laklak wrote:SCOTUS strikes down Louisiana law restricting abortions.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-strikes-down-louisiana-law-that-placed-restrictions-on-abortion-clinics

Roberts casts the deciding vote. Trumpy gonna have apoplexy.

The Supreme Court’s big decision on the CFPB and the “unitary executive,” explained
Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion can be read two ways. One of them could be catastrophic.

There are two ways to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law v. CFPB, which was handed down on Monday.

But before we get to that, here are the basics of the case: The plaintiffs in this case asked the Court to invalidate the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency, proposed in 2007 by then-professor Elizabeth Warren, to prevent predatory practices by many lenders. But the radical claim that the whole agency should fall gained little traction on the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices largely focused on the question of whether the president may remove the CFPB’s sitting director at will.

A majority of the Court agreed that a president may remove the CFPB director. In the short term, that decision could benefit presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who will be able to remove Trump’s CFPB director right away if Biden becomes president. In the long term, however, the decision could potentially empower the president to manipulate the political process.

The first way to read Seila Law is as a minor decision holding that the unusual structure Congress envisioned for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional. The CFPB is one of just a few federal agencies that is headed by a single director who cannot be removed at will by the president of the United States. Seila Law holds that this abnormal way of structuring a federal agency’s leadership is unconstitutional.

All five of the Court’s Republican appointees agreed with this decision, while all four of the Court’s Democratic appointees joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Elena Kagan.

The other way to read the decision, however, is that it could be the first salvo in an attack on other agencies that enjoy some degree of insulation from the president. These “independent” agencies include bodies like the Federal Reserve and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and there are vital reasons why these agencies’ leadership should remain independent of the president.

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/29/21307083/ ... -executive

The supreme court has issued its decision in one case involving subpoenas for Trump’s financial records.

The justices issued a 7-2 decision that the president’s tax returns and business records may be turned over to a grand jury in New York.

The ruling marks a defeat for Trump, who has pushed for years to hide the documents from the public.

laklak wrote:I think (or at least hope) that even a GOP Senate would refuse to confirm any SCOTUS justice this close to an election. But hey, you never know with this bunch of baboons.

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst said Friday that the Senate should hold hearings on any Supreme Court nomination President Donald Trump might make this year, even if he loses November's election.

"(If) it is a lame-duck session, I would support going ahead with any hearings that we might have," Ernst, a Republican, said during a taping of the Iowa Press show on Iowa PBS. "And if it comes to an appointment prior to the end of the year, I would be supportive of that."

The comments came after Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed that she is once again battling cancer, and she was hospitalized this week with a possible infection.

"I wish nothing but the best of health for Ruth Bader Ginsburg," Ernst said. "I think we all do. And I’ll be praying for her."

...

laklak wrote:I think (or at least hope) that even a GOP Senate would refuse to confirm any SCOTUS justice this close to an election. But hey, you never know with this bunch of baboons.

OlivierK wrote:

laklak wrote:I think (or at least hope) that even a GOP Senate would refuse to confirm any SCOTUS justice this close to an election. But hey, you never know with this bunch of baboons.

Seriously, lak? Even before Chango posted Ernst's idiocy, my first thought was that you were seriously overreaching if you thought that this bunch of Senate Republicans would be guided in any way by ethics, due process, or probity. I'd expect them to have a go even if there was a specific law against it.

The Supreme Court has ruled 5 – 4 that a large section of eastern Oklahoma belongs to Native Americans. An appeal from inmate – and Seminole – Jimcy McGirt has led to 3 million acres in Oklahoma being declared a reservation. Or at least clarified as such. Thursday’s judgement follows a generation-spanning argument over promises made to indigenous peoples back in the 19th century. Tulsa is noticeably affected, with a majority of the city covered by the new arrangement. Approx half the state falls under the ruling.

Trail of Tears: Indian Removal Act, Facts & Significance ...www.history.com › topics › native-american-history › t...
Jul 7, 2020 - The Trail of Tears is over 5,043 miles long and covers nine states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, ...

Like clockwork, each June brings the Supreme Court back to the forefront of America’s culture wars, as the justices issue major new opinions that are equal parts significant and divisive—precipitating a flood of headlines, popular opinion pieces, and longer-form academic responses. This term attracted a flurry of coverage of the court’s decisions on abortion, immigration, guns, LGBT discrimination, religion, the president’s financial records, and the separation of powers.

But after the fanfare subsided, the justices have spent the first month of their summer recess handing out an unusually large and divisive number of significant rulings. These rulings are quietly shaping the rules of the upcoming elections, how governments can (and can’t) respond to COVID, the resumption of the federal death penalty, and more. But they aren’t decisions in argued cases left over from last term. Rather, these are decisions on what University of Chicago law professor Will Baude has dubbed the “shadow docket.”
...