SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) II: Rape Isn't On My Calendar

[archibaldcrane]

I could see Virginia and Minnesota joining, MAAAAYBE Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Michigan at some point.

Really need a big state like Florida to push it over the edge though, and lol

New Hampshire and Nevada have little incentive given their preferential position on the primary calendar.

[6souls]

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/23/79866...school-funding

Supreme Court to rule on religious school funding in the state of Montana where state aid is currently barred from supporting religious schools. The mother who is behind the campaign claims what the state is doing amounts to religious persecution, but the outcome could have a domino effect on the separation of church and state across the nation.

The focal point of Wednesday's argument was a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that struck down a tax subsidy for both religious and nonreligious private schools. The Montana court said that the subsidy violated a state constitutional provision barring any state aid to religious schools, whether direct or indirect.

On the steps of the Supreme Court Wednesday, Kendra Espinoza, a divorced mother of two, explained why she is challenging that ruling.

"We are a Christian family and I want those values taught at school," she said. "Our morals as a society come from the Bible. I feel we are being excluded simply because we are people of religious background."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the history of excluding religious schools from public funding has its roots in the "religious bigotry against Catholics" in the late 1800s.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito compared the exclusion of parochial schools from taxpayer-funded aid programs to unconstitutional discrimination based on race.

Justice Stephen Breyer wondered where the plaintiffs' equal-treatment argument would end. He noted major school systems spend billions in taxpayer money to fund the public schools. "If I decide for you," he asked, would these school systems "have to give proportionate amounts to parochial schools?"

Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, representing the Trump administration, basically answered "yes."

[Tokitoki]

That's a proud Karen.

[Zealot]

I'd like to revisit my murder stance.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[TsingTao]

Bitch, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make enough money to send your kids to private school. It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to subsidize your religious preferences.

[Guyverarmor]

Got a feeling if it was another relgion other than Christianity the religious right would have a fucking meltdown over what is being asked.

Also, yes, that Karen looks very proud of herself.

[Cantih]

Got a feeling if it was another relgion other than Christianity the religious right would have a fucking meltdown over what is being asked.

Sounds like a job for The Satanic Temple.

[Guyverarmor]

Sounds like a job for The Satanic Temple.

I would have to agree !

[Xno Kappa]

I’d rather the Church of the Fonz.

[Tyche]

Don't you get federal subsidies even if you attend private universities? I've never attended a private post-secondary school but I would assume they still get to claim tuition on taxes. Is this different since it's not post-secondary or am I missed something altogether? I'm confused about if this is related to outright state funding of private schools or simply tax subsidies.

[kuronosan]

Don't you get federal subsidies even if you attend private universities? I've never attended a private post-secondary school but I would assume they still get to claim tuition on taxes. Is this different since it's not post-secondary or am I missed something altogether? I'm confused about if this is related to outright state funding of private schools or simply tax subsidies.

Yes.

[Cail]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d18_story.html

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing new “wealth test” rules making it easier to deny immigrants residency or admission to the United States because they have used or might use public-assistance programs.


The decision, issued in response to an emergency petition by the administration, lifts a nationwide injunction imposed by a district judge in New York. That means the government can begin applying the new standards, which critics say would place a burden on poor immigrants from non-English-speaking countries, while legal challenges continue in lower courts.


The order supporting the Trump administration was handed down as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was presiding over President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate. He was joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh in lifting the injunction.

[6souls]

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/27/81010...inia-parole-la
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...0Dismissal.pdf

The Supreme Court has ruled to dismiss the the case against the then teenager component of the "D.C. Sniper."

The request to withdraw the appeal from the high court by lawyers on both sides came after Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam signed legislation on Monday that allows all juvenile lifers who committed crimes under the age of 18 to seek parole after serving 20 years.

That includes Malvo, who was 17 when he and John Allen Muhammad, his surrogate father, spread terror in Washington D.C., Virginia and Maryland by randomly shooting and killing 10 people over three weeks.

Malvo, who is now 35 and held at Red Onion supermax prison in Virginia, should be eligible for release in 2022.

But neither the latest change in state law nor the Supreme Court dismissal eliminates the likelihood that Malvo will live any of his life outside of confinement. He is serving four life sentences in Virginia and six life without parole sentences in Maryland, where he is also appealing for a new sentence.

2300 others who were sentenced to life as a juvenile are also eligible for parole.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-51643636

The Supreme Court has ruled that the family of the Mexican boy who was killed by a U.S. border patrol agent in 2010 cannot sue because the boy dies on Mexican soil. The agent had shot the boy from the U.S. side of the border.

Sergio Hernández, 15, was with a group of youths in the dry bed of the Rio Grande when Agent Mesa approached.

His family said Sergio was playing with his friends, who were daring each other to run up the incline and touch the fence on the US side.

Agent Mesa detained one of the boys for illegally crossing the border, but Sergio Hernández and another boy ran and hid behind a pillar on the Mexican side.

He was shot twice by Agent Mesa as the boy peeked out from behind the pillar. An investigation by US authorities ruled that the agent had acted in self defence but found no evidence that Sergio Hernández had thrown any stones.

The Mexican authorities charged Agent Mesa with murder but the US authorities refused to extradite him so Sergio Hernández's family tried to sue Agent Mesa in the US for violating the US constitution by using excessive force.

Lower courts dismissed the case and it went to the US Supreme Court. In a five to four decision divided along conservative-liberal lines, the Supreme Court decided to uphold the lower court's decision.

The conservative justices argued that "a cross-border shooting is by definition an international incident" and called for a diplomatic, not a legal solution, arguing that allowing the case would have had "foreign relations and national security implications".

Mexico fears that the ruling will lead to more incidents where border agents and even U.S. citizens will now feel that it's their legal right to fire upon Mexican across the border.

[Tomiko]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-51643636

The Supreme Court has ruled that the family of the Mexican boy who was killed by a U.S. border patrol agent in 2010 cannot sue because the boy dies on Mexican soil. The agent had shot the boy from the U.S. side of the border.

Mexico fears that the ruling will lead to more incidents where border agents and even U.S. citizens will now feel that it's their legal right to fire upon Mexican across the border.

I feel like they're going with this ruling in hopes that someone on the Mexican side pulls the same shit so they can justify the stupid wall.

[6souls]

SCOTUS will delay oral arguments until the pandemic subsides.

[6souls]

https://twitter.com/cspanJeremy/stat...76164234579969 - audio clip

Attorney Roman Martinez made his oral argument while using the bathroom.

[Athas]

Was it known to be him, or was the flush from someone else on the line?

[6souls]

https://apnews.com/d99cfadbffbf8ca4abed94ac62b8ad11

SCOTUS unanimously dropped the convictions against Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni in New Jersey's "Bridgegate" scandal.

The court said in a unanimous decision Thursday that the government had overreached in prosecuting Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni for their roles in creating a massive traffic jam to punish a New Jersey mayor who refused to endorse the reelection of then-Republican Gov. Chris Christie.

Kelly and Baroni were convicted of fraud and conspiracy for scheming in 2013 to change the traffic flow onto the George Washington Bridge between New York City and New Jersey to artificially create gridlock in New Jersey’s Fort Lee. The traffic change came after Fort Lee’s mayor, a Democrat, declined to endorse Christie.

[Cail]

Supreme Court for now stops House Democrats from seeing secret Mueller material

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stopped House Democrats for now from seeing secret grand jury material from former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into the Trump administration and Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election.

The court, without noted dissent, agreed with a request from the Department of Justice to put on hold a lower court decision granting the House Judiciary Committee some previously undisclosed material from Mueller’s investigation.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the Supreme Court it should withhold the sensitive information until it could review for itself significant separation of powers issues raised in the case. Despite the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Congress has no immediate need for the information, Francisco wrote in a brief to the court.

[Kaslo]

As a lawyer, this doesn't seem surprising because that's something that can't really be put back into the box if the order gets reversed...