Maybe he’ll get voted out before that.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
River wrote:I think "arbitrary and capricious" sums up Trump's entire modus operandi. He should probably make it his motto.
yovargas wrote:
Considering DACA is not a law passed by Congress but instead a policy created by the prior executive administration, why wouldn't the current administration be free to change or not follow that policy if it chooses?
There is a process in changing policies. Most previous administrations were pretty good at this process so if it looked like things happened at the stroke of a pen it was because the people involved in writing up and implementing the orders were good at what they did. The Trump Admin is completely incompetent at this aspect of the job, though, which is how this thing ended up in front of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, "That's wrong! You're an idiot! Get back to work and try again!"
Agree. I was going to try to write something like this but you've done a better job, River. It's also the way this administration fires people. Trump uses the phrases 'serves at the pleasure of the president' as a king, monarch, dictator, despot, tyrant (shall I go on?) would. How many people has he fired where he is supposed to have sound reason for removing from their posts and no good reason is given? And no one seems to do anything about it. He takes anti-establishment to a whole new level.
yovargas wrote:Huh. I'm super duper pro-immigration so the ruling is pleasant to hear, but I don't understand the legal reasoning.
“The dispute before the Court is not whether [the Department of Homeland Security] may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, joined in full or part by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
He added that the decision didn’t address “whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” which wasn’t the court’s concern. But the government failed its duty under the Administrative Procedure Act to “provide a reasoned explanation for its action,” including “what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”
Considering DACA is not a law passed by Congress but instead a policy created by the prior executive administration, why wouldn't the current administration be free to change or not follow that policy if it chooses?
From my reading, the case deals with an administrative decision (i.e. a decision made by the executive branch under a power given to it by law). There's a general requirement, often enshrined in legislation, that administrative decisions must meet a certain minimum standard of reasonableness.
For example, an employee at my local council has the power under legislation to approve or reject requests to build an extension on a house. If they made the decision for some arbitrary reason, like they didn't like the hairstyle of the person making the application, the decision could be challenged, even though the employee had the legal power to make it.
