Supreme Court: Gorsuch Dissents

Mr. Perry’s is an invitation I would run from fast. If a statute needs repair, there’s a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It’s called legislation. To be sure, the demands of bicameralism and presentment are real and the process can be protracted. But the difficulty of making new laws isn’t some bug in the constitutional design: it’s the point of the design, the better to preserve liberty.”

Judge Gorsuch's first dissent. OTOH, seven justices, including Roberts and Alito, joined RBG's majority opinion that said certain "legislation" required something. The "process" brought forth it. etc.  Now, it is not that I am fully sure one way or the other of the correctness of the majority here, but do generally think that the seven justices at worst are merely interpreting the law wrongly. They are not legislating from the bench. In fact, repeatedly, RBG and Breyer are are the ones who are promoting restraint here.  This sort of patronizing b.s. will be in place for decades though.

There are six opinions left and all that will be handed down will be done on Monday.  So, it might be the case that we will have a couple 4-4 opinions, which might be held over for re-argument so the Trump judge can decide.  Meanwhile, the ones handed down today in a mild way advanced good results. The one cited upheld an employee right to bring his claim in a certain forum.  Another, 7-2, continued the Roberts Courts at least mild tempering of the excesses of immigration law.*  Here, the chance of staying in country, even in prison, was seen as reasonable judgment for plea reasons. And, Kennedy led a 5-3 Court for a reasonable regulatory takings case.  So, nothing profound, but overall okay.

Things might be a bit more complicated on Monday. Shall see.

---

*  This opinion might only marginally help the person, but the principle is appreciated and might in another case do more.  Also, as one summary notes, we get a sense of the type of people affected by such laws:

Jae Lee, the defendant in the case decided on Friday, moved from South Korea to the United States at age 13. He has lived here for nearly three decades and runs a lawful business; his parents became citizens, but he remains a lawful permanent resident.

This ultimately is going to turn on policy, but the courts, including in applying the laws on the books, have a role.  And, Gorsuch's patronizing (condescending?) platitudes aside, there is play in the joints and room for debate there.  Aim for as much justice as possible.

SCOTUS: Criminal Justice Day

Three somewhat notable criminal justice opinions today, one continuing the Roberts Court practice of softening harsh immigration criminal law. Gorsuch concurred there ("respectfully"!) saying Kagan decided too much. Gorsuch basically joined with Alito/Thomas when he voted separately. Breyer/Kagan dissented here (defendant lost). They split on another lurid murder case. Meanwhile, nice obit on a lower court judge many probably might not know about. Nine cases and some important decisions (travel ban etc.) to make left.

Summer Begins ... Sigh

Summer begins and the year continues to be a bummer, including two special elections going the wrong way yesterday (Georgia/South Carolina) though them being close (usual very safe red) is of some value. Mets beaten 12-0. Older players, pitchers off injuries and second year slumps possibilities (Gsellman) made high expectations a bit overblown. But, especially with key injuries like to Thor, everything that can go wrong seems to be going wrong with little going right (Wheeler was very good for a time, but now had two horrible starts). Sigh.

SCOTUS: Trademarks and Sex Offenders on Amazon.com

Partisan gerrymandering does have First Amendment implications, particularly freedom of association, but two important opinions today. First, "disparaging" trademark prohibition (applied to "The Slant," who used it ironically) unanimously overruled (some dispute on details). Way to resist "Redskins" is private pressure. Also, split 5-3 on breadth of dicta (Alito probably right to be careful), broad online blockage of sex offenders overturned.

SCOTUS Watch (Part 1)

Busy day. First, good discussion -- with many reasons -- supporting cameras. Second, important partisan gerrymander case to be decided (though again, four justices dissent as to a stay and don't say why!), which some are saying means Kennedy will stick around. Sotomayor continues to go her own way to support liberal jurisdiction rules. First dissenting vote to written opinion by Gorsuch perfectly expected (criminal justice). (His first opinion challenged on style and substance here.) Another error correction per curiam. Pithy first paragraph makes me think Roberts wrote it. OTOH, not quite this good. 1A next.

ETA: Also, a "Bivens" case involving post-9/11 treatment that was a destined to be a lost cause with Sotomayor and Kagan was not involved. Breyer dissented from bench in 4-2 (3-1-2) restriction of civil litigation. One claim left open for now. See here for analysis, including my comment on Breyer's oral dissent. Will foreclose citing them but other opinions will be discussed in depth various places too. More opinions on Thursday.

Police Reactions Early and Late Week: Quite Different

We honor the police who stopped the attack at a congressional baseball game from being more lethal ("well regulated militia"?) and then protest later with the not guilty verdict in the Philando Castile case. Situations quite different but still up/down. Some statistics: mentally ill and black victims stand out. Reading: Chris Hayes and The Hate U Give. As to rhetoric per the political attack, my baseline is human empathy with even "deplorables" a matter of humanity. Non-humans don't have the wherewithal to be deplorable.

ETA: Regarding the police killing, when the NY Daily News editorial staff says "simply madness" -- it's not some left leaning group -- it's a red flag. The case seems so gratutious. EVEN THIS? Come on. It's like waterboarding. Got to draw a line SOMEWHERE!

Formal Investiture of Judge Neil Gorsuch

The formal ceremony to insert the replacement for the stolen seat occurred yesterday, the "golly" Trump representative and various other deplorables present. This asshole will be on the Court for decades most likely. And, as seen by the beginning of the audio here, Trump's court of appeals nominees are starting to take their places too. How do RBG et. al. (including Sotomayor who has to sit next to the guy!) feel? Can all of them really treat Gorsuch merely as a colleague? Maybe, they can. I have my doubts I could. Imagine if Kennedy retires!

SCOTUS Watch

Still waiting on decisions regarding taking certain cases, but had a per curiam regarding geriatric release (and parole for juvenile offenders). Not sure the point of such pinpoint error correction. Important gender rights opinion (cites SSM cases/Alito and Thomas concurred separately) though party loses out for now in the end. It's an immigration case so query if usage of constitutional principle there (six votes at that) helps the travel ban challenges? One other opinion of note basically because (Golly! how folksy!) it's Gorsuch's first.

ETA: It's not exactly as exciting for many, but SCOTUS seems to be dealing with intellectual property issues in various cases of late and took a significant one for review. As to the immigration decision comment, the provision is differentiated from congressional “exceptionally broad power” to admit or exclude aliens. But, rational basis still must be met. OTOH, the litigant might still get relief though others might be hurt for time being.