Author Topic: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) SCOTUS  (Read 698027 times)

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2832
    • View Profile
Biden Abandons Constitutional Norms
« Reply #1950 on: July 31, 2024, 10:55:50 AM »
His SCOTUS proposals are so undefined they could suggest numerous courses, albeit any direction is sure to be informed by "Progressive" passions:

https://thedispatch.com/article/what-ever-happened-to-judicial-independence/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71378
    • View Profile
WSJ; Term Limits a Waste of Wisdom
« Reply #1951 on: August 01, 2024, 06:19:15 AM »


Supreme Court Term Limits Are a Waste of Wisdom
Justices Brandeis, Black, Harlan and Holmes did some of their best work in later years.
By Nathan Lewin
July 31, 2024 12:32 pm ET


It’s easy to make a legalistic case against President Biden’s proposal to impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices. History, however, can be the most persuasive teacher. If Mr. Biden’s folly had always been the law of the land, we wouldn’t have some of our wisest jurists’ most compelling judgments.

The first John Marshall Harlan was in his 19th year as a justice in 1896 when he dissented from the court’s blunder in Plessy v. Ferguson, which approved separate railway accommodations “for the white and colored races.” In a lone dissent, he declared that “our Constitution is color-blind.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes took his Supreme Court seat in 1902. Twenty-one years later he dissented in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, a decision that nullified a federal law prescribing minimum wages for women employed in the District of Columbia.

Hugo Black completed his 18th year on the high court in 1955. Sixteen years later, he issued a passionate defense of a free press in New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971), the Pentagon Papers case. The Founding Fathers, he wrote, intended that the press “serve the governed, not the governors.”

Louis Brandeis may have written his most memorable defenses of personal liberty in his early years on the bench, alongside Holmes. Yet he is sealed in every lawyer’s mind for his majority opinion in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938), decided in his 22nd year as a justice, which reversed an almost century-old rule that had governed litigation in federal courts.

One genius of our Constitution is its recognition of varying terms for federal office-holders. Articles I and II prescribe that representatives be elected for two years, presidents for four and senators for six. Article III specifies that all officials exercising the federal “judicial power”—“both of the supreme and inferior courts”—retain their authority “during good behaviour.” That is, for life.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary was “the weakest of the three departments.” He also warned that “periodical appointments” of federal judges would “be fatal to their necessary independence,” and that judges shouldn’t have “too great a disposition to consult popularity.” Experience on the bench generates wisdom that term limits would swiftly eradicate.

Mr. Lewin is a Washington lawyer with a Supreme Court practice.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19058
    • View Profile
Re: rumor headline Alito might retire
« Reply #1953 on: August 01, 2024, 09:42:22 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/samuel-alito-thinking-about-retirement-report/ar-BB1r0Kq9?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6d659e73419541068ad46ae8e82bdc27&ei=11

don't know if true but if it is -> :x

Not true I hope.  If we get a Republican president and senate, that could free up all six of them to consider their options.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71378
    • View Profile
Charlie Kirk
« Reply #1956 on: August 19, 2024, 08:15:09 AM »
I would have preferred "Judeo-Christian" over "Jesus", but the fundamentals of the discussion here are deep and correct.   Lots of inconvenient truths!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6R_-AvCUsQ



Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2832
    • View Profile
History of US Arms Bans
« Reply #1959 on: August 29, 2024, 01:50:02 PM »
Interesting for the historical context, if nothing else:

[David Kopel] The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900
The Volokh Conspiracy / by David Kopel / Aug 28, 2024 at 1:45 PM
 Bowie knife | Knife Magazine
[Restrictions on carry, minors, and misuse were the norm -- not bans]

Controversial arms are nothing new in the United States. During the 19th century, there were widespread concerns about criminal use of arms such a Bowie knives, slungshots, blackjacks, and brass knuckles. The full history of state, territorial, and colonial laws about controversial arms is detailed in my recent article for Notre Dame's Journal of Legislation, The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, coauthored with Joseph Greenlee.

Because the article is thorough, it is enormous: 163 pages of text, and 1,563 footnotes. The student staff for volume 50 of the Journal of Legislation was spectacular. Not every law journal has staff who could handle such a megillah, let alone a staff that whose meticulous cite-check would improve the article.

The mainstream American approach to controls of the above arms were: 1. bans on concealed carry; 2. limits on sales to minors, such as requiring parental permission; and 3. extra penalties for misuse in a crime. Sales bans were the minority approach, and possession bans very rare.

From 1607 through 1899, sales bans for nonfirearm arms were:

Bowie knife. Sales bans in Georgia, Tennessee, and later in Arkansas. Georgia ban held to violate the Second Amendment. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846).
Prohibitive transfer or occupational vendor taxes in Alabama and Florida, which were repealed. Personal property taxes at levels high enough to discourage possession by poor people in Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina.
Dirk (a type of fighting knife). Georgia (1837) (held to violate Second Amendment); Arkansas (1881).
Sword cane (a sword concealed in a walking stick). Georgia (1837), held to violate the Second Amendment. Arkansas (1881).
Slungshot or "colt" (most typically, a lead weight held in the tip of a flexible bludgeon). Sales bans in nine states or territories. The Kentucky ban was later repealed. Illinois also banned possession.
Sand club or blackjack. New York (1881), (1884), (1889), (1899).
Billy. New York (1881), (1884), (1889), (1899).
Metallic knuckles. Sales bans in eight states, later repealed in Kentucky. Illinois also banned possession.
Cannons. No bans. Restrictions on discharge without permission in a variety of municipalities.
American bans on possession or sale to adults of particular types of firearms were:

Georgia (1837), all handguns except horse pistols. Held unconstitutional in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846).
Tennessee (1879) and Arkansas (1881). Bans on sales of concealable handguns. Based on militia-centric interpretations of the state constitutions, the laws did not ban the largest and most powerful revolvers, namely those like the Army or Navy models.
Florida (1893). Discretionary licensing and an exorbitant licensing fee for carry of repeating rifles. Extended to handguns in 1901. The law was "never intended to be applied to the white population" and "conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested." Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516 (1941) (Buford, J., concurring).
Earlier this month, the en banc Fourth Circuit, by a 10-5 vote, upheld Maryland's ban on common rifles dubbed "assault weapons." Judge Wilkinson's majority opinion cited the article 16 times, and Judge Richardson's dissent cited it 9 times. Bianchi v. Brown, 2024 WL 3666180 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc).

The article has also been cited in three U.S. District Court opinions supporting the claims of Second Amendment plaintiffs. Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Platkin, 2024 WL 3585580 (D.N.J. July 30, 2024); Miller v. Bonta, 699 F.Supp.3d 956, 981 n.86, 987 n.107 (S.D. Cal. 2023); Duncan v. Bonta, 695 F.Supp.3d 1206, 1242 n.177 (S.D. Cal. 2023). And in a Third Circuit dissent disagreeing with Second Amendment claims. Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, 91 F.4th 122, 144-45, 147 (3d Cir. 2024) (Restrepo, J., dissenting).

As the cites indicate, judges can disagree about how strictly or broadly to draw historical analogies, and about what sorts of laws create an established tradition at a given level of generality. It is at least helpful, I hope, that judges can have access to a common set of facts about the historical regulation of controversial arms.

The post The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900 appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/28/the-history-of-bans-on-types-of-arms-before-1900-2/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19322
    • View Profile
LEFT wing article : democracy doomed if we don't fix SCOTUS
« Reply #1960 on: September 04, 2024, 07:25:21 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-our-democracy-is-depending-on-a-supreme-court-fix-and-we-re-running-out-of-time/ar-AA1pYUiB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=a5514b57154e419993d3266ee96ca197&ei=12

funny
the left always screams "where is the proof": from us.

yet show *me* the proof any SCOTUS decision was influenced by "shady" dealings.

come on shysters - where is the proof you always demand from us?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19058
    • View Profile
Re: LEFT wing article : democracy doomed if we don't fix SCOTUS
« Reply #1961 on: September 04, 2024, 07:40:29 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-our-democracy-is-depending-on-a-supreme-court-fix-and-we-re-running-out-of-time/ar-AA1pYUiB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=a5514b57154e419993d3266ee96ca197&ei=12

funny
the left always screams "where is the proof": from us.

yet show *me* the proof any SCOTUS decision was influenced by "shady" dealings.

come on shysters - where is the proof you always demand from us?

They attack the Court by lying about the decisions.

Dobbs didn't end abortion, it sent a divisive political issue back to the states where it belongs.

The immunity decision didn't make all acts of a President immune from the law.  It makes 'Presidential acts', not personal acts, immune from prosecution.

80% of recent Supreme Court decisions are unanimous.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-unanimity-is-fleeting-with-tougher-cases-looming-37

The voting block within the Court that sticks together the most are the center three.

Funny they don't tell you any of that when they attack the Court.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19322
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) SCOTUS
« Reply #1962 on: September 04, 2024, 08:11:03 AM »
" The immunity decision didn't make all acts of a President immune from the law.  It makes 'Presidential acts', not personal acts, immune from prosecution. "

funny you bring this up.  last night during my dog walk I was thinking how Larry Tribe shysters will be arguing till they are gangrenous in the face what is a Presidential act vs not official duty in trying to subvert or sidewind this.

if there is a way to get Trump
Tribe et al will find it.

besides they are making a fortune in legal fees - maybe not Tribe though.  Can or is he billing as a Harvard prof for side work?  I don't know.   Dershowitz does so I guess Tribe does too.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71378
    • View Profile
WSJ: Justice Jackson vs. Separation of Powers
« Reply #1963 on: September 05, 2024, 02:34:42 PM »


Justice Jackson’s ‘Enforceable’ Ethics Code
The Justice gives encouragement to partisans who want to politicize the Supreme Court.
By The Editorial Board
Sept. 3, 2024 5:41 pm ET


Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who’s on a media tour for her new memoir, has thrown her support behind the idea, at least in theory, of an enforceable Supreme Court ethics code. “A binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges,” Justice Jackson told CBS. “I guess I have not seen a persuasive reason as to why the Court is different than the other courts.”

She cautioned that she was discussing this as a “general matter,” not endorsing any specific plan: “I’m not going to get into commenting on particular policy proposals, but from my perspective I don’t have any problem with an enforceable code.” This is cagey, and we’d suggest that Justice Jackson look more closely at the political pressure her endorsement may help to unleash.

One difference between the High Court and the lower courts is that there are only nine Justices. Any unnecessary recusal on the Supreme Court can end up being effectively a vote against one of the parties. Winning the case means convincing at least five Justices. A shorthanded Court can split 4-4, which leaves a lower-court ruling in place but without any definitive settlement.

The Supreme Court is also enumerated in the Constitution, and it isn’t a creature of Congress. It would implicate the separation of powers for lawmakers to attempt to impose a detailed set of ethics and recusal rules on the Justices from the outside, as Democrats have been demanding.

Another difference is that the High Court is a frequent target of political attacks, and an “enforceable” ethics code would quickly be turned into another instrument of partisan warfare that would harm the independence of the Court. Justice Jackson reported on a disclosure form this summer that the singer Beyonce gave her four concert tickets worth $3,711.84. Unless Beyonce is coming before the Supreme Court for some reason, it’s hard to fathom how this poses any real ethical conflict.

Yet the same is true of gifts reported by the conservative Justices, which hasn’t stopped the smear campaigns. The newest Justice may think she’s pleasing Democrats and the press on ethics, but we doubt she’d like the result.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2832
    • View Profile
The Old Gray Hag Now Gunning for Roberts
« Reply #1964 on: September 16, 2024, 09:26:47 AM »
NYT misconstrues constitutional issues for political ones while tipping their hand they have a source privy to SCOTUS deliberations:

John Roberts Gets His Turn in the Progressive Dock

Leaks from inside the Supreme Court target the Chief Justice in the Trump cases.

By
The Editorial Board

Sept. 15, 2024 at 5:22 pm ET

Journal Editorial Report: Trump and Harris campaigns chase undecideds. Photo: Imago/Zuma Press
The political attacks on the Supreme Court are escalating, and the latest is aimed squarely at Chief Justice John Roberts. It comes in a Sunday story in the New York Times fueled by leaks about internal Court deliberations.

The story’s theme is that in three cases last term the Chief steered the Court to help Donald Trump: “How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak.” It is slanted in the way readers have come to expect from the Times, minimizing the constitutional arguments in the cases and highlighting the political benefit to Mr. Trump. The piece spins the cases from the legal and political view of critics, notably Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the member of the Court who has been most nonplussed in public about her status as a losing Justice in many constitutional decisions.

Most striking, and damaging to the comity at the Court, are leaks about the internal discussions among the Justices. The story describes a memo from the Chief to fellow Justices in February 2022 recommending that the Justices accept the appeal over presidential immunity, as well as follow-up notes from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

Also leaked is an account of the private conversation among the Justices after an oral argument. This is a betrayal of confidence that will affect how the Justices do their work. It’s arguably worse than the leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs, the 2022 abortion case. That leaker still hasn’t been identified, but it was probably a clerk or functionary at the Court. This leak bears the possible fingerprints of one or more of the Justices.

***
The intent is clearly to tarnish the Court as political, and hit the Chief in particular. This is strange on its face since John Roberts is hardly some Trumpian partisan. He has openly criticized Mr. Trump for assailing judges whose rulings the former President didn’t like. Everything we know about the Chief suggests he would have hated to be drawn into what we have called “the Trump docket.”

But the Court had little choice after Democrats used the legal system against Mr. Trump. The Court was obliged to take the cases as they marched up the appellate chain. Democrats politicize the law against a candidate of the opposing party, and then they claim to be shocked because the Supreme Court does its duty to rule on the legality of what they are doing.

Recall the cases. Trump v. Anderson concerned a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court barring Mr. Trump from the ballot under a reading of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. How could the U.S. Supreme Court not hear that appeal? The ruling against the Colorado court was 9-0, with some concurring caveats.

Fischer v. U.S., about the prosecution of some who rioted on Jan. 6, 2021, was also important to take up, given the way prosecutors stretched the Sarbanes-Oxley statute. The ruling isn’t central to the Trump prosecutions in any case, and the 6-3 majority included a concurring opinion from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The ruling on presidential immunity (Trump v. U.S.) was impossible to dodge, unless the Court was willing to ignore the case’s impact on the separation of powers and its own precedent. The Court had ruled in 1982 in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that a president is immune from civil suits regarding his official actions.

The Court properly declined special counsel Jack Smith’s request to take the case on accelerated appeal, giving the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals the chance to rule first. But that three-judge panel wrote one of the worst opinions in that court’s history, which ignored Nixon v. Fitzgerald as well as the impact on future Presidents. The appellate ruling essentially said Mr. Trump could be indicted because he’s Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court couldn’t let that ruling stand because it would have been used to justify criminal charges against future Presidents for their official acts. The Justices had to weigh in on the constitutional merits. The Chief’s opinion protected the Presidency from partisans who would seek to criminalize official acts such as drone strikes against enemies of the U.S., while saying a President can still be prosecuted for acts that break the law that are unrelated to his duties as President.

Democrats hate the ruling because they say it gives too much power to Presidents and will delay Mr. Smith’s prosecution of Mr. Trump past this year’s Election Day. But this would not have happened if Mr. Smith, backed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, hadn’t broken historical precedent by prosecuting a former President. Because Democrats think the highest political cause of the moment is defeating Donald Trump, they don’t mind traducing other political norms, and that includes trashing the separation of powers and the Supreme Court.

***
The story in the Times is part of a larger progressive political campaign to damage the credibility of the Court to justify Democratic legislation that will destroy its independence. That this campaign may have picked up allies inside the Court is all the more worrying. We are at a dangerous juncture in American constitutional history, and Mr. Trump isn’t the only, or the greatest, risk.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/john-roberts-gets-his-turn-in-the-progressive-dock-nyt-trump-2894b5da?st=DgXF7H