Red Mosquito

elliseamos wrote:Tomorrow is a big day.

Is there any chance Roberts just chickens out, makes no ruling and punts this down to the lower courts who'll be left to fight with Barr et al. for the next 5 months (assuming Biden wins).

I think the chance of that is high. That's what happened in the DACA case.

The Washington Post is reporting that all remaining decisions for this term will be released Thursday morning.

Yeah isn't tomorrow the last day of the term?

Jesus has definitely won the last few rounds

Trump is going to win bigly tomorrow

Green Habit wrote:Well, today's opinions sucked. A double dose of giving religious organizations exemptions that secular ones cannot enjoy.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

There are of course two ways to read this.

The reverse ruling would make religious institutions that do anything other than ministerial activities untenable. I don't understand the complaint other than, "progressive activists should be able to infiltrate and use the skin of any religious organization they want as cover for future activism".

They got the Methodists, and most other mainline protestant orgs. The Catholics can't stay Catholic?

Your adjacency to Mormons must temper your view, as my adjacency to no organized religion of note tempers mine.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Yeah isn't tomorrow the last day of the term?

Yes, it is. They extended their term past July 4, which is rare, but I was not aware that today was the last day until this morning.

Starting off with a bang

Trump records case #1, the NY one: Roberts is joined by the left wing, Gorsuch and Kanavaugh concur in the judgment.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 5_o7jq.pdf

No way

verb_to_trust wrote:Trump is going to win bigly tomorrow

Lol whoops! Not that it matters but

Still reading, but Alito's dissent looks to be ridiculously on fire, and it would be an embarrassing way for him to go out if he does indeed retire, even if it is fitting.

Trump records case #2, the House one: looks to me on first glance that they punted, on the same 7-2 vote split.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 5_febh.pdf

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Well, today's opinions sucked. A double dose of giving religious organizations exemptions that secular ones cannot enjoy.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_1an2.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 1_5i36.pdf

There are of course two ways to read this.

The reverse ruling would make religious institutions that do anything other than ministerial activities untenable. I don't understand the complaint other than, "progressive activists should be able to infiltrate and use the skin of any religious organization they want as cover for future activism".

They got the Methodists, and most other mainline protestant orgs. The Catholics can't stay Catholic?

Your adjacency to Mormons must temper your view, as my adjacency to no organized religion of note tempers mine.

I should note that I'm far angrier about the fucking contraceptives case, which is a arbitrarily patriarchal and vicious cutout to the law. I'm not categorically down on the ministerial exception, but I do worry that it's going to get too broad.

Here in Boise, there's roughly the same percentage each of irreligious, Catholics and Mormons, so I'm not sure which way I should temper there.

Wow, I wasn't expecting them to return both cases back to the lower courts.
It buys Trump time but both imply that the records will eventually have to be handed over.

Biff Pocoroba wrote:Wow, I wasn't expecting them to return both cases back to the lower courts.
It buys Trump time but both imply that the records will eventually have to be handed over.

The key here is that they don't ultimately answer either way until after the election, reducing its salience on the campaign trail. It could heat up in either direction depending on if Trump loses or not.

Green Habit wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Tomorrow is a big day.

Is there any chance Roberts just chickens out, makes no ruling and punts this down to the lower courts who'll be left to fight with Barr et al. for the next 5 months (assuming Biden wins).

I think the chance of that is high. That's what happened in the DACA case.

dammit.

It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

Chris_H_2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

elliseamos wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with the reasoning of either case. Fundamentally, the central question of whether a sitting president can be investigated for crimes while still in office seems to be answered, and correctly. Likewise, whether a legislative branch without prosecutorial powers can legitimately subpoena documents that more than likely in no way advances legislation also seems to be correctly answered.

If not through subpoena, how then does The House investigate/determine whether to bring impeachment charges?

I'm not sure it can, at least insofar as it concerns the executive branch. Impeachment is 100% a political exercise. And despite the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, there is nothing inherently criminal about it. In the political vein, if the House issues a subpoena to the President and she or he refuses to comply, then the answer may be that that refusal can (and indeed should) be considered in deciding whether to bring articles of impeachment.