9-0 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

Unpacked and Undivided: Is The Court Sending A Message With A Litany Of 9-0 Decisions?
Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court

Today the Supreme Court issued two more unanimous decisions in Garland v. Dai and United States v. Cooley. This follow two unanimous decisions last week. The weekly display of unanimity is notable given the calls by Democratic leaders to pack the Court. Yesterday, I wrote about how the heavy-handed campaigns might backfire with the justices. As we await important and likely divided decisions on issues like abortion, Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues seem to be sending a message that the Court is not so rigidly ideological as Democratic members and activists suggest.

In the Garland case, the court ruled (again) unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch on the rule in immigration disputes regarding the credibility of noncitizens’ testimony. In Cooley, the Court unanimously ruled in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer that a tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation.

Last week, there were two unanimous opinions making this six 9-0 rulings in two weeks. Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion in United States v. Palomar-Santiago, an immigration decision that ruled for the government and against an immigrant. It also ruled unanimously in Territory of Guam v. United States, in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The Court ruled in favor of Guam on the collection of funding from the U.S. government to remediate environmental pollution on the island.

This is an extraordinary litany of unanimous decisions and could in part reflect an implied message from the justices that this is a court that is not nearly as rigid and divided as suggested by Democratic members and activists.

Recently, Breyer warned against any move to expand the Supreme Court. He also rejected the characterization of the current Court as “conservative” or ideologically rigid. Breyer was swiftly denounced by figures like cable news host Mehdi Hasan who called him “naive” and called for his retirement. Demand Justice, a liberal group calling for court packing, had a billboard truck in Washington the next day in the streets of Washington warning “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.” (Demand Justice once employed White House press secretary Jen Psaki as a communications consultant, and Psaki was on the advisory board of one of its voting projects.)

Other justices have denounced such court packing schemes. Shortly before she died, Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly warned against the move: “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

Nevertheless, Democratic members have continued to call the Court, to use Joe Biden’s words, “out of whack” due to the conservative majority. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and more recently Sen. Richard Blumenthal have warned conservative justices of dire consequences for the Court if they did not rule with their liberal colleagues on high-profile cases expected in the next two weeks.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. not only endorsed the court-packing scheme but went even further to question why we should listen to just nine people on such important questions. She appeared to question the very basis for Marbury v. Madison — the case laying the foundation for the Supreme Court in our constitutional system. AOC challenged the role of the Court in overturning laws. She questioned “just, functionally, the idea that nine people, that a nine person court, can overturn laws that thousand– hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” She then added “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

The scheduling of these unanimous opinions may be the Court clearing its throat on these campaigns and threats. The litany of unanimous rulings amplifies the fact that most cases are resolved with compromise and different alignments of the justices. There are always “big ticket” cases that produce more ideological divisions but they are the exception rather than the rule for the Court. These are honest ideological differences and we want the justices to be consistent on their underlying principles. However, most of the work of the Court remains less ideologically driven on issues ranging from statutory interpretation to evidentiary rules.

There remains a bright-line preventing justices from speaking on political issues or controversies, though this rule is sometimes honored in the breach. However, there are times when the justices speak loudest through their opinions, particularly when they speak with one voice. In these cases, the justices are discussing different subjects but they clearly want the public to see them speaking as one. One court. Unpacked and undivided.

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/06/01/unpacked-and-unanimous-is-the-court-sending-a-message-with-a-litany-of-9-0-decisions/

The recent unanimous decisions should be a resounding reply to those believing the demise of the Judicial Branch. Even with California gun rights?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/us/assault-weapons-ban-california.html

Perhaps the wobbling teeter totter we're used to seeing from case to case has reached it's conclusion and the Supreme Court has the voices and minds necessary for the adult topics that need resolution. Smacking down the lower court rulings like they were Michael Jordan playing against 3rd graders. Let's see how long they can keep up this united front. They're galvanized and I just have to wonder if the constant threats to them have them steeled with purpose.

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your CigarBid Forums forum account or Register a new forum account

bgz
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

I for one like the supreme court... I vote to oust anyone in government who disagrees.

I agree with you DMV.

You're welcome.

JadeRose
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

The only changes I would make to the SC (and I don't feel all THAT strong about it) would be a mandatory retirement at 75 or so. But then again, I would make that same argument about the Exec and Legislative branch.

Gene363
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

JadeRose wrote:

Make it simple, and in case they age out during their term in office, a two term limit, one in office and one in jail?

The escape pod: https://cigarbid.freeforums.net

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

Thank you thank you thank you Gene. A great article outlining SOTUS does its job and always makes decisions based on the constitution. I hoped this would happen and felt 98.2% sure it would. After all, RBG and Antonin Scala were the best of friends and had the ultimate respect for each other. It would be nice if all of us could be life that, though I will happily settle for most of us.

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

The scheduling of these unanimous opinions may be the Court clearing its throat on these campaigns and threats. The litany of unanimous rulings amplifies the fact that most cases are resolved with compromise and different alignments of the justices. There are always “big ticket” cases that produce more ideological divisions but they are the exception rather than the rule for the Court. These are honest ideological differences and we want the justices to be consistent on their underlying principles. However, most of the work of the Court remains less ideologically driven on issues ranging from statutory interpretation to evidentiary rules.

There remains a bright-line preventing justices from speaking on political issues or controversies, though this rule is sometimes honored in the breach. However, there are times when the justices speak loudest through their opinions, particularly when they speak with one voice. In these cases, the justices are discussing different subjects but they clearly want the public to see them speaking as one. One court. Unpacked and undivided....

DrMaddVibe wrote:

This says it all.

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

CelticBomber
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

Okay... This is some Jedi level stuff people. Pay attention.

Step 1: DMV created the topic.

Step 2: DMV Copy and pasted an article to back an argument none of us were making.

Step 3: ?

Step 4: Profit?

Discuss.

🍵

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

Oops, substitute DMV for Gene. My bad.

Smooth light
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

Nine/0... Imagine that!

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#10

Oops, substitute DMV for Gene. My bad.

Speyside wrote:

Would love to know what brought them to this mo.ent of clarity.

Can't claim legacy at this point because they lost that with the Affordable Healthcare Act ruling it a tax to pass it. A forced tax on citizens.

CelticBomber
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#11

DrMaddVibe wrote:

I dunno if I agree with that... Let's ask the judges.

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#12

Brought who this moment of clarity DOC?

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#13

Brought who this moment of clarity DOC?

Speyside wrote:

The Supreme Court.

RayR
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#14

The whole damn government is “out of whack” like joe Biden's brain.
Douche nozzle AOC is now a constitutional scholar? She questions Marbury v. Madison, a terrible decision that established the federal government as the final judge of its own authority, but fully supports court-packing as long the majority of the court is leftists that will be the final judge of Marxist power grabs.

I have no reason to trust the supreme robed lawyers being the final arbiters, as being above politics and strickly making decisions based on constitutionality. If they were, they would have been pounding out decisions that would be smashing all the unconstitutional acts that congress and presidents have been doing for years.
Ah, but there are still romantics here who believe the SCOTUS can be trusted to make decisions based on the constitution.[frypan]

Jefferson warned about judicial tyranny:

"You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. "— Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

Edited by user 5 years ago | Reason: Not specified

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#15

“Bite me Jefferson!” "— Letter from Mr. Jarvis, Oct, 1820

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#16

9–0
In rare cases, baseball games are forfeited, usually when a team is no longer able to play. In the event of forfeiture, the score is recorded as 9–0, as stated in rule 2.00 of the Major League Baseball Rules Book. The 9–0 score equates to the number of innings in a regulation game.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

5 years ago

#17

CelticBomber wrote:

You mean you all don't get a profit sharing check from CBid? It used to be in CBid bucks but when the traffice just started rolling in the money got green.

RayR
Herf-A-Holic

5 years ago

#18

“Bite me Jefferson!” "— Letter from Mr. Jarvis, Oct, 1820

HockeyDad wrote:

Your Mr Jarvis must like dicktators.:-k

Jefferson foretold the rise of the lizard people and the end of the republic:

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. —Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: