SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[China]

Most don’t trust Supreme Court on election cases: Poll

 

Most Americans say they don’t have much confidence in the Supreme Court to make the “right decisions” on legal cases related to the 2024 election, according to a CNN poll released Monday.

 

Asked how much they trust the Supreme Court on the matter, 58 percent of respondents said either “not at all” or “just some,” at 23 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Only 11 percent said they trusted the Supreme Court “a great deal,” while 31 percent said “a moderate amount.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Seems obvious to me.  Those wanting them to rule that Trump is disqualified by the 14th Amendment, section 3, don't think that they'll rule that way, and those that think he isn't disqualified think they will rule that way.

[China]

‘Judged by history’: Trump’s 14th Amendment fight at Supreme Court poses an enormous test for John Roberts

 

For Donald Trump, the fate of a presidential campaign will hang in the balance when the Supreme Court meets Thursday to hear a politically fraught challenge to his eligibility to appear on Colorado’s ballot.

 

For Chief Justice John Roberts, it is at least in part a legacy that will be on the line.

 

Since joining the bench in 2005, Roberts has built a reputation of trying to steer the court clear of the partisanship that vexes the rest of Washington. But Roberts’ middle-ground, go-slow approach could face its greatest test as the former president and frontrunner for the GOP nomination keeps showing up to a Supreme Court he has helped to fashion.

 

The chief justice, who turned 69 last month, must navigate an unwieldy group of colleagues – some of whom have openly complained about internal mistrust in recent years. Into that fray will now land a novel question of criminal immunity for a former president and one of the most charged election disputes in history.

 

The court hears arguments Thursday about whether Trump violated the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection ban” when he ginned up a rally on January 6, 2021, before the attack on the US Capitol. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump engaged in insurrection and ran afoul of the post-Civil War ban, it would effectively end his campaign.

 

And Trump now also appears certain to come up to the Supreme Court on another matter soon: his claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal election interference case. A federal appeals court rebuffed that argument Tuesday and said Trump would have to ask the Supreme Court if he wants to further delay his trial.

That request will go to Roberts.

 

The two men – Roberts and Trump – couldn’t be more different. Roberts, a soft-spoken conservative, is an institutionalist, widely seen as trying to preserve Americans’ faith in the Supreme Court. Trump has derived power by running against institutions and has openly slammed the justices, including his own appointees, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, for siding against him in previous cases.

 

For any chief justice, the best outcome is usually one that yields a unanimous vote – or something close to it. When it comes to the election case, many experts believe his easiest path will be a narrow decision in which Trump remains on the ballot and the Supreme Court avoids sweeping conclusions about Trump’s actions.

 

“It would be much better if it was unanimous and it didn’t look like a partisan decision,” said Tom Ginsburg, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and co-author of a 2018 book about the threat of democratic decay. “The challenge for Roberts is to take a jurisprudential route that will get nine votes.”

 

That may involve looking for legal “off ramps” that settle the case in a limited way. The court, for instance, could rule that the insurrection ban doesn’t apply to presidents or that it requires a law from Congress to be enforced.

 

Trump’s appeals are arriving at a time when faith in the Supreme Court has slipped to record lows, polls show, as many Americans – particularly on the left – view it as another political branch. The court’s approval plunged after the justices let stand a strict abortion law in Texas in 2021, overturned Roe v. Wade the next year and then found itself embroiled in a series of ethics scandals.

 

Roberts’ soft power of persuasion has often resulted in middle-ground positions that bring together some combination of the court’s six conservatives and three liberals. In June, he cobbled together a 6-3 majority that rejected a Trump-backed theory that state legislatures have virtually unchecked power to set voting rules, but that also left ambiguous the extent of the courts’ authority to intervene.

 

Other times, those efforts have failed. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, the chief justice staked out a position that would have permitted more restrictive abortion laws but left the landmark 1973 precedent mostly intact. Not a single one of his colleagues joined him.

 

Some of the most significant decisions in Supreme Court history have been inextricably tied to the chief justice who presided over them. When court observers think of the school desegregation cases in the 1950s, they often think of Chief Justice Earl Warren, noted Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. When they think of the Watergate tapes case in 1974, they often associate the outcome with Chief Justice Warren Burger.

 

Those seminal cases were decided unanimously.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Fergasun]

As I said in the thread regarding this topic, I don't know that there's an opinion they can put out there that won't damage them further.  This case is an absolute trap for them, and they should have let it be.  

 

The least institutional damage they could do would be to uphold the Colorado decision.  But this also mean they are declaring Trump ineligible to hold office.  I don't know how they could rule that Colorado can keep him off the ballot, but other States could keep him on, but he's ultimately going to be disqualified.  Does this mean the VP will get inaugurated?   Especially with the "Congress may cure the defect by 2/3rds vote".  But this, would actually demonstrate they are not beholden to partisan politics.   I suppose Trump and the GOP would just run him as an unelected puppet master, controlling the VP.  

 

Overturning the Colorado decision - even on some legal technicality would further the institutional damage.  For instance, they could say "Congress needs to establish a way to kick President's off the ballot".  Most people think that they will take this path (and a lot of people would pretend it wouldn't further the institutional damage).  

 

This would lead to the best option, from the avoid wide and sweeping rulings stance to be "Trump is not going to be holding office anytime soon, he didn't win the election, so we don't have to rule on his eligibility until he is potentially inaugurated."   Again, that may uphold Colorado, or reverse him, but that leaves the issue of 14 Amendment, Section 3 up in the air.  So there's going to be this issue dangling over it. 

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

As I said in the thread regarding this topic, I don't know that there's an opinion they can put out there that won't damage them further. 

 

Disagree. A one page ruling that says "The 14th Amendment bars Donald Trump from holding any public office." wouldn't hurt them a bit. 

[Simmsy]

18 hours ago, China said:

‘Judged by history’: Trump’s 14th Amendment fight at Supreme Court poses an enormous test for John Roberts

 

For Donald Trump, the fate of a presidential campaign will hang in the balance when the Supreme Court meets Thursday to hear a politically fraught challenge to his eligibility to appear on Colorado’s ballot.

 

For Chief Justice John Roberts, it is at least in part a legacy that will be on the line.

 

I know Biden never would, but if he were to go after the SC, I would go after "Robert's Legacy". I would tell the American people to look at the damage and corruption the chief justice had allowed to fester on his watch. Force Americans to look and really think about all of the terrible, hurtful and unpopular decisions they've forced upon this country. Maybe Gavin will take it on?

 

17 hours ago, Fergasun said:

As I said in the thread regarding this topic, I don't know that there's an opinion they can put out there that won't damage them further.  This case is an absolute trap for them, and they should have let it be.  

 

The least institutional damage they could do would be to uphold the Colorado decision.  But this also mean they are declaring Trump ineligible to hold office.  I don't know how they could rule that Colorado can keep him off the ballot, but other States could keep him on, but he's ultimately going to be disqualified.  Does this mean the VP will get inaugurated?   Especially with the "Congress may cure the defect by 2/3rds vote".  But this, would actually demonstrate they are not beholden to partisan politics.   I suppose Trump and the GOP would just run him as an unelected puppet master, controlling the VP. 

 

We should go to the Qanon board and float a conspiracy that if Trump goes to jail, his VP will pardon and reinstate him as president. That might be his actual plan now that I think about it, now I know who he'll pick as his VP.

[China]

How far can cities go to clear homeless camps? The U.S. Supreme Court will decide

 

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a major case that could reshape how cities manage homelessness. The legal issue is whether they can fine or arrest people for sleeping outside if there's no shelter available. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has deemed this cruel and unusual punishment, and this case is a pivotal challenge to that ruling.

 

The high court declined to take up a similar case in 2019. But since then, homelessness rates have climbed relentlessly. Street encampments have grown larger and have expanded to new places, igniting intense backlash from residents and businesses. Homelessness and the lack of affordable housing that's helping to drive it have become key issues for many voters.

 

The case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, could have dramatic implications for the record number of people living in tents and cars across the United States.

 

In the small city of Grants Pass, Ore., homeless people say the city broke the law when it aggressively tried to push them out over the past decade. To discourage people from sleeping in public spaces, the city banned the use of stoves and sleeping bags or other bedding. But during several years when she had lost housing, Helen Cruz says she needed to live in city parks because they're close to the jobs she had cleaning houses.

