SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[Estebonrober]

As we have learned over the last two years, there is a hell of a lot the Senate can do all by itself.

I'm pretty sure they cannot pass legislation without the House, as for stacking courts? The moment of civility regarding that has passed. The filibuster on it is gone because essentially the GOP has completely embraced the idea that no government at all is preferable to any liberal type ever ruling from a federal bench. So after years of blocking federal judge appointments Reid got rid of that filibuster and then McConnel followed suite on the SCOTUS. Thus there is no reason to act like this is not already completely broken. Again until the GOP changes its nihilistic tactic of ruin I care not and we should fight as if our lives depend on it, for they verily do.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I said somewhere else that we're watching the Prisoner's Dilemma play out and we're long past the point where one side has stopped cooperating and now the only rational thing to do is stop cooperating ourselves.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And unfortunately, Biden seems intent on at least projecting that he still wants to cooperate. That is a big part of his whole spiel - being bipartisan. I can only hope that he says that for election purposes but will be using to use the levers of powers at hand to actually make course corrections.

 

[Ajidica]

And unfortunately, Biden seems intent on at least projecting that he still wants to cooperate. That is a big part of his whole spiel - being bipartisan. I can only hope that he says that for election purposes but will be using to use the levers of powers at hand to actually make course corrections.

Yeah, for the next two weeks, if Biden saying he will personally tie Bernie Sanders to a train track like an old time Wild West villain will win him Pennsylvania, then go for it.

 

[innonimatu]

And unfortunately, Biden seems intent on at least projecting that he still wants to cooperate. That is a big part of his whole spiel - being bipartisan. I can only hope that he says that for election purposes but will be using to use the levers of powers at hand to actually make course corrections.

You will be so sorely disappointed... the democrats are bipartisan for a reason. It's not because of some need to win elections.

 

[Drakle]

https://www.salon.com/2020/10/16/wa...-of-unconscionable-cruelty-in-teen-rape-case/

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has been accused of "unconscionable cruelty" by a watchdog group over her role in an appellate court decision overturning a district court which found a Wisconsin county liable for millions in damages to a woman who alleged she had been repeatedly raped by a jail guard.

"After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties. Her judgment demonstrates a level of unconscionable cruelty that has no place on the high court," Kyle Herrig, president of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, told Salon. "The only thing more concerning than the rush to confirm by Senate Republicans is what we are learning about Amy Coney Barrett's extremist record. It is hardly surprising that she has dodged question after question during her testimony."

Barrett was one of the three judges on a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel which reversed a $6.7 million verdict against Milwaukee County in 2018 after a corrections officer was charged with repeatedly raping a pregnant 19-year-old inmate.

edit

And the legal basis for her overruling this is insane to legal professionals.

https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1317596060932624385

I was wondering if this was one of those "applying precedent leads us to this unfortunately result..." cases but, no, the reality is that Barrett plowed through state law and a jury's factual findings to cheat the plaintiff out of her fair compensation. /1

The plaintiff's appellate brief is available here: scribd.com/document/48048…

The facts are recounted on pages 16-21 of the PDF. They're awful. The guard repeatedly raped her at the prison.

The issue was whether the county had to pay for the $6,700,000 jury verdict. /2

Consistent with Wisconsin law, the jury had already heard ample evidence about whether the rapes were within the guard's "scope of employment," and they had decided the answer was yes. Excerpts from plaintiff's brief. /3

The county's ludicrous claim (1st pic) was that the guard's actual job was "to keep inmates safe and secure," and raping inmates isn't that.

The plaintiff's response on this point (2nd pic) was quite persuasive: if that's the job, why was she shackled during childbirth?
/4

Courts in Wisconsin, including its Supreme Court, have repeatedly held that sexual assault does *not* automatically fall outside of the "scope of employment," and that the issue is left to the jury to decide based on the facts. Excerpts from plaintiff's brief. /5

And courts across the country, including the Seventh Circuit, have repeatedly recognized that sexual assault can fall within the "scope of employment" for law enforcement, given how they're armed authority figures authorized to deploy violence. /6

The jury heard ample evidence about how the rapes were squarely within the guard's employment, done at the prison and using means and methods given to him by the prison—including the use of violence, here sexual assault, to exert power and control, as was part of his job. /7

Judge Barrett, the supposed "textualist," joined in full Judge Manion's opinion that breezed right past actual Wisconsin law to instead rely on the law's supposed "intent and purpose." Then they rewrote Wisconsin law on their own terms, which enabled them to nuke the verdict. /8

So there's Barrett-style "judicial restraint" and "federalism" and "letting legislatures determine policy:" she re-wrote Wisconsin law so she could overturn a Wisconsin jury's factual determinations and compensation for a woman who was repeatedly raped in jail by a guard. /end

 

[EgonSpengler]

So I haven't really followed the Supreme Court confirmation process, because (a) I assume it's a fait accompli and the hearings are a dog & pony show, and (b) I don't really need to hear any more about how much our country blows right now. But I guess I can't escape it. On the radio just now, they played a sound clip of Corey Booker asking Amy Coney Barrett about any scholarly journal articles or law journal articles that she'd read on the topic of racial bias in the criminal justice system. She couldn't even name one.

Starting at 1:06 of the video embedded on the NPR page:

And so I just want to ask you, and maybe give you more of a chance to discuss. I understand that you weren't aware of the specific studies I cited which are central to the important work of the US Censusing commission, which advises Federal judges, or provides recommendations to Federal judges. So I just want to give you an opportunity today to share what studies, articles, books, law review articles, or commentary you have read regarding racial disparities present in our criminal justice system.

Well, Senator, as you know, the sentencing guidelines do give judges guidance on imposing sentences, and so I am familiar with the sentencing guidelines, because they're something, when we review sentences, that we need to draw on and apply. In addition to the sentencing guidelines, the sentencing commission, as you say, does issue studies, or sometimes we get things from the federal judicial center that talk about it. It's not something... I'm certainly aware of it, I think it's kind of an obvious point that there is still racism, but I haven't...

Forgive me for interrupting - Joni Ernst has been teaching me about "Iowa nice" and I do not want to make her mad - but I was actually asking specifically [about] any books you could name that you've read on this subject, or law review articles, anything that you've specifically read outside of the sentencing guidelines.

Well, Senator Booker, I would say that what I have learned about it has mostly been in conversations with people, and at Notre Dame, as at many other universities, it's a topic of conversation in classrooms, but it's not something that I can say, 'yes, I've done research on this and read X, Y, Z'.

I guess we just have to hope that no federal cases about racial bias in the criminal justice system reach the Supreme Court in the next 30 years.

 

[stinkubus]

We might not have the Civil Rights Act in 30 years. The Constitution did not grant the court the power to invalidate acts of Congress. They asserted this right for themselves and this authority will eventually need to be challenged. Most countries don't allow their courts to just throw out entire pieces of legislation wholesale over picayune rhetorical disputes.

 

[IglooDame]

We might not have the Civil Rights Act in 30 years. The Constitution did not grant the court the power to invalidate acts of Congress. They asserted this right for themselves and this authority will eventually need to be challenged. Most countries don't allow their courts to just throw out entire pieces of legislation wholesale over picayune rhetorical disputes.

I think overturning Marbury v. Madison is going to be a pretty tough slog.

 

[Estebonrober]

I think overturning Marbury v. Madison is going to be a pretty tough slog.

They will not do anything as overt as overturn it, they will undermine it over time. Similar to the Roe v Wade strategy or the already successful Abood v DDoE undermining or the Citizens United ruling undermining the ban on corporate and union spending on campaigns that had held for almost 70 years. Never underestimate reactionary forces I have come to learn in my lifetime. They are always willing to take it further then you expected.

 

[Lexicus]

They will not do anything as overt as overturn it, they will undermine it over time.

Marbury vs Madison is the case from 1803 that basically established the court's power of judicial review. They're not going to undermine that one.

The whole problem with respecting precedent is that there's precedent for a load of right-wing crap that ought to be tossed out.

But Igloodude is right that overturning Marbury vs Madison is a hard slog. So hard that I think legislative fixes, and constitutional amendments if necessary, are probably the easier route.

 

[uppi]

Marbury vs Madison is the case from 1803 that basically established the court's power of judicial review. They're not going to undermine that one.

The whole problem with respecting precedent is that there's precedent for a load of right-wing crap that ought to be tossed out.

