Supreme Court Anyone?
- Thread starter printer
- Start date
ooof-da
Well-Known Member
The Supreme Court better get their shit together and make some rulings on this whole election interference case. WTF? 30 yrs ago they would have intervened by now. Why are they pussy footing around when this IS literally constitutional law and how better to solve this conundrum then making a ruling by a court, mmmm idk, like the Supreme one that is made for this? Makes me think some back room deals are going on.
printer
Well-Known Member
The lower courts have to make findings and if they all point in the same direction it gives the SC some cover if they come to the same conclusion. Or they may not take up the case and let the lower ruling stand (not likely but possible).
ooof-da
Well-Known Member
I just think there has been a fundamental shift to less clarity. Now we have 2 state supreme courts with differing opinions. That doesn’t make sense at all to me.
Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot — CNN
The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”
printer
Well-Known Member
If I got it right the Michigan court does not say Trump can be on the ballot but that he can be on the primary as the Constitution does not prohibit it.I just think there has been a fundamental shift to less clarity. Now we have 2 state supreme courts with differing opinions. That doesn’t make sense at all to me.
Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot — CNN
The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”apple.news
ooof-da
Well-Known Member
I misread it ya
printer
Well-Known Member
printer
Well-Known Member
For your amusement.
Betting the odds on Trump’s Supreme Court case
When the Colorado Supreme Court ejected Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot next year, it set off what will be the biggest political story in the first quarter of 2024.
Whether the former president engaged in insurrection and whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars him from running for president is a complicated legal question. Win, lose or draw, how the Supreme Court decides that question is going to shape American politics in 2024 and beyond. So here is your handy guide to what the Supreme Court could do and how it could affect the 2024 presidential race.
3-1 odds: Reversal on due process grounds
The most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado decision on the grounds that the procedure used to determine whether Trump is disqualified under Section 3 was constitutionally inadequate. But if the court holds that Colorado’s procedure was inadequate, it will then have to describe what procedures would be adequate — a roadmap, in other words, to correctly disqualify a candidate under Section 3. Expect a Supreme Court decision on due process grounds to be the opening gun for a flurry of lawsuits aimed at disqualifying Trump from the general election ballot.
5-1 odds: Affirm
If this were a less unique case, the odds on affirming would be much higher because the Supreme Court has limited scope for reviewing lower court decisions, especially state court decisions. It cannot, for example, throw the case out on the grounds that Colorado state law doesn’t allow for this kind of challenge to a candidate in a primary — an argument considered and rejected by the Colorado Supreme court. Affirming this decision would result in lawsuits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia designed to remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
8-1 odds: No insurrection
Coming up with a legal definition of “insurrection” and holding that the events of Jan. 6, 2021, did not qualify is probably the easiest, least messy way for the Supreme Court to make the whole problem disappear. Since courts are supposed to resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds whenever possible, expect even the liberal wing of the court to thoroughly consider this option.
10-1 odds: Reversal with no majority decision
In this scenario, five Supreme Court justices vote to overturn the Colorado result but can’t agree on why. This is a recipe for more, messier litigation, meaning that the court will undoubtedly be required to revisit the issue before the November election or — worse — after the November election, as it did in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
20-1 odds: 4-4 decision
Justice Clarence Thomas recuses himself because of his wife’s involvement in the lead-up to Jan. 6th and four of the remaining judges vote to overturn while four vote to affirm. This leaves the Colorado decision in place — and Trump off the ballot there — and opens a legal-free-for-all with the promise of electoral college mayhem to follow.
25-1 odds: Throwing out the case because Section 3 is not self-executing
While this argument has been made, it’s not very likely to succeed for reasons both historical and legal. Both conservative and liberal justices are concerned about the court’s reputation and neither will be eager to go down this road.
25-1 odds: Grant and not expedite
Granting cert and then pushing a decision out to 2025 would either make the court’s problem disappear or make it infinitely worse. If Trump is not elected president, the Supreme Court could dodge the question entirely by dismissing the case as moot. But if Trump is elected president, the court would still have to issue a ruling. And if that ruling is that Trump is ineligible under Section 3, it would spark the biggest constitutional crisis in American history.
25-1 odds: Holding that the presidency is not covered by Section 3
This outcome would be rated lower had the Colorado district court not adopted it when it originally ruled that Trump could remain on the primary ballot. This argument relies on a very strained reading of Section 3 and was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court. It is unlikely to be adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
25-1 odds: Exclusive federal question
This one is a wildcard. The court might decide that disqualification under Section 3 can’t be decided in state courts. Normally, it is up to Congress to designate certain areas as exclusive federal questions that can be heard only in federal courts. However, presidential qualifications do seem to be a uniquely national question that should not be decided in piecemeal, probably contradictory, decisions in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
50-1 odds: Trump didn’t engage in insurrection
This would be a very, very tough argument for the Supreme Court to adopt, assuming that it holds the events of Jan. 6 amounted to insurrection. This finding was made in the trial court and it was adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could overturn this factual finding only if it found it to be “clearly erroneous.”