 

"We're not out there because we want to be," she says. "We don't have a choice. There's no place to go."

 

Grants Pass has no homeless shelter that's open to everyone. A religious mission takes in a few who agree to attend services. That left Cruz racking up thousands of dollars in fines, which she remains unable to pay.

 

"And I keep getting mail from Josephine County court saying, 'You owe this. If you don't pay this, it's going to collections,'" she says, "which has destroyed my credit."

 

A lawsuit originally filed in 2018 on behalf of homeless people in Grants Pass said the situation there was part of a larger crisis, as homelessness rates around the U.S. were high and growing. It accused the city of trying to "punish people based on their status of being involuntarily homeless." The 9th Circuit agreed, saying the city could not ban people from sleeping outside with "rudimentary protection from the elements" when there was nowhere else for them to go.

 

The same appeals court also sided with homeless people in a landmark 2018 case out of Boise, Idaho, which the Supreme Court later declined to take up.

 

Critics say the Grants Pass ruling is a major expansion over the Boise one, since it forbids not just criminal penalties but civil ones. Advocates for homeless people don't see much difference, since some in Grants Pass who couldn't pay their fines were eventually jailed.

 

Grants Pass petitioned the Supreme Court. And its appeal has drawn support from dozens of local and state officials across the West and elsewhere who urged the justices to take this case. Among those filing such friend-of-the-court briefs are Republican-led states like Idaho, Montana and Nebraska and Democratic-led cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, plus a separate brief from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Supreme Court justices’ recusal explanations fall along party lines

 

Last month, I noted that Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson took different approaches to their recusals from cases before the high court: Jackson explained hers, while Alito did not. Fast-forward to Tuesday’s order list, which displays a fuller party-line split, with Democratic appointees explaining their recusals and Republican appointees failing to do so.

 

Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan noted their reasons for not participating in cases on Tuesday’s list. Alito, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, all GOP appointees, did not.

 

And what were the justices’ reasons? When it comes to Kagan and Jackson, they told us. Kagan, for example, cited a provision in the justices’ code of conduct for prior government employment related to the cases she recused herself from. Kagan was previously the U.S. solicitor general. 

 

As for Barrett, Alito and Roberts, we’re left to wonder. Does it mean those three justices are hiding something? That would be a weird way to do so, because they could have just not noted their recusals at all (which, of course, would be the wrong thing to do). That makes it even sillier that they didn’t simply explain themselves.

 

Take Barrett’s case. Searching the court’s docket shows that it came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. That’s where Barrett sat before her high court appointment, so prior involvement in the matter could be the reason why. But again, we’re left to speculate. 

 

Click on the link for the rest

[China]

 

[bushwack]

There’s zero chance Thomas takes John Oliver on his deal, and John knows it. The balls John has to make said offer is still impressive. 

[China]

Supreme Court justices express free speech concerns about GOP-backed social media laws

 

The Supreme Court on Monday grappled with knotty free speech questions as it weighed laws in Florida and Texas that seek to impose restrictions on the ability of social media companies to moderate content.

 

After almost four hours of oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared skeptical that states can prohibit platforms from barring or limiting the reach of some problematic users without violating the free speech rights of the companies.

 

But justices from across the ideological spectrum raised fears about the power and influence of big social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook and questioned whether the laws should be blocked entirely.

 

Trade groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, known as CCIA, say that both laws infringe upon the free speech rights of companies under the Constitution’s First Amendment by restricting their ability to choose what content they wish to publish on their platforms.

 

First Amendment free speech protections apply to government actions, not those by private entities, including companies.

 

"Why isn't that, you know, a classic First Amendment violation for the state to come in and say, 'We're not going to allow you to enforce those sorts of restrictions'?" asked liberal Justice Elena Kagan, in reference to the Florida law's content moderation provisions.

 

As Chief Justice John Roberts put it, because the companies are not bound by the First Amendment, "they can discriminate against particular groups that they don't like."

 

Some justices, however, suggested the laws might have some legitimate applications against other platforms or services, including messaging applications, which could mean the court stops short of striking them down.

