The most wonderful time of the year...
- Thread starter Aardvark86
- Start date
Munoz opinion came at a bad time as Biden is trying to implement a new order to grant immigrants with new US spouses immunity.
My guess is they release the Trump immunity ruling last and run for the doors like their hair is on fire.
Two of the three decisions today were argued in March.
Update - Two of four argued in March. One argued in January. One in April.
Yup. Nothing totally unexpected for me, except the basis for the Moore ruling, and how emphatic the decision was about it not being based on unrealized capital gains, and that unrealized capital gains are a clear violation of 16A. The Moore oral argument barely touched on the reasoning ultimately used in the decision.
I'm still thinking the Trump case will be narrowly decided, and will be based on actions taken as part of official duties, or not. Oral arguments in Trump indicated there may be a basis for official duties if the POTUS takes certain advice from counsel. If that's part of the opinion, the left will be outraged, and the right will be selectively outraged.
agree on the latter part, there's going to be a remand that directs the lower court to get into the nitty gritty of particular actions.
Now, as to Rahimi...8-1 decision for the G. Limitations are that a finding of dangerousness is needed, and application to temporary bans on ownership - broader/longer bans not decided. Gorsuch's concurrence is interesting in that it reasserts that history and tradition methods will in fact be the guiding approach for constitutional interpretaiton. Similarly, a nice opinion to that effect, with the usual clarity that i'm growing to love, from Kav.
137 days since they granted cert in the Trump case.
Bush v. Gore was decided in 6 days.
Bush v. Gore was decided in 6 days.
Rahimi is my favorite of the day, obviously, because I am a 2A supporter, and libertarian. It clears up the notion of contradictions and limitations on 2A. It's a consistent principle about people rather than guns.
For a good reason under the circumstances. It was about an event of national importance, not a specific person.
Rahimi is going to be great reading for professors teaching jurisprudence; just a tremendous depth of debate and comment on how to do originalism in the many concurrences.
and there were quite literally, some imminent and specific constitutional deadlines
We can disagree on whether the presumptive nominee for President is guilty of witness tampering, conspiracy, obstruction, and attempted obstruction is an event of national importance.
Rahimi may have an effect on Hunter's case as well, if the government says the Form 4473 drug user question is one of safety.
We only disagree if you think Trump is innocent of those things, other than the specific obstruction charge (I think it's inciting a riot at this point). I'm not sure why you think we disagree otherwise.
and, i tend to think that an actual criminal conviction may be a little different than a civil protective order in terms of the willingness to allow restrictions.
Jackson's opinion in Rahimi is interesting. She states she disagrees with Bruen, but goes on to say that Bruen is binding, and follows that ruling in her opinion. While I'm sure that happens in other cases with other justices, it's not usually stated in the opinion. Kudos to Jackson for that.
1/6 case is far more "national importance" than Bush v Gore.
And, based on the lower court comprehensive ruling, far more straightforward.
Because the new administration wanted to take extra care/caution in avoiding impropriety as a "political action".
And, lots of folks were unwilling to testify; much of the delay has been Trump and his lawyers.
Using that same logic, shouldn't the same care be given to Trump in his legal defense?
If they are making reasonable legal arguments, sure.
But that's not what they are pushing here. Just like in his NY case. And the judge there ignored/overruled those as delay tactics. He can appeal them, later.
No, just saying it’s the last we hear from them this term. TV people and people here kept thinking a decision was imminent. This is a political decision and members know it. They’ll release it and leave town in a hurry.
Hey @Aardvark86, do you ever get down to the Court for argument or opinion days? Member of the SCOTUS bar? I know you're in the area. If not, what do you use to follow along in real time? SCOTUSblog?
Not in many ages. I an not a member, and do follow on scotus blog while hitting f5 on the courts opinion page.
As much as the right put her down, she is really good at this job.
Our bar association did a group admission deal last year, so I decided to get admitted. SG Prelogar moved our admission and we got to meet her, which was pretty cool. I'm sure I'll never get to argue a case there, although we have had a few cases at the 8th Circuit, so maybe there's a chance some day. My goal is to try to get to at least one argument a year. The separate line for bar members hopefully will make it easier to get into bigger cases. I definitely want to get to one where Lisa Blatt is arguing; she is absolutely fearless in front of the justices.
Oh man, you're killing me. One man's "fearless" is another man's "she doesn't realize that she's not a justice".
I've worked on a case in the lower courts where she was in the background with the expectation of future appeals. To be clear, she's brilliant and a great advocate, but just not my cup of tea.
Go to a Clement case - amazing how conversational the argument is, and how it's the justices who seem to regard him as a justice rather than the other way around.
Possible for the reasons noted, though I am not so sure. He tends to have strong views on criminal procedure and related cases, given his background coming from USAO in NJ.
So while we're a couple of days away from the next opinion day on wednesday (but orders today), with about 12 opinions to come this week, here's my prediction/speculation, likely wrong, regarding outstanding opinion assignments:
Jarkesy (Agency enforcement, 6A, Appointments clause) - Gorsuch
Purdue Pharma (dischargability of 3d party claims in BKR) - CJR
Relentless/Loper Bright (Chevron) - 60/40 CJR, though I wish it would be Kav
Corner Post (APA) - Barrett
Ohio (EPA/APA process) - Alito
Moody/Netchoice - (1A state social media reg) - Gorsuch
Murthy (1A WH SM oversight) - Barrett (oh what the hell, i'll go with slh's angle)
Snyder (gratuities) - KBJ
Fisher (conspiracy 1/6) - Alito (unlikely, but just to make heads explode)
Grants Pass (8A) -Gorsuch
Moyle (EMTALA preemption) - Kav
Trump - CJR
Jarkesy (Agency enforcement, 6A, Appointments clause) - Gorsuch
Purdue Pharma (dischargability of 3d party claims in BKR) - CJR
Relentless/Loper Bright (Chevron) - 60/40 CJR, though I wish it would be Kav
Corner Post (APA) - Barrett
Ohio (EPA/APA process) - Alito
Moody/Netchoice - (1A state social media reg) - Gorsuch
Murthy (1A WH SM oversight) - Barrett (oh what the hell, i'll go with slh's angle)
Snyder (gratuities) - KBJ
Fisher (conspiracy 1/6) - Alito (unlikely, but just to make heads explode)
Grants Pass (8A) -Gorsuch
Moyle (EMTALA preemption) - Kav
Trump - CJR
I'm on the fence as to whether or not she's good at the job. She definitely brings an untraditional and fresh perspective. She's also a little unpredictable, which is nice.
On the flip side, she doesn't always seem to be aware of court protocols during oral arguments, and sometimes goes on tangents that are even farther outside the tangents of other justices.
Yeah, it's definitely not how I would approach argument either, but it's always interesting. She does just win, though. 41 out 46 at the Court.
I do love listening to Clement, incredibly effective.
Similar threads
