I was helping someone stressed out about working from home and checked my phone. What now? Yes, there was a city-wide curfew -- which might have last happened in 1943 after the shooting of a black solider -- from 11PM-5AM. Actually, (edited), the curfew there was only for a two mile area (Harlem). There also (though the immediate coverage didn't flag it) from a quick search (flagged by a reply to a tweet) that there was a curfew arising from looting etc. during the 1977 blackout. That still was over forty years ago. Anyway ... Telling people that hours before it occurred seemed a bit late in the day. I might have to up my agreement with people who have been critical of the mayor's reaction to various things. Note, btw, his own daughter was arrested at a protest over the weekend. There is a curfew tonight from 8PM-5AM. This is just because Big V restrictions are lessening a bit. 2020 needed to give us something else.
I'm in a bit of bubble here as compared to many who live closer to where the battlefield, and it comes off as one with violence, burning and so forth, or who are on the front lines (including multiple reporters who need to deal with rubber bullets, tear gas and so forth). Just to emphasize here, we are not "just" talking about a few people killed by police for petty shit. (Not that even the most horrible murderer lacks a right not be be killed by chokehold.) They represent years of actions, including lesser engagements with the police and government. Those qualified immunity cases pending at the Supreme Court as well.
As the last reference suggests, yes, it is Supreme Court time -- Monday was order/opinion day, multiple opinions dropping. The theme, however, is not much happened. For instance, perhaps for procedural reasons, a mandatory bar dues case that was given some attention by court watchers was not granted. Justice Thomas (who dissented in various cases today, sometimes joined by Gorsuch -- as here -- or Alito) would have taken the case. And, given the Janus case, yes, the issue very well might be something that logically would be taken to draw lines at some point. For now, denial and no other thing of note in the Order List. Gun/QI cases still pending.
The divisive case was a 5-4 (split ideologically, Sotomayor with a strong dissent) was one not getting much attention. I won't pretend to know who had the better argument though as a matter of principle support less restricting standing rules. As SCOTUSBlog summarizes: "participants and beneficiaries in defined-benefit plans do not have the legal right, known as standing, to assert fiduciary breach claims, at least in the absence of catastrophic plan and sponsor failure." This is a case where the law is set by two tainted "justices" who will continue to so determine the law for years to come. As the Senate does little to address these times, including not providing more funds for the average person, they did confirm another lower court judge.
The big case that dropped turned out to be unanimous -- the Puerto Rico oversight board appointment process was upheld (Breyer getting the opinion made pretty clear this would be the result). This has been pending for a while, so one wonders if some behind the scenes negotiations was involved. Justice Thomas concurred separately, which is not surprising in a constitutional case, but the other person who wrote separately was Sotomayor. Sotomayor has a personal connection here, her parents coming from Puerto Rico, but she is often the spokeswoman of the powerless. The request to overturn the Insular Cases, which did not apply the Bill of Rights to the territories, was avoided. But, Sotomayor did voice her concern that the appointment process did not protect the self-government of Puerto Rico. (Later in the week, as with her statement in response to an order, there were revisions to the opinion noted on the website.)
Defendants also, both by 7-2 votes, received relief yesterday. The Convention Against Torture can be used to ask courts, if only so much, to review factual findings used to deport someone. The summary notes that a low bar has to be met by the government here and it is unclear how much bite it will have in the long run. But, it's important to give people a hook and provide judges some discretion to give you a chance. Another case, a technical habeas case [though the facts are notable to me too -- someone killed a cyclist while allegedly under the influence of cocaine and received a thirty year sentence ... in 2002] will go down easier for the reader since Justice Kagan handled it. The final case involves foreign arbitration and it was unanimous with Sotomayor briefly noting a protection provided.
There are still a bunch of hot button cases to come, as usual backloaded to mid to late June, so the term is not quite as mild as it might come off. There are less cases though those postponed appear to be fairly minor. The biggest punt so far is the New York gun case, but there were signs that was a bad vehicle pretty early. It is fairly clear that the conservative justices (perhaps even the liberals, if they want to find the path to the least harm) are carefully deciding what case of the many pending there to take.
But, the end of the term always has some "to be continued" cast.
I'm in a bit of bubble here as compared to many who live closer to where the battlefield, and it comes off as one with violence, burning and so forth, or who are on the front lines (including multiple reporters who need to deal with rubber bullets, tear gas and so forth). Just to emphasize here, we are not "just" talking about a few people killed by police for petty shit. (Not that even the most horrible murderer lacks a right not be be killed by chokehold.) They represent years of actions, including lesser engagements with the police and government. Those qualified immunity cases pending at the Supreme Court as well.
As the last reference suggests, yes, it is Supreme Court time -- Monday was order/opinion day, multiple opinions dropping. The theme, however, is not much happened. For instance, perhaps for procedural reasons, a mandatory bar dues case that was given some attention by court watchers was not granted. Justice Thomas (who dissented in various cases today, sometimes joined by Gorsuch -- as here -- or Alito) would have taken the case. And, given the Janus case, yes, the issue very well might be something that logically would be taken to draw lines at some point. For now, denial and no other thing of note in the Order List. Gun/QI cases still pending.
The divisive case was a 5-4 (split ideologically, Sotomayor with a strong dissent) was one not getting much attention. I won't pretend to know who had the better argument though as a matter of principle support less restricting standing rules. As SCOTUSBlog summarizes: "participants and beneficiaries in defined-benefit plans do not have the legal right, known as standing, to assert fiduciary breach claims, at least in the absence of catastrophic plan and sponsor failure." This is a case where the law is set by two tainted "justices" who will continue to so determine the law for years to come. As the Senate does little to address these times, including not providing more funds for the average person, they did confirm another lower court judge.
The big case that dropped turned out to be unanimous -- the Puerto Rico oversight board appointment process was upheld (Breyer getting the opinion made pretty clear this would be the result). This has been pending for a while, so one wonders if some behind the scenes negotiations was involved. Justice Thomas concurred separately, which is not surprising in a constitutional case, but the other person who wrote separately was Sotomayor. Sotomayor has a personal connection here, her parents coming from Puerto Rico, but she is often the spokeswoman of the powerless. The request to overturn the Insular Cases, which did not apply the Bill of Rights to the territories, was avoided. But, Sotomayor did voice her concern that the appointment process did not protect the self-government of Puerto Rico. (Later in the week, as with her statement in response to an order, there were revisions to the opinion noted on the website.)
Defendants also, both by 7-2 votes, received relief yesterday. The Convention Against Torture can be used to ask courts, if only so much, to review factual findings used to deport someone. The summary notes that a low bar has to be met by the government here and it is unclear how much bite it will have in the long run. But, it's important to give people a hook and provide judges some discretion to give you a chance. Another case, a technical habeas case [though the facts are notable to me too -- someone killed a cyclist while allegedly under the influence of cocaine and received a thirty year sentence ... in 2002] will go down easier for the reader since Justice Kagan handled it. The final case involves foreign arbitration and it was unanimous with Sotomayor briefly noting a protection provided.
There are still a bunch of hot button cases to come, as usual backloaded to mid to late June, so the term is not quite as mild as it might come off. There are less cases though those postponed appear to be fairly minor. The biggest punt so far is the New York gun case, but there were signs that was a bad vehicle pretty early. It is fairly clear that the conservative justices (perhaps even the liberals, if they want to find the path to the least harm) are carefully deciding what case of the many pending there to take.
But, the end of the term always has some "to be continued" cast.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!