Supreme Court Watch

[dryrunguy]

When I decide to tie the knot, I'm going to search out one of the few people who is diametrically opposed to my lifestyle so I can get wrapped up in a prolonged Supreme Court battle for years and years and years--just to make a point. Because there are no other options out there.

Said no one ever.

[Owendonovan]

If you don't want my money for a service you provide because you don't like that I'm gay, that's fine, I'm not interested in doing business with people like that anyhow. Maybe one day the world catch on to the scam that organized religion is.

[meganfernandez]

When I decide to tie the knot, I'm going to search out one of the few people who is diametrically opposed to my lifestyle so I can get wrapped up in a prolonged Supreme Court battle for years and years and years--just to make a point. Because there are no other options out there.

Said no one ever.

Especially if you specialize in the very same service that you're seeking out!

[ti-amie]

Karin Wulf
@kawulf@historians.social
Elena Kagan Has Had Enough. Catching up on reading and as usual, Jamelle Bouie is excellent and on point: "The court, Kagan concluded, “exercises authority it does not have." ...To say that the Supreme Court can violate the Constitution is to reject the idea that the court is somehow outside the constitutional system....Kagan’s dissent, in other words, is a call for accountability." #SCOTUS #Law #History #Histodons

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

So. Let's look at it from a different view.
The SCOTUS can now look at HYPOTHETICAL cases?
If a three headed gay Elvis Clone wants to marry a transgender squid, but a catholic dog refuses to officiate the wedding, can you force a cat to bake them a cake?

[Owendonovan]

So. Let's look at it from a different view.
The SCOTUS can now look at HYPOTHETICAL cases?
If a three headed gay Elvis Clone wants to marry a transgender squid, but a catholic dog refuses to officiate the wedding, can you force a cat to bake them a cake?

If the cat believes Jesus is it's savior, then yes, all can go accordingly, if it doesn't believe, jail might be more appropriate.

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

They should simply list themselves in Craiglist.

[dryrunguy]

I guess I'll put this here. It's pretty wild--wild enough that I'm actually going to include the text from the AP article.

::

The NRA has a surprising defender in its free speech case before the Supreme Court: the ACLU

NEW YORK (AP) — In a case of politics making strange bedfellows, the National Rifle Association will be represented by frequent nemesis the American Civil Liberties Union in an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The New York-based civil liberties group confirmed Saturday that it would provide legal representation for the gun-rights group in its First Amendment case against New York’s Department of Financial Services even as it “vigorously” opposes nearly everything it stands for.

“We don’t support the NRA’s mission or its viewpoints on gun rights, and we don’t agree with their goals, strategies, or tactics,” the ACLU in a statement posted on X, formerly Twitter. “But we both know that government officials can’t punish organizations because they disapprove of their views.”

The NRA, which reshared the ACLU’s statement on its social media account, wrote in a follow-up post that it was “proud” to stand with the ACLU and others who recognize that “regulatory authority cannot be used to silence political speech.”

The nation’s highest court is set to hear arguments early next year in a case centered on comments former New York State Department of Financial Services superintendent Maria Vullo made in the wake of the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

After 17 people were killed at the Parkland, Florida, school, Vullo called on banks and insurance companies operating in New York to discontinue their association with gun-promoting groups.

In letters to companies and news releases, she urged operators to consider “reputational risks” from doing business with the NRA and other gun groups.

The NRA sued Vullo after multiple entities cut ties or decided not to do business with the Fairfax, Virginia-based organization. The federal appeals court in New York rejected the NRA’s claims, saying Vullo acted in good faith and within the bounds of her job.

Spokespersons for New York’s financial services department didn’t respond to an email seeking comment Saturday.

But the ACLU, in additional comments posted on X, argued that if the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene, it could create a “dangerous playbook” for regulatory agencies across the country to blacklist or punish “viewpoint-based organizations” including abortion rights groups, environmental groups and even the ACLU itself.

“The questions at the core of this case are about the First Amendment and the principled defense of civil liberties for all, including those with whom we disagree on the Second Amendment,” the ACLU wrote. “We won’t let the rights of organizations to engage in political advocacy be trampled.”

The announcement, which comes as the NRA and the gun-rights movement broadly has proven resilient amid the nation’s ceaseless mass shootings and gun violence, was criticized by at least one prominent ACLU affiliate.

The New York Civil Liberties Union, in a statement, said it “strongly disagrees” with the decision and would not participate in the case, even though it originated in New York.

“The important First Amendment issue in the case is well-established, the NRA is one of the most powerful organizations in the country and has sophisticated counsel, and representing the NRA directly risks enormous harm to the clients and communities the ACLU and NYCLU work with and serve,” Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in an emailed statement.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... bbe985f18f

[ti-amie]

The above just goes to show how complicated these cases are. Thanks dry.

[ti-amie]

Supreme Court says it will decide if Trump qualifies for Colorado ballot
By Ann E. Marimow and Patrick Marley
Updated January 5, 2024 at 6:30 p.m. EST|Published January 5, 2024 at 5:05 p.m. EST

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide whether former president Donald Trump’s name can appear on primary election ballots, scheduling arguments just five weeks from now in a case that will have a major impact on this year’s presidential election.

Colorado’s top court disqualified the Republican front-runner from the ballot last month, finding that he engaged in an insurrection before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Similar arguments have been made to keep Trump off the ballot in other states.

While some of those challenges have failed, including in Michigan and Minnesota, the efforts are still pending in Illinois, Oregon, Massachusetts and elsewhere. Maine’s top election official last month barred Trump from that ballot, an order that the former president has appealed in state court.

Friday’s announcement puts the justices in a pivotal, and potentially uncomfortable, position with echoes of the court’s involvement in the 2000 election — when its decision assured victory for George W. Bush polarized the nation and damaged the court’s reputation as an independent institution.

The court’s brief order scheduled oral arguments for Feb. 8 and came a day before the third anniversary of the Capitol riot.

Legal scholars and state election officials have urged the court to quickly settle the question of Trump’s eligibility as a candidate and to ensure all states follow the same policy ahead of this year’s primary voting. Trump holds a wide lead over other Republican contenders, with the Iowa caucuses less than two weeks away and state primaries starting Jan. 23.

The Colorado decision was the first time a court found that a presidential candidate could be barred from the ballot because of a provision of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment. The provision prevents insurrectionists from holding office and was designed to keep Confederates from returning to power.

Colorado and Maine temporarily put their decisions to bar Trump as a candidate on hold, meaning the former president’s name will stay on the primary ballots until the legal issues are resolved. Both states hold primaries March 5, but ballots are printed — and mailed to military and overseas voters — weeks before then.

Ballots will be mailed to most voters for Colorado’s mail-in primary starting Feb. 12, four days after the justices are set to hear arguments. Colorado law required Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) to certify who could be on the primary ballot Friday, and she included Trump’s name because the state Supreme Court ruling remains on hold. If Trump is later found ineligible to run, Griswold could prevent votes for him from being counted.

The public already views the Supreme Court through a partisan lens, with Democrats expressing little confidence in the court and Republicans saying the opposite — and the question of whether Trump should be kept off the ballot has the potential to further polarize those views.

“It throws them right into the political thicket,” Stanford law professor Michael W. McConnell said of the court. “There is no way they can decide the case without having about half the country think they are being partisan hacks.”

The justices also face other novel questions affecting the political future and criminal liability of Trump, who has been indicted in state and federal court in connection with his efforts to block the 2020 election results, though those criminal charges do not include insurrection. Already, the high court has announced that it will review a law used to charge hundreds of people in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, a charge that is among those Trump faces in his federal election obstruction case in D.C. The Supreme Court will also probably be asked to decide whether Trump can be prosecuted for actions he took while president — a question being heard next week by the federal appeals court in D.C.

In the Colorado case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., an ardent institutionalist, is likely to look for consensus through a narrow ruling that seeks unanimity or avoids a partisan split on a court with a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three justices nominated by Trump.

Constitutional scholars are divided on whether it would be good for democracy to bar Trump from the ballot, or whether such a move, even if legally sound, is politically too dangerous. Many of them say they expect the justices to try to find a way to decide the case without addressing the underlying question of whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. The justices have several paths to do so.

In urging the justices to invalidate the Colorado decision, and give voters the opportunity to select the candidate of their choosing, the former president’s lawyers and the Colorado Republican Party have made multiple arguments. States, they say, have no authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without the passage of federal legislation. They also contend that Section 3 applies to those who took oaths to serve in Congress or a state legislature, not to serve as president. In addition, Trump’s lawyers say he did not engage in an insurrection.

If a majority of justices agree with Trump on any of those arguments, the court could allow the former president’s name to remain on the ballot.

Attorneys for the six Colorado voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility have said that the Constitution’s language barring insurrectionists from office is clear, that it applies to presidents and that it does not require an act of Congress to be enforced. They urged the justices in a filing Thursday to abide by the finding from Colorado’s top court that the former president intentionally incited his supporters to violence on Jan. 6 to disrupt the certification of the election — and exacerbated the attack while it was ongoing.

“We’re glad that the Supreme Court will definitively decide whether Donald Trump can be on the ballot. We look forward to presenting our case and ensuring the Constitution is upheld,” Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which brought the challenge on behalf of Colorado voters, said in a statement.

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung welcomed the court’s decision to take the case, saying it would end questions around the country about whether Trump can serve as president again.

“We are confident that the fair-minded Supreme Court will unanimously affirm the civil rights of President Trump, and the voting rights of all Americans in a ruling that will squash all of the remaining ballot challenge hoaxes once and for all,” Cheung said in a statement.

Of the nine sitting justices, only Justice Clarence Thomas was on the bench when the court issued its 2000 decision about the vote count in Florida in Bush v. Gore. But his colleagues are certainly mindful of the lasting impact the ruling had on the high court’s image.

Years after she retired, the late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, for one, expressed misgivings that the court had gotten involved in the case, acknowledging that the ruling “gave the court a less than perfect reputation.”

“No doubt they have learned some lessons from that,” said McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge. “They do not want to be in a position where they look like they’ve decided an American election.”

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

[ti-amie]

I'm not a lawyer. My gut reaction is that they should not have gotten involved with this situation. It's purely a matter for the States to decide.

Thomas, whose wife is a supporter of the Insurrection, should recuse himself but he won't.

[ponchi101]

Anyway, the concept that the SCOTUS is a non political entity is a very hard concept to sell.