br00t4c, to Law
@br00t4c@mastodon.social avatar

Vermont Passes Historic Bill to Make Big Oil Pay for Climate Disasters

https://truthout.org/articles/vermont-passes-historic-bill-to-make-big-oil-pay-for-climate-disasters/

br00t4c, to Law
@br00t4c@mastodon.social avatar

Centuries-old law could be Jack Smith's last chance at saving classified docs case: expert

https://www.rawstory.com/aileen-cannon-2668279994/

br00t4c, to Law
@br00t4c@mastodon.social avatar
Aleenaa, to news
@Aleenaa@india.goonj.xyz avatar
br00t4c, to Law
@br00t4c@mastodon.social avatar

Ukraine's mobilization law now in force, sparking fears more essential workers will be drafted

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-mobilization-law-1.7208625?cmp=rss

micchiato, to Guns
@micchiato@mastodon.social avatar

“When a department upgrades its , what happens to the old ones? A CBS investigation found enforcement agencies routinely resold or traded in their used duty , a practice that has sent thousands of guns into the hands of criminals.

In a 16-year period ending in 2022, the ATF identified more than 52,000 guns recovered from scenes that were once used by police agencies. It took a federal court order for the ATF to release that data”

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/tracing-police-guns-sold-newark-new-jersey-pittsburgh/

JasonPerseus, to Law
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

So all the action in opinion is in the concurrences.

Justice Kagan writes separately in concurrence, joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

For which purpose do these four find common ground?

To grant interpretive weight to traditionalism and evolving practice over time.

With big, big administrative cases coming up on their docket, perhaps a significant signal?

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

Let's dive into some citations Kagan used and see what the underlying stuff says.

For fun---because I definitely see a Federalist citation in there and the beauty of the writing is irresistible.

Chiafalo v. Washington, you may actually recall, was a Supreme Court case involving "Faithless Electors" in the 2016 election. (Image: Summary of Facts)

The Court permitted States to penalize the faithless electors.

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

I cut off the nested citation in the original image with Chiafalo in it, but the quote goes one level deeper to The Pocket Veto Case from 1929.

We must go deeper! Submarine noises

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

The Pocket Veto Case was a case in which President Coolidge allowed a bill passed by Congress to expire without signing it after Congress' adjournment.

The question was whether the bill was law considering the Presentment Clause in Article I. (Image 1)

The Clause reads like an LSAT logic game, but the Court held the bill did not become law.

The important part for Kagan's opinion is the quote's context: (Image 2).

image/png

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

So if the Executive has been allowed to do something for a long time, and its done it for a long time, and the Legislature let it do it for a long time, and the Judiciary approved its doing it for a long time, then there is a constitutional inertia that exists.

The Court can intervene, but only if it can overcome the inertia.

The big interest: What about a 40-year practice of agency deference?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

We surface back to Kagan's concurrence, where she chain cites to Federalist 37 in support of the same principle.

I don't have the same version, but I presume this is where she's pointing.

James Madison explaining that even the most well-planned laws must draw their interpretation from the reality they address.

That it is necessary because we cannot imagine all possibilities. We don't even have the words we will need.

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

Kagan then details the 200 years of unbroken tradition with broad Congressional discretion over form of Appropriation.

"The founding-era practice that the Court relates (Image 1) became the 19th-century practice (Image 2), which became the 20th-century practice (Image 3), which became today’s. (Image 4)"

[parenthetical added by me]

And throwing in Scalia for good measure. Everyone loves a good Scalia cite.

image/png
image/png
image/png

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

Kagan then notes that there are many appropriations made which are not on an annual basis and not required to return to the Legislature for additional funding:

Customs Service, Post Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Definitely an office I knew existed 😉), and the Federal Reserve Board.

And that's about it for Kagan and her interesting squad of justices.

What do these tea leaves mean?! (Who knows)

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

But wait! Where's Justice Jackson?

Notably, she writes separately in concurrence.

What point does she feel it's important to make?

When the Constitution provides a power to another branch without limitation, the Courts shouldn't presume their right to craft a limit.

McCulloch v. Maryland... another oldie but a goodie.

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

McCulloch v. Maryland was an early case from 1819 in which the State of Maryland had put a tax on a bank chartered by the federal government. The litigation stemmed from a refusal to pay the tax, and the Court of Appeals held the bank to be unconstitutional, necessitating Supreme Court review.

Ends up being the seminal "necessary & proper" case.

And the part to which she cites... is exactly that:

#SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #law #lawfedi #legal #uspol #politics #uspolitics

JasonPerseus,
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

Jackson: Separation. Of. Powers.

She cites to this part of Byrd, citing Richardson.

The context around the quoted part is, I think, extremely important. (Image 2).

It not only notes that the court's role is not general supervision, but that the "irreplaceable value of [judicial review]" is its protection of individual liberties.

image/png

JasonPerseus, to politics
@JasonPerseus@mas.to avatar

“Alito doesn’t deny the flag was flying upside down, doesn’t deny its meaning, doesn’t express any disapproval for it and doesn’t disavow it.”

This wasn’t a random period of time. It was AFTER January 6 and BEFORE the inauguration.

ITS A SYMBOL OF INSURRECTION.

A Justice has never made a more persuasive case for the Legislature to kick them out on their ass for bad behavior than has Alito.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/samuel-alito-didnt-give-a-f-k-then-and-he-doesnt-give-a-f-k-now

br00t4c, to Law
@br00t4c@mastodon.social avatar
br00t4c, to Law
@br00t4c@mastodon.social avatar
br00t4c, to Law
@br00t4c@mastodon.social avatar
ai6yr, to climate
Nonilex, to Law
@Nonilex@masto.ai avatar
Nonilex,
@Nonilex@masto.ai avatar

The upside-down flag was aloft on Jan 17, 2021, images showed. ’s supporters, incl’g some brandishing the same symbol, had rioted at the Capitol a little over a week before. President ’s inauguration was 3 days away. Alarmed neighbors snapped photographs, some…were recently obtained by The NYT. Word of the flag filtered back to the court, people who worked there said in interviews.

Nonilex,
@Nonilex@masto.ai avatar

While the flag was up, the court was still contending w/whether to hear a case, w/Justice on the losing end of that decision. In coming wks, the justices will rule on 2 climactic cases involving the storming of the Capitol on , incl’g whether has for his actions. Their decisions will shape how accountable he can be held for trying to overturn the last presidential election & his chances for re-election in the upcoming one.

Nonilex,
@Nonilex@masto.ai avatar

…“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag, “Justice emailed NYT. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable & personally insulting language on yard signs.”

…Interviews show Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito, had been in a dispute w/another family on the block over an anti-Trump sign on their lawn, given the timing & starkness of the symbol, neighbors interpreted the inverted flag as a stmnt by the couple.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • provamag3
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • modclub
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • rosin
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • ngwrru68w68
  • thenastyranch
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • JUstTest
  • cubers
  • osvaldo12
  • Leos
  • anitta
  • everett
  • ethstaker
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • cisconetworking
  • megavids
  • tacticalgear
  • normalnudes
  • lostlight
  • All magazines