Exactly right! Biden needs to get on board with this the way Obama got on board with gay marriage. Nine isn't a magic number handed down by the imaginary sky guy.
Thx Celeste. I am hoping the reliable JEN PSAKI will deal with the DRAFT legislation later this Sunday morning 7/2.
Celeste, ss you may know, Jen focused on the lineup cases coming to SCOTUS that MAY roll back Constitutional rights on other issues.
No worries, Both NEAL KATYAL & LAWRENCE TRIBE have responded with focused recommendations. I have asked the Colorado AG to file a Motion for Re-hearings at SCOTUS asap.
Biden recently stated he didnтАЩt think an increased number of Supreme Court justices was the right way to go. IтАЩm really not clear on his reasoning and I do believe your idea is one to consider.
I am only speculating. But here goes. If Biden is to win next year and if we are to achieve victory in the way of significant majorities in the House and Senate, we need to choose our campaign subjects carefully. The only thing that matters - for democracy and the Planet itself, is defeating the fascists on election day.
That means that every statement by every politician is a campaign ad. Like it or not. Biden knows this better than anyone. He is a superior strategist.
I also believe in changing the Supreme Court. Term limits. Code of Conduct. Impeachment. And yes, a larger court. But there are 10 or 12 other items to be running on that are more apt to swing independent and youthful voters.
I speculate that Biden could shift his public pronouncements about the court in January 2025 after he takes the oath of office again.
Your comment is good political science not speculation. Perhaps one of these LFAA days, HCR will illuminate the post Civil War time when we had ten (10) Justices in this Country. First, Lincoln & Grant had to defeat the Seditionist Robert E Lee.
From your keyboard to God's eyes. The MAGA era has revealed the cracks in our country's underpinnings. There need to be additional qualifications specified for the office of President, senators, House representatives. Time to stop letting a small minority terrorize the rest of us. No more filibuster, equalize representation in the Senate. Wyoming should not have 2 senators for 500,000 plus people and D.C. have none. I do realize updating our governance will take years.
Jenn, ever since tfg ran and won* the presidency, I have thought that we need stricter rules (laws) about these things. For starters, if a person wants to run for president, they must pass a standard background check and qualify for a security clearance. It still makes me nauseous to think that tfg _and his family who did not qualify for security clearances_ had access to top secret information for 4 years, and beyond, since he stole our nations secret documents.
I think we've all been shocked by how many things we thought were laws & rules turned out to be only norms & guidelines. Who knew we needed an actual law for half the things TFG did? That's why "no precedence for xyz" has been so over-used... we never knew we needed to have laws to stop this behavior.
I am in disagreement with Biden on this issue. My hope is that when 2024 rolls around and he wins the nomination again, that he goes back on his word and starts the judicial process.
He has to win the general election first, and he needs enough Democrats in both houses to accomplish any changes to the Supreme Court. I don't believe this is something he can accomplish by executive order. If there aren't enough Dems to do it, he'd have to get buy-in from a few Republicans. But he can't begin that fight until after the election.
That statement tells me quite clearly he lives in some idealized world in his head, not the stark, ugly reality the rest of us live in. He canтАЩt or wonтАЩt face reality (in multiple areas) and we, not him, live with the damage.
I am going to disagree. The strategy is to reinforce belief in the democracy for those who are rocked by the Trump agenda. To show what a reasonable president looks like who follows the rules as they are set in our democracy. Changing the rules smacks of dictatorship, which is what he does not want to appear by. I suspect there are a lot of Americans that will be swayed by the play by the rules attitude. Biden is still pitting himself as a contrast to what Trump has to offer, which is to not play by the rules, and to bend every governmental body to his every whim. It has worked thus far for him, so to suddenly become unreliable Joe, who goes after the wrongs by changing the rules might not work for him. He has Merrick Garland to do that. I am not saying he is perfect in everything he does, but as much as I wish to see him add to the courts, I can see how he is trying to appear fair and honorable, and that might call that into question, and give the right something to go after. In the short term we are going to be living with a lot of shitty, rulings, which the courts do not have the means to enforce if the President goes against them, but he will not. We have to be in this for the long game. That is get the Republicans out in 2024. The Supreme Court did help with this, because there is some time for Red states to get better districting, and get rid of some of the laws that make voting more difficult. That is the fight to take on right now. The Supreme Courts gave us an opening. We need to take that.
"*Reinforce* belief in democracy"? I've been skeptical about democracy since I realized there were few checks and balances on economic power. This was almost 10 years before Reagan was elected. The last 40+ years have proven me more right than I ever wanted to be.
On the whole I think President Biden is doing the best job anyone could do in the current situation, with such a narrow margin in the Senate, the GOP having gone to hell in a clown car, infrastructure crumbling from decades of neglect, and white supremacists out of the closet and armed to the teeth -- oh yeah, and climate change. If we manage to ride the current rapids and emerge reasonably intact on the other side, we as a country are going to have to come up with ways to rein in concentrated economic power so that it never again comes this close to undermining our progress toward real democracy.
I disagree with you. Time will tell which of us was closer to the mark.
In the meantime, there are quite a lot of people whose lives are now much worse because of those тАЬshitty, rulings (sic)тАЭ. ThatтАЩs hardly fair to them.
Relying on Garland to seek actual justice is akin to Biden seeing whatтАЩs happening with absolute clarity instead of the mindset that allows him to think the Court isnтАЩt politicized yet, that McConnell is an honorable man and McCarthy is a good man (all things he has said publicly). Garland took exactly zero steps to holding trump accountable for the Jan 6th insurrection until forced to do so by the overwhelming evidence made public by the Committee hearings. He also gave trump months - months! - to return classified documents.
Neither one gives me тАЬbelief in the democracyтАЭ.
The danger is that this is not "short term." Unless those 6 conservative justices decide to resign, or they die (and none of them is in precarious health, as RBG was), they will be on the bench for decades. Decades. They'll be sitting on the court long after Biden dies.
Biden is doing the "turn the other cheek" thing, when he could be doing what is within his powers as president to do. He voices disappointment but leaves deeply harmful court rulings to continue the rot the GOP is feeding every day.
You sure don't know our President. Look at his track record. We have a very wise man and politician in the WH and one with integrity and a REAL patriot.
The right will scream "he's politicizing the court!!!!" no matter what he does, so he might as well do it. I do understand showing he's reasonable and normal, but not doing something because the right will complain is no way to govern. They're going to say whatever they need to, no matter how false or hypocritical, so we might as well actually get done what we can and show that our side is for progress and their side wants to repeal the 20th century.
Of course if, say, Thomas resigned and Biden proposed anyone to the left of him, even a hair, the GOP would scream he is "politicizing" the court. Witness the nomination of Merrick Garland. For the right, "politicizing" is the all-purpose cry for ANYTHING they don't like, right behind "but Hunter Biden's Laptop."
He cannot do it by executive order. He needs approval from Congress, and he cannot get it with the Republican majority in the House. He must be re-elected and have a Congress which will support it, but not this year.
These SCOTUS decisions in 303 Creative and in the student loