We are approaching the end of the first term of the Kavanaugh Court and perhaps it is apt that we have yet another woman (providing in depth details) accusing Trump of rape. Note that Trump's reply, other than denying he met a woman for which there is a picture in the accounts showing just that, said that those who make such false allegations should "pay dearly." We have been down this road before, including with the main allegation against Brett Kavanaugh (his statement referenced another woman, which sorta implies -- parsing the guy is somewhat dubious -- he finds Ford's claims more credible). Republicans want this guy re-elected.
Kavanaugh was especially dubious during oral argument about the use of peremptory strikes in the Flowers case, so it is not surprising he wrote the opinion. One that is pretty good though some flagged concerns that emphasis it is a uniquely bad case (Alito concurred for that very reason) will mean "run of the mill" racism will be ignored. The opinion (which repeatedly cites the race of people involved, this not being a conservative affirmative case where we are not supposed to see race) does have various statements of principle that will be helpful. This including how jury service is next to voting the key way citizens participate in the democratic process. (I would toss in militia duty, but that isn't really a thing any more, the 2A now deemed an individual right).
Justice Thomas continues his Thomas on steroids term by writing a forty page dissent (longer than the majority) that has some charming aspects like yet again emotionally stating the details of the crime (due process rights don't disappear in such cases and there serious claims that the prosecution is flawed on multiple grounds including innocence). He also suggests the Court is unfairly targeting the South. And, add it to the list, Thomas thinks the thirty year old precedent Batson v. Kentucky probably should be tossed too. Justice Gorsuch, his join somewhat of a surprise, did not join that section. Thomas does note that Flowers can be prosecuted again. Seventh time the charm?
Justice Alito joined by Thomas dissented in 7-2 ruling, written by Breyer (there are 12 cases left, most of them will be written by non-Thomas conservatives. The case held that the federal government under the law at issue "must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” While the Trump Administration continues to plan to up the targeting of migrant families, such cases the provide some protection for undocumented immigrants are of mild relief. This is also the sort of case ignored by some people when the complain about the Supreme Court not caring about gun owners. OTOH, perhaps the class here aren't "the people" cited by the Second Amendment.
Justice Sotomayor wrote what seems to my admittedly uneducated eye a sort of pinprick opinion that limits (as noted by the concurrence in a limited fashion) the ability to tax trust income. Roberts wrote the second important opinion of the day, a 5-4 job with a strong Kagan dissent (with various reactions focused on stare decisis) overturning a 1980s opinion limiting the right to sue alleged Taking Clause claims in federal court. A note: be careful about being too critical about overturning precedent because the worm is (though it might be a while) turn. Down the road, and I might be commenting in whatever venue is around then, we might be trying to overturn the excesses of the Robert Court.
Now, maybe there is a good case to be made, but the facts suggest the concern of the liberals -- it involved a regulation regarding access to cemeteries during daylight hours. There is even some doubt if there is actually people buried on the property ("allegedly") in question. Since property rights include the right of exclusion, this brought a takings claim. This is not quite the infamous Kelo case where someone's home was seized (with compensation) for an ultimately failed economic revival plan. Thus, one conservative on Twitter was excited about this attack on "bureaucrats." That is, agents of the people who carry out democratically passed policy.
The dissent argues that longstanding law holds that there is no violation of the Takings Clause immediately at the seizure of the property, but only after the end of a reasonable process in place to compensate the individual. Given the myriad of possible claims, helped by expansions of what "takings" means in recent decades, I can see the problems. Some picayune local regulation of this sort will be a federal case with various nuanced issues of state law arising. As noted by Kagan, in an opinion in high snark, the result threatens "judicial federalism," which as usual is a selective thing.
(Thomas, e.g., complained in his dissent the Flowers case was an outlier not apt for federal review, but then though it obvious they should deal with some minor abortion regulation they deemed a lower court handled wrongly. And, was okay with them summarily overturning it without full review though such laws have nuanced issues that might very well so warrant.)
Anyway, to repeat myself, opinion announcements should be televised or at least transcripts and audio should be available at its website. We are left to news coverage and (eventually) Oyez.com.
Kavanaugh was especially dubious during oral argument about the use of peremptory strikes in the Flowers case, so it is not surprising he wrote the opinion. One that is pretty good though some flagged concerns that emphasis it is a uniquely bad case (Alito concurred for that very reason) will mean "run of the mill" racism will be ignored. The opinion (which repeatedly cites the race of people involved, this not being a conservative affirmative case where we are not supposed to see race) does have various statements of principle that will be helpful. This including how jury service is next to voting the key way citizens participate in the democratic process. (I would toss in militia duty, but that isn't really a thing any more, the 2A now deemed an individual right).
Justice Thomas continues his Thomas on steroids term by writing a forty page dissent (longer than the majority) that has some charming aspects like yet again emotionally stating the details of the crime (due process rights don't disappear in such cases and there serious claims that the prosecution is flawed on multiple grounds including innocence). He also suggests the Court is unfairly targeting the South. And, add it to the list, Thomas thinks the thirty year old precedent Batson v. Kentucky probably should be tossed too. Justice Gorsuch, his join somewhat of a surprise, did not join that section. Thomas does note that Flowers can be prosecuted again. Seventh time the charm?
Justice Alito joined by Thomas dissented in 7-2 ruling, written by Breyer (there are 12 cases left, most of them will be written by non-Thomas conservatives. The case held that the federal government under the law at issue "must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” While the Trump Administration continues to plan to up the targeting of migrant families, such cases the provide some protection for undocumented immigrants are of mild relief. This is also the sort of case ignored by some people when the complain about the Supreme Court not caring about gun owners. OTOH, perhaps the class here aren't "the people" cited by the Second Amendment.
Justice Sotomayor wrote what seems to my admittedly uneducated eye a sort of pinprick opinion that limits (as noted by the concurrence in a limited fashion) the ability to tax trust income. Roberts wrote the second important opinion of the day, a 5-4 job with a strong Kagan dissent (with various reactions focused on stare decisis) overturning a 1980s opinion limiting the right to sue alleged Taking Clause claims in federal court. A note: be careful about being too critical about overturning precedent because the worm is (though it might be a while) turn. Down the road, and I might be commenting in whatever venue is around then, we might be trying to overturn the excesses of the Robert Court.
Now, maybe there is a good case to be made, but the facts suggest the concern of the liberals -- it involved a regulation regarding access to cemeteries during daylight hours. There is even some doubt if there is actually people buried on the property ("allegedly") in question. Since property rights include the right of exclusion, this brought a takings claim. This is not quite the infamous Kelo case where someone's home was seized (with compensation) for an ultimately failed economic revival plan. Thus, one conservative on Twitter was excited about this attack on "bureaucrats." That is, agents of the people who carry out democratically passed policy.
The dissent argues that longstanding law holds that there is no violation of the Takings Clause immediately at the seizure of the property, but only after the end of a reasonable process in place to compensate the individual. Given the myriad of possible claims, helped by expansions of what "takings" means in recent decades, I can see the problems. Some picayune local regulation of this sort will be a federal case with various nuanced issues of state law arising. As noted by Kagan, in an opinion in high snark, the result threatens "judicial federalism," which as usual is a selective thing.
(Thomas, e.g., complained in his dissent the Flowers case was an outlier not apt for federal review, but then though it obvious they should deal with some minor abortion regulation they deemed a lower court handled wrongly. And, was okay with them summarily overturning it without full review though such laws have nuanced issues that might very well so warrant.)
Anyway, to repeat myself, opinion announcements should be televised or at least transcripts and audio should be available at its website. We are left to news coverage and (eventually) Oyez.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!