‘A Sword and a Shield’: How the Supreme Court Supercharged Trump’s Power
The Supreme Court has been significantly changing presidential and executive power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fDQg28O1EM
Tag: Supreme Court
Supreme Court Won’t Hear a Qualified Immunity Case Where a Cop Disclosed an Abuse Report to a Woman’s Abuser
“Qualified immunity allows government officials to avoid liability even in cases where courts find that they violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defenders of qualified immunity say it protects police from frivolous lawsuits, but in practice it also short-circuits credible allegations of civil rights violations before they ever reach a jury.”
https://reason.com/2024/11/14/supreme-court-wont-hear-a-qualified-immunity-case-where-a-cop-disclosed-an-abuse-report-to-a-womans-abuser/
The strange case that the Supreme Court keeps refusing to decide
“Beginning in the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court maintained that the Eighth Amendment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Thus, as a particular method of punishment grew less common, the Court was increasingly likely to declare it cruel and unusual in violation of the Constitution.
At least some members of the Court’s Republican majority, however, have suggested that this “evolving standards of decency” framework should be abandoned. In Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), the Court considered whether states could use execution methods that risked causing the dying inmate a great deal of pain. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion, which held that potentially painful methods of execution are allowed, seems to exist in a completely different universe than the Court’s Eighth Amendment cases that look to evolving standards.
While the Court’s earlier opinions ask whether a particular form of punishment has fallen out of favor today, Gorsuch asked whether a method of punishment was out of favor at the time of the founding. Though his opinion does list some methods of execution, such as “disemboweling” and “burning alive” that violate the Eighth Amendment, Gorsuch wrote that these methods are unconstitutional because “by the time of the founding, these methods had long fallen out of use and so had become ‘unusual.’”
What makes Bucklew confusing, however, is that it didn’t explicitly overrule any of the previous decisions applying the evolving standards framework. So it’s unclear whether all five of the justices who joined that opinion share a desire to blow up more than a half-century of law, or if the justices who joined the Bucklew majority simply failed to rein in an overly ambitious opinion by Gorsuch, the Court’s most intellectually sloppy justice.
In any event, Hamm opens up at least two major potential divides within the Court. Smith says he is intellectually disabled; the state of Alabama wants to execute him anyway. So the case perfectly tees up a challenge to Atkins if a majority of the justices want to go there. Meanwhile, Bucklew looms like a vulture over any cruel and unusual punishment case heard by the Court, as it suggests that the Republican justices may hit the reset button on all of its Eighth Amendment precedents at any time.”
https://www.vox.com/scotus/378058/supreme-court-hamm-smith-death-penalty-eighth-amendment
Neil Gorsuch’s New Book Is an Embarrassment
“In fact, most federal criminal prosecutions are immigration, drug and gun cases. The largest numbers of federal inmates are in custody because they were convicted of drug, weapon and sex offenses. The story is similar in state prison systems, where roughly 90 percent of the inmates are in custody because they were convicted of a violent offense, property crime or a drug offense.
The legal system is far from flawless — and plenty of Americans sincerely believe that there are too many laws and regulations in the country — but Gorsuch’s selective and misleadingly presented case studies do not tell us anything particularly useful about it.
To be sure, there are some redeeming features of the book. Gorsuch criticizes occupational licensing requirements, the exorbitant cost of legal services in this country and the ways in which they burden working- and middle-class Americans.
But what’s left out of the book is often just as instructive — if not more so — than what’s in it. His interest in government overreach stops short when it comes to liberal causes.
In an anecdotal book about overzealous prosecutors, there are no stories about people being sent to prison because they mistakenly tried to vote when they weren’t eligible or about laws that make it illegal to give voters water while they wait in line. There are no stories about women being arrested because they had miscarriages, part of the ongoing fallout from the decision by Gorsuch and his fellow Republican appointees to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/10/15/neil-gorsuch-book-supreme-court-00183518
Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem unsure whether to save a man’s life
“All three of the Court’s Democrats, meanwhile, appeared sympathetic to Glossip’s arguments, and spent much of the case batting down Alito’s proposals to dismiss the case on procedural grounds — though Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson showed some openness to forming an alliance with Thomas to send the case back down to the state courts in order to gather additional evidence.