 

The eventual ruling could lead to further litigation in lower courts as to whether the laws should be blocked. Both are currently on hold.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

The Crystal Clanton case shows a system failure

 

Well, so much for getting to the bottom of the story of Crystal Clanton, the judicial law clerk accused of sending racist texts. And so much for all the talk about having Supreme Court justices abide by the code of conduct that covers other federal judges. In this case, at least, the mechanism to enforce that code turned out to be toothless. The judicial discipline system is better at self-protection than self-policing.

 

To review: Clanton is a protégé of Justice Clarence Thomas and Ginni Thomas. She met Ginni Thomas while working at the conservative youth group Turning Point USA. Her employment was terminated in 2017 after the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer unearthed texts apparently sent by Clanton: “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like f--- them all … I hate blacks. End of story.” Clanton told Mayer in an email that “I have no recollection of these messages and they do not reflect what I believe or who I am and the same was true when I was a teenager.” (Clanton was 20 when the texts were sent in 2015, and evidence suggests that this was not an isolated episode).

 

After leaving Turning Point, Clanton went to work for Ginni Thomas and lived in the Thomas’s home for almost a year. She attended George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School and, with enthusiastic backing from Clarence Thomas, secured one of the most prestigious judicial clerkships in the country, for William H. Pryor Jr., chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Pryor, a reliable “feeder” of clerks to Thomas and other conservative justices, recommended Clanton for a district court clerkship, with Judge Corey Maze of Alabama, before she joined his chambers.

 

And she appears to be en route to the high court. “It is certainly my intention to consider her for a clerkship should she perform as I expect and excel in her clerkships,” Thomas has written.

 

When the news of Clanton’s clerkships surfaced in 2021, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee filed an ethics complaint; the matter was assigned to the 2nd Circuit to handle. Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston dismissed the complaint without even appointing a special committee to look into the facts, as provided for under the rules and suggested by the 11th Circuit judge who conducted the initial review.

 

Livingston did not examine the underlying question of whether Clanton sent the racist texts. Rather, she found only that Pryor and Maze “performed all of the due diligence that a responsible judge would undertake” before hiring Clanton. The judges, she said, were “in possession of information that the allegations were false — that the anonymous sources relied on in the media accounts were not trustworthy,” and that “they have been repeatedly informed that the allegations of racist text messages and remarks are not true.”

 

In fact, there were on-the-record sources and screen shots of the texts. Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet confirmed to me that Clanton was "terminated from Turning Point after the discovery of problematic texts.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[The Evil Genius]

Alito needs to be dick punched. 

[Larry]

"Won't someone please think of the feelings of the poor bigots who are falsely claiming that their religion allows their business to discriminate?"  

[China]

The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states

 

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not hear Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

 

Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.

 

It is possible that this outcome will be temporary. The Court did not embrace the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision attacking the First Amendment right to protest, but it did not reverse it either. That means that, at least for now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is the law in much of the American South.

 

For the past several years, the Fifth Circuit has engaged in a crusade against DeRay Mckesson, a prominent figure within the Black Lives Matter movement who organized a protest near a Baton Rouge police station in 2016.

 

The facts of the Mckesson case are, unfortunately, quite tragic. Mckesson helped organize the Baton Rouge protest following the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling. During that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock or similar object at a police officer, the plaintiff in the Mckesson case who is identified only as “Officer John Doe.” Sadly, the officer was struck in the face and, according to one court, suffered “injuries to his teeth, jaw, brain, and head.”

 

Everyone agrees that this rock was not thrown by Mckesson, however. And the Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that protest leaders cannot be held liable for the violent actions of a protest participant, absent unusual circumstances that are not present in the Mckesson case — such as if Mckesson had “authorized, directed, or ratified” the decision to throw the rock.

 

Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

 

The reason Claiborne protects protest organizers should be obvious. No one who organizes a mass event attended by thousands of people can possibly control the actions of all those attendees, regardless of whether the event is a political protest, a music concert, or the Super Bowl. So, if protest organizers can be sanctioned for the illegal action of any protest attendee, no one in their right mind would ever organize a political protest again.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[tshile]

Seems specific to leading unlawful protests (there are laws about getting that many people together, and there’s a reason for it, and much of the disruption these people cause wouldn’t be allowed. They also do things like shut down roads and arrange police presence to help)

 

Same things that cause businesses to be looted and/or burned to the ground. Or random people to get caught in the middle of it cause they randomly shut down a road. 
 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Seems like a lot of parallels to January 6th.

