Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Nook · Mar 7, 2020

bigtexxx said: ↑

Lmao Schumer tucked tail and backed down like the flop he is.
Click to expand...

Yes... he did what normal people call “apologize”.

Astrodome · Mar 7, 2020

bobrek said: ↑

So...you're saying he should not have implicitly apologized and clarified his remarks? What do you suggest that he do?
Click to expand...

I dont think he had any other options.

bobrek · Mar 7, 2020

Astrodome said: ↑

I dont think he had any other options.
Click to expand...

Apparently, according to the poster I responded to, he wasn't supposed to do what he did, so I am curious as to what he should have done.

Nook · Mar 7, 2020

Astrodome said: ↑

I dont think he had any other options.
Click to expand...

He could have double downed like the President does.

Invisible Fan · Mar 7, 2020

it's weird people getting giddy over apologies like it's some made free throw

Aleron · Mar 9, 2020

Nook said: ↑

He could have double downed like the President does.
Click to expand...

Which is what he actually did, he just weasel worded his way out of the implicit threat, an actual crime, but left the core intent intact, which is actually quite Trumpian.

Which part of his statement are you considering is an apology?

His statement structure is "I shouldn't have said x, something that can be interpreted as a crime, but instead said it as y, in such a way that isn't a crime", where x and y functionally mean the same thing minus the implicit threat.

bobrek · Mar 9, 2020

Aleron said: ↑

Which is what he actually did, he just weasel worded his way out of the implicit threat, an actual crime, but left the core intent intact, which is actually quite Trumpian.

Which part of his statement are you considering is an apology?

His statement structure is "I shouldn't have said x, something that can be interpreted as a crime, but instead said it as y, in such a way that isn't a crime", where x and y functionally mean the same thing minus the implicit threat.
Click to expand...

Is this an implicit threat?

"Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man," Trump tweeted. "He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!"

Invisible Fan · Aug 26, 2021

Not a lawyer, so I don't understand the true impact of more rulings under the "shadow docket". It's kind of like their version of the Executive Order right?

www.bostonglobe.com /2021/08/26/opinion/bidens-losing-battle-with-supreme-courts-shadow-docket/

Biden’s losing battle with the Supreme Court’s shadow docket

Throughout the summer — in fact, nearly continuously throughout the last several years — the justices have been issuing summary orders that decide the extent of the White House’s executive powers.

The “shadow docket,” so coined by University of Chicago law professor William Baude six years ago, is the court’s practice of issuing unsigned orders, often handed down without a full opinion detailing the justices’ reasoning. Until recently, it was limited to exigent matters, such as whether a lower court ruling should be temporarily halted while the court decides whether to take up an appeal.

While it is certainly the role of the court to decide issues including the limits of presidential authority, such weighty judgments have traditionally come during the court’s regular term, with a full examination of the arguments and in public view. But lately, the rulings come in the form of terse summary orders, drafted out of sight, often issued at night when few are watching.

And for those challenging a presidential order or other matter, the process of getting to the shadow docket is a lot easier than convincing the court to take up a case on the merits. Any litigant can appeal to one justice, who then decides whether to forward the matter to the rest of the court.

If that happens, an order can follow quickly, sometimes within days. Consider the host of shadow docket rulings in favor of churches and other organizations seeking to opt out of pandemic safety measures imposed by cities and states since last year — giving the court leverage to dramatically expand the scope of religious freedom claims in the process.

Another staple of the shadow docket: execution appeals, meaning that the cases the court decides with a quick stroke of an anonymous pen are often matters of life and death.

But the scope of the shadow docket’s reach is wide. A recent example: the court’s move Tuesday night to stop Biden from scrapping former president Donald Trump’s policy that forces asylum seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico.

In a one-paragraph “miscellaneous order” — that’s how the court characterizes it — the court stated that Biden would probably lose in defending the order in court. The court did not explain, however, why it deemed Biden’s case a likely lemon. It simply referred to a ruling it issued last year that stopped Trump from rescinding another immigration order, that one issued by Barack Obama, creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The three justices who now make up the court’s Democratic-appointed minority, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, noted their dissent. But like those in the majority, they gave no reason. And that was that. The court, which has repeatedly ruled that issues of foreign policy and immigration are within the purview of the executive branch, made the call.

The result? Thousands of migrants who are fleeing the devastating impacts of political unrest and persecution in their home countries, climate change, and the pandemic remain stuck, many in dangerous circumstances. Many have reported being attacked, sexually assaulted, and kidnapped while waiting for their asylum claims to be decided.

By the time you read this, a shadow docket may have notched another TKO — this time in a challenge to Biden’s decision to extend the federal pandemic eviction moratorium. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already signaled that Biden will be on the losing end of that bout as well.

Biden isn’t the only president to bear the shadow docket’s blows. It also targeted the Obama and Trump administrations.

But “the divisiveness of the shadow docket has been even more homogenously ideological than the divisiveness of the merits docket,” Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said in testimony before the presidential commission on Supreme Court reform in June.

Vladeck, who has written extensively about the dangers of the shadow docket, said that while cases before the full court can sometimes end with the “strange bedfellows” of majority opinions joined by justices across the political spectrum, with rare exceptions it’s clear which way the justices will rule even before they do.
Click to expand...

Considered putting the article in this thread.

Forums

Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Nook Member

Astrodome Member
Supporting Member

bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

Nook Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Aleron Contributing Member

bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Nook Member

Astrodome Member Supporting Member

bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

Nook Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Aleron Contributing Member

bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Share This Page

Astrodome Member
Supporting Member