-
-
One for Ursus perhaps - why is it that the various state laws on the definition of marriage were overturned by SCOTUS, yet they can restrict access to abortion, in the teeth of Roe vs Wade?Comment
-
Obergfell (the "gay marriage" case) was decided on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds given that marriage had long been recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
Roe, on the other hand, was decided solely on Due Process grounds and on the basis of a Constitutional "right to privacy" that had not been previously enshrined in law and whose existence is still vigorously debated (at least among anti-abortion types). Roe also explicitly held that that right was not "absolute", which is why it could establish the trimester-based approach as to legality, and in doing so made manifest that the Court expected to have to issue further rulings on the subject.
There are, of course, a number of current justices who believe that Obergfell was wrongly decided and are itching to overturn it, they just don't have the votes to do so.
Perhaps more broadly, all of this indicates that one of my favourite law professors is dead on when she says that "Stare Decisis is for suckers". The once well-established deference of the Court to its prior decisions is no match for a strong shift in ideology.Last edited by ursus arctos; 17-05-2021, 16:21.Comment
-
We don't seem to have a general US supreme court thread. How are the confirmation hearings going?Comment
-
They are over.
The Judiciary Committee split 11-11 on pure party lines, but KBJ has gotten pledges of three Republican votes in the Senate as a whole (Collins, Murkowski and Romney) and will be confirmed later this week.Comment
-
It is such partisan bullshit it is depressing.Comment
-
It is astonishing to hear all these Republican Senators saying "She's completely qualified, has a great track record, there's nothing wrong with anything she's done, she's got through the confirmation hearings just fine, and she'll be an exceptional supreme court justice. I won't vote for her."Comment
-
I am very much not astonishedComment
-
The most radical left-wing justice ever to be seated on the Supreme Court - Ted Cruz.Comment
-
Why does an 11-11 split not stopping it going to the Senate floor?
I assume that all future Democrat-controlled Senates will block GOP POTUS nominees?Comment
-
You don't need a majority in the committee to bring it to the floorComment
-
Obama should have straight up appointed Garland.Comment
-
KBJ now scheduled to be confirmed this afternoonComment
-
Now just to have Thomas die before the mid terms. Fucking Roberts forgetting to look both ways crossing the road would be good too.Comment
-
I'm afraid that Thomas looks to have fully recoveredComment
-
Roberts seems to be positively reasonable in comparison to his colleagues now.Comment
-
-
In fact, that Obama should really have done was say, "Fine, if we aren't even having a hearing, then forget centrist Garland. I'll appoint the most left wing candidate I can find directly to the court."
Comment
-
Have you taken up with Louise Mensch?Comment
-
NoComment
-
This is an incredible ruling, which, based on very imaginative reading of statute, rules that federal courts can't hear appeals against errors of fact in green card application hearings - something even the federal government never claimed - and possibly incidentally outlaws all appeals including on constitutional grounds against green card application rulings until the Federal Government decides to seek removal.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-979_h3ci.pdf
Just look, too, at all the guesswork lurking behind the majority’s hunch. The majority’s argument first depends on a hypothesis that Congress intentionally designed a scheme that encourages individuals who receive erroneous rulings on their green-card applications to overstay their visas and remain in this country unlawfully. Next, it depends on a second-level hypothesis that Congress replaced a presumptive promise of judicial review with a scheme in which judicial review depends on the happenstance of a governmental decision to seek removal. Finally, the majority’s position relies on a third supposition—that Congress might have withdrawn judicial review for thousands upon thousands of lawfully present persons annually, and done so without expressly discussing the question. Often this Court rejects as implausible statutory interpretations that seek to squeeze elephants into mouseholes. Today’s interpretation seeks to cram a veritable legislative zoo into one clause of one subparagraph of one subsection of our Nation’s vast immigration laws.
The majority concludes that courts are powerless to correct an agency decision holding an individual ineligible for relief from removal based on a factual error, no matter how egregious the error might be. The majority’s interpretation has the further consequence of denying any chance to correct agency errors in processing green-card applications outside the removal context. Even the government cannot bring itself to endorse the majority’s arresting conclusions. For good reason. Those conclusions are at war with all the evidence before us. They read language out of the statute and collapse the law’s clear two-step framework. They disregard the lessons of neighboring provisions and even ignore the statute’s very title. They make no sense of the statute’s history. Altogether, the majority’s novel expansion of a narrow statutory exception winds up swallowing the law’s general rule guaranteeing individuals the chance to seek judicial review to correct obvious bureaucratic missteps. It is a conclusion that turns an agency once accountable to the rule of law into an authority unto itself. Perhaps some would welcome a world like that. But it is hardly the world Congress ordained.Comment
-
5-4 with Barrett writing for the CourtComment
-
Some more pretty wild stuff today then:
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1528740991422939136?s=20&t=VcMIYhnhaI2cY9hKLIFiuQ
Comment
- If you are currently locked out of OTF due to not being able to remember/reset your password, password reset emails are now working.
Comment