SCOTUS - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

[LFC]

The tyranny of the minority.

[LFC]

It is now legal for a high school coach to lead children in prayer while working. Religious zealot SCOTUS is now completely off the democracy rails.

The Supreme Court has upheld a high school football coach’s right to pray and lead students in prayer during school events in a 6-3 ruling Monday. The coach, Joseph Kennedy, sued when he lost his job in Washington state’s Bremerton School District after he would take to the field to pray at the 50-yard line at the end of school football games. The school contended that Kennedy, whose lone prayers evolved into lengthier rituals that included holding up helmets from both teams and delivering long speeches, violated district policy relating to religious expression while performing his duties as an employee. However the court sided with Kennedy in ruling that the district violated his First Amendment rights under the free speech and free exercise clauses.

Since when do employees have free speech to spout anything they wish at work?

[goldenvalley]

Jun 27, 2022 16:44:03 GMT LFC said:

It is now legal for a high school coach to lead children in prayer while working. Religious zealot SCOTUS is now completely off the democracy rails.

The Supreme Court has upheld a high school football coach’s right to pray and lead students in prayer during school events in a 6-3 ruling Monday. The coach, Joseph Kennedy, sued when he lost his job in Washington state’s Bremerton School District after he would take to the field to pray at the 50-yard line at the end of school football games. The school contended that Kennedy, whose lone prayers evolved into lengthier rituals that included holding up helmets from both teams and delivering long speeches, violated district policy relating to religious expression while performing his duties as an employee. However the court sided with Kennedy in ruling that the district violated his First Amendment rights under the free speech and free exercise clauses.

Since when do employees have free speech to spout anything they wish at work?
  

What's really sort of sad to me that this coach probably thinks he's being an example of good caring coach and mentor of young people. It's a form of egotism that is impervious to reality.

[LFC]

Jun 27, 2022 17:11:22 GMT goldenvalley said:

What's really sort of sad to me that this coach probably thinks he's being an example of good caring coach and mentor of young people. It's a form of egotism that is impervious to reality.

From the NY Times:

Mr. Kennedy was never disciplined for offering silent, private prayers, the judge, Milan D. Smith Jr., wrote last year. Instead, the judge wrote of one game, Mr. Kennedy “prayed out loud in the middle of the football field” just after it finished, “surrounded by players, members of the opposing team, parents, a local politician and members of the news media with television cameras recording the event, all of whom had been advised of Kennedy’s intended actions through the local news and social media.”

Clearly it was all a setup.

[LFC]

The title and subtitle say quite a bit.

The case against the Supreme Court of the United States

The Court was the midwife of Jim Crow, the right hand of union busters, the dead hand of the Confederacy, and now is one of the chief architects of America’s democratic decline.

[goldenvalley]

Jun 27, 2022 17:36:08 GMT LFC said:

Jun 27, 2022 17:11:22 GMT goldenvalley said:

What's really sort of sad to me that this coach probably thinks he's being an example of good caring coach and mentor of young people. It's a form of egotism that is impervious to reality.

From the NY Times:

Mr. Kennedy was never disciplined for offering silent, private prayers, the judge, Milan D. Smith Jr., wrote last year. Instead, the judge wrote of one game, Mr. Kennedy “prayed out loud in the middle of the football field” just after it finished, “surrounded by players, members of the opposing team, parents, a local politician and members of the news media with television cameras recording the event, all of whom had been advised of Kennedy’s intended actions through the local news and social media.”

Clearly it was all a setup.

I will now switch on complete cynicism about all things done by the so called religious in the public sphere.

[LFC]

Jun 27, 2022 18:09:52 GMT goldenvalley said:

I will now switch on complete cynicism about all things done by the so called religious in the public sphere.

It's the sensible default position.

[LFC]

Kevin McCarthy is in damage control mode over Clarence Thomas's announcement that they were going after contraception, private sexual acts, and same sex marriage.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on Monday insisted that voters really don’t need to worry about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ calls to reconsider landmark cases that granted the right to same-sex marriage and contraception, among other decisions, when they cast their ballots in the midterms.

During an interview on Fox News, McCarthy was asked about whether he thinks Democrats could use Thomas’ concurring opinion as a rallying cry heading into the midterms.

McCarthy simply shrugged at the idea, insisting that Alito and the other conservative justices wouldn’t bother trying to overturn other landmark cases.

“You read the opinion — he said no, this is only dealing with Roe v. Wade, not with anything else,” McCarthy said. “I don’t think they will be used in a campaign. It’s inoculated from there.”

In the wake of the Court’s move to overturn the right to an abortion, Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have expressed alarm at Thomas’ opinion and the prospect of where the justices might be headed next.

