US Supreme Court Discussions

[Cerin]

I'm hearing/reading that the Dems on the Judiciary Committee will boycott tomorrow's session. That would mean not only forfeiting the opportunity to read statements into the record (I understand there are several hours set aside for that before the vote), but allowing Republicans to do so uninterrupted by any opposing statements.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this image will have a much more lasting impact than any speeches they could have made.

[N.E. Brigand]

On the tax return cases, Trump lost, but won. The court held that he was not immune from subpoena by the NY prosecutor, nor should even a heightened standard be applied, but they still sent it back to the lower court for further review. On the congressional subpoenas, the court sent it back to the lower court to review further the separation of powers issues that it claims the lower court did not sufficiently address. Roberts, writing for a majority that included everyone other than Thomas and Alito, criticized both the House arguments and Trump's arguments.

The bottom line is that no one will see Trump's tax returns before the election. The NY D.A. will almost certainly prevail in the lower court and eventually get the documents that he is seeking. I would guess that the case involving the congressional subpoenas will eventually come back to SCOTUS for further review.

I haven't had a chance to look closely enough at the McGirt decision to form a firm opinion.

While the public, and the New York district attorney, and Congress, have yet to see Trump's tax returns (although apparently Congress has had at least one year of Trump's returns without realizing it, just sitting in storage somehwere, because it turns out they automatically get copies of returns that are the subject of certain kinds of disputes), it seems likely that when you wrote this, the New York Times already had seen more than a decade of Trump's returns, which revealed, among much else, that as recently as 2017, he paid more in federal income tax to China than he did to the U.S.

[N.E. Brigand]

The Senate committee hearing on Amy Barrett is the most disjointed hearing I've ever listened to. Evidently the Democrats have decided that since they cannot stop the appointment, and because they don't want to leave a bad impression in voters' minds by attacking Barrett's religious beliefs, they won't, for the most part, waste time talking about the nominee. Instead, they're using their speaking time to campaign -- against Trump and for a take-back of the Senate, mostly focusing on the ACA. I think it's a shrewd political move, but it does give the bizarre impression that when switching from Republican to Democratic speaker, one is also switching from the judicial hearing to a different hearing on health care.

It helped Democrats that Republicans kept saying in advance of the hearing that Democrats were going to attack Barrett's religion, so they knew enough to avoid that trap, but the ultimate winner was probably Lindsey Graham, who got several days of free television appearances in which he acted senatorial and was even praised by Dianne Feinstein. That was probably enough to stall the surging campaign of his opponent, Jaime Harrison.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Listening to the oral arguments in the Texas v. U.S. case (the ACA case). Justice Breyer is seriously pissed off.

From what I have heard so far, I am fairly sure that Chief Justice Roberts is not going to vote to overturn the full law. I'm not sure where the fifth vote against overturning the law will come from.

Eta: Justice Sotomayor is pissed off too.

ETAA: Justice Kavanaugh is sounding promising at the moment, though reading judges can be misleading. It sounds like he wants to throw out the mandate but keep the rest of the law.

ETAAA: This is a irrelevant comment, but Justice Barrett voice reminds me of fingernails on a chalkboard.

[elengil]

Listening to the oral arguments in the Texas v. U.S. case (the ACA case).

I wish I could listen to both at the same time, but I'm listening to McCabe's testimony right now.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, between the two of us, we've got it covered.

[elengil]

Justice Breyer is seriously pissed off.
...

Eta: Justice Sotomayor is pissed off too.

Mind summing up what the 'pissed off' is in regard to? Some specific argument?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Mostly at the very idea that the language of the ACA would deem mandate provision inseverable.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I feel relatively confident that the court is not going to invalidate the full law after listening to that.

[Dave_LF]

So what happens if they invalidate the mandate, but not the rest? I thought the whole thing was considered untenable without a mandate...

[elengil]

So what happens if they invalidate the mandate, but not the rest? I thought the whole thing was considered untenable without a mandate...

I believe the mandate was technically invalidated anyway when the amount of the 'fine/tax' was reduced to 0, meaning there was actually no enforceable way to require people to purchase health care. It has been noted that when congress set the amount to zero but did not repeal any other part of the law, then they basically were stating the law stands just fine on its own without that requirement.

I could be wrong but that's how I've interpreted how things have progressed.

[Inanna]

Yes, that’s my perception as well.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

For all intents and purposes, that is correct, but as so often is the case, legally it is much more complicated than that. Technically speaking (despite Trump's and others' repeated statements to the contrary) the 2017 tax cut law did NOT repeal the mandate. All it did was remove the teeth from the mandate, reducing the penalty for not getting insurance to $0 while technically leaving the requirement to get insurance in place. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case (the 18 Republican states led by Texas) argued that they had standing to bring the case because their clients were being harmed by the fact that the mandate still existed and that some people were still getting insurance because they were being told that they had to, despite the fact that there was no penalty for not doing so. The attorneys for the other side pointed out that there was no evidence of that at all. On the other hand, the attorneys who arguing for the House and the states that were supporting the law argued that because the mandate still technically existed and Congress could at any time increase the tax to some non-zero number (no, they didn't use that language) the mandate is still constitutional under the tax authority. The lawyers for Texas et al. also made the incredibly bizarre argument that even though the Supreme court had held that the ACA was not constitutional under the commerce clause that in 2017 when Congress reduced the penalty to zero but still explicitly refused to repeal the law they were relying on the commerce clause and not their taxing authority. I'm not sure any of the justices were buying that argument.

[N.E. Brigand]

So how about that speech by Justice Alito?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Alito's politically charged address draws heat

I'm not at all surprised.

[River]

So how about that speech by Justice Alito?

My dad was one of Alito's classmates at Yale so I have it on good authority that Alito is an idiot.

[RoseMorninStar]

So how about that speech by Justice Alito?

My dad was one of Alito's classmates at Yale so I have it on good authority that Alito is an idiot.

It seems it was intended to create trouble for the incoming administration, if I am not mistaken. And so inappropriate.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

First sign of the new reality. It's no longer the Roberts court. It's now the Barrett court.

In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York

[yovargas]

Comparing a church to a bike shop seems genuinely bonkers. I hope they at least bothered trying to make more reasonable comparisons at some point.