SCOTUS Thread

Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by harvey birdman, Dec 8, 2015.

  1. bwi2

    bwi2 Not affiliated with BWI
    Donor
    Duke Blue DevilsWashington NationalsArsenalUSA Basketball

    eh I wouldn’t read much into an arcane discussion of whether or not Alito is being ideologically consistent. I think we’d both agree he substantively wrong on standing (and Thomas’s dissent is just atrocious).
     
  2. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    But the argument he’s making is consistent with the opinion the court gave in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
     
  3. herb.burdette

    herb.burdette Meet me at the corner of 8th and Worthington
    Donor
    Ohio State Buckeyes

    The core issue is that the US Constitution gives the state legislatures the power to set the time, place and manner of elections.

    The PA legislature has enacted a constitution which proscribes its ability to enact legislation contrary to that constitution.

    The issue the dissent wants to review is whether a state Supreme Court has authority under state law, the state constitution, to find that the time, place and manner of an election violated state law as embodied in that constitution.

    It’s not tortured in any way.

    1. Federal law under the US constitution provides the state legislature power to act.

    2. The state legislature in PA limited its power to act through a state constitution.

    3. The PA court held that existing time, place and manner violated that state law as outlined in the state constitution.

    The issue the dissent wants to review is not whether this violates some other part of the US Constitution but instead whether a state can adopt a constitution which limits this power as a matter of state law that was delegated to the state as a matter of federal law.

    You cannot review that issue without declaring the state constitution invalid for limiting the power by state judicial review under the state constitution or simply disagreeing that the state court properly interpreted state law.

    Either way, it strike at the core of federalism in the sense that Rehnquist articulated it. Federalism is great, as long as they like the result.
     
  4. bwi2

    bwi2 Not affiliated with BWI
    Donor
    Duke Blue DevilsWashington NationalsArsenalUSA Basketball

    Not exactly. The Court in AIRC found that the legislative function could be exercised by any body authorized by the state constitution to exercise that function, not specifically the legislature. The Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize the state courts to exercise a legislative function.
     
  5. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    But state supreme courts have always served a legislative function in determining the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature.
     
  6. bwi2

    bwi2 Not affiliated with BWI
    Donor
    Duke Blue DevilsWashington NationalsArsenalUSA Basketball

    That is inherently not a legislative function. The courts can say that a statutory deadline violates the state constitution, but that doesn’t permit the court to create and enforce an alternative deadline on its own.
     
  7. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    It’s a fundamental function of courts since their inception to remedy disputes. They found the legislature’s actions unconstitutional and created a remedy.
     
  8. bwi2

    bwi2 Not affiliated with BWI
    Donor
    Duke Blue DevilsWashington NationalsArsenalUSA Basketball

    Courts strike legislation without replacing the offending clause all the time. It’s a fundamental feature of separation of powers. The courts’ power to fashion a remedy is limited by state (and in this case, the federal) constitutions.
     
  9. herb.burdette

    herb.burdette Meet me at the corner of 8th and Worthington
    Donor
    Ohio State Buckeyes

    Pennsylvania has a free and fair elections clause as part of its state constitution. Bockvaar, as Secretary, sought a declaration that the mail deadline on Election Day violated that clause in light of logistics during the pandemic and asked for three extra days to remedy the violation.

    When the PA Supreme Court agreed that the existing deadline violated the PA constitution, they adopted the relief sought by the litigant who made the argument before it.

    The court also noted that existing state law allowed military and overseas ballots to be counted if received up to 7 days after the election, so allowing 3 days was a reasonable extension.
     
    AlternativeFactsRule likes this.
  10. herb.burdette

    herb.burdette Meet me at the corner of 8th and Worthington
    Donor
    Ohio State Buckeyes

    You’re really hitting it out of the park with the LOL Ohio stuff lately, or think you are for some reason.
     
    bro likes this.
  11. bro

    bro Hey Hermano
    Donor
    Tennessee VolunteersLos Angeles DodgersDenver NuggetsBuffalo BillsBuffalo Sabres

    Herb may have horrifically missed his Ohio prediction, but unsure how that is relevant to this discussion.

    I'm sure we have all been wrong about political predictions
     
  12. herb.burdette

    herb.burdette Meet me at the corner of 8th and Worthington
    Donor
    Ohio State Buckeyes

    Things were looking good, until they started counting all those votes.
     
  13. Bruce Wayne

    Bruce Wayne Billionaire Playboy
    Donor
    Michigan Wolverines

  14. bro

    bro Hey Hermano
    Donor
    Tennessee VolunteersLos Angeles DodgersDenver NuggetsBuffalo BillsBuffalo Sabres





    this Supreme Court is abandoning precedent without the opinion acknowledging and explaining it? I’m sure this won’t rear its head in any other opinion in the future!
     
  15. BellottiBold

    Donor
    Oregon Ducks

    thread hurts
     
    Prospector and IV like this.
  16. Redav

    Redav One big ocean
    Donor

    This is where the brutality of the last 4 years shows up but they do it through the courts when no one is looking. Thanks to everyone who made this possible
     
  17. Redav

    Redav One big ocean
    Donor

    Wonder which groups of people will get the worst of these sentences!
     
  18. Name P. Redacted

    Name P. Redacted I have no money and I'm also gay
    Donor
    Kansas State WildcatsSeattle Kraken

    Great country. Can’t wait to see what other treats are in store from this court.
     
  19. BudKilmer

    BudKilmer Well-Known Member
    Donor TMB OG
    Atlanta HawksAtlanta FalconsAvengers




    soul crushing and gut wrenching

    great job with your protest votes in ‘16 all you shit asses
     
  20. bro

    bro Hey Hermano
    Donor
    Tennessee VolunteersLos Angeles DodgersDenver NuggetsBuffalo BillsBuffalo Sabres

    I just like how Trump tells it like it is!! Economic anxiety! and such
     
  21. BudKilmer

    BudKilmer Well-Known Member
    Donor TMB OG
    Atlanta HawksAtlanta FalconsAvengers


    We need a wall*








    *draconian, absuive policies that make Rodrigo Duterte jealous
     
    CaneKnight and timo like this.
  22. VaxRule

    VaxRule Mmm ... Coconuts
    Donor TMB OG
    Michigan WolverinesSwansea

    “I don’t like Trump but we need the conservative justices. A liberal court would be bad for society.”

    - the dumbest, worst fucking people on the planet.
     
  23. herb.burdette

    herb.burdette Meet me at the corner of 8th and Worthington
    Donor
    Ohio State Buckeyes

    What if they force you to start baking wedding cakes for gay men though? I get that jailing a 15 year old for life is harsh, but think of both sides here.
     
    skiedfrillet, BWC, wes tegg and 10 others like this.
  24. Gallant Knight

    Donor
    Arkansas RazorbacksHouston AstrosAston Villa

    Just abolish the court. What is the point of these nine losers deciding shit for the rest of the country
     
  25. BudKilmer

    BudKilmer Well-Known Member
    Donor TMB OG
    Atlanta HawksAtlanta FalconsAvengers

    And when Kavenaugh is a regular citizen we can pelt him with full beers
     
  26. Redav

    Redav One big ocean
    Donor

    Only lawyers can tell you that a 15 year old should spend the rest of their life in prison
     
  27. Bruce Wayne

    Bruce Wayne Billionaire Playboy
    Donor
    Michigan Wolverines

    I mean technically there's nothing stopping us from doing that now
     
    CaneKnight likes this.
  28. Bruce Wayne

    Bruce Wayne Billionaire Playboy
    Donor
    Michigan Wolverines

  29. BudKilmer

    BudKilmer Well-Known Member
    Donor TMB OG
    Atlanta HawksAtlanta FalconsAvengers

    Fucking grotesque
     
    IV, sem, dblplay1212 and 4 others like this.
  30. steamengine

    steamengine I don’t want to press one for English!
    Donor

  31. Henry Blake

    Henry Blake No Springsteen is leaving this house!
    Donor

    That sweet 2A freedom.
     
  32. prerecordedlive

    prerecordedlive Sworn Enemy of Standard Time
    Donor TMB OG
    Florida State SeminolesTampa Bay RaysOrlando CityWolverhampton WanderersBarAndGrill

    I hope Barrett and Kavanaugh die painful deaths and get replaced within days.
     
    Keef, BellottiBold and dblplay1212 like this.
  33. Prospector

    Prospector I am not a new member
    Donor
    Utah UtesArkansas Razorbacks

    Unpaid tickets upend 30 years of law on repossessions
    Opinion
    by Johnathan Horton ([email protected]) May 3, 2021 2:28 pm 971 views

    Share Tweet
    Litigants often say they will take their case to the United States Supreme Court. The Court, however, hears only a few cases annually. A recent case, Fulton v. City of Chicago, 141 S.Ct. 585 (2021), started with a parking ticket and ended with the reversal of more than thirty years of case law on repossessions in a majority of jurisdictions.

    In Chicago, parking is an adventure. The City may immobilize and impound the vehicles of owners with unpaid fines. City ordinances give the City a possessory lien, making cars collateral for debts owed to the City. Plaintiff Robbin Fulton had only had her 2015 Kia Soul for three weeks when the City towed and impounded it over an unpaid ticket. Fulton, like three other owners, filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and asked the City to return the car. The City refused unless the debts were fully paid. The owners asked the bankruptcy court to order the City to return their cars and pay them damages for violating the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision. The stay prohibits the collection of debts that existed before the bankruptcy case, and acts to obtain possession of, or exercise control over, property of the bankruptcy estate, i.e., the debtor’s property when the bankruptcy was filed. The bankruptcy court held that by not returning the cars, the City had violated the stay. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit consolidated the four cases, applied its prior decision, and affirmed the bankruptcy court...
    Like the Seventh Circuit, a majority of federal circuit courts including the Eighth Circuit, which includes Arkansas, had found creditors violated the stay by refusing to return repossessed property after the owner had filed bankruptcy. A smaller minority disagreed, finding the stay did not impose an affirmative obligation to return repossessed property. They held that just keeping lawfully repossessed property was not an affirmative act in violation of the stay. The Supreme Court granted review of this question to make federal law uniform: does an entity that merely retains possession of lawfully repossessed property violate the automatic stay? The Court unanimously said “no.”

    The Court held that merely retaining lawfully repossessed property did not violate the stay. Justice Alito explained that the stay prohibits affirmative acts to disturb the status quo. To be an “act” to violate the stay, more than just retaining such property was necessary. By examining the turnover provision, a separate Bankruptcy Code section that requires the delivery of estate property to the trustee, he observed two flaws in the debtors’ argument that the stay required return of property. First, if the stay required return, the turnover provision was unnecessary. Second, the turnover provision has exceptions that would never apply, if the stay required return. So, the City’s refusal to return the cars did not violate the stay.

    Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion to express three concerns about the ruling. First, it did not answer whether creditors violated other stay provisions to prohibit the collection of prepetition debts or enforce liens against estate property. Second, it imposed a hardship by requiring debtors to file turnover suits to get their cars back and delayed the bankruptcy when a debtor needs a car for everyday life and to work to earn money to fund a reorganization plan. Finally, while creative courts had tried to reduce the delay and eliminate the hardship, the committee that drafts procedural rules or Congress should offer a fix, not the Court.

    So, where do things now stand? The Fulton decision invalidates cases in the Eighth Circuit and a majority of jurisdictions. Now, secured creditors may retain possession of collateral lawfully repossessed before bankruptcy, even if the debtors ask for its return. Creditors can now seek adequate protection from the trustee or the debtor in connection with the return of estate property. That tactic is, however, not without risk as Justice Sotomayor observed that other automatic stay provisions may still impose liability.

    While most often arising in consumer bankruptcies after an automobile is repossessed, the ruling applies in other bankruptcy cases, too, as the Court’s logic extends to any secured creditors with possession or control over estate property. As a result, secured creditors and debtors alike should expect more disputes and more litigation over these issues. Both will need to promptly consult their bankruptcy counsel when these issues arise, at least until Congress or the Rules Committee accepts Justice Sotomayor’s invitation and provides another solution.

    In the meantime, be sure to pay your parking tickets.

    Editor’s note: Johnathan Horton is a partner with Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP. The opinions expressed are those of the author.
    cliffs: creditors win, shocker
     
  34. dblplay1212

    dblplay1212 Well-Known Member
    Donor TMB OG
    Alabama Crimson TideNew York YankeesJacksonville Jaguars2pacSneakersPokerFormula 1

    Cliffs?
     
  35. Prospector

    Prospector I am not a new member
    Donor
    Utah UtesArkansas Razorbacks

    according to this: unpaid parking ticket in Chicago. Chicago seizes car. Owner files bankruptcy.. Chicago refuses to return property.
     
    dblplay1212 likes this.
  36. Truman

    Truman Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Missouri TigersSt. Louis CardinalsChicago BullsSt. Louis BluesEverton

  37. steamengine

    steamengine I don’t want to press one for English!
    Donor

    Why would these activist judges do that and lose their most potent political weapon?
     
  38. Redav

    Redav One big ocean
    Donor

    There are at least 4 true believers on the court. Guess it depends on what Roberts and Gorsuch do and if they're interested in carrying on with the game
     
    IV and steamengine like this.
  39. harvey birdman

    harvey birdman Ha ha! Last laugh.
    Donor
    ArsenalFlorida Gators

    Is Kavanaugh considered a true believer? Always struck me as more of a partisan in the Roberts mold.
     
  40. Bruce Wayne

    Bruce Wayne Billionaire Playboy
    Donor
    Michigan Wolverines

    Also alarming is Brett Kavanaugh’s conduct in the case. While Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, joined the court’s liberals in putting a hold on the Louisiana law, Kavanaugh was not just in favour of the law, he wrote a dissent on his own behalf. This effectively argued that the law should go into effect as it wasn’t clear it would be unduly burdensome and we should just go ahead and see how it played out.

    Kavanaugh’s dissent has been taken by many as a clear sign that he is intent on overturning Roe v Wade, the supreme court decision protecting access to abortions. Anger is now mounting towards Senator Susan Collins, who cast the decisive vote confirming Kavanaugh last year. When casting her vote Collins justified her decision by reassuring everyone she was sure Kavanaugh would not overturn Roe v Wade, because he had an unmatched reverence for precedent. The justice’s dissent has made very clear that is not the case. It is a worrying time for women’s reproductive rights in America. Gilead, here we come.

    https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rue-colours-in-supreme-court-abortion-dissent
     
    BellottiBold and harvey birdman like this.
  41. Redav

    Redav One big ocean
    Donor

    I guess we'll find out for sure shortly
     
    BudKilmer and steamengine like this.
  42. Fudd

    Fudd Bail was like a pop fly just to bring my man home
    Donor

    Literally 12 hours ago I was talking with my dad about if/when an abortion case comes across this Court. Insane coincidence. Do the right fucking thing.
     
  43. bwi2

    bwi2 Not affiliated with BWI
    Donor
    Duke Blue DevilsWashington NationalsArsenalUSA Basketball

    Kavanaugh is 100% a true believer on abortion. Honestly, it’s pretty grim for abortion with him, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas, really the best chance from a litigation perspective is to make some poindextery institutional or process argument that peels off Gorsuch. Which is to say, doesn’t look good.
     
    Redav, timo and BellottiBold like this.
  44. Nandor the Relentless

    Donor
    Kentucky WildcatsBoston CelticsNew England PatriotsUniversity of LynchburgAEWSeattle Kraken

    They’ll just take up the racism banner again
     
  45. tylerdolphin

    tylerdolphin My spoon is too big
    Donor
    Miami HurricanesNew York YankeesMiami Dolphins

    Even if Roe v Wade is overturned it doesn't take abortion off the table as a political weapon. The narrative will simply switch from the need to overturn Roe v Wade to the need to uphold a ruling that overturned Roe v Wade.

    That said, on the flip side you are giving the left a potentially powerful weapon. I think you can energize a lot of people who just never thought the right would actually overturn Roe.
     
  46. dome foam

    dome foam ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Donor
    Texas LonghornsHouston AstrosHouston RocketsHouston Texans

    I mean, at least they are doing it before the midterms. Could have waited for the next Presidential election to gives Dems a boost. Instead, Dems will get the boost when they need it.
     
  47. timo

    timo molto bene
    Donor
    Penn State Nittany LionsPittsburgh SteelersPittsburgh PenguinsTottenham HotspurPittsburgh Pirates

    the next battle will be upholding the Federal ban on abortion next time there's a republican president and simple majorities in both houses of congress. (probably Trump II in 2025)
     
    steamengine likes this.
  48. DeToxRox

    DeToxRox Suburban commando
    Staff Donor TMB OG
    Detroit PistonsDetroit LionsDetroit Red WingsWolverhampton WanderersDetroit Tigers

  49. Nelson

    Nelson Can somebody please get Ja Rule on the phone
    Donor
    Nebraska CornhuskersDenver NuggetsDenver BroncosColorado AvalanceBorussia DortmundManchester UnitedColorado State Rams

    Easiest case in years. Really shows the cultural power colleges have when considering how long this took when the system is in such flagrant disregard for settled antitrust law
     
    AlternativeFactsRule likes this.
  50. southlick

    southlick "Better Than You"
    Donor TMB OG
    Alabama Crimson TideAtlanta BravesNew Orleans PelicansDallas CowboysBirmingham Legion