“I understand that the rest of the court said, ‘No, no, we’re not going there,’ but remember how we got to where we are,” Warren said during an interview on ABC News on Sunday.

Shorter McCarthy:

[andydp]

[pnwguy]

I think Coach Akbar would get shot down 9-0. But 3 of the opinions would have different reasoning than the other 6, who would just drone on about the fear of Sharia law.

Of course Coach Akbar would likely be on the soccer pitch midfield line, since he might not want to coach a sport with pigskin.

[LFC]

SCOTUS didn't gut the EPA completely ... yet.

The justices’ intent was obfuscated at oral arguments by the many idiosyncrasies of the case. They spent less time on the big questions of agency power, and much more puzzling over the case’s pedestrian questions — like whether the petitioners had standing to even bring this lawsuit in the first place.

Still, that gave Democratic lawmakers who filed a brief in the case little hope. “It seems they’re clearly determined to strike down a lot of good regulation,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told TPM at the time.

Right-wing SCOTUS has mumbled their hostility towards regulatory agencies in general for years.They want to push the nation towards the completely unworkable system of forcing Congress to vote on just about everything which is, of course, overwhelming and impossible even if we had a functional Congress.

As they tear down the nation's regulatory abilities I'll be waiting for the first rich asshat to challenge the IRS's ability to create any regulatory framework that isn't explicitly written into law. That'll open the doors to the wealthy paying even less in taxes than they do today.

[jackd]

The dismantling of administrative law has begun.

[LFC]

Jun 30, 2022 15:54:03 GMT jackd said:

The dismantling of administrative law has begun.

I guess historical precedents mean everything ... until it doesn't.

DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
George Washington Law School administrative law professor Richard J. Pierce Jr., author of Administrative Law Treatise, parcels the development of administrative law into four distinct phases: 1) historical development up to 1946; 2) historical development from 1946 to 1970; 3) historical development in the 1970s; and 4) historical development in the 1980s and 1990s.

Congress created the first federal administrative agency, the Department of Foreign Affairs, on July 31, 1789, to “estimate duties payable” on imports and to perform other related duties. Later that same year, Congress renamed the Department of Foreign Affairs the State Department and created the departments of treasury and war.

As Congress continued to create federal administrative agencies, including the Department of Navy, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice and the Post Office Department, administrative law developed prior to its actual recognition as an area of the law. In 1893, Columbia University administrative law professor Frank J. Goodnow published the first-known American book on administrative law, Comparative Administrative Law.

In 1828, the United States imported steam engines from Great Britain and began building its own railroads. Sending goods by railway was less expensive than delivering them by carriage. However, the swift expansion of railroads in some states led to economic problems, such as monopolies and bankruptcies. In response, starting in the 1840s and 1850s, some states attempted to regulate railroads by passing laws to govern the railroads’ management, control and operation. However, such laws were mostly ineffective because the lawmakers who drafted them lacked the specialized knowledge needed for effective legislation. These legislative failures led states to create administrative agencies. Known as commissions, the agencies investigated railroads and applied their specialized knowledge to drafting legislation. However, state railroad commissions were themselves criticized for being mismanaged.

[LFC]

Texass's corrupt Attorney General got Clarence Thomas's message loud and clear. He's ready to go after the gays.

Texas AG Paxton Is Ready To Defend Anti-Sodomy Laws

Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) heard Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ call for SCOTUS to revisit landmark civil rights decisions like Lawrence v. Texas loud and clear: During an interview on NewsNation on Friday, Paxton declared that he’s “certainly willing and able to” defend bans on “sodomy.”

[goldenvalley]

Jun 30, 2022 18:55:53 GMT LFC said:

Jun 30, 2022 15:54:03 GMT jackd said:

The dismantling of administrative law has begun.

I guess historical precedents mean everything ... until it doesn't.

DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
George Washington Law School administrative law professor Richard J. Pierce Jr., author of Administrative Law Treatise, parcels the development of administrative law into four distinct phases: 1) historical development up to 1946; 2) historical development from 1946 to 1970; 3) historical development in the 1970s; and 4) historical development in the 1980s and 1990s.

Congress created the first federal administrative agency, the Department of Foreign Affairs, on July 31, 1789, to “estimate duties payable” on imports and to perform other related duties. Later that same year, Congress renamed the Department of Foreign Affairs the State Department and created the departments of treasury and war.

As Congress continued to create federal administrative agencies, including the Department of Navy, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice and the Post Office Department, administrative law developed prior to its actual recognition as an area of the law. In 1893, Columbia University administrative law professor Frank J. Goodnow published the first-known American book on administrative law, Comparative Administrative Law.

In 1828, the United States imported steam engines from Great Britain and began building its own railroads. Sending goods by railway was less expensive than delivering them by carriage. However, the swift expansion of railroads in some states led to economic problems, such as monopolies and bankruptcies. In response, starting in the 1840s and 1850s, some states attempted to regulate railroads by passing laws to govern the railroads’ management, control and operation. However, such laws were mostly ineffective because the lawmakers who drafted them lacked the specialized knowledge needed for effective legislation. These legislative failures led states to create administrative agencies. Known as commissions, the agencies investigated railroads and applied their specialized knowledge to drafting legislation. However, state railroad commissions were themselves criticized for being mismanaged.

History only matters if respecting it gives you the answer you prefer.  

[LFC]

4 of the 6 partisan hack justices somehow tried to justify that Trump's immigration policy, which was not implemented as a law passed by Congress, was binding to Biden. Speaking of the partisan hacks if we take their "originalist" ideology seriously then there should be no restrictions since pretty much none existed before 1875.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Joe Biden’s attempt to unwind one of the Trump administration’s signature immigration policies, in a ruling that will have expansive implications for the president’s lurching pursuit of creating an orderly asylum system at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The nation’s highest court found that the Department of Homeland Security did have the authority to end enforcement of the Migrant Protection Protocols, better known by the Trump-given nickname “Remain in Mexico.”

“The Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate” the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the court’s majority ruled in a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s liberal wing.

[goldenvalley]

So the Chief Justice really don't know what the intent of Congress was when it created the Environmental Protection Agency.

The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing for the court’s conservatives. 

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’ ” Roberts wrote, referring to a court precedent. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.”

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the dissenters, countered: “The Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Some background on how this case came to be:

The Supreme Court in 2016 stopped the Obama administration’s plan to drastically reduce power plants’ carbon output. The plan never went into effect, but its emission-reduction goals were met ahead of schedule because of economic conditions that made coal-fired plants more expensive.

A more lenient plan was promulgated by the Trump administration, which said its reading of the law limited the EPA’s actions to regulating emissions at a specific site instead of across the system, a restriction that has come to be known as “inside the fence.”

But on the last day of the Trump administration, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that was an intentional “misreading” of the law.

“The EPA has ample discretion in carrying out its mandate,” the decision concluded. “But it may not shirk its responsibility by imagining new limitations that the plain language of the statute does not clearly require.”

As a result, the Trump rules were struck, the Obama rules were not reinstated, and the Biden administration has yet to formulate its plan.

The magic marketplace will still probably prevent the building of new coal powered plants which leaves a limited market for coal in the future.

If Congress is going to actually regulate we're going to need a whole new election approach.  Instead of asking about candidates' opinions on culture war issues we must demand that they explain the "crisis of the day" and how it will be dealt with.

[LFC]

Examples of the hypocrisy of most of partisan hack SCOTUS just keep pouring in.

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that states can prosecute non-Native people who commit crimes against a Native person on tribal lands, a dramatic move for tribal sovereignty that undoes decades of practice.

In this case Gorsuch was, at least, faithful to historical precedent. Bold head scratching justification by the majority mine.

Kavanaugh listed multiple decisions going back to 1845 to support the argument that Indian reservations are “part of the surrounding state” and are subject to the state’s jurisdiction “except as forbidden by federal law.”

“In short, the court’s precedents establish that Indian country is part of a state’s territory and that, unless preempted, states have jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian Country,” Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh in the majority. At the same time, Neil Gorsuch joined the three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — in dissent.

In his dissent, Gorsuch praised the 1832 decision Worcester v. Georgia, which ruled state law had no power in Indian country without congressional authorization.

“The decision established a foundational rule that would persist for over 200 years: Native American Tribes retain their sovereignty unless and until Congress ordains otherwise,” Gorsuch wrote.

He argued that Wednesday’s ruling was reneging on a promise made to the Cherokee after their exile to what became Oklahoma.

“The federal government promised the tribe that it would remain forever free from interference by state authorities. Only the Tribe or the federal government could punish crimes by or against tribal members on tribal lands,” he wrote. “Where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts … Where our predecessors refused to participate in one state’s unlawful power grab at the expense of the Cherokee, today’s Court accedes to another’s. Respectfully, I dissent.”

Gorsuch pushed back on the majority’s argument that a state possesses “inherent” sovereign power to prosecute crimes on tribal reservations until and unless Congress “preempts” that authority.

