SCOTUS Watch (and Trump Case)

Order Watch

The last scheduled November Supreme Court proceeding dropped with another mundane Order List. Since only liberals explain themselves, Gorsuch did not say why he did not take part in a case.

This case raises an important question that has divided the courts of appeals: whether the Takings Clause requires compensation when the government damages private property pursuant to its police power.

The one somewhat notable thing was a statement by Sotomayor (joined by Gorsuch) involving a Taking Clause case that they did not take. It has sympathetic facts about police damaging a woman's house during the pursuit of a dangerous fugitive. 

The parties granted the government acted legitimately. The question is who has to pay.  

The insurance company and government refused to pay for the damage. Insurance usually doesn't pay for damage in cases like this. No good reason why the government refused to voluntarily pay. The district court did note that the insurance company agreed to pay for the cost of cleaning up the body, the fugitive having killed himself. Small favors. 

Sotomayor noted the sympathetic facts and that not taking the case does not settle the issue. She flagged it as a worthwhile one for a future case.  

Trump Indictments Dismissed

A longstanding rule, which has wide support, holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted. I question if this is true in principle as an absolute matter. Nonetheless, it's largely an academic question.

Well, it was, until Trump was indicted and then elected president. Does the rule apply here too? Jack Smith, after checking with the OLC, decided it did. 

He asked for Trump's cases to be dismissed without prejudice. The D.C. judge and 11th Circuit (Judge Cannon's asinine ruling under appeal) granted the requests.  The case against Trump's valet and property manager continues so the Cannon ruling remains under appeal.  

That means, technically, they can be brought after he leaves office. The motion in the D.C. case flagged that the Office of Legal Counsel has suggested a court might freeze (equitably toll) any statute of limitations to ensure that the immunity won't be complete. 

I'm not holding my breath. There were a variety of people involved in this shitshow. 

I suggested the other day that it is unclear if prosecutorial delays (aka Merrick Garland) were the deciding factor. Impeachment and the insurrection provision in the 14th Amendment could and should have been applied. Voters also have agency.

Still, the Supreme Court has a special responsibility with its role in upholding the rule of law. Their delaying tactics and immunity ruling were egregious. The insurrection ruling also was misguided.  

Trump is dangerous to the safety of this country. His presidency is among other things an obstruction of justice. He is constitutionally unfit under 14A, sec. 3.

[Two separate things. I'm not saying the obstruction of justice itself is a 14A, sec. 3 matter.] 

It is what it is but I am not going to just grant it like the weather. And, yes, I'm pissed off about it.  

When Jim Crow was the law, some people did not grant the legitimacy of state-sponsored segregation. It was wrong and a correct application of the law was up to a better world. The same applies here.

Bad things happen. We cannot wish them away. We still get to say they are wrong. 

I will continue to do so.