Let's hang out at SCOTUSblog.
1. "The court has denied cert in a case I was watching, T.O. v. Fort Bend Independent School District, about excessive force used by a school official on a first grader. (A chokehold.)"
2. From a commenter there: "As someone who commutes by bike around the Capitol and SCOTUS every day, I can't overstate how big the police presence was this morning compared to normal. Just scores of MPD and Capitol Police stacked up all around the neighborhood near the Court."
3. "2 down, 27 to go"
4. The announcements are over. Nothing big happened. You can go to the link to read about the small handful of new cases.
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
LNASWD
I have previously predicted riots if Roe and Casey are overturned. I stand by my prediction.
Are all those police protecting the Court from outsiders or preparing to arrest the Justices if they vote "the wrong way"? We better go to TikTok and see whether the Minister-of-Truth-in-waiting has sung us a relevant song.
I agree with at least one commenter there that Dobbs probably won't be announced today. The Supreme Court is not far removed from other creatures of DC that crave attention, and the right attention. They have it now, so announce other cases to get them coverage. Do Dobbs now, and few will pay attention to the others.
I wonder what the rules of engagement are for all those cops stoked with adrenalin? Dems have had YEARS to prepare for this kind of denouement. Pass the (increasingly scarce) popcorn.
Remember when they wouldn't let the truckers enter DC to protest?? Good times. Protesting is okay if you are a rabid progressive. You can burn down businesses, burn cars, riot, loot, and the authorities look the other way. This looks insurrection-y to me, but then I remember that the left can do whatever the hell they want. Protect yourselves. This might be the fuse that sets of the civil war.
How to defuse a bomb after it's already detonated?
Good day to announce Dobbs because the January 6th committee is about to begin its next televised "hearing." Question what would overshadow what.
The Justices go in order of seniority, so we'll soon find out if it's Dobbs day. Alito is about to come up in the order of things.
On a beautiful Saturday two weeks after 9/11, my dad and I drove past the Pentagon, by the White House, where there was an ANSWER rally, then parked at the foot of Capitol Hill and walked his dog up to the building. There was one policeman on each front and no tourists but us. When we walked around the north end, I could see a small army of black-clad LEOs and vehicles between the Senate office buildings.
I assumed they were there for the ANSWER rally, but today I wonder if they'd been there since 9/11. I don't think our rulers are paranoid now--their decades of increasingly ruthless incompetence and malice give them reason to fear.
It would be an interesting tactic now for the SCOTUS to delay Dobbs as long as possible. Each time they release opinions, the radicals will line up to be ready to protest only to have to do home and wait or next time. I think the optimal strategy is to release the second to last of the session. That would result in the maximum diminishment of the protestors. The last week would not be the best because at least then they would KNOW it is coming and renew their fervor.
Or, alternately they haven't executed a Justice yet, so they are giving the unstable people more time to complete the mission.
Ann Althouse: "Good day to announce Dobbs because the January 6th committee is about to begin its next televised "hearing." Question what would overshadow what."
Bad day to announce Dobbs if you are John Roberts.
Insufficient time for the mob action to have worked its full magic on Kavanaugh yet....or maybe it has?
It will be interesting to see the ratings of the next Jan 6 infomercial. The LA Times has half a dozen stories hysterically promoting the TV show.
I can see how the Justices would be anxious to get Roe v Wade done.
Hey, that's the first coherent reason I've heard for thinking that the leaker was conservative: The result will be that Roe v Wade gets overturned some weeks earlier because the majority of Justices are being threatened. That will save lives.
The American Truckers protest pussied out unlike the brave Canadians. Too bad because Putin was relying on a huge National Guard over reaction to divert American attention from his Ukraine invasion.
Go to
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/21
and
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21
And then you can get the information just as fast as the people at ScotusBlog can.
It's one of the benefits of the Covid lockdowns. Given how many costs they imposed, you should grab what benefits you can :-)
The cases:
ZF Automotive U. S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd: I disagree with the unanimous Court. I see no reason why a foreign Court is due more respect than a foreign arbitration panel
Denezpi v. United States: I'm with Gorsuch. the Court's "Double Jeopardy" jurisprudence is BS. Only one sovereignty should be able to charge you for a crime, and if you beat that one, it's done
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez and Garland v. Gonzalez: The right decisions. Any decision that makes it easier to kick out people who are here illegally, and to make them miserable while they fight being kicked out, is a good thing.
No person who tries to get into the US illegally should be anywhere besides in a jail / holding camp / not in the US unless and until it's proven that they have a legal right to enter the US
You don't like that? Change the laws through the legal process for doing so: Congress passing a law and the President signing it
Kemp v. United States: I've not studied the issue enough to fully understand the consequences of the decision, but I have a hard time feeling bad for people who f'ed around for more than a year before filing their appeal. So I tend to support the majority on this one
This one blew my mind, BTW:
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, involved the question whether the post-removal order statute authorized his prolonged detention, and if so, whether the government was required to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge after six months of detention. In such a hearing, an immigration judge would consider the traditional bail hearing criteria of dangerousness and flight risk to determine whether a noncitizen should be released under federal supervision, in exchange for payment of a bond, pending resolution of the underlying immigration proceedings.
In an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court held that the text of the relevant statutory provision, Section 1231(a)(6), does not obligate the government to provide bond hearings after six months of detention. Seven other justices joined Sotomayor’s opinion in full. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part.
I'm still trying to figure out how the "wise Latina" ended up in the majority, and writing this case.
I was following one of the cases decided today. Actually a pair of consolidated appeals with related issues based on same federal statute: scope of third party discovery available in international arbitration. 2 federal circuits reversed unanimously in opinion by the junior justice. Narrow view of the statute following the advice of the US government, which is concerned with international comity. Other countries allow less discovery for such disputes. In contrast, the Restatement of the Law, legal principles drafted and approved by the American Law Institute, had interpreted the statute broadly.
Ah!
Constitutional challenges to prolonged detention under §1231(a)(6) were not addressed below, in part because those courts read §1231(a)(6) to require a bond hearing. Arteaga-Martinez’s alternative theory that he is presumptively entitled to release under Zadvydas also was not addressed below. The Court leaves these arguments for the lower courts to consider in the first instance
So she got to write a punt. OTOH, what they did rule was good, so I'll take that
This tour (in which I pay attention at SCOTUSblog) I learned about the 'R number'. The last time I paid attention over there was... I don't know; after Obergefell, anyway. Whenever it was, I don't remember 'R number' chatter then but it's entirely possible that it went in one ear and out the other.
"Blogger Howard said...
The American Truckers protest pussied out unlike the brave Canadians. Too bad because Putin was relying on a huge National Guard over reaction to divert American attention from his Ukraine invasion."
After seeing what they are doing to the idiots who went into the capitol building on January 6th, I suspect there will be very few non-democrat protests in Washington for a long time. Would you fancy that treatment? I wouldn't.
Blogger Howard said...
The American Truckers protest pussied out unlike the brave Canadians.
I guess they saw what the Nazi Trudeau did to the Canadians. Garland is perfectly capable of doing to them what he is doing to the political prisoners of Jan 6. n We really dodged a bullet when McConnell stopped Obama from putting him on the Court.
Thanks for drilling down into the pussy willow weeds OaS and Doc Mike showing how the Truckers failed to have the courage of their convictions.
The truckers' protests were against the lockdowns. When the US lockdowns ended the protest fizzled out.
In so far as we don't have National Guardsmen in Ukraine now, it's doubtful Putin had anything to do with the protests.
Also, Biden has so messed up the supply chain that a truckers' strike would be superfluous.
Howard said...
Thanks for drilling down into the pussy willow weeds OaS and Doc Mike showing how the Truckers failed to have the courage of their convictions.
Asserted without evidence. The truckers here got what they wanted without a big fuss.
If I were one of you lefties I would worry much more about what happens when truckers can't afford Diesel. That is coming fast and I see no solution.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा