Senate The Supreme Court

Interesting makeup with Gorsuch joining the 4 liberal justices for McGirt.

 

"We hold the government to its word."-- there's a novel concept these days.

 

He's really been one of the most consistent, pro-tribal SCOTUS Justices in... well, living memory for me really. He really, really believes in "if the government gave it's word / signed a treaty then we need to honor it to the letter of the law"...

Trump taxes in 2 minutes...

 

Trump lost.

 

Trump v Vance is 7-2 by Roberts.

Ouch. Kavanuagh and Gorsuch agreed. Trump must be going nuts.

 

7-2. Roberts writing. Just made my day.

 

Kavanaugh joining the majority in the 7-2 vote is...



EDIT: Should be noted, this is the NY case -- Federal / Congressional case still to come, and will be by the Chief.

 

REFUND!

 

Honestly not surprised Kavanugh joined this one. He really seemed unable to get past the statute of limitations issue during oral arguments.

 

Maybe he's finally figured out that appointing judges as a promise to others is not as transactional as he originally thought.

 

Something tells me Trump is uninterested in that detail.

Edit: "The Alito dissent seems to suggest Mazars also went against Trump. I’m trying to pull the language now."

Yes plz.

 

Unclear if this is limiting language, or a hint at Mazurs LLP...

EDIT: Mazurs LLP is also 7-2.

 

Edit: Nevermind, unfortunately.

 

Josh did it go against him as well? The blog seems to hint that it didn't.

 

Good. This was settled law back with Nixon and Clinton. They should have never taken the case to begin with. But, now it’s even harder for a future president to try.

 

You're right-- I erred.

 

Yeah, I honestly can't tell from the opinion what was decided... it seems to vacillate between Congress and the Executive, without actually deciding...

 

Looks like the second opinion is a lot less clear.

EDIT: they punted it back to the lower courts with instructions to better hash out the rules.

So one loss for Trump and one rain-out. Not bad.

 

Time for another year of court battles just to ask the question, "could you clarify that for us?"

 

Basically, it is kicking it back down and saying Trump’s excuse isn’t valid but the courts need to be mindful of giving Congress unchecked power?

 

Yeah, one of the comments sums up:

 

I was looking at a bit of "We're getting wildly differing assessments" last night, the Scotusblog writeup of the Sebelius case in 2012, and this has some traces of that in it.

 

So basically, Trump lost both times but will be able to tie this up until he leaves office. So pretty much a hollow victory there.

Still, I hope Vance moves more swiftly and Trump is indicted come Innauguration Day at noon.

 

Between the conduct of Donald Trump himself, and his personal attorney Billy Barr, Trump's tweets have literally never been so accurate, albeit unintentionally.

 

@blackmyron

No way he wrote the second tweet himself-- the spelling is correct.