That leaves Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, conservative Republicans who asked some questions that appeared sympathetic to Glossip, as the wild cards in this case. It is possible that they could provide the fourth and fifth vote to save Glossip’s life, but far from certain.
The alleged constitutional violation that is before the Court — that prosecutors withheld evidence that a key witness has a serious mental illness, and failed to correct this witness when he lied on the stand — is fairly marginal. It turns on four words in handwritten notes by prosecutor Connie Smothermon that were not turned over to Glossip’s lawyers until January 2023. The state agrees with Glossip’s legal team that these four words reveal a sufficiently serious constitutional violation to justify giving him a new trial.
But while this narrow legal issue, which is the only issue before the Supreme Court, is the kind of legal question that reasonable judges could disagree upon, Smothermon’s notes are only one piece of a wide range of evidence suggesting that Glossip’s criminal conviction is unconstitutional: Oklahoma conducted two independent investigations, both of which concluded that Glossip’s trial was fundamentally flawed.
Among other things, those investigations found that Justin Sneed — the man who actually committed the murder at issue here — was pressured by police to implicate Glossip in the crime. They also show that police and the prosecution lost or destroyed evidence that could potentially exonerate Glossip. And they show that police inexplicably did not question potentially important witnesses or search obvious places for evidence.
Now, however, Glossip’s life likely turns upon whether Kavanaugh and Barrett are moved by the procedural arguments pressed by the Court’s right flank, or by the arguments pressed by both Glossip and the state: That four words in Smothermon’s notes reveal a serious constitutional violation.”
https://www.vox.com/scotus/377151/supreme-court-richard-glossip-oklahoma-death-penalty
Review: Neil Gorsuch Says There Are Too Many Laws
“”Criminal laws have grown so exuberantly and come to cover so much previously innocent conduct that almost anyone can be arrested for something,” Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch observed in 2019. Gorsuch elaborates on that theme in his new book Over Ruled, showing how the proliferation of criminal penalties has given prosecutors enormous power to ruin people’s lives, resulting in the nearly complete replacement of jury trials with plea bargains.
“Some scholars peg the number of federal statutory crimes at more than 5,000,” Gorsuch and co-author Janie Nitze note, while “estimates suggest that at least 300,000 federal agency regulations carry criminal sanctions.” The fact that neither number is known with precision, they suggest, speaks volumes about the “unpredictable traps for the unwary” set by the government’s ever-expanding rules.
To illustrate “the human toll” of “too much law,” the book tells the story of Florida fisherman John Yates, whose grueling legal odyssey began with the charge that he had discarded undersized red grouper. That alleged act supposedly violated a law aimed at deterring the destruction of potentially incriminating financial records. Gorsuch also recalls the pretrial suicide of 26-year-old computer programmer Aaron Swartz, whom prosecutors threatened with “decades in prison and millions in fines” for downloading a bunch of articles from an online academic library without permission.
Over Ruled emphasizes how overmatched ordinary people are in disputes with bureaucrats empowered to write the rules under which they operate. Those nemeses include officials charged with dispensing government benefits, deciding whether immigrants can remain in the country, and enforcing the frequently arbitrary and petty restrictions inspired by COVID-19. Gorsuch also decries draconian prison sentences and mass incarceration, again illustrating how his supposedly right-wing instincts frequently overlap with progressive concerns. His compassion for people confronted by bewildering, absurdly punitive legal codes defies ideological stereotypes.”
https://reason.com/2024/10/04/over-ruled/
How To Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowded Theater
“there are scenarios in which intentionally lying about a fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede might lead to a disorderly conduct citation or similar charge.”
