SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) III: Abandoning 90 Years of Precedent

[Qalbert]

by GOP logic no, as he is a man

[Kaslo]

4 opinions today. So, term will stretch to July. I'm betting we are Chevron blasted and not get shit on Trump immunity.

Opinion 1: Grants pass v Johnson. Criminalizing homelessness is A-OK. Obvious ideological split.

Opinion 2/3: Chevron cases. Agencies do not have authority to assess or resolve ststutory issues, courts do. Opinion is not retroactive. Decisions previously involving the Chevron cases such as the Clean Air Act, will stand. SCOTUS apparently thinks the US has 5 million qualified judges to hear all the cases they are wanting to push on an already strained judicial system.

Opinion 4: Fischer v US. Jan 6 defendants. Court found the DC circuit used too broad a reading of the law. They are sending it back for a more narrow review to see if the case still meets the bar for prosecution.

Interestingly, Brown is the only Justice not to author an opinion on one of the April cases. The Trump immunity case is the only case left from April.

I need to look closer at it, but it seemed like they heavily implied courts could accept agency interpretations, just its hot as hard as a rule of interpretation as it was before.

[Salodin]

This is the narrowed language the DC circuit must use to assess whether an indictment can stand for Jan 6 defendants.

"...alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal a record, document, or other object, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding."

Does Mike Pence count as an object?

Would the vote certification not be an object of record?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Outlaw]

I guess the rioters would have had to have succeeded for the court to say they broke the law. Trying to isn't enough. >.>

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

[Tyche]

I will say, Brown is at least consistent in her views giving criminal defendents a favorable reading of the law.

[Dimmauk]

I guess the rioters would have had to have succeeded for the court to say they broke the law. Trying to isn't enough. >.>

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

Imagine if Attempted murder was just trying murder.

[Zealot]

Do they give Nobel prizes for attempted science??

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

Trump won the immunity case.

[Cail]

of course

[archibaldcrane]

https://x.com/TheAmericanHill/status...8wHIOryDA&s=19

Sent from my SM-A546U using Tapatalk

[Kaslo]

That feels more like a splitting the baby.

The lower courts can just say "these were unofficial acts because X" and move on.

[Zealot]

Sure, but it still accomplishes the end goal, which is to stretch out the cases he's on trial for until after he's sworn in for a second term.

[Kaslo]

Also, the opinion seems to assert that even Official Acts aren't TOTALLY immune, just presumptively immune. Meaning, there will have to be a test determined to establish when an Official Act crosses the line to lose immunity.

[Xno Kappa]

History will not be kind to John Roberts

[Zealot]

History is written by the victors, Roberts on track to be called the greatest Chief Justice of all time with that in mind.

[Zealot]

The decision also says evidence related to official acts cannot come into any trial.

[archibaldcrane]

Trump better be looking over his shoulder next time he visits Washington DC, Biden's secret service snipers are looking to do some "official acts"

And of course all crime in DC is federal crime, meaning pardonable by the president (another official act)

Sent from my SM-A546U using Tapatalk

[Xno Kappa]

The decision also says evidence related to official acts cannot come into any trial.

Lmao

[Tyrath]

Just think of all the damage done to our democracy by people refusing to vote Hillary. Those 3 Trump justice picks are going to haunt us for a long time.

[Tyche]

That feels more like a splitting the baby.

The lower courts can just say "these were unofficial acts because X" and move on.

Trump immunity case is being heard. I think the justices are signaling they may attempt to split the baby. I think the conservatives want to separate "official acts" from "unofficial acts" and allow for criminal immunity from official acts. Justice Brown got Trump's own attorney to blow a hold right through his own argument because she's a legitimately good jurist. Other conservatives didn't really care. Roberts actually seems to lean toward allowing for immunity for official acts.

However, even if they do grant immunity for "official acts", Trump's own attorney admitted in court today that some of the acts he's being prosecuted for are not "official acts", such as the call to GA Secretary of State Rafensburg, ordering him to find the votes.

Called this during arguments. Seemed like their obvious course here. I also agree with them trying to reign in official acts and I think that opinion is entirely credited to Ketanji Brown, who absolutely destroyed Trump's attorney and got him to admit how official acts could be abused. Outside of a Gorsuch indigenous rights argument/opinion, Brown has quickly become my favorite.

This entire session, outside of maybe Chevron, was just the court abdicating it's duty. Delay, remand, move on. The courts want more, but remain feckless.