But Igloodude is right that overturning Marbury vs Madison is a hard slog. So hard that I think legislative fixes, and constitutional amendments if necessary, are probably the easier route.

No court will voluntarily strip judicial review from itself. The Supreme Court will only be restricted by the constitution.

And in my opinion, judicial review is not the problem and if you want the constitution to be worth the paper it is printed on, you need a body to enforce it.

The real problem is the constitution itself and that the need of updating it has been ignored too long and too often. If the Supreme Court makes questionable rulings based on unclear wordings, the correct response would be to clear up the issue in the constitution.

 

[Sommerswerd]

They will not do anything as overt as overturn it, they will undermine it over time. Similar to the Roe v Wade strategy or the already successful Abood v DDoE undermining or the Citizens United ruling undermining the ban on corporate and union spending on campaigns that had held for almost 70 years. Never underestimate reactionary forces I have come to learn in my lifetime. They are always willing to take it further then you expected.

That's not the case you're thinking of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

EDIT: I see others have already addressed it, but the Court would never undermine its own power in such a fundamental way, as it would essentially be invalidating itself by doing so.

 

[Ajidica]

That's not the case you're thinking of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

EDIT: I see others have already addressed it, but the Court would never undermine its own power in such a fundamental way, as it would essentially be invalidating itself by doing so.

We need to find a happy medium between "Supreme Court does nothing" and "Supreme Court ignores Congress and is structurally immune to change".

 

[Estebonrober]

Marbury vs Madison is the case from 1803 that basically established the court's power of judicial review. They're not going to undermine that one.

The whole problem with respecting precedent is that there's precedent for a load of right-wing crap that ought to be tossed out.

But Igloodude is right that overturning Marbury vs Madison is a hard slog. So hard that I think legislative fixes, and constitutional amendments if necessary, are probably the easier route.

my bad. Used context to assume it was a civil rights case. Heard the name of it before so thought I knew.

 

[stinkubus]

I think overturning Marbury v. Madison is going to be a pretty tough slog.

The court obviously isn't going to voluntarily give up the powers it took for itself. It's going to need to be disbanded.

 

[Drakle]

https://twitter.com/byKateSmith/status/1319420057601134593

Within hours of the Senate Judiciary advancing Amy Coney Barrett, Mississippi asked SCOTUS to review its 15-week abortion ban.

It’s a case that could reverse Roe v Wade, & it looks like Barrett will decide whether to hear it.

Republicans can't even play the long game, when victory is in sight. Literally, just stay silent for like a month and then start proclaiming your unpopular agenda. Not right before an election, you are already on awful ground for. Hell in Mississippi, according to 538, Espy has a similar chance of winning the Senate seat (12 on deluxe) as Trump does of winning the electoral college. Not sure I buy that, since Mississippi is a super racially polarized electorate and the uber-popular Jim Hood couldn't win a governors race.

We will see if the Supreme Court justices bite the bait. Roberts wants to play the long game, but now even if he flips to the Liberal side, they can still ram through some crap. I think Biden and co is hoping the SC does something awful to 'force his hand' to expand the court.

 

[Lexicus]

We will see if the Supreme Court justices bite the bait. Roberts wants to play the long game, but now even if he flips to the Liberal side, they can still ram through some crap. I think Biden and co is hoping the SC does something awful to 'force his hand' to expand the court.

I hope so.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I hope so.

I am starting to think that the Democrats should present Court-packing as a "course correction" package deal. Biden adds 4 justices to the Court, which they will ram through on party line votes if necessary. This sets the number of Justices at 13, with 6 Republican appointees and 7 Democratic appointees. Then, as part of the deal, pass a Constitutional Amendment that fixes the number of Justices going forward back at 9. That way, as Justices retire, or otherwise leave the Court, they will not be replaced, until the number gets below 9 again. Obviously Breyer will be the first to go, which will make the Court even at 6 Republican appointees and 6 Liberal appointees and Court-packing is solved once and for all.

I think its a good deal that Republicans should consider... if they're acting in good faith, at least... which... well...

 

[stinkubus]

The number of justices could be increased by legislative fiat and since it's obviously budget neutral it could even go through reconciliation so no filibuster.

They won't do it. The Democrats donors don't all want them picking Supreme Court justices.