Senate The Supreme Court

So, of note, we generally expect the Chief to write the tax opinions -- but I would have expected Gorsuch to write anything tribal related (he's been a pretty go-to guy for tribal rights since getting on SCOTUS oddly)... but he's already authored (I think?) the most opinions of this term, and Breyer and Sotomayor each have five (and none from the May arguments)... but Thomas only has four (and already one from May).

Lotsa interesting items coming tomorrow...

 

So the question then becomes, can a Biden administration reverse what Trump has done here? Looks like the majority says 'yes', but Alito says 'no'.

Interesting. Also on pins-and-needles re: taxes. Good thing I'm working this week to keep me distracted .

 

Be almost funny if they held off on Trump's Tax Returns until July 15 (the new IRS Tax Date due to the Coronavirus)

 

Kagan's concurrence theoretically sets up a total elimination of this decision on APA grounds, I believe. But yes, the POTUS can also completely bypass this...

 

So, uh, what do we have to say about two democrats ruling with the majority to take away contraceptive access (and potentially things like prep and hrt)?

 

They acknowledged that, given the existence of the RFRA, and the ability of Executive departments to consider RFRA, this was permissible under the law... or you could read above.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was looking along more political lines. Liberals (and people left of center in general) are hoping that democratically appointed justices will protect things like women's health rights, and this sort of flies in the face of that.

 

And accelerationists generally hold that POTUS doesn't matter... whereas clearly this ruling puts the lie to that too.

There's only so much a judiciary can do, if there are laws that govern what they can rule on...

 

I face_plain in their general direction.

 

A lot of political debate on the presidential election, especially on why a certain candidate should be voted for, etc, stems from this "our team" vs "their team."

 

The real thing would be getting rid of the RFRA, it'd seem, as it appears quite clear that removing that removes much of the basis for this.

Or also just make it so that employers don't provide health care, that solves a whole lot of this.

 

View it like a proper future-state service -- the candidates are basically just a set of Restful APIs, but they're still governed by an underlying set of code (garbage in, garbage out), as well as the back-office systems of laws.

You tend to believe that Joe Biden is no different than Donald Trump... the ruling here expressly puts a lie to that belief, since we are reasonable certain that Biden's set of APIs wouldn't allow a limitation of the birth control mandate. It's not our team vs. their team, so much as which is more broadly aligned to a set of goals and ideals, which turns into our side and their side, since we're in a two-party system.

In closing: "Sit down, John, you fat ************!" (A. Ham) (he really wasn't our team vs. their team lol...)

 

This times a thousand. Using the judiciary to advance an agenda is a losing proposition, especially in the long run. Even when one "side" initially wins a battle (such as with Roe or NFIB v Sebelius, etc) it tends to backfire over time. Abortion is the take-home example of this--Roe was a major victory, but it helped fuel the rise of the modern Right by leading to broad electoral takeovers overs of state legislators by anti-choice majorities who then slowly chipped away at access via actual laws.

It's far more important to win elections and legislate than trying to control the direction of the country via SCOTUS through a "top-down" strategy. That's been a bitter pill for Democrats to swallow, and I'm glad to finally see Republicans learning this as well. Democrats' time would be better spent electing large majorities who support policies that will actually make their lives better, as opposed to enacting them via the courts. If they learned to articulate who they are and convince voters to elect them, then falling back on judges becomes less existential. The Republicans may have an abhorrent agenda, but they know what they stand for and how to sell it. It's hard to argue that hasn't been to their benefit since the Reagan years.

 

How are the two rulings around hiring/firing rules reconciled? Is the implication now that all Civil Rights Act protections taken second priority to religious beliefs?

 

Yes, although this seems somewhat at least attempted to be constrained to the "ministerial exception," vs. generic staff.

 

Trump taxes decision coming this morning......

 

He's already tweeting, so presumably a clerk leaked.

 

Trump is already raging on Twitter.

Less than 20 minutes to go. Alas, no drinking today- have to work from home.

 

Twitter pundits reminding folks that even if the court ruled against orange menace, it would be unlikely to result in his returns being disclosed publicly before November.

 

I love when he screams PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!!!!!. Cuz you know whatever is about to spill, it's gonna be good.

 

Again, the general consensus is that NY will be successful (and therefore tax returns will be governed by Grand Jury secrecy rules), and than Congress will be fully or partially unsuccessful in their subpoenas.

 

Or, it’s a confession to what he did to Vindman. PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!!!!

 

We have McGirt v. Oklahoma first...

EDIT: And it's by Gorsuch, who appears to continue to be a staunch defender of Native tribal rights and treaties...

 

And Vindman has just been forced to resign.

EDIT: 5-4 in McGirt. Oklahoma's land remains an Indian reservation under the treaty. Gorsuch with the liberals. Wow. That's twice in one week!