DEI

[Isaac]

This is the exact and precise result of dei and it's a great example of why dei was discriminatory, racist, and had to go. A unanimous supreme Court agrees

Supreme Court revives straight woman's workplace discrimination claim

Marlean Ames argued she faced too high a legal burden in pressing her claim after being passed over and demoted in favor of a lesbian and a gay man.

www.msnbc.com

 

[NauticalGent]

lol, here we go...!

 

[Pat Hartman]

The Supreme Court needs to start enforcing the Constitution instead of making law. It's about time they stopped their support for "reverse" discrimination.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I've been following SCOTUS decisions for a while now and I have come to a sort of recognition. I am NOT trying to excuse them because they have had MANY opportunities to foul up the works and have not allowed all such opportunities to pass. However,...

SCOTUS has limited power of original review. They can't make a decision without a case having been submitted, and a large part of their cases are less than ideal for some of the decisions they are asked to make.

It has been rare for them to get such clear-cut cases, but they got two of them this week. First was the "reverse discrimination" case, which went 9-0 in leveling the playing field. Second was the firearm manufacturers who were being sued because someone used a USA-made gun to commit a crime in Mexico but the gun wasn't bought directly from the gun maker by the cartel.

A lot of the cases they have been tossing are based on "lawfare" - when the Libs file suit after suit in hope of clogging up the judicial cloaca. Which they are doing. If SCOTUS rules against nation-wide injunctions from lower courts, a lot MORE of these suits will be filed in each appellate district hoping to get nation-wide coverage.

 

[Pat Hartman]

If SCOTUS rules against nation-wide injunctions from lower courts, a lot MORE of these suits will be filed in each appellate district hoping to get nation-wide coverage.

However, if SCOTUS rules that the President gets to run the country without the help of ANY judges and nationwide injunctions, then they should be able to stop this in its tracks. NO COURT that tries to enjoin the President from carrying out his normal duties will succeed.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

NO COURT that tries to enjoin the President from carrying out his normal duties will succeed.

That isn't the problem. It is how often they will try - and in so doing, bollix up the court dockets.

 

[Pat Hartman]

That isn't the problem. It is how often they will try - and in so doing, bollix up the court dockets.

But if the Supremes come down hard on these frivolous attacks and impose sanctions on the prosecutors and judges as they should, then the vicious attacks can be stopped.

If the Supremes are going to continue to be wimps, the attacks will continue. Why not? There is no penalty attached. No jeopardy of losing your license to practice for example.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Pat, I'm on your side on this one except that I don't know that SCOTUS has penalty power of that particular type. I would LOVE to see some of these activist judges defrocked, but I don't think that is an Article III power.

 

[Isaac]

POWA TO THE PEOPLE!

Ok, I just wanted to see how it would feel to say that. Indeed it feels as dumb as I thought it would.
The people already have all the power they need to make good decisions and have a good life!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The people already have all the power they need to make good decisions and have a good life!

This is true. However, it is analogous to one of my favorite routines from comedian Ron White. As the story goes, he got arrested in a bar for "Drunken Disorderly" and was a bit belligerent while being questioned. He admitted, "I had the right to remain silent... but not the ability."

The people have the power to do LOTS of things - but need to exercise that power properly or it becomes pointless.

 

[Isaac]

SCOTUS has limited power of original review. They can't make a decision without a case having been submitted, and a large part of their cases are less than ideal for some of the decisions they are asked to make.

I appreciate you bringing up this point. One of the #1 pet peeves that really peeves me is when people react to a court decision as if the court should have been primarily concerned about the overall convenience of the Outcome. The court's job is to interpret and apply the law to a set of facts - that's it! So all of the stupid comments (including Trump's), attacking the supreme court when they decide something, like "I can't believe the supreme court is going to take money away from starving children" - are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO stupid. They act as if they understand absolutely nothing about how courts and the judicial system work/are there for

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm far from expert on this, but I've been following some gun law cases where the commentator tries to explain why a particular SCOTUS case was, or was not, accepted for review.

A lot of the appeals sent up through the appellate court system involve a case in which a temporary restraining order has been issued, essentially stopping something from happening. The appellant then tries to overturn the restraining order - but some rule forbids that result and so the next court up says, "not until the case reaches a 'merits' decision." After that happens, the TRO changes to a different kind of order that CAN be appealed. So when SCOTUS OR one of the lesser Article III courts chooses to not immediately intervene, they are often waiting for the case to be heard on its merits, not on some technicality.

However, there is another side of this. The most common results out of SCOTUS would either an "grant/affirm" decision or a "GVR" - grant, vacate, and remand (back to a lower court to reconsider in light of the advice of SCOTUS). Some findings will be "deny certiorari" - which has the effect of implicitly affirming the decision of the next higher court that heard the case.

The problem in current gun law cases is that sometimes SCOTUS issues a GVR and the lower court immediately repeats the ruling that was vacated. That, or the state legislature just enacts a new version of the same law that got vacated. Ever since the NYSRPA vs. Bruen decision, several district courts have essentially defied SCOTUS completely or in part. This is where the Article III courts have the weakness. There is no penalty that SCOTUS can impose on a rebellious court. Congress then has to act to impeach the judges, and right now that is a tricky proposition at best.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Congress then has to act to impeach the judges, and right now that is a tricky proposition at best.

They seem to have no difficulty with impeaching Trump. They are already reading their impeachment for when they regain the house in 2028.

 

[Steve R.]

Just to step-in for a second. The left uses the "law" to further a political agenda. The "law" to the left is not about resolving an actual crime and/or civil dispute.

It is unfortunate that we now have a lot of cases going almost directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should only become involved in limited circumstances related to the Constitution and/or after the appeal processes have been exhausted.

It also does not help that some justices appear to be oblivious to what their roles are:

• Ketanji Brown Jackson said she could not define a woman. Given that how can she interpret the law?
• Sonia Sotomayor said that a wise Latina would reach a better decision than a White man. A racist statement. Not to mention that that would be an example of relative criteria. Relative criteria makes a mockery of the law.

 

[Isaac]

I'm far from expert on this, but I've been following some gun law cases where the commentator tries to explain why a particular SCOTUS case was, or was not, accepted for review.

A lot of the appeals sent up through the appellate court system involve a case in which a temporary restraining order has been issued, essentially stopping something from happening. The appellant then tries to overturn the restraining order - but some rule forbids that result and so the next court up says, "not until the case reaches a 'merits' decision." After that happens, the TRO changes to a different kind of order that CAN be appealed. So when SCOTUS OR one of the lesser Article III courts chooses to not immediately intervene, they are often waiting for the case to be heard on its merits, not on some technicality.

However, there is another side of this. The most common results out of SCOTUS would either an "grant/affirm" decision or a "GVR" - grant, vacate, and remand (back to a lower court to reconsider in light of the advice of SCOTUS). Some findings will be "deny certiorari" - which has the effect of implicitly affirming the decision of the next higher court that heard the case.

The problem in current gun law cases is that sometimes SCOTUS issues a GVR and the lower court immediately repeats the ruling that was vacated. That, or the state legislature just enacts a new version of the same law that got vacated. Ever since the NYSRPA vs. Bruen decision, several district courts have essentially defied SCOTUS completely or in part. This is where the Article III courts have the weakness. There is no penalty that SCOTUS can impose on a rebellious court. Congress then has to act to impeach the judges, and right now that is a tricky proposition at best.

Similar to how federal jurisdiction requires (among other things that may qualify it) a "federal question", the supreme court requires a federal or constitutional question that other courts have not agreed on, or they think are blatently wrong on. I will say, I think the rules of federal civil procedure make the federal court review much more black and white than the supreme court review. I think they have more discretion.