99-1 odds: The president is not an officer of the United States
This argument has been made but barely satisfies the snicker test. Apart from the logical problems with holding that the president is not an officer of the United States, the Supreme Court would be trading one messy can of worms for another, placing the presidency beyond the reach of many previously applicable laws.
99-1 odds: The court would not grant cert
Almost unimaginable. This would leave the Colorado decision in place and would open the floodgates of legal and electoral chaos. Normally, it is impossible to say which cases the Supreme Court will or will not take. But it is taking this one.
As you can see, guessing how the Supreme Court will handle the political grenade that’s been lobbed into its chambers is no easy task. There is one prediction, however, that’s a dead cert: Whatever the Supreme Court does, about half the country will be furious.
If anyone offers to bet you that 2024 will be calm, peaceful and full of political good cheer, take that bet, no matter what the odds.
thehill.com
Betting the odds on Trump’s Supreme Court case
When the Colorado Supreme Court ejected Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot next year, it set off what will be the biggest political story in the first quarter of 2024.
Whether the former president engaged in insurrection and whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars him from running for president is a complicated legal question. Win, lose or draw, how the Supreme Court decides that question is going to shape American politics in 2024 and beyond. So here is your handy guide to what the Supreme Court could do and how it could affect the 2024 presidential race.
3-1 odds: Reversal on due process grounds
The most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado decision on the grounds that the procedure used to determine whether Trump is disqualified under Section 3 was constitutionally inadequate. But if the court holds that Colorado’s procedure was inadequate, it will then have to describe what procedures would be adequate — a roadmap, in other words, to correctly disqualify a candidate under Section 3. Expect a Supreme Court decision on due process grounds to be the opening gun for a flurry of lawsuits aimed at disqualifying Trump from the general election ballot.
5-1 odds: Affirm
If this were a less unique case, the odds on affirming would be much higher because the Supreme Court has limited scope for reviewing lower court decisions, especially state court decisions. It cannot, for example, throw the case out on the grounds that Colorado state law doesn’t allow for this kind of challenge to a candidate in a primary — an argument considered and rejected by the Colorado Supreme court. Affirming this decision would result in lawsuits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia designed to remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
8-1 odds: No insurrection
Coming up with a legal definition of “insurrection” and holding that the events of Jan. 6, 2021, did not qualify is probably the easiest, least messy way for the Supreme Court to make the whole problem disappear. Since courts are supposed to resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds whenever possible, expect even the liberal wing of the court to thoroughly consider this option.
10-1 odds: Reversal with no majority decision
In this scenario, five Supreme Court justices vote to overturn the Colorado result but can’t agree on why. This is a recipe for more, messier litigation, meaning that the court will undoubtedly be required to revisit the issue before the November election or — worse — after the November election, as it did in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
20-1 odds: 4-4 decision
Justice Clarence Thomas recuses himself because of his wife’s involvement in the lead-up to Jan. 6th and four of the remaining judges vote to overturn while four vote to affirm. This leaves the Colorado decision in place — and Trump off the ballot there — and opens a legal-free-for-all with the promise of electoral college mayhem to follow.
25-1 odds: Throwing out the case because Section 3 is not self-executing
While this argument has been made, it’s not very likely to succeed for reasons both historical and legal. Both conservative and liberal justices are concerned about the court’s reputation and neither will be eager to go down this road.
25-1 odds: Grant and not expedite
Granting cert and then pushing a decision out to 2025 would either make the court’s problem disappear or make it infinitely worse. If Trump is not elected president, the Supreme Court could dodge the question entirely by dismissing the case as moot. But if Trump is elected president, the court would still have to issue a ruling. And if that ruling is that Trump is ineligible under Section 3, it would spark the biggest constitutional crisis in American history.
25-1 odds: Holding that the presidency is not covered by Section 3
This outcome would be rated lower had the Colorado district court not adopted it when it originally ruled that Trump could remain on the primary ballot. This argument relies on a very strained reading of Section 3 and was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court. It is unlikely to be adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
25-1 odds: Exclusive federal question
This one is a wildcard. The court might decide that disqualification under Section 3 can’t be decided in state courts. Normally, it is up to Congress to designate certain areas as exclusive federal questions that can be heard only in federal courts. However, presidential qualifications do seem to be a uniquely national question that should not be decided in piecemeal, probably contradictory, decisions in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
50-1 odds: Trump didn’t engage in insurrection
This would be a very, very tough argument for the Supreme Court to adopt, assuming that it holds the events of Jan. 6 amounted to insurrection. This finding was made in the trial court and it was adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could overturn this factual finding only if it found it to be “clearly erroneous.”
