What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (1 Viewer)

CletiusMaximus said:
The Little Sister of the Poor (contraceptive mandate) case is 7-2, written by Thomas with Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting. 

Ginsburg says in her dissent that today's decision means between 70,500 and 126,400 women will "immediately lose access to no-cost contraceptive services."
Click to expand...
She's wrong in her logic.  It isn't no-cost.  Super common medications like this are not insurance, they're set-asides.  And they are definitely in the cost of insurance.  

IN any case, a very interesting result.  

 
I'm probably the only person who's more interested in the do-Indians-control-half-of-Oklahoma case than the Trump cases.  In theory this one can be easily resolved by Congress, but "in theory" is the important part of that.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I'm probably the only person who's more interested in the do-Indians-control-half-of-Oklahoma case than the Trump cases.  In theory this one can be easily resolved by Congress, but "in theory" is the important part of that.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty fascinated by the old Indian treaty cases as well. They're potentially devastating if taken the way the way they were written. There have been similar cases over the years and the US arguments are often really specious.

 
Trump v Vance ruling.  Not sure what I'm reading.  Trump not immune, but other ways out?  7-2 opinion

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed dissenting opinions.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The General said:
Lets get a look at those taxes.
Click to expand...
I think it will be a while - remanded to the circuit court, then likely back to the trial court using the new standard.

Roberts invites Trump lawyers to make additional arguments on remand if they want to.

it looks like Mazars also will go against Trump. 

 
FBG26 said:
Basically says that NY can subpoena Trump's accounting firm. 
Click to expand...
But is it allow saying back to district court to fight?  Sounds like Trump can keep fighting it in lower courts which just delays this beyond the election.  

 
Nick Vermeil said:
We aren’t actually going to see them before the election are we? I mean someone will but probably not the public, right?
Click to expand...
No clue. We’ll have a better idea I’m sure as the details all come out with today’s ruling.

I juts love listening to Team Trump try and explain how these things don’t matter. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump v Mazars

Congressional subpoenas for information from the President, however, implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and the Second Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
Click to expand...
So basically this will go back to the district court for the district court to decide whether Congress subpoenas in this case are valid.  

ETA: so this one gets tied up in court for a long time too. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FBG26 said:
Trump v Mazars

So basically this will go back to the district court for the district court to decide whether Congress subpoenas in this case are valid.  

ETA: so this once gets tied up in court for a long time too. 
Click to expand...
Deftly punted the contentious issues until after the election - when it like becomes moot.

 
Even though Trump can keep fighting and delay, he tweets about being mad about the ruling because he doesn't have immunity.  

 
I am just catching bits and pieces of Mazars - including the 4-prong test for congressional subpoenas.

I think it is generally on point, and a good decision to limit the power of congress to "harass" the office of the President.

As I recall the backdrop of Mazars - Congress used the "legislative purpose" as the basis for the subpoena?  Is that correct?  This was not a generic investigation for impeachment purposes subpoena, right? 

 
rockaction said:
I can't believe that the Trump case is getting more play in here than the utterly shocking Oklahoma case, which means so much more -- at least to me -- than just public disclosure of one man's filings.
Click to expand...
What is the practical import of the Oklahoma case - I have not followed it much at all.

 
rockaction said:
I can't believe that the Trump case is getting more play in here than the utterly shocking Oklahoma case, which means so much more -- at least to me -- than just public disclosure of one man's filings.
Click to expand...
Well I posted earlier on this to some degree - these decisions have been coming down since the 1970s (Seneca?). They are potentially huge decisions because basically governmental functionaries made these broad promises in treaties in early to mid to late 19th century to move Indians off their land annnnnddd..... everyone seemed to think they could just blow by them. Look at what happened to the Cherokee, they won in the USSC back in the early 1800s and they got run off huge chunks of the Carolinas, Georgia and the Appalachians.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well I posted earlier on this to some degree - these decisions have been coming down since the 19701s (Seneca?). They are potentially huge decisions because basically governmental functionaries made these broad promises in treaties in early to mid to late 19th century to move Indians off their land annnnnddd..... everyone seemed to think they could just blow by them. Look at what happened to the Cherokee, they won in the USSC back in the early 1800s and they got run off huge chunks of the Carolinas, Georgia and the Appalachians.
Click to expand...
Boy, I wonder what happens when we revisit forty acres and a mule.

 
rockaction said:
Boy, I wonder what happens when we revisit forty acres and a mule.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The issue behind Mississippi changing its flag in 1894 is what it did to overwrite federal law back then, that's what that signified. It reminds me of that scene in Office Space where the Bobs say they "fixed the glitch."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know Trump believes in this absolute imperial immunity bs, but let's face it taking an insanely extreme legal position and then leveraging the special, unique constitutional position of the presidency to appeal every last damned thing over the course of 1-2+ years is a strategy any lawyer would love. The tax cases finally go before judges who now get to look at the subpoenas the way they could or would have before all this started, and that will be appealed. The courts have repeatedly enabled this strategy. It's abuse of office but I suppose there is no way around it. Having said that 7-2 decisions will make the district judges a lot more empowered to enforce these things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
beef said:
Even though Trump can keep fighting and delay, he tweets about being mad about the ruling because he doesn't have immunity.  
Click to expand...
Bad Brett going against him must sting. Shocker. 

Have to give Roberts credit for pulling together consistent majorities on both issues. He's protected the Court well here.

 
The Gator said:
What is the practical import of the Oklahoma case - I have not followed it much at all.
Click to expand...
If an Indian* is accused of committing certain crimes on Indian lands*, State governments do not have jurisdiction to prosecute those crimes. Rather, only the federal government has jurisdiction to prosecute those crimes that are enumerated in the statute. 

Not 100% clear to me if the State can prosecute other crimes that Indians allegedly commit on Indian lands, or if only the tribes can prosecute other crimes. 

*Term used in the statute and opinion, not my term. 

 
rockaction said:
The Gator said:
What is the practical import of the Oklahoma case - I have not followed it much at all.
Click to expand...
Practical import is that Eastern Oklahoma becomes a federal Indian Reservation. That means everything from criminal jurisdiction to commerce is affected, as Congress regulates commerce with Indian tribes rather than the state. 
Click to expand...
Does it really go that far? I don't have time to read the whole thing today, but it seems like this could be limited solely to criminal law under the Major Crimes Act. Also seems like congress could change the Major Crimes Act so that states can prosecute Indians accused of committing crimes on federal reservations. 

 
FBG26 said:
Does it really go that far? I don't have time to read the whole thing today, but it seems like this could be limited solely to criminal law under the Major Crimes Act. Also seems like congress could change the Major Crimes Act so that states can prosecute Indians accused of committing crimes on federal reservations. 
Click to expand...
Roberts claims it does, as did some of the other dissenters. I'll look it up and get back to you. I'm really, really interested in this case, and my jaw has dropped a bit.

 
Roberts:

Roberts warned that “across this vast area” now deemed to be Native American land, “the State’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out.”

“On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma,” Roberts wrote. “The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State’s continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law."

 
On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding “all their land, East of the Mississippi river,” the U. S. government agreed by treaty that “[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.” Treaty With the Creeks, Arts. I, XIV, Mar. 24, 1832, 7 Stat. 366, 368 (1832 Treaty). Both parties settled on boundary lines for a new and “permanent home to the whole Creek nation,” located in what is now Oklahoma. Treaty With the Creeks, preamble, Feb. 14, 1833, 7 Stat. 418 (1833 Treaty). The government further promised that “[no] State or Territory [shall] ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves.” 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat. 368. Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word. 
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Boston
Boston
Max Power
Eric Swalwell tweets thread
2 3
Replies
132
Views
4K
Max Power
Max Power
(HULK)
Non-Partisan Funny Things in Politics
Replies
4
Views
617
dgreen
dgreen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top