Trump 2020-21 - Epilogue

[allegro]

Don't get used to it, because I don't think it's that. I think it's probably more of a picking of battles.

No. Supreme Court Justices don’t do this shit. Their decisions aren’t based on politics. They’re based on legal interpretations.

Even opinions I disagree with or dislike, I still understand the majority of them because they are based on solid case law; it’s just a conservative (or strict textual) view vs. a broad and stretched view.

Ruling in favor of Trump’s travel ban; it makes sense if you read the opinion, as much as we hate Trump, and the idea of the ban. It’s not the Court’s job to judge morality. The ban had already been in place for most of the countries on the list with the prior administration; the Judicial cannot overrule the Executive unless there is really good reason. They can’t set precedent. It has either a very liberal or conservative view as to what that precedent should or shouldn’t be. Really, go spend a few days in a law library reading SCOTUS opinions, including dissents. The BEST way is via the hardcover issues of United States Reports.

Sure, there are decisions that are based on solid case law that still piss me off, because I disagree with the interpretation of the facts and the presentation of the particular case law. But, it still doesn’t make any of it “political.”


The best decision today was McGirt v Oklahoma.

[allegate]

The best decision today was McGirt v Oklahoma.

I saw a lot of chatter about how this case came to the SC and how they didn't even touch that part of it. I understand it, but I can also see how that's a bad look to someone who doesn't know the reasons for the appeal vs. the original case. Do you have thoughts on the differentiation for cases that make it this high?

[allegro]

I saw a lot of chatter about how this case came to the SC and how they didn't even touch that part of it. I understand it, but I can also see how that's a bad look to someone who doesn't know the reasons for the appeal vs. the original case. Do you have thoughts on the differentiation for cases that make it this high?

Sorry, I don’t understand the question. The decision is here.

The conservative courts were and are notoriously against Native tribes (again and again due to stare decisis); SCOTUS sometimes agrees to writs involving Native tribes but then tends to kick the decisions back down to the lower courts.

This case shows that this has come to an end, with Gorsuch on the bench.

This is a brilliantly-written decision.

[allegro]

Which are just that, interpretations.

The vast majority of law is interpretation. (Scalia and RBG were best pals.)

I’ve been in law for 30 years, as a certificated paralegal. Interpretation is my favorite aspect of law. Very little of law is not subject to some level of interpretation. It’s why every contract contains a preamble of definitions, which is particularly helpful for interpretation if it goes to litigation.

This is no different than any other form of literature; the argument is valid, so long as it is supported by the text.

It’s no secret that most J.D.s have their undergraduate degrees in English or English Literature. I have a B.A. in the latter.

Yes, the dissents are often the most important portions of the opinions. Entire books have been written about SCOTUS dissents.

For example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/b...i-urofsky.html

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3209791-i-dissent

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...calia_Dissents

[allegro]

Without it, you end up with the qualified immunity process. Fun for everyone!

Is "certificated" the actual term? I've never seen that verbed before.

Yup. I got mine from Loyola University Chicago. A certificate is post-baccalaureate, in an ABA-approved law program.

That is opposed to “certified” - which does not require any education; you just take a test. The former is more valuable than the latter. Certificated is a dumb-looking verb but it’s used in law to differentiate between the two levels, since they are totally different (one signifies graduate-level education, one requires no education at all).

Qualified immunity has been supported by the liberal SCOTUS justices, as well. It must be removed via legislation. It’s stupid.

Of course, my favorite author is Dickens. :-)


No more SCOTUS decisions until next year.

[allegro]

Words are so fascinating. Thanks!

And I just brought up qualified immunity because of its tendency to make uninterpretive judgments or extrapolations: "Well, sure, another court decided it was illegal for police to beat you while a Rottweiler bites you, but there's nothing here about beatings that coincide with Dalmatian bites. No charges!"

Yes, it requires strict scrutiny in stare decisis. This is intended to protect public employees from personal liability, otherwise there might not ever be any public employees. (That’s the basis if it, anyway.)

FWIW, Justice Thomas hates the qualified immunity doctrine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib...omas-dissents/

See this essay:

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/v...7&context=ndlr