…
“Although the Supreme Court has never had the occasion to adjudicate an actual dispute involving a person yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, the Court did at least narrow its “clear and present danger test” in 1969, setting a higher standard for imminent incitement of lawless action.””
https://reason.com/2023/10/24/how-to-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
Legal Mythbusting Series: Yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater
“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. I’m sure you’ve heard somebody say that before when discussing free speech and limitations on free speech and the First Amendment. Well, it’s actually one of the most widely misunderstood quotes in American law. It’s routinely parroted as the status of why there can be or are limitations on free speech, but it is a big fat myth. I will explain here in just a moment, so stick around.”
…
“the interesting about it is the Schenck case wasn’t about fires, it wasn’t about theaters, it kind of wasn’t even about free speech. It was in a way, but it was really about a guy that was being charged with violations of the Espionage Act because he was a member of the socialist party and he was speaking out against the draft. And the other bizarre thing about why this quote gets attributed to why it’s okay to limit free speech is, the Schenck case, which has now actually been overturned and has been for like 60 years, actually stood for the exact opposite. The Schenck case was applying a pretty large degree of censorship on free speech. That’s why it was overturned is because it was actually found to be completely contrary toward what the First Amendment stood for.
So, the idea that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, Justice Holmes was using that as an analogy to simply say that free speech can’t go completely unchecked. And that idea has maintained it’s truth throughout the years. That’s still true. There are limitations on what is considered protected speech and what is not considered protected speech, and that’s a topic for a different video. But it’s just always been interesting to me that this quote, which is just dicta, it’s not the holding of the case, it’s not really the law of the land, and it’s not Justice Holmes saying that’s what the law of the land should be, has somehow withstood the test of time and is still, to this day”
https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
MAGA-Pilled John Roberts Didn’t See This Coming
MAGA-Pilled John Roberts Didn’t See This Coming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmbI4bvmUIg
How would a second Trump presidency change America’s courts?
“Since Trump’s three appointees gave Republicans a supermajority on the Supreme Court, the Republican justices have behaved as though they are all going down a GOP wishlist, abolishing the right to an abortion, implementing Republican priorities like a ban on affirmative action, and even holding that Trump has broad immunity from prosecution for crimes he committed using his official powers while in office. To be clear, right-wing litigants are not winning every case they bring before the justices, but on issues where the various factions within the Republican Party have reached consensus, the Republican justices reliably align with that consensus.
The lower courts, meanwhile, have become incubators for far-right policy ideas that often go too far even for a majority of the members of the current Supreme Court. Think, for example, of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s failed attempt to ban the abortion drug mifepristone. Or an astonishing decision by three Trump judges that declared the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unconstitutional. Both of these lower court decisions were rejected by the Supreme Court.
That there are some positions too far right even for many Republican members of the Supreme Court is a reminder of the diversity that exists among Trump’s judges. Some, like Justices Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett, are fully committed to using the courts to implement a long list of Republican ideas. But this cohort of judges also rejects at least some right-wing legal theories that would have catastrophic consequences for the country.
Both Kavanaugh and Barrett, for example, rejected the legal attack on the CFPB. They joined an opinion explaining that the plaintiffs’ legal theory had no basis in constitutional text or history, but they may also have been motivated by the fact that this theory could have triggered an economic depression if it had prevailed. Kavanaugh and Barrett also backed Trump’s claim that he has broad immunity from criminal prosecution for crimes committed in office, but on the same day they rejected a Texas law that would have given that state’s Republican legislature extraordinary authority to dictate what the media must print.
The other faction of Trump’s judges is more nihilistic. They include Kacsmaryk, who has turned his Amarillo, Texas, courtroom into a printing press for court orders advancing far-right causes. The nihilistic faction also includes judges like Aileen Cannon, the Trump judge who has presided over one of Trump’s criminal trials (and behaved like one of his defense attorneys), much of the far-right United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Trump Supreme Court appointment Justice Neil Gorsuch.”
https://www.vox.com/scotus/373084/supreme-court-trump-judges-federalist-society