99-1 odds: The president is not an officer of the United States
This argument has been made but barely satisfies the snicker test. Apart from the logical problems with holding that the president is not an officer of the United States, the Supreme Court would be trading one messy can of worms for another, placing the presidency beyond the reach of many previously applicable laws.
99-1 odds: The court would not grant cert
Almost unimaginable. This would leave the Colorado decision in place and would open the floodgates of legal and electoral chaos. Normally, it is impossible to say which cases the Supreme Court will or will not take. But it is taking this one.
As you can see, guessing how the Supreme Court will handle the political grenade that’s been lobbed into its chambers is no easy task. There is one prediction, however, that’s a dead cert: Whatever the Supreme Court does, about half the country will be furious.
If anyone offers to bet you that 2024 will be calm, peaceful and full of political good cheer, take that bet, no matter what the odds.
Betting the odds on Trump’s Supreme Court case
Guessing how the Supreme Court will handle the political grenade that’s been lobbed into their chambers is no easy task.
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
For your amusement.
Betting the odds on Trump’s Supreme Court case
When the Colorado Supreme Court ejected Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot next year, it set off what will be the biggest political story in the first quarter of 2024.
Whether the former president engaged in insurrection and whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars him from running for president is a complicated legal question. Win, lose or draw, how the Supreme Court decides that question is going to shape American politics in 2024 and beyond. So here is your handy guide to what the Supreme Court could do and how it could affect the 2024 presidential race.
3-1 odds: Reversal on due process grounds
The most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado decision on the grounds that the procedure used to determine whether Trump is disqualified under Section 3 was constitutionally inadequate. But if the court holds that Colorado’s procedure was inadequate, it will then have to describe what procedures would be adequate — a roadmap, in other words, to correctly disqualify a candidate under Section 3. Expect a Supreme Court decision on due process grounds to be the opening gun for a flurry of lawsuits aimed at disqualifying Trump from the general election ballot.
5-1 odds: Affirm
If this were a less unique case, the odds on affirming would be much higher because the Supreme Court has limited scope for reviewing lower court decisions, especially state court decisions. It cannot, for example, throw the case out on the grounds that Colorado state law doesn’t allow for this kind of challenge to a candidate in a primary — an argument considered and rejected by the Colorado Supreme court. Affirming this decision would result in lawsuits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia designed to remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
8-1 odds: No insurrection
Coming up with a legal definition of “insurrection” and holding that the events of Jan. 6, 2021, did not qualify is probably the easiest, least messy way for the Supreme Court to make the whole problem disappear. Since courts are supposed to resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds whenever possible, expect even the liberal wing of the court to thoroughly consider this option.
10-1 odds: Reversal with no majority decision
In this scenario, five Supreme Court justices vote to overturn the Colorado result but can’t agree on why. This is a recipe for more, messier litigation, meaning that the court will undoubtedly be required to revisit the issue before the November election or — worse — after the November election, as it did in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
20-1 odds: 4-4 decision
Justice Clarence Thomas recuses himself because of his wife’s involvement in the lead-up to Jan. 6th and four of the remaining judges vote to overturn while four vote to affirm. This leaves the Colorado decision in place — and Trump off the ballot there — and opens a legal-free-for-all with the promise of electoral college mayhem to follow.
25-1 odds: Throwing out the case because Section 3 is not self-executing
While this argument has been made, it’s not very likely to succeed for reasons both historical and legal. Both conservative and liberal justices are concerned about the court’s reputation and neither will be eager to go down this road.
25-1 odds: Grant and not expedite
Granting cert and then pushing a decision out to 2025 would either make the court’s problem disappear or make it infinitely worse. If Trump is not elected president, the Supreme Court could dodge the question entirely by dismissing the case as moot. But if Trump is elected president, the court would still have to issue a ruling. And if that ruling is that Trump is ineligible under Section 3, it would spark the biggest constitutional crisis in American history.
25-1 odds: Holding that the presidency is not covered by Section 3
This outcome would be rated lower had the Colorado district court not adopted it when it originally ruled that Trump could remain on the primary ballot. This argument relies on a very strained reading of Section 3 and was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court. It is unlikely to be adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
25-1 odds: Exclusive federal question
This one is a wildcard. The court might decide that disqualification under Section 3 can’t be decided in state courts. Normally, it is up to Congress to designate certain areas as exclusive federal questions that can be heard only in federal courts. However, presidential qualifications do seem to be a uniquely national question that should not be decided in piecemeal, probably contradictory, decisions in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
50-1 odds: Trump didn’t engage in insurrection
This would be a very, very tough argument for the Supreme Court to adopt, assuming that it holds the events of Jan. 6 amounted to insurrection. This finding was made in the trial court and it was adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could overturn this factual finding only if it found it to be “clearly erroneous.”
99-1 odds: The president is not an officer of the United States
This argument has been made but barely satisfies the snicker test. Apart from the logical problems with holding that the president is not an officer of the United States, the Supreme Court would be trading one messy can of worms for another, placing the presidency beyond the reach of many previously applicable laws.
99-1 odds: The court would not grant cert
Almost unimaginable. This would leave the Colorado decision in place and would open the floodgates of legal and electoral chaos. Normally, it is impossible to say which cases the Supreme Court will or will not take. But it is taking this one.
As you can see, guessing how the Supreme Court will handle the political grenade that’s been lobbed into its chambers is no easy task. There is one prediction, however, that’s a dead cert: Whatever the Supreme Court does, about half the country will be furious.
If anyone offers to bet you that 2024 will be calm, peaceful and full of political good cheer, take that bet, no matter what the odds.
Betting the odds on Trump’s Supreme Court case
Guessing how the Supreme Court will handle the political grenade that’s been lobbed into their chambers is no easy task.
printer
Well-Known Member
Will they pick up the bat phone? A kick in the teeth if they let him hang on the line.
Trump appeals Colorado ballot ban to Supreme Court
Former President Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court’s landmark ruling disqualifying him from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban.
The appeal likely sets up an extraordinary battle at the nation’s highest court, which has never ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That clause, added after the Civil War, blocks anyone who swore an oath to “support” the U.S. Constitution but “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding federal office.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in December that Trump engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud after the 2020 race and directing them to the Capitol on Jan. 6, barring him from appearing on the state’s primary ballot as he seeks a second term in the White House.
The state’s highest court also notably reversed a trial judge’s finding that the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to the presidency, writing that the presidential oath’s specific language “does not make it anything other than an oath to support the Constitution.”
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority opinion reads. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.”
The Colorado court had put its ruling on hold until this Thursday, so Trump could seek review from the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the decision will be stayed until after the justices decide the case on the merits.
However, the deadline to finalize Colorado’s presidential primary ballots is Friday. It’s unlikely the Supreme Court will resolve Trump’s appeal before then, meaning he will likely appear on the primary ballots regardless.
Still, any decision by the justices stands to impact Trump’s White House bid in November’s general election — not only in Colorado, but in states nationwide.
The Colorado Republican Party last week separately appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, writing that if the state high court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it would distort the 2024 race and result in “nebulous accusations of insurrection.” The plaintiffs and the Colorado secretary of state agreed the high court should take the case, albeit only to consider a smaller set of issues.
Similar cases have been brought in states including Michigan and Minnesota, but most have been unsuccessful in removing Trump’s name from any state’s ballot.
However, just before the new year, Maine became the second state to disqualify Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballots. Trump appealed that ruling to state court on Tuesday, and the case could similarly reach the Supreme Court within weeks.
“The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match,” Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, wrote in her decision.
thehill.com
Trump appeals Colorado ballot ban to Supreme Court
Former President Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court’s landmark ruling disqualifying him from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban.
The appeal likely sets up an extraordinary battle at the nation’s highest court, which has never ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That clause, added after the Civil War, blocks anyone who swore an oath to “support” the U.S. Constitution but “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding federal office.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in December that Trump engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud after the 2020 race and directing them to the Capitol on Jan. 6, barring him from appearing on the state’s primary ballot as he seeks a second term in the White House.
The state’s highest court also notably reversed a trial judge’s finding that the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to the presidency, writing that the presidential oath’s specific language “does not make it anything other than an oath to support the Constitution.”
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority opinion reads. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.”
The Colorado court had put its ruling on hold until this Thursday, so Trump could seek review from the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the decision will be stayed until after the justices decide the case on the merits.
However, the deadline to finalize Colorado’s presidential primary ballots is Friday. It’s unlikely the Supreme Court will resolve Trump’s appeal before then, meaning he will likely appear on the primary ballots regardless.
Still, any decision by the justices stands to impact Trump’s White House bid in November’s general election — not only in Colorado, but in states nationwide.
The Colorado Republican Party last week separately appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, writing that if the state high court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it would distort the 2024 race and result in “nebulous accusations of insurrection.” The plaintiffs and the Colorado secretary of state agreed the high court should take the case, albeit only to consider a smaller set of issues.
Similar cases have been brought in states including Michigan and Minnesota, but most have been unsuccessful in removing Trump’s name from any state’s ballot.
However, just before the new year, Maine became the second state to disqualify Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballots. Trump appealed that ruling to state court on Tuesday, and the case could similarly reach the Supreme Court within weeks.
“The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match,” Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, wrote in her decision.
Trump appeals Colorado ballot ban to Supreme Court
Former President Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court’s landmark ruling disqualifying him from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amen…
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
lol@ “nebulous”Will they pick up the bat phone? A kick in the teeth if they let him hang on the line.
Trump appeals Colorado ballot ban to Supreme Court
Former President Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court’s landmark ruling disqualifying him from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban.
The appeal likely sets up an extraordinary battle at the nation’s highest court, which has never ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That clause, added after the Civil War, blocks anyone who swore an oath to “support” the U.S. Constitution but “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding federal office.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in December that Trump engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud after the 2020 race and directing them to the Capitol on Jan. 6, barring him from appearing on the state’s primary ballot as he seeks a second term in the White House.
The state’s highest court also notably reversed a trial judge’s finding that the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to the presidency, writing that the presidential oath’s specific language “does not make it anything other than an oath to support the Constitution.”
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority opinion reads. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.”
The Colorado court had put its ruling on hold until this Thursday, so Trump could seek review from the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the decision will be stayed until after the justices decide the case on the merits.
However, the deadline to finalize Colorado’s presidential primary ballots is Friday. It’s unlikely the Supreme Court will resolve Trump’s appeal before then, meaning he will likely appear on the primary ballots regardless.
Still, any decision by the justices stands to impact Trump’s White House bid in November’s general election — not only in Colorado, but in states nationwide.
The Colorado Republican Party last week separately appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, writing that if the state high court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it would distort the 2024 race and result in “nebulous accusations of insurrection.” The plaintiffs and the Colorado secretary of state agreed the high court should take the case, albeit only to consider a smaller set of issues.
Similar cases have been brought in states including Michigan and Minnesota, but most have been unsuccessful in removing Trump’s name from any state’s ballot.
However, just before the new year, Maine became the second state to disqualify Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballots. Trump appealed that ruling to state court on Tuesday, and the case could similarly reach the Supreme Court within weeks.
“The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match,” Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, wrote in her decision.
Trump appeals Colorado ballot ban to Supreme Court
Former President Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court’s landmark ruling disqualifying him from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amen…
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court allows Idaho to enforce strict abortion ban
The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed provisions of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban that could penalize doctors who perform the procedure in medical emergencies to take effect.
In an unsigned order Friday, the court granted a request by the state to overrule an injunction issued by a federal appeals court that prevented the state from prosecuting physicians who perform abortions in emergency, but not necessarily life-threatening, circumstances.
The court said it will hear oral arguments on the issue in April, with a decision expected in June. The provisions of the ban will be enforced until then.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is a “trigger law” that took effect after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion. It bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, but there is an exception to prevent the mother’s death.
The Biden administration sued, arguing the ban violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which they said protects providers who perform lifesaving or health-saving abortion services in emergency situations.
EMTALA has been on the books for more than 30 years as a way to prevent “dumping” of emergency patients who couldn’t pay for care. Under the law, hospitals must provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients, regardless of their ability to pay.
The Biden administration invoked EMTALA in the wake of the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended constitutional protections for abortion. The administration said state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by the federal statute.
A district court initially ruled in favor of the administration and blocked the law. The state appealed, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the injunction. But the full 9th Circuit later reinstated it, blocking the state from enforcing the law, and prompting the state officials to turn to the Supreme Court.
thehill.com
The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed provisions of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban that could penalize doctors who perform the procedure in medical emergencies to take effect.
In an unsigned order Friday, the court granted a request by the state to overrule an injunction issued by a federal appeals court that prevented the state from prosecuting physicians who perform abortions in emergency, but not necessarily life-threatening, circumstances.
The court said it will hear oral arguments on the issue in April, with a decision expected in June. The provisions of the ban will be enforced until then.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is a “trigger law” that took effect after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion. It bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, but there is an exception to prevent the mother’s death.
The Biden administration sued, arguing the ban violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which they said protects providers who perform lifesaving or health-saving abortion services in emergency situations.
EMTALA has been on the books for more than 30 years as a way to prevent “dumping” of emergency patients who couldn’t pay for care. Under the law, hospitals must provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients, regardless of their ability to pay.
The Biden administration invoked EMTALA in the wake of the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended constitutional protections for abortion. The administration said state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by the federal statute.
A district court initially ruled in favor of the administration and blocked the law. The state appealed, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the injunction. But the full 9th Circuit later reinstated it, blocking the state from enforcing the law, and prompting the state officials to turn to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court allows Idaho to enforce strict abortion ban
The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed provisions of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban that could penalize doctors who perform the procedure in medical emergencies to take effect. …
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
trust appellate judges to turn the simple into a labyrinth.
www.vox.com
A new Supreme Court case about flooding has weirdly high stakes for Donald Trump
A core issue raised in the Colorado case seeking to disqualify Trump from the presidency is also present in a much more obscure case being argued next week.
www.vox.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
That's what ya pay the SCOTUS the big bucks for, except for Clarence, he needs extra cash. They must set the rules and parameters around disqualification and to me it seems as obvious as his immunity case. Forget the 14th, if they don't give it as much love and attention as the 2nd and I guess that guy they disqualified in one of the states can run again too. They will get shit from all sides if they don't disqualify him, their fellow conservative legal homies, the textualists and federalists, would freak out on them the most and the liberals would not be far behind. They would be setting themselves up for a lot of future work unless they remove him from the public stage and not search for technicalities. This is the presidency, not some state office holder. It's all about responsibility and that goes with authority, without accountability there is no responsibility.trust appellate judges to turn the simple into a labyrinth.
A new Supreme Court case about flooding has weirdly high stakes for Donald Trump
A core issue raised in the Colorado case seeking to disqualify Trump from the presidency is also present in a much more obscure case being argued next week.
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Another chance for the court to empower its billionaire masters.
Heaven save us from totalibertarians.
Heaven save us from totalibertarians.
Supreme Court set for pivotal cases that could claw back federal administrative power
The Supreme Court will hear a dispute this week that could lead to a decision dramatically clawing back the power of federal agencies, putting a number of consumer and environmental protections in …
thehill.com
Last edited:
printer
Well-Known Member
Reshaping the landscape.
Supreme Court signals it will claw back federal agency power
The Supreme Court’s conservatives appeared inclined to cut back the regulatory power of federal agencies, with several justices during a pair of arguments Wednesday seeming ready to overrule a legal doctrine that has bolstered agencies’ authority for decades.
Over more than three hours of argument, the justices put the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer on defense as she sought to preserve Chevron deference, which instructs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretation of federal law if it could have multiple meanings.
The practice has strengthened presidential administrations’ ability to regulate wide aspects of daily life. The range of examples referenced at the arguments revealed the breadth of Chevron’s impact: artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, environmental protections and more.
A majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the conservative lawyers who urged them to outright overrule the precedent or at least narrow its scope, which would mark a major legal victory for business and anti-regulatory interests.
In particular, three members of the high court’s conservative wing — Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — reiterated their long-publicized concerns about the precedent’s viability.
“The government always wins,” Gorsuch said.
Critics contend that Chevron requires judges to abdicate their responsibility to interpret the law. They also note a lack of consensus on when a statute is ambiguous enough to trigger deference to an agency, and how some federal judges have openly criticized the doctrine.
“Should that be a clue that something needs to be fixed here?” Gorsuch said.
The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, meanwhile, expressed opposition to overturning Chevron. They emphasized a desire to defer to subject-matter experts at agencies when ambiguous, complicated policy issues arise, rather than having a judge attempt to draw the line.
“My concern is that if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker,” Jackson said.
Kagan gave a hypothetical about whether a judge or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should be the one to decide whether a cholesterol reducer should be considered a “drug” or a “dietary supplement.”
“In that case I would rather have people at HHS telling me whether this new product was a dietary supplement or a drug,” she said.
Kagan added at one point, “Judges should know what they don’t know.”
The liberals also questioned whether overturning Chevron would unleash a flood of litigation, as people who lost cases because of the doctrine would seek to have their issues reheard.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who posed fierce questions to both sides, also raised concerns about a shock to the system.
The lawyers attempting to overturn Chevron pushed back on the notion, insisting that the thousands of decisions that have invoked the doctrine over the past four decades would still be considered precedent and subject to strong protection.
And some conservative justices argued the opposite, contending that it is Chevron that has created shocks by giving the executive branch a wide license to flip-flop on its interpretations of statutes to fit its policy goals.
“The reality of how this works is Chevron itself has shocks to the system when a new administration comes in,” Kavanaugh said.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, who has been reluctant to overrule the court’s precedents, questioned whether the doctrine had already been overruled in practice. The Supreme Court has not invoked Chevron since 2016, and in some recent cases, the justices have either enacted carveouts or simply ignored the precedent.
“How much of an actual question on the ground is this?” Roberts asked.
The justices weighed whether to replace Chevron with another, more narrow test known as Skidmore, under which a judge would decide to defer to an agency only if the agency’s argument is persuasive. As part of that analysis, judges examine consistency or whether an agency has flip-flopped.