[tshile]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

Seems like a lot of parallels to January 6th.

Minus the whole “overthrowing the government” part

 

I’m not a fan of the mass “trespassing” charges, seems kinda light, but idk seems I discount how sever prison sentences are. 
 

Out of comparison, how many BLM protestors over all those years were charged and convicted? We got over a thousand, with more to go, 1/6 right?

 

some of them oath keeper guys got serious time too, I think at least one over 15 years. 

[PleaseBlitz]

The case, which I've only read a very high-level summary of, doesn't seem to appear to be about sentencing participants in protests that get out of hand.  It appears to be about holding the organizers financially responsible if anyone at a protest they organized does something illegal.  So it would be like levying a civil monetary penalty against Donald Trump because some rando MAGA dumbass PATRIOT decided to punch a cop on Jan. 6 after Trump organized his little public remarks and encouraged everyone to "head down to the Capital."  

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

The case, which I've only read a very high-level summary of, doesn't seem to appear to be about sentencing participants in protests that get out of hand.  It appears to be about holding the organizers financially responsible if anyone at a protest they organized does something illegal.  So it would be like levying a civil monetary penalty against Donald Trump because some rando MAGA dumbass PATRIOT decided to punch a cop on Jan. 6 after Trump organized his little public remarks and encouraged everyone to "head down to the Capital."  

sorry yeah. 
 

and that sounds great. 
 

even if they had a permit for the mall I’m willing to bet they didn’t for the march to the capitol and then also the capitol. 

[PokerPacker]

40 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

The case, which I've only read a very high-level summary of, doesn't seem to appear to be about sentencing participants in protests that get out of hand.  It appears to be about holding the organizers financially responsible if anyone at a protest they organized does something illegal.  So it would be like levying a civil monetary penalty against Donald Trump because some rando MAGA dumbass PATRIOT decided to punch a cop on Jan. 6 after Trump organized his little public remarks and encouraged everyone to "head down to the Capital."  

Or what we'll most likely see, a legitimate protest will have some Trumpy false-flag actors go commit crimes so that civil rights organizers get stuck with the bill.  Or police.  They love false-flagging protests against police brutality.

[PleaseBlitz]

Get all the permits you want, the point is if you organize a protest, and ONE PERSON gets out of line, the organizer of the protest is liable for that one person's actions under the 5th Circuit ruling (which, again, I've only looked at at a very surface level (i.e., ScotusBlog's summary) and have not read the actual holding). 

1 minute ago, PokerPacker said:

Or what we'll most likely see, a legitimate protest will have some Trumpy false-flag actors go commit crimes so that civil rights organizers get stuck with the bill.  Or police.  They love false-flagging protests against police brutality.

 

This might concern me if I had any confidence that Trumpy false-flag actors had any competence at all, and exhibit 1 wouldn't be *the person's entire Facebook feed shouting how Trumpy they are.*  

[PokerPacker]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

This might concern me if I had any confidence that Trumpy false-flag actors had any competence at all, and exhibit 1 wouldn't be *the person's entire Facebook feed shouting how Trumpy they are.*  

Assuming you can identify the actor.  And even if so, will that stop fascist scum from holding the organizers responsible?

Edited April 15 by PokerPacker

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Get all the permits you want, the point is if you organize a protest, and ONE PERSON gets out of line, the organizer of the protest is liable for that one person's actions under the 5th Circuit ruling (which, again, I've only looked at at a very surface level (i.e., ScotusBlog's summary) and have not read the actual holding). 

Did they say that? 
 

Cause it seems to me part of the problem was they organized an unlawful protest, which resulted in serious injury, and part of what makes it unlawful is not doing things that need to be done to safely (or at least put in a good effort at safely) to organize a mass gathering especially if the underlining motive is extreme anger. 
 

Kind of like how these two parents that were sentenced to prison doesn’t mean every parent of a child that murders someone will go to prison. 
 

if they specifically spelled it out that it doesn’t matter and it is what you and the article say, then I missed it

 

To me  it seems like there’s a lot of context missing from this summary you and the article have. 

Edited April 15 by tshile