Thomas, Gorsuch, Join Liberal Justices in 5-4 Ruling

[Tennesseer]

Supreme Court hands Virginia Democrats a win in gerrymandering case

The Supreme Court has ruled against the Virginia House of Delegates in a racial gerrymandering case that represents a victory for Democrats in the state.

In the 5-4 ruling, the justices found that the House didn't have the standing to appeal a lower court ruling that found that the new district maps must be used ahead of statewide elections later this year. Those new maps are already in use.

Democrats had claimed that previous districts were unlawful because they featured too many black voters, diminishing their power across the state and in other districts.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.

Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Full article here:  Supreme Court hands Virginia Democrats a win in gerrymandering case

[thyme4change]

There is a light shining in the darkness.

Voting rights and gerrymandering is a huge concern for me for the new supreme court. I have resigned that abortion rights will be battered about for another 100 years, but voting is the foundation of our country.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Someone on the SCOTUSblog pointed out that this is not necessarily a good ruling for the US House bringing Trump cases to the Court. 

[Tennesseer]

Jun 17, 2019 12:05:44 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Someone on the SCOTUSblog pointed out that this is not necessarily a good ruling for the US House bringing Trump cases to the Court. 

I can wait for the Southern District of New York and the state's release of trump's state taxes.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 17, 2019 12:25:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jun 17, 2019 12:05:44 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Someone on the SCOTUSblog pointed out that this is not necessarily a good ruling for the US House bringing Trump cases to the Court. 

I can wait for the Southern District of New York and the state's release of trump's state taxes.

True. 

The Court also upheld the double jeopardy thing today too.  I'll find you a link. 

ETA - it's Gamble vs US

Gamble v. United States
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
17-646 11th Cir. Dec 6, 2018
Tr.Aud. Jun 17, 2019 7-2 Alito OT 2018

Holding: The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.

Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 17, 2019. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

[happyhoix]

Jun 17, 2019 12:28:07 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Jun 17, 2019 12:25:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I can wait for the Southern District of New York and the state's release of trump's state taxes.

True. 

The Court also upheld the double jeopardy thing today too.  I'll find you a link. 

ETA - it's Gamble vs US

Gamble v. United States
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
17-646 11th Cir. Dec 6, 2018
Tr.Aud. Jun 17, 2019 7-2 Alito OT 2018

Holding: The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.

Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 17, 2019. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

So that means Manafort gets to go to trial in NY state? I think he was trying to wiggle out claiming double jeopardy.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 17, 2019 12:36:47 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 17, 2019 12:28:07 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

True. 

The Court also upheld the double jeopardy thing today too.  I'll find you a link. 

ETA - it's Gamble vs US

Gamble v. United States
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
17-646 11th Cir. Dec 6, 2018
Tr.Aud. Jun 17, 2019 7-2 Alito OT 2018

Holding: The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.

Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 17, 2019. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

So that means Manafort gets to go to trial in NY state? I think he was trying to wiggle out claiming double jeopardy.

I think so.  SCOTUSblog didn't have a story on this one yet. 

[happyhoix]

Jun 17, 2019 12:42:32 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Jun 17, 2019 12:36:47 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

So that means Manafort gets to go to trial in NY state? I think he was trying to wiggle out claiming double jeopardy.

I think so.  SCOTUSblog didn't have a story on this one yet. 

Poor Manafort. I wonder if he's still in Rikers?

I wonder if Trump will think fondly of him, and send him a new alligator jacket? Or has Trump relegated Manafort to the pile of 'I didn't really know him' loser rejects along with all the others that got thrown under the bus?

 

[Deleted]

I’m for the Gerrymandering ruling but I hate the double jeopardy one. This isn’t about liking/not liking Manafort or others potentially subject to it but that it gives prosecutors another bite at the apple if a defendant walks.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Here's a link to politico for the Gamble

www.politico.com/story/2019/06/17/supreme-court-trump-pardons-1365952

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in a closely watched “double jeopardy” case, issuing a decision that preserves states’ power to limit the impact of future pardons by President Donald Trump or his successors.

In a 7-2 ruling, the justices declined to disturb a longstanding legal principle known as dual sovereignty, which allows state governments to bring their own charges against defendants already tried or convicted in federal court, or vice versa.

Lawyers for an Alabama man facing a gun charge in federal court after pleading guilty to the same offense in state court — resulting in a nearly three-year extension of his prison sentence — failed in their effort to persuade the justices to hold that the Constitution’s prohibition on double jeopardy prevents such follow-on prosecutions.

[djAdvocate]

I think this is something like 5:0 in major gerrymandering cases since Project Red Map.

[thyme4change]

Jun 17, 2019 12:05:44 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Someone on the SCOTUSblog pointed out that this is not necessarily a good ruling for the US House bringing Trump cases to the Court. 

Can you back up and help me out here? Why is the SCOTUS ruling against gerrymandering bad for relations between the house and the president? I'm clearly missing something here.

[dezii]

Has Justice Thomas EVER, EVER voted with the more liberal justices before...he rarely questions plaintiffs too...

[major surprise there...]

something happening to the man as he gets close to retiring...believe I read somewhere he is considering that...man definitely has not been a beacon of hope for his own race...IMHO

[djAdvocate]

yeah, he has. just not often.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Jun 17, 2019 12:46:57 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 17, 2019 12:42:32 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

I think so.  SCOTUSblog didn't have a story on this one yet. 

Poor Manafort. I wonder if he's still in Rikers?

I wonder if Trump will think fondly of him, and send him a new alligator jacket? Or has Trump relegated Manafort to the pile of 'I didn't really know him' loser rejects along with all the others that got thrown under the bus?

 

It doesn't look like it:


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-manafort-seemed-headed-to-rikers-then-the-justice-department-intervened/ar-AAD1quq

[happyhoix]

Jun 18, 2019 11:06:23 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Jun 17, 2019 12:46:57 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Poor Manafort. I wonder if he's still in Rikers?

I wonder if Trump will think fondly of him, and send him a new alligator jacket? Or has Trump relegated Manafort to the pile of 'I didn't really know him' loser rejects along with all the others that got thrown under the bus?

 

It doesn't look like it:


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-manafort-seemed-headed-to-rikers-then-the-justice-department-intervened/ar-AAD1quq

Yeah, I saw that. 'Someone' no one will name stepped in and got him diverted to a federal holding pen.  Looks like Barr has taken over the DOJ for sure, now.

Trump: "I'll make sure all my friends get housed in the best prison ever - really - everyone says so, just the best prison in the whole country, probably in the entire world. Such an amazing prison. Everyone cries when they see it, it's so beautiful. And the best chocolate cake. "

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2019 10:53:56 GMT -5 dezii said:

Has Justice Thomas EVER, EVER voted with the more liberal justices before...he rarely questions plaintiffs too...

[major surprise there...]

something happening to the man as he gets close to retiring...believe I read somewhere he is considering that...man definitely has not been a beacon of hope for his own race...IMHO

I don't understand what you're trying to say here in regards to a Supreme Court Judge. (bolded)

[dezii]

Jun 18, 2019 11:48:35 GMT -5 @x said:

Jun 18, 2019 10:53:56 GMT -5 dezii said:

Has Justice Thomas EVER, EVER voted with the more liberal justices before...he rarely questions plaintiffs too...

[major surprise there...]

something happening to the man as he gets close to retiring...believe I read somewhere he is considering that...man definitely has not been a beacon of hope for his own race...IMHO

I don't understand what you're trying to say here in regards to a Supreme Court Judge. (bolded)

Really?...Your seriouse?...…..ok..... …….. ……...

[Tennesseer]

Jun 18, 2019 11:20:13 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 18, 2019 11:06:23 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

It doesn't look like it:


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-manafort-seemed-headed-to-rikers-then-the-justice-department-intervened/ar-AAD1quq

Yeah, I saw that. 'Someone' no one will name stepped in and got him diverted to a federal holding pen.  Looks like Barr has taken over the DOJ for sure, now.