“The Court emphasizes that states normally wield broad police powers within their borders absent some preemptive federal law,” he wrote. “But the effort to wedge tribes into that paradigm is a category error. Tribes are not private organizations within state boundaries. Their reservations are not glorified private campgrounds. Tribes are sovereigns.”

[LFC]

And heeeere we go. Independent state legislature theory is key to Republican minority rule and partisan hack SCOTUS has been mouthing approval already.

The United States Supreme Court has said it will review whether state legislatures have the authority to ignore courts on election rules even if they are found to be unconstitutional.

SCOTUS Blog first reported that the high court will hear a North Carolina case on the dubious "independent state legislature" theory.

"In an election case out of North Carolina, SCOTUS agrees to review the "independent state legislature" theory next term. Under that theory, state legislatures have broad power to set rules for federal elections, even if state courts say those rules are unconstitutional," SCOTUS Blog explained in a tweet.

[goldenvalley]

Jun 30, 2022 20:09:03 GMT LFC said:

Examples of the hypocrisy of most of partisan hack SCOTUS just keep pouring in.

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that states can prosecute non-Native people who commit crimes against a Native person on tribal lands, a dramatic move for tribal sovereignty that undoes decades of practice.

In this case Gorsuch was, at least, faithful to historical precedent. Bold head scratching justification by the majority mine.

Kavanaugh listed multiple decisions going back to 1845 to support the argument that Indian reservations are “part of the surrounding state” and are subject to the state’s jurisdiction “except as forbidden by federal law.”

“In short, the court’s precedents establish that Indian country is part of a state’s territory and that, unless preempted, states have jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian Country,” Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh in the majority. At the same time, Neil Gorsuch joined the three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — in dissent.

In his dissent, Gorsuch praised the 1832 decision Worcester v. Georgia, which ruled state law had no power in Indian country without congressional authorization.

“The decision established a foundational rule that would persist for over 200 years: Native American Tribes retain their sovereignty unless and until Congress ordains otherwise,” Gorsuch wrote.

He argued that Wednesday’s ruling was reneging on a promise made to the Cherokee after their exile to what became Oklahoma.

“The federal government promised the tribe that it would remain forever free from interference by state authorities. Only the Tribe or the federal government could punish crimes by or against tribal members on tribal lands,” he wrote. “Where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts … Where our predecessors refused to participate in one state’s unlawful power grab at the expense of the Cherokee, today’s Court accedes to another’s. Respectfully, I dissent.”

Gorsuch pushed back on the majority’s argument that a state possesses “inherent” sovereign power to prosecute crimes on tribal reservations until and unless Congress “preempts” that authority.

“The Court emphasizes that states normally wield broad police powers within their borders absent some preemptive federal law,” he wrote. “But the effort to wedge tribes into that paradigm is a category error. Tribes are not private organizations within state boundaries. Their reservations are not glorified private campgrounds. Tribes are sovereigns.”

The law is what the 5 say it is Neil.  You lose this time.  It's part of the bargain you made to reach the Supreme Court.  

[LFC]

A number of opinions about the fall of SCOTUS are coming out.

Naomi Klein: The US is in the midst of a 'shock-and-awe judicial coup'

'The court doesn't care': CNN legal analyst delivers chilling implications of latest SCOTUS cases 

The Supreme Court’s nod to white Christian theocracy

The Supreme Court’s illegitimacy is accelerating 

[LFC]

Yep.

[jackd]

Which is how Kennedy maneuvered to get Kavanaugh on the court and how Ginsberg should have.

[LFC]

A group of expat Dems called Brett Kavanaugh a cunt. Frank Luntz, who is himself a lifelong cunt, whined.

In the grim shade of France’s Monument to the Dead, 200 members of the Democratic Party here mustered to commemorate the Fourth of July with scorching speeches against the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to abolish a woman’s right to an abortion back home.

“I’d call [Republican Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh a cunt, but he lacks the warmth and depth,” American expatriate Sarah Humphries of Wisconsin proudly informs a cluster of perplexed French families out for a stroll.

America’s veteran Republican pollster Frank Luntz says the Independence Day rally and rhetoric hosted by Democrats Abroad in front of a cenotaph on Place du Trocadéro wins the Grand Prix in cognitive expatriate dissonance.

“This is so unnecessary, and on a day that’s a celebration, not a commiseration,” Luntz says. “Whoever made the decision to stage a demonstration supporting a woman’s right to choose with a memorial to the dead as the visual backdrop was not thinking.”

Nothing says sincerity like anything that comes out of Frank Luntz's mouth. [/snark]

[LFC]

The polarization is at record levels.

Most American's have lost faith in SCOTUS. The partisan hack wing doesn't care. "They're on a mission from God(tm)!"