well-temperedforum.groupee.net
SCOTUS

This topic can be found at:
http://well-temperedforum.groupee.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9130004433/m/6913925497

09 July 2020, 11:07 AM
wtg
SCOTUS
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Trump a big loss Thursday, ruling that he is not "categorically immune" from having his pre-presidential financial records released to a New York grand jury. But in a second decision, the court pushed back against the breadth of congressional authority.

Both cases were sent back to lower courts, and above all, Americans will not see the president's taxes before Election Day.

In the first case, Trump had sought to block the grand jury subpoena of his documents. The vote was 7 to 2 with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion for the majority that Trump could not do so.

The president swiftly responded to the rulings on Twitter saying the legal battle, which has not been put to rest, is "not fair to this Presidency or Administration!"

The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!


Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted with the majority. Guess they don't like Trump after all.


https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09...hes-back-on-congress


--------------------------------
Outrage is warranted. But outrage unaccompanied by analysis is a danger in itself.

Bazootiehead-in-training



09 July 2020, 11:49 AM
Nina
Gentlemen, man your twitter accounts.... Big Grin

It's a narrow ruling, but a good one in my opinion. It returns the issue of congress to the lower courts.

But is anyone else getting tired of SCOTUS refusing to make any but narrow decisions, returning the bigger issues to the "lower courts"? Perhaps this is the system working as intended. I'd be curious to hear from you legal types whether this is standard deliberative legislative processing at work or a bunch of weenies afraid to make a strong decision.
09 July 2020, 02:30 PM
wtg
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday recognized about half of Oklahoma as Native American reservation land and overturned a tribe member’s rape conviction because the location where the crime was committed should have been considered outside the reach of state criminal law.

The justices ruled 5-4 in favor of a man named Jimcy McGirt and agreed that the site of the rape should have been recognized as part of a reservation based on the historical claim of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation - beyond the jurisdiction of state authorities. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the ruling after joining the court’s four liberals in the majority.

The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-largest city.

In a joint statement, the state, the Creek Nation and the other four of what is known as the “Five Tribes” of Oklahoma said they were making “substantial progress” toward an agreement on shared jurisdiction that they would present to the federal government. The other tribes are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole.

“The Nations and the state are committed to implementing a framework of shared jurisdiction that will preserve sovereign interests and rights to self-government while affirming jurisdictional understandings, procedures, laws and regulations that support public safety, our economy and private property rights,” the statement said.

Under the ruling, tribe members who live within the boundaries would become exempt from certain state obligations such as paying state taxes, while certain Native Americans found guilty in state courts may be able to challenge their convictions on jurisdictional grounds. The tribe also may obtain more power to regulate alcohol sales and expand casino gambling.


https://www.reuters.com/articl...vation-idUSKBN24A268


--------------------------------
Outrage is warranted. But outrage unaccompanied by analysis is a danger in itself.

Bazootiehead-in-training



09 July 2020, 02:36 PM
QuirtEvans
quote:
Originally posted by Nina:
Gentlemen, man your twitter accounts.... Big Grin

It's a narrow ruling, but a good one in my opinion. It returns the issue of congress to the lower courts.

But is anyone else getting tired of SCOTUS refusing to make any but narrow decisions, returning the bigger issues to the "lower courts"? Perhaps this is the system working as intended. I'd be curious to hear from you legal types whether this is standard deliberative legislative processing at work or a bunch of weenies afraid to make a strong decision.


My take is that it's a deliberate effort to avoid affecting the election.

They know the result they need to reach, particularly with respect to New York. The Paula Jones case is dispositive precedent.

But, by sending it back to the lower courts, it won't happen until after the election.
09 July 2020, 08:21 PM
Cindysphinx
I don't know about all that, Quirt.

The Supreme Court is stuck with the record below, and this was decided at a very early stage -- a subpoena was issued and not complied with. I don't think it would be all that difficult to find some holes in the record or legitimate defenses Trump has not raised that require additional action from the lower courts.

And the Supreme Court is supposed to decide cases on the narrowest grounds, and once you decide the immunity question, they aren't in a position to mandate that the records be disclosed.
09 July 2020, 09:16 PM
pianojuggler
I heard a comment on npr that it was interesting that in the Clinton and Nixon cases, the Supremes were *unanimous* in their decision that the president is not above the law and must answer when called. In this case it was 7 to 2. And if I heard correctly, I-1's two appointees both ruled against him, a touch he will certainly take personally and lead to untold rage-tweeting about how they've turned on him -- just like the Keebler elf got.


--------------------------------
pj, citizen-poster, unless specifically noted otherwise.

mod-in-training.

pj@ermosworld∙com

When a door closes, a can of worms opens.

10 July 2020, 05:17 AM
Daniel
quote:
Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
quote:
Originally posted by Nina:
Gentlemen, man your twitter accounts.... Big Grin

It's a narrow ruling, but a good one in my opinion. It returns the issue of congress to the lower courts.

But is anyone else getting tired of SCOTUS refusing to make any but narrow decisions, returning the bigger issues to the "lower courts"? Perhaps this is the system working as intended. I'd be curious to hear from you legal types whether this is standard deliberative legislative processing at work or a bunch of weenies afraid to make a strong decision.


My take is that it's a deliberate effort to avoid affecting the election.

They know the result they need to reach, particularly with respect to New York. The Paula Jones case is dispositive precedent.

But, by sending it back to the lower courts, it won't happen until after the election.


+1