Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Future of the Supreme Court

The Future of the Supreme Court (Page 7)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2020, 08:20 PM
 
Thats not what I call them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 01:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Alito dissented from the majority on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey as a judge of the Court of Appeals. So I'd take that with a grain of salt.

He would or he doesn't, but should?
I don't see that happening. Not because I take issue with your reasoning, but because I don't think Alito will follow this line of reasoning until its logical conclusion. When it comes to these issues, motivated reasoning is very strong — even in Supreme Court justices.

Look at his record, including his minority dissent on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.
At your prompting, I read this dissent. It’s easy to build a profile of where he stands because he’s freaky consistent.

Alito doesn’t question the protection for abortion provided by law. In every dissent he reaffirms the law obligates him to provide these protections. He hasn’t budged on this for going on three decades.

Now, he’s a real unforgiving hardass when it comes to judging whether a law infringes on these protections, but as far as I can tell, he’s never ever questioned whether abortion is due these protections. His position is the law says it‘s due, so it’s due.

A court where Alito’s opinion was in the majority would no doubt be more restrictive of abortion, however it wouldn’t be a court intent on eliminating the protections abortion has been given. Throughout his entire career, Alito has treated these protections as settled law.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 04:18 AM
 
Its nice to know that there are at least some on the right prepared to respect the law over what they personally favour. I get the impression they are a nearly extinct breed these days.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
At your prompting, I read this dissent. It’s easy to build a profile of where he stands because he’s freaky consistent.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the dissent. I haven't, so I'll take your summary at face value.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Alito doesn’t question the protection for abortion provided by law. In every dissent he reaffirms the law obligates him to provide these protections. He hasn’t budged on this for going on three decades.
My dad was a lawyer and I worked for him during high school typing up legal texts of all sorts. I don't want to pretend I'm a lawyer, I'm not, but I have read in quite a bit of detail how lawyers argue. I'd say Alito is putting forth his best argument given the current legal framework. So as you say, as long as Roe vs. Wade hasn't been overturned, that's the current legal framework he has to stay within. And like you write:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A court where Alito’s opinion was in the majority would no doubt be more restrictive of abortion, however it wouldn’t be a court intent on eliminating the protections abortion has been given.
Roe vs. Wade was not on the table — this time. But you can carve out so many exceptions to a right until it practically no longer exists. For example when it comes to voter ID laws, you can shape the law so as to surgically target one specific part of the electorate (say, you exclude students IDs, but accept hunting licenses). On paper, you are not disenfranchising one particular political group even though in practice you very much do. If this law comes before you as a judge, you can find good micro arguments to go either way, which allows you to give more weight to the theory of the law or they are put in practice.

Supreme Court justices are not stupid, they know full well what is going on. In some aspects, legal details do matter. But we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Throughout his entire career, Alito has treated these protections as settled law.
This is the only point where I'd quibble with you and say that Alito has in fact ruled on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the other relevant important precedent (as a lower court judge before he was elevated to the Supreme Court). So Alito has helped shape the current legal framework on abortion.


Zooming out again, I don't think it is smart either way to rely on the Supreme Court coming to the “right” conclusion, whatever you may consider this to be. But given that legislation on this topic is even less likely than legislation on any topic, you Americans need to rely on a bunch of really old people in funny robes making the “right” choice.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 12:20 PM
 
Can anyone tell me why the court agreed to hear the Louisiana case in the first place? As I understand it, the law was, for all intents, identical to the Texas law which the court had already struck down.
When I want your opinion,-
I'll read it in your entrails
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 03:39 PM
 
Two new justices since the Texas ruling.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Can anyone tell me why the court agreed to hear the Louisiana case in the first place? As I understand it, the law was, for all intents, identical to the Texas law which the court had already struck down.
I heard that one of the factors was who the plaintiff was in this case vs. the previous one on the Texan abortion law.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Two new justices since the Texas ruling.
That, too.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2020, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Supreme Court justices are not stupid, they know full well what is going on. In some aspects, legal details do matter. But we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture.
Let’s take a near-worst case scenario in Louisiana, where regulations whittle things down until there’s only one abortion provider left in the entire state.

Assuming this provider is in one of the top three metro areas, per the Casey test (within 150 miles of a provider), over half the state population still has access.

This is restricting abortion far beyond what the law allows, but even with that, it can’t exactly be said it’s been restricted to the point of unavailability.


P.S. I want to address the settled law part, but that’s a little more involved.
( Last edited by subego; Jul 4, 2020 at 08:28 AM. )
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 02:28 PM
 
Roberts and others back in line to allow religious institutions to not include birth control in their health insurance packages, and religious schools free to discriminate however they wish. Oh, and in Montana tax credits can be used toward religious schools. Betsy Devos is getting her money's worth.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...source=twitter

Some theorize this is throwing meat to Trump before coming out hard on the tax issue. We'll see.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 03:14 PM
 
Kagan is throwing meat to Trump?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 04:07 PM
 
I've lost track of what dimension of chess they're all playing at this point.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 05:33 PM
 
It's a little surprising Kagan went with the crowd on these. The vote was 7-2 with only Sotomayer and Ginsberg dissenting. So two judges went with majority.

