Supreme Court news

Updated on June 21, 2021 in General Stuff
10 on June 7, 2021

One gets the impression from cable news and political activists, and Twitter, I suppose, holding forth about guns and abortion, that the Supreme Court is policy driven, and always divided, and that the Democratic and Republican appointees all hate and oppose each other. It just isn’t true. I think they are unanimous in most cases, and even the coalitions in the divided decisions don’t always line up the way you’d imagine; hence Scalia and Ginsburg joining in certain cases where both left and right are uneasy with abuses of police power, searches and seizures, for example.

This case from today held that aliens who enter the U.S. illegally (technically, “without inspection”) are ineligible to adjust status to that of a permanent resident. Of course, an amnesty bill, a congressional enactment, would change that, but the art. III courts themselves do not, cannot and should not reward gate crashers with green cards, no matter how sympathetic the case. Not even the liberal and wise Latina Justice Sotomayor had a problem with this straightforward matter of statutory construction.

Maybe there’s hope for this country ….

https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/07/supreme-court-temporary-protected-status-illegal-immigrant/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2680&pnespid=0PVz9KRbXgKNET43MLGv8h2Qb6VKkfn1wsraOf4u

 
  • Liked by
Reply
2 on June 7, 2021

I’ve been seeing commentary recently (FWIW) that the SC seems to be taking an unusually conservative and consistent bent of late. Some suspect that this may be a reaction to Biden’s overt plans to pack the court, kind of trying to slam the door on that.

Hmmm…. 

on June 7, 2021

Yeah, could be …. they’ll never say it out loud if that’s what’s going on. Really they shouldn’t have to strain in either direction, left or right, if the statute they are interpreting is clear, and that is fortunately what happened here.

on June 8, 2021
Really they shouldn’t have to strain in either direction, left or right, if the statute they are interpreting is clear, and that is fortunately what happened here.From robjh22

I think this statement here is the crux of the matter. Things that are brought to them that are clearly judicial in nature and related to direct statutory interpretation are fairly cut and dried. Things that aren’t so much is where it gets hairy. My favorite example directly from my life is 2007’s EPA v. Massachusetts that made CO2 a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (yeah, I know, here he goes again!).

 

The whole concept of “global warming” is scientific fiction as most physicists can tell you. HC + O2 => CO2 + H20. Period. Every time. CO2 is not a “pollutant”. It is vital to life on the planet. And at 400 ppm in the atmosphere (something like 0.0004% of the atmosphere) it ain’t driving temperatures anywhere. Period. End of story.

 

But when you get to the SC, it’s just legal arguments. EPA has no incentive to argue physics. Heck, it’s good for business to be tasked with promulgating a whole bunch of new rules. Drives more budget don’t cha know.

 

And the environmentalists just scream their normal panic porn.

 

Not a physicist anywhere in sight.

 

And  boom, a collision with the impossible.

 

And Biden shuts down pipelines. And electric cars become the salvation of east coast pipeline bribery. And so it goes…..

 

 

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on June 8, 2021

I saw the PJmedia write up on that 9-0 decision, as well as who was promoting the opposing view. Rob, ultimately, I agree with your assessment. The media would like us all to think that the SCOTUS is as partisan as everything else, but the fact remains that one still has to have a body of accomplishment behind them to get appointed, unlike the other 2 branches. 

I hope a majority of the country—both left, right, and indifferent—realizes how lucky we are to have that body of grown-ups in the balance of power equation.

JMO.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on June 9, 2021

I thought the incidence of unanimity on the supreme court was a bit higher than it is, but it’s still higher than the hysterics know or would admit.

This article is from 2018.  I’ll report here if I find something more current that tends to indicate a different trend.  

 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s announcement Wednesday that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court led to justifiable hand-wringing about his crucial role as the swing vote in 5-to-4 decisions. But while 5-to-4 decisions — including the Tuesday blockbuster upholding President Trump’s travel ban — draw deserved attention, they obscure an important truth: The court values consensus, and justices agree far more often than they disagree.

The ratio is staggering. According to the Supreme Court Database, since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up roughly 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in only 19 percent of cases.

And the court’s commitment to consensus does not appear to be slowing. In the 2016-17 term, 57 percent of decisions were unanimous, and judgments with slim majorities (5 to 3 or 5 to 4) accounted for just 14 percent. This term shows a similar trend. 

 

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2018/06/those-5-to-4-decisions-on-supreme-court-9-to-0-is-far-more-common/

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on June 17, 2021

Unanimous again, and this one surprises and encourages me.

“The dispute arose because Catholic Social Services — which was receiving taxpayer funds — was unwilling to work with LGBTQ couples as foster parents out of religious objections to same sex marriage. The policy was brought to the attention of the city in 2018 after inquiries from a local newspaper, and soon after the government put a freeze on the contract. The group, led by long-time foster parent Sharonell Fulton who has fostered more than 40 children over 25 years, brought suit.” CNN

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-catholic-agency-same-sex-foster-care-004b978239e41675524859ae79a5333b

The agency, Justice Robert’s wrote, was only seeking an accommodation that would allow it to practice its own beliefs. It did not seek to impose them on anyone else. First Amendment says they can do that.

This bodes well for our beleaguered Christian baker in Colorado (Masterpiece) who sells baked goods to everyone, but who will not design wedding cakes for homosexual couples because of his religious beliefs .

His case has not been decided by the Supremes. Yet. Wouldn’t it be something if he won unanimously? I don’t see how the catholics are protected under the first Amendment in the foster care situation and he is not.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
3 on June 18, 2021

Count on renewed threats to “pack the court” in 3, 2, 1…

I love the fact that the SCOTUS requires a modicum of experience and an observable track record of due diligence out of its participants, regardless of where they personally sit on the political spectrum. It’s most often the rational  “check” in an increasingly unbalanced system. JMO.

 

on June 21, 2021

Another unanimous decision today. Is this a hopelessly fractured court, bitterly divided along ideological lines, or a love-in?

“The high court said specifically that NCAA limits on the education-related benefits that colleges can offer athletes who play Division I basketball and football violate antitrust laws.”

on June 21, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court r uled unanimously Monday the NCAA can’t limit education-related benefits — like computers and paid internships — that colleges can offer their sports stars, a victory for athletes that could help open the door to further easing in the decades-old fight over paying student-athletes.

on June 21, 2021

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-supreme-court-alston-college-athlete-benefits-5be12caeaf014da7d71baf0bb60646fe

(I’m not young like you guys so I don’t know how to go back and forth between tabs on this rotary phone I inherited from my grandma. Hence three posts to say one thing.)

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel