Well it’s not every day that the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court shits all over the Packers, but there you go.
1 Like
Interesting case on whether religious schools can fire teachers because they have cancer because the teachers are ministerial…
I am so far from a lawyer that I barely understand this, but seems pretty bad if they rule in favor of the religious schools:
Narrator…
As someone that was sent to Catholic school from pre-k to 8th grade i always get a chuckle thinking about how we had our religion class immediately followed by science class. It was something I couldn’t wrap my brain around, even as a kid.
That being said, hopefully one of the justices has the balls to call out the hypocrisy that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow women to be “ministers” but conveniently want to classify these women as such here.
I’m looking forward to hearing Alito’s rationale as to why no laws apply to a sitting President.
I’m even more looking forward to hearing his rationale for the change of heart he’ll have during the Biden admin.
It’s annoying how they get cut off mid sentence all the time.
So bizarre in a county where every election last for literally years when it comes to SCOTUS debate there is a pathological obsession with brevity. How about the Roman model where you sit and debate for hours to fully flesh out the issues and ensure everything relevant is taken into account when setting national legal standards.
Our elections last as long as they do to maximize grifting opportunities, this SCOTUS bullshit isn’t making anybody money so it needs to be wrapped up pronto.
2 Likes
apparently the oklahoma case is getting intresting…
quick backstory: mcgirt-plaintiff, creek nation, snowy white plantiff(lol) serving 500-1000 yr sentence for raping and sodomizing a 4yr old native american girl that was his step grandchild in 1996, this was his third child rape. He is attacking the jurisdiction of the state over him, via a failed dissolution of the Creek Nation Native American treaty in 1866. if the US did not dissolve the treaty correctly according to the Court,(we didnt) then a LARGE chunk of land including most of the city of Tulsa would be on Creek reservation.
if he wins it is possible that the State of Oklahoma would lose jurisdiction on any native Americans to be tried for criminal cases and any crimes committed against Natives on this extended reservation land(mcgirt’s case). this INCLUDES anyone previously tried and serving sentences because subject matter jurisdiction isn’t waived by accepting a wrongfully imposed sentence. apparently 178 plantiffs have already filed appeals, with hundreds more to come. the state alleged that they did a quick calculation and it would be 155 murders, 113 rapists, and 200 child molestations that they would lose jurisdiction over, this number has been disputed.
I had assumed that last year when SCOTUS punted the case a year because Gorsuch couldn’t vote on that particular version of the case due to conflict, that they would find some legal fiction to use against the tribe. But all the articles i’m reading yesterday and today say that Gorsuch is leaning to side with the tribes and make it 5-4.
im also not versed enough in appeals law delve into some of the debate between jurisdiction and habeas corpus. the habeas corpus statute normally requires you to be within 1 yr of your final conviction so some are arguing that the convictions are final and couldn’t seek relief, however you can never waive subject matter jurisdiction so it would seem that the court never was legally allowed to rule on you so it wouldn’t matter if you had previously exhausted your appeals. i simply haven’t done nearly enough work in appeals to have a more informed opinion
That’s what the endless lower court steps and all the writings are for. I guess.
Me too, I’m pretty sure you can’t write precisely “fuck you, that’s why” in a SCOTUS opinion so I’m curious how he’ll word it.
That’s what written briefs are for. Oral argument is largely an old-timey anachronism. For most motions in district court the court will sua sponte waive oral argument, which can be requested by one or both litigants. Oral arguments, like verbal debates, are much worse than written arguments in locking down positions and justifications and leads to rhetoric.
1 Like
Makes sense although there is something to be said about open debate in a democracy.
The written briefs are all publicly available, although I can’t imagine very many non-lawyers read any of them. With a lot of appellate decisions it would be a big ask for your average person (and sometimes your average lawyer) to understand the question presented, let alone read 30 pages of briefs on the issue.
Scotusblog is a really great resource for keeping tabs on the court, and will link to all of the relevant filings for each case.
GG Roe
So trump can’t yell “open up churches” like he did and have anything happen.
The results if this granted are absurd. The Court will find some way around it.
Roberts getting everyone mad apparently.
The only two things standing between this country and outright fascism / authoritarianism are RBG’s continued existence and John Roberts’ conscience. Good job, founders.
They got one right. Can’t fire people for being gay.
2 Likes
Gorsuch and Roberts both. Wow.
2 Likes