Trump: "I'll make sure all my friends get housed in the best prison ever - really - everyone says so, just the best prison in the whole country, probably in the entire world. Such an amazing prison. Everyone cries when they see it, it's so beautiful. And the best chocolate cake. "

That 'Someone' was Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.

Trump’s Justice Department says it helped Manafort stay off Rikers Island out of respect for his ‘unique’ health needs

[happyhoix]

Jun 18, 2019 21:29:09 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jun 18, 2019 11:20:13 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Yeah, I saw that. 'Someone' no one will name stepped in and got him diverted to a federal holding pen.  Looks like Barr has taken over the DOJ for sure, now.

Trump: "I'll make sure all my friends get housed in the best prison ever - really - everyone says so, just the best prison in the whole country, probably in the entire world. Such an amazing prison. Everyone cries when they see it, it's so beautiful. And the best chocolate cake. "

That 'Someone' was Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.

Trump’s Justice Department says it helped Manafort stay off Rikers Island out of respect for his ‘unique’ health needs

So, all the rest of the guys locked up at Rikers DON'T have 'unique health needs'?

I smell the familiar taint of privileged bullshit.

[oped]

Jun 18, 2019 10:07:49 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Jun 17, 2019 12:05:44 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Someone on the SCOTUSblog pointed out that this is not necessarily a good ruling for the US House bringing Trump cases to the Court. 

Can you back up and help me out here? Why is the SCOTUS ruling against gerrymandering bad for relations between the house and the president? I'm clearly missing something here.

They didn’t actually rule on gerrymandering.

From OP “In the 5-4 ruling, the justices found that the House didn't have the standing to appeal a lower court ruling .”

The net effect was a gerrymandering win, but that was not the point of law that was decided.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jun 19, 2019 10:52:40 GMT -5 oped said:

Jun 18, 2019 10:07:49 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Can you back up and help me out here? Why is the SCOTUS ruling against gerrymandering bad for relations between the house and the president? I'm clearly missing something here.

They didn’t actually rule on gerrymandering.

From OP “In the 5-4 ruling, the justices found that the House didn't have the standing to appeal a lower court ruling .”

The net effect was a gerrymandering win, but that was not the point of law that was decided.

Also, if the Virginia House of Delegates did not have standing to bring a lawsuit to the Supreme Court, it could follow that the US House of Representatives does not have standing to bring a lawsuit to the Supreme Court.  Virginia's laws say the AG must do it.  It's possible that if Virginia's House and state Senate sued together, they may have standing.  I'm hazy on that.  But if AG Barr doesn't bring the suits, can the US House of Rep. do so? 

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2019 15:27:09 GMT -5 dezii said:

Jun 18, 2019 11:48:35 GMT -5 @x said:

I don't understand what you're trying to say here in regards to a Supreme Court Judge. (bolded)

Really?...Your seriouse?...…..ok..... …….. ……...

Don't know if you're joking or not.

Race shouldn't be a consideration for Supreme court rulings.

The interpretation of law /constitution should be.

[thyme4change]

Jun 19, 2019 10:52:40 GMT -5 oped said:

Jun 18, 2019 10:07:49 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Can you back up and help me out here? Why is the SCOTUS ruling against gerrymandering bad for relations between the house and the president? I'm clearly missing something here.

They didn’t actually rule on gerrymandering.

From OP “In the 5-4 ruling, the justices found that the House didn't have the standing to appeal a lower court ruling .”

The net effect was a gerrymandering win, but that was not the point of law that was decided.

Ah. Thanks for edumacating me.

[dezii]

Jun 19, 2019 11:04:14 GMT -5 @x said:

Jun 18, 2019 15:27:09 GMT -5 dezii said:

Really?...Your seriouse?...…..ok..... …….. ……...

Don't know if you're joking or not.

Race shouldn't be a consideration for Supreme court rulings.

The interpretation of law /constitution should be.

-+
 Possible u may be correct but in reality, the Supreme court has ruled many times  on the cases of race and discrimination in the country..many times in support of discrimination...thankfully recently against discrimination...the following is ten land mark decisions...going both ways...believe there was a ruling regarding blacks who were required to ride in the rear on buses...also Japanese Americans kept in concentration camps during early days of WW2...recently rulings regarding the gay community...

Regarding Justice Thomas, as the only black American on the court, it seemed he went out of his way to NEVER join other justices in joining them in rulings that would help others of his race...almost like going out of his way to rule in their favor...Some say because he felt personally he never needed help in his struggles to get where he is..though while that may be how he felt, in close examining his life, it probably would be found, certain court rulings did help his struggles with the system. 

Personally I do believe he was/is  guilty of charges brought against him regarding his attacks on his secretary and student. I admit I am digressing on that point..I apologize but couldn't  help myself. Me bad...
-----------------------------
www.infoplease.com/us/government/judicial-branch/ten-important-supreme-court-decisions-in-black-history

[Wisconsin Beth]

We will be getting more decisions from the SCOTUS today.  There are 20 outstanding cases, as of this morning. 

[chiver78]

really hoping this stays on topic, and doesn't devolve, because the particular law being "demonstrably erroneous*" could be anything from Stand Your Ground to DOMA. Opinion: Conservative judges just played their hand - how they will overturn Roe

from the link:

On the surface, the ruling in Gamble v. United States on Monday isn't particularly remarkable: The court declined to upset more than 140 years of precedent that allows federal and state governments to prosecute a person for the same charge without running afoul of the constitution's double jeopardy clause, a holding based on the dual sovereignty concept.

The 7-2 ruling, however, took 88 pages to explain, suggesting that there was more to the decision than meets the eye .....

and

An unlikely alliance of liberal and conservative justices joined the majority opinion of Justice Samuel Alito upholding lower court decisions that Gamble could be prosecuted in federal court for a gun possession crime even though he had been convicted in Alabama state court for the same act. So Gamble lost. But was this a nonevent? Hardly.

While rejecting a change in constitutional principles, the court hinted that the future application of the legal doctrine of stare decisis, at stake in the Gamble case, may have dire consequences for the continuing viability of Roe v. Wade.

Stare decisis is a legal principle that says that the court should adhere to its prior rulings — and it was at center stage in Gamble's appeal because he had directly asked the court to overrule a series of opinions on dual sovereignty and double jeopardy dating from 1847. The six justices joining the majority opinion first noted that stare decisis "'promotes the evenhanded, predictable and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process,"' quoting a 1991 ruling.

There are comments from both Thomas and Gorsuch that indicate a leaning toward rejecting precedent if they feel the law is wrong. that is a horrifying concept, for many reasons.





*the quote from Justice Thomas - "When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple. We should not follow it."

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2019 10:52:40 GMT -5 oped said:

Jun 18, 2019 10:07:49 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Can you back up and help me out here? Why is the SCOTUS ruling against gerrymandering bad for relations between the house and the president? I'm clearly missing something here.

They didn’t actually rule on gerrymandering.

From OP “In the 5-4 ruling, the justices found that the House didn't have the standing to appeal a lower court ruling .”

The net effect was a gerrymandering win, but that was not the point of law that was decided.

That was my take also.

[Wisconsin Beth]

The thing is Chiver - there have been some dreadful decisions by the Court - the Japanese Internment camps and African Americans being 2/5 of a person spring to mind.  Citizens United.  Kelo vs. New London.  Holding that the section of the Voter Rights Act about oversight doesn't need to be followed anymore. 

We follow the laws until they are changed; then we follow the new laws or fight them.  Precedent should not be followed blindly.  It should be followed until there's enough evidence to change it.  Or until Congress changes it. 

[chiver78]

Jun 21, 2019 8:03:40 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

The thing is Chiver - there have been some dreadful decisions by the Court - the Japanese Internment camps and African Americans being 2/5 of a person spring to mind.  Citizens United.  Kelo vs. New London.  Holding that the section of the Voter Rights Act about oversight doesn't need to be followed anymore. 

We follow the laws until they are changed; then we follow the new laws or fight them.  Precedent should not be followed blindly.  It should be followed until there's enough evidence to change it.  Or until Congress changes it. 

yes, but the correct path to changing it is not to have the court just decide it doesn't matter. that's not how our government was designed to work.