I never considered that judges may have backroom dealings like other politicians "I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine." I hope not. The religious angle is a tricky one.

As many on twitter are saying, all the more reason to make healthcare not dependent on employer.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 06:12 PM
 
Maybe I’m being naive, but my guess is they don’t horse trade. There’s no real incentive, and morals and egos both get in the way.

Further, I get the impression they all enjoy getting into legal judo matches with each other.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 10:25 AM
 
SCOTUS has ruled Trump must turn over his tax returns to the SDNY.
A 7-2 decision. Not even close. Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
( Last edited by Thorzdad; Jul 9, 2020 at 10:39 AM. )
When I want your opinion,-
I'll read it in your entrails
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 10:44 AM
 
What if he refuses?

Can they just get them from the IRS?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 11:04 AM
 
I think, technically, they subpoenaed the accountants who prepped the returns, and Trump sued to block the move. I don't think he actually has a say in the matter.
When I want your opinion,-
I'll read it in your entrails
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
SCOTUS has ruled Trump must turn over his tax returns to the SDNY.
A 7-2 decision. Not even close. Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
What do we expect to see? It's not like he's going to report employment by the Russian government. I have no idea what a tax return looks like at that level. If it looks like he didn't make money, he just makes the claim that his brilliant Jew accountant cooked the books so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. If it shows that he made tons of money, he revels in being rich. I guess I don't see the downside here.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 11:23 AM
 
It's already been shown that he owes money to russian banks, right?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
SCOTUS has ruled Trump must turn over his tax returns to the SDNY.
A 7-2 decision. Not even close. Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
Womp womp.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 04:14 PM
 
And his spokesperson spins and sidles it away "A unanimous decision in favor of the president." His taxes will be released after audit. How long do audits take? Forever?

Q: "the pres] could release his taxes at any time... why shouldn't the American public, at this point, believe the pres. has something he's trying to hide?"

A: "The taxes are under audit, he said he would release them when they were no longer under audit"

https://t.co/Qx5HleVL1p
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 04:30 PM
 
She’s counter-spinning too much, but all the headlines I’ve seen up to now did omit some kinda sorta important details.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
What do we expect to see? It's not like he's going to report employment by the Russian government. I have no idea what a tax return looks like at that level. If it looks like he didn't make money, he just makes the claim that his brilliant Jew accountant cooked the books so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. If it shows that he made tons of money, he revels in being rich. I guess I don't see the downside here.
Best case scenario for Trump is his returns reveal that he has considerably less money than he claims and his ego takes hit. More likely, they reveal all sorts of troubling information mostly being conflicts of interest with shares in businesses he's been awarding government contracts to (more than the ones we already know about) and security concerns due to debts or payments to foreign governments.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Jul 10, 2020 at 12:51 AM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 10:13 PM
 
I’d add to that he also probably has investments in Russia he claimed to never have.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2020, 07:27 AM
 
But tax returns don't show net worth do they? And do they break out specific investment sources? I've only ever done poverty-level normal people taxes, where "capital gains" is a single field, and the only time income source is called out is when I have a W2, which rich people wouldn't really care about. If most of his net worth is wrapped up in real estate and investments, what would be incriminating about a tax return?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2020, 07:57 AM
 
I’ve got nothin. I don’t even look at the thing. My accountant says “pay this”, and then I cry.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2020, 12:31 PM
 
Investments (banks, trusts, etc) issue 1099 forms to report their income, which get included in tax returns. If he itemizes (likely to obtain the lowest tax) the forms will include a lot about his direct assets. There are extra forms for foreign income, for unusual deductions, etc. Explanations may be attached, pointing out "suspicious item X" was audited two years ago, and passed. Collectively, his returns are likely to include a whole lot of info.

I'm still rooting for some illegal income. He should have paid for a tax attorney to prepare his returns, instead of an accounting house. Yes, it costs more. But your attorney is covered by attorney-client privilege, and a subpoena is a waste of time. The fact he cheeped-out with a tax preparation firm, suggests he also deducted every last item he could, for every dime of tax savings. Which means his forms will include the maximum amount of info.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2020, 06:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is the only point where I'd quibble with you and say that Alito has in fact ruled on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the other relevant important precedent (as a lower court judge before he was elevated to the Supreme Court). So Alito has helped shape the current legal framework on abortion.
Sorry for the delay!

I guess I’m ultimately confused here.

When Casey was before him, he ruled on it, which is what he’s supposed to do.

The central question was what test to use, whether “undue burden” or a lesser standard.

His argument was for a lesser standard, however he took no issue with the undue burden standard. To him, that standard was settled law.

FWIW, he also said that under the undue burden standard, the clause in question was likely unconstitutional.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:14 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,