DevoHusker
New member
[No message]
SCOTUS thread
- Thread starter zoogs
- Start date
Scarlet
Well-known member
In the world of deep thinkers like Cynical Publius et al, civil servants with institutional knowledge and actual expertise is their respective fields "bad", while activist judges who have nary a clue about many of the situations they will rule on "good". "Brain drain good, scientists bad".
So when someone decides to challenge something like aspects of how Wilderness Act is administered, for example, and the administrative expertise to protect some of most precious and fragile national ecosystems, activist judges can rule that the Department of the Interior has no authority banning dualies from mud bogging the hell out of the place. The scenarios we could go through are endless.
The glut of court cases clogging up the judiciary is going to be epic.
teachercd
Well-known member
DevoHusker
New member
Mierin
Donor
Why do Fauci and Birx make it essential to overturn Chevron? What did they do that a court should/would have stopped?
Mierin
Donor
Shouldn’t you know better than us? I would guess local school boards are more impacted by state and local laws, but dunno. The GOP’s platform is to get rid of the Dept. of Ed so this ruling might have no impact.
teachercd
Well-known member
It will be an amazing day when the Dept of Ed is gone and when school boards are gone!
#NoMoreNonTeachersInEducation
Archy1221
Well-known member
I personally don’t feel like a President should have absolute immunity if that’s what the case revolves around (I think that’s what was being argued but not positive I have it correct).
Presidents do need some sort of limited immunity.
TGHusker
Well-known member
While this is true - due to the fact that the Chevron rule has been enforces for almost 40 years, there is too much power invested in the administration state - agencies that 'make laws - regulation", enforce them the 'laws' and hand out penalties circumvent our separation of powers. Law making, Judge and Jury, Jailer all in the hands of various agencies. As a result our congress has given away too much of its power to the administration.
Example: My dad has a 2-3 acre pond on his farm. When he was farming, he use to plow it under as after the spring rains had dried up, the pond would also dry up. It was dry 3/4 of the time unless we had a very wet season. One year, a govt agency stepped in and declared his 'pond' a wetland even though it wasn't always wet. Thus he was not able to plow it up any longer. To me that was an overreach and it was the administrative state reaching down to put their thumb on a family farmer.
TGHusker
Well-known member
It is in Judge Chutkan's hands.
https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-trump-presidential-immunity-updates
The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all dissented from the majority opinion.
In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote: “Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices said for the first time that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. But rather than do it themselves, the justices ordered lower courts to figure out precisely how to apply the decision to Trump’s case.
The outcome means additional delays before Trump could face trial in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
The court’s decision in a second major Trump case this term, along with its ruling rejecting efforts to bar him from the ballot because of his actions following the 2020 election, underscores the direct and possibly uncomfortable role the justices are playing in the November election.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-immunity-ruling-hands-big-144006176.html
The U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling on Monday sends the federal case accusing Donald Trump of attempting to overturn his 2020 defeat back to Judge Tanya Chutkan for critical decisions that will shape the future of the historic prosecution.
Chutkan, a judge on the U.S. District Court in Washington, will have to decide whether a pair of Supreme Court rulings requires some of the allegations against the Republican presidential candidate be tossed out.
She will also decide on the timing of the trial, which will determine whether a jury hears evidence that Trump sought to subvert the last election before his Nov. 5 election rematch with Democratic President Joe Biden.
Chutkan has previously promised to give Trump about 90 days to prepare for trial once the case returns to her courtroom, with a trial expected to last six to eight weeks.
Trump was convicted of falsifying business records in New York in May and faces two other criminal prosecutions in addition to the federal election subversion case, which many legal observers see as the only one with even a slim chance of going to trial before the election.
Chutkan, born in Jamaica and nominated as a judge by former Democratic President Barack Obama, was assigned to oversee the Trump case in August 2023. She has had little to do for more than six months as Trump’s bid for presidential immunity stalled any activity until the Supreme Court ruled.
Chutkan, who gained courtroom experience as a public defender representing people accused of murder and sexual assault, has previously shown little patience for Trump’s delay tactics and his attacks on the criminal justice system.
“The fact the defendant is engaged in a political campaign is not going to allow him any greater or lesser latitude than any defendant in a criminal case,” Chutkan told Trump’s lawyers during a hearing last year.
Chutkan, a graduate of University of Pennsylvania law school, spent more than a decade representing indigent defendants in Washington, D.C. She moved to top-flight law firm Boies Schiller & Flexner before being confirmed as a federal judge in 2014.
"She's intense. She's brilliant. She's no-nonsense," said Heather Shaner, a Washington criminal defense lawyer who has appeared before Chutkan. "She doesn't countenance fools."
Even before Trump’s case landed in her courtroom, Chutkan drew attention for giving some defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, during a riot by Trump supporters harsher sentences even than those sought by prosecutors.
"There have to be consequences for participating in an attempted violent overthrow of the government, beyond sitting at home," Chutkan said at one hearing, ordering a defendant to serve prison time.
'PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS'
Chutkan’s remarks about the Capitol attack, which is part of the indictment against Trump, led to an unsuccessful effort by Trump’s lawyers to recuse her from the case. Trump, who has frequently lobbed verbal attacks at judges in his legal cases, called Chutkan “VERY BIASED & UNFAIR” in a social media post last year.
This case is not Chutkan's first involving Trump. In 2021 she rejected a civil lawsuit he filed seeking to block the U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack from accessing White House records, writing "Presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president."
Chutkan’s handling of the Trump case has stood in stark contrast to Florida-based U.S. District Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing Trump’s other federal criminal case over his retention of classified documents after leaving office in 2021.
Cannon, who was nominated by Trump, has been receptive to arguments in Trump’s defense and indefinitely delayed the start of a trial while considering his array of legal challenges to the charges.
Chutkan swiftly rejected Trump’s argument that he cannot face prosecution for official actions he took as president, writing in a December 2023 ruling that the U.S. presidency “does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass.”
But the judge will now have to revisit that issue after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found that former presidents are immune for official acts. The ruling requires Chutkan to apply its new standard to the case against Trump.
Chutkan will also likely need to determine the impact of a separate Supreme Court ruling raising the legal standard for a federal obstruction charge against people accused of rioting at the Capitol. Two of the four counts against Trump were brought under the same law, but prosecutors previously indicated they intend to move ahead with those charges in his case.
It may be an uphill climb for Trump’s lawyers. During a hearing last year, Trump attorney John Lauro credited Chutkan, saying she "hit the nail on the head" while making a point from the bench.
"That may be the last time you say that for a while," Chutkan responded, drawing laughs in the courtroom.
https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-trump-presidential-immunity-updates
The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all dissented from the majority opinion.
In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote: “Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices said for the first time that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. But rather than do it themselves, the justices ordered lower courts to figure out precisely how to apply the decision to Trump’s case.
The outcome means additional delays before Trump could face trial in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
The court’s decision in a second major Trump case this term, along with its ruling rejecting efforts to bar him from the ballot because of his actions following the 2020 election, underscores the direct and possibly uncomfortable role the justices are playing in the November election.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-immunity-ruling-hands-big-144006176.html
The U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling on Monday sends the federal case accusing Donald Trump of attempting to overturn his 2020 defeat back to Judge Tanya Chutkan for critical decisions that will shape the future of the historic prosecution.
Chutkan, a judge on the U.S. District Court in Washington, will have to decide whether a pair of Supreme Court rulings requires some of the allegations against the Republican presidential candidate be tossed out.
She will also decide on the timing of the trial, which will determine whether a jury hears evidence that Trump sought to subvert the last election before his Nov. 5 election rematch with Democratic President Joe Biden.
Chutkan has previously promised to give Trump about 90 days to prepare for trial once the case returns to her courtroom, with a trial expected to last six to eight weeks.
Trump was convicted of falsifying business records in New York in May and faces two other criminal prosecutions in addition to the federal election subversion case, which many legal observers see as the only one with even a slim chance of going to trial before the election.
Chutkan, born in Jamaica and nominated as a judge by former Democratic President Barack Obama, was assigned to oversee the Trump case in August 2023. She has had little to do for more than six months as Trump’s bid for presidential immunity stalled any activity until the Supreme Court ruled.
Chutkan, who gained courtroom experience as a public defender representing people accused of murder and sexual assault, has previously shown little patience for Trump’s delay tactics and his attacks on the criminal justice system.
“The fact the defendant is engaged in a political campaign is not going to allow him any greater or lesser latitude than any defendant in a criminal case,” Chutkan told Trump’s lawyers during a hearing last year.
Chutkan, a graduate of University of Pennsylvania law school, spent more than a decade representing indigent defendants in Washington, D.C. She moved to top-flight law firm Boies Schiller & Flexner before being confirmed as a federal judge in 2014.
"She's intense. She's brilliant. She's no-nonsense," said Heather Shaner, a Washington criminal defense lawyer who has appeared before Chutkan. "She doesn't countenance fools."
Even before Trump’s case landed in her courtroom, Chutkan drew attention for giving some defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, during a riot by Trump supporters harsher sentences even than those sought by prosecutors.
"There have to be consequences for participating in an attempted violent overthrow of the government, beyond sitting at home," Chutkan said at one hearing, ordering a defendant to serve prison time.
'PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS'
Chutkan’s remarks about the Capitol attack, which is part of the indictment against Trump, led to an unsuccessful effort by Trump’s lawyers to recuse her from the case. Trump, who has frequently lobbed verbal attacks at judges in his legal cases, called Chutkan “VERY BIASED & UNFAIR” in a social media post last year.
This case is not Chutkan's first involving Trump. In 2021 she rejected a civil lawsuit he filed seeking to block the U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack from accessing White House records, writing "Presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president."
Chutkan’s handling of the Trump case has stood in stark contrast to Florida-based U.S. District Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing Trump’s other federal criminal case over his retention of classified documents after leaving office in 2021.
Cannon, who was nominated by Trump, has been receptive to arguments in Trump’s defense and indefinitely delayed the start of a trial while considering his array of legal challenges to the charges.
Chutkan swiftly rejected Trump’s argument that he cannot face prosecution for official actions he took as president, writing in a December 2023 ruling that the U.S. presidency “does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass.”
But the judge will now have to revisit that issue after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found that former presidents are immune for official acts. The ruling requires Chutkan to apply its new standard to the case against Trump.
Chutkan will also likely need to determine the impact of a separate Supreme Court ruling raising the legal standard for a federal obstruction charge against people accused of rioting at the Capitol. Two of the four counts against Trump were brought under the same law, but prosecutors previously indicated they intend to move ahead with those charges in his case.
It may be an uphill climb for Trump’s lawyers. During a hearing last year, Trump attorney John Lauro credited Chutkan, saying she "hit the nail on the head" while making a point from the bench.
"That may be the last time you say that for a while," Chutkan responded, drawing laughs in the courtroom.
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd
Well-known member
This is a great example of it!
People tend to run to the doom and gloom "Oh my god, now Company X is going to LITERALLY dump their ______________ directly into the water that my child drinks!!"
I don't know (or care) where this ruling impacts something like OSHA but if you ever had to deal with their rules, it is insane.