Kavanaugh characterized Skidmore as being about “the power to persuade, not the power to control.”
The high court considered the weighty dispute through two separate cases Wednesday that are near-identical.
In both, herring fishermen are challenging a rule mandating their companies fund federal monitors onboard their vessels. Invoking Chevron, lower courts deferred to the agency and upheld the rule.
Each group of plaintiffs had a veteran Supreme Court advocate arguing for them and is also backed by an anti-regulatory group.
The justices first heard from Roman Martinez, a partner at Latham & Watkins, who is representing a Rhode Island-based fishing fleet alongside the conservative New Civil Liberties Alliance.
And in the second case, the plaintiffs are represented by the conservative Cause of Action Institute and Paul Clement, who served as former President George W. Bush’s top Supreme Court lawyer and has successfully argued cases that resulted in some of the biggest wins for conservatives at the high court in recent years.
Jackson is recusing herself from that case, as she had heard oral arguments in the dispute while sitting on a lower court.
Decisions in the cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, are expected by the end of June.
thehill.com
Supreme Court signals it will claw back federal agency power
The Supreme Court’s conservatives appeared inclined to cut back the regulatory power of federal agencies, with several justices during a pair of arguments Wednesday seeming ready to overrule a legal doctrine that has bolstered agencies’ authority for decades.
Over more than three hours of argument, the justices put the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer on defense as she sought to preserve Chevron deference, which instructs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretation of federal law if it could have multiple meanings.
The practice has strengthened presidential administrations’ ability to regulate wide aspects of daily life. The range of examples referenced at the arguments revealed the breadth of Chevron’s impact: artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, environmental protections and more.
A majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the conservative lawyers who urged them to outright overrule the precedent or at least narrow its scope, which would mark a major legal victory for business and anti-regulatory interests.
In particular, three members of the high court’s conservative wing — Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — reiterated their long-publicized concerns about the precedent’s viability.
“The government always wins,” Gorsuch said.
Critics contend that Chevron requires judges to abdicate their responsibility to interpret the law. They also note a lack of consensus on when a statute is ambiguous enough to trigger deference to an agency, and how some federal judges have openly criticized the doctrine.
“Should that be a clue that something needs to be fixed here?” Gorsuch said.
The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, meanwhile, expressed opposition to overturning Chevron. They emphasized a desire to defer to subject-matter experts at agencies when ambiguous, complicated policy issues arise, rather than having a judge attempt to draw the line.
“My concern is that if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker,” Jackson said.
Kagan gave a hypothetical about whether a judge or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should be the one to decide whether a cholesterol reducer should be considered a “drug” or a “dietary supplement.”
“In that case I would rather have people at HHS telling me whether this new product was a dietary supplement or a drug,” she said.
Kagan added at one point, “Judges should know what they don’t know.”
The liberals also questioned whether overturning Chevron would unleash a flood of litigation, as people who lost cases because of the doctrine would seek to have their issues reheard.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who posed fierce questions to both sides, also raised concerns about a shock to the system.
The lawyers attempting to overturn Chevron pushed back on the notion, insisting that the thousands of decisions that have invoked the doctrine over the past four decades would still be considered precedent and subject to strong protection.
And some conservative justices argued the opposite, contending that it is Chevron that has created shocks by giving the executive branch a wide license to flip-flop on its interpretations of statutes to fit its policy goals.
“The reality of how this works is Chevron itself has shocks to the system when a new administration comes in,” Kavanaugh said.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, who has been reluctant to overrule the court’s precedents, questioned whether the doctrine had already been overruled in practice. The Supreme Court has not invoked Chevron since 2016, and in some recent cases, the justices have either enacted carveouts or simply ignored the precedent.
“How much of an actual question on the ground is this?” Roberts asked.
The justices weighed whether to replace Chevron with another, more narrow test known as Skidmore, under which a judge would decide to defer to an agency only if the agency’s argument is persuasive. As part of that analysis, judges examine consistency or whether an agency has flip-flopped.
Kavanaugh characterized Skidmore as being about “the power to persuade, not the power to control.”
The high court considered the weighty dispute through two separate cases Wednesday that are near-identical.
In both, herring fishermen are challenging a rule mandating their companies fund federal monitors onboard their vessels. Invoking Chevron, lower courts deferred to the agency and upheld the rule.
Each group of plaintiffs had a veteran Supreme Court advocate arguing for them and is also backed by an anti-regulatory group.
The justices first heard from Roman Martinez, a partner at Latham & Watkins, who is representing a Rhode Island-based fishing fleet alongside the conservative New Civil Liberties Alliance.
And in the second case, the plaintiffs are represented by the conservative Cause of Action Institute and Paul Clement, who served as former President George W. Bush’s top Supreme Court lawyer and has successfully argued cases that resulted in some of the biggest wins for conservatives at the high court in recent years.
Jackson is recusing herself from that case, as she had heard oral arguments in the dispute while sitting on a lower court.
Decisions in the cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, are expected by the end of June.
Supreme Court signals it will claw back federal agency power
The Supreme Court’s conservatives appeared inclined to cut back the regulatory power of federal agencies, with several justices during a pair of arguments Wednesday seeming ready to overr…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Make America Ungovernable MAUReshaping the landscape.
Supreme Court signals it will claw back federal agency power
The Supreme Court’s conservatives appeared inclined to cut back the regulatory power of federal agencies, with several justices during a pair of arguments Wednesday seeming ready to overrule a legal doctrine that has bolstered agencies’ authority for decades.
Over more than three hours of argument, the justices put the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer on defense as she sought to preserve Chevron deference, which instructs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretation of federal law if it could have multiple meanings.
The practice has strengthened presidential administrations’ ability to regulate wide aspects of daily life. The range of examples referenced at the arguments revealed the breadth of Chevron’s impact: artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, environmental protections and more.
A majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the conservative lawyers who urged them to outright overrule the precedent or at least narrow its scope, which would mark a major legal victory for business and anti-regulatory interests.
In particular, three members of the high court’s conservative wing — Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — reiterated their long-publicized concerns about the precedent’s viability.
“The government always wins,” Gorsuch said.
Critics contend that Chevron requires judges to abdicate their responsibility to interpret the law. They also note a lack of consensus on when a statute is ambiguous enough to trigger deference to an agency, and how some federal judges have openly criticized the doctrine.
“Should that be a clue that something needs to be fixed here?” Gorsuch said.
The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, meanwhile, expressed opposition to overturning Chevron. They emphasized a desire to defer to subject-matter experts at agencies when ambiguous, complicated policy issues arise, rather than having a judge attempt to draw the line.
“My concern is that if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker,” Jackson said.
Kagan gave a hypothetical about whether a judge or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should be the one to decide whether a cholesterol reducer should be considered a “drug” or a “dietary supplement.”
“In that case I would rather have people at HHS telling me whether this new product was a dietary supplement or a drug,” she said.
Kagan added at one point, “Judges should know what they don’t know.”
The liberals also questioned whether overturning Chevron would unleash a flood of litigation, as people who lost cases because of the doctrine would seek to have their issues reheard.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who posed fierce questions to both sides, also raised concerns about a shock to the system.
The lawyers attempting to overturn Chevron pushed back on the notion, insisting that the thousands of decisions that have invoked the doctrine over the past four decades would still be considered precedent and subject to strong protection.
And some conservative justices argued the opposite, contending that it is Chevron that has created shocks by giving the executive branch a wide license to flip-flop on its interpretations of statutes to fit its policy goals.
“The reality of how this works is Chevron itself has shocks to the system when a new administration comes in,” Kavanaugh said.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, who has been reluctant to overrule the court’s precedents, questioned whether the doctrine had already been overruled in practice. The Supreme Court has not invoked Chevron since 2016, and in some recent cases, the justices have either enacted carveouts or simply ignored the precedent.
“How much of an actual question on the ground is this?” Roberts asked.
The justices weighed whether to replace Chevron with another, more narrow test known as Skidmore, under which a judge would decide to defer to an agency only if the agency’s argument is persuasive. As part of that analysis, judges examine consistency or whether an agency has flip-flopped.
Kavanaugh characterized Skidmore as being about “the power to persuade, not the power to control.”
The high court considered the weighty dispute through two separate cases Wednesday that are near-identical.
In both, herring fishermen are challenging a rule mandating their companies fund federal monitors onboard their vessels. Invoking Chevron, lower courts deferred to the agency and upheld the rule.
Each group of plaintiffs had a veteran Supreme Court advocate arguing for them and is also backed by an anti-regulatory group.
The justices first heard from Roman Martinez, a partner at Latham & Watkins, who is representing a Rhode Island-based fishing fleet alongside the conservative New Civil Liberties Alliance.
And in the second case, the plaintiffs are represented by the conservative Cause of Action Institute and Paul Clement, who served as former President George W. Bush’s top Supreme Court lawyer and has successfully argued cases that resulted in some of the biggest wins for conservatives at the high court in recent years.
Jackson is recusing herself from that case, as she had heard oral arguments in the dispute while sitting on a lower court.
Decisions in the cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, are expected by the end of June.
Supreme Court signals it will claw back federal agency power
The Supreme Court’s conservatives appeared inclined to cut back the regulatory power of federal agencies, with several justices during a pair of arguments Wednesday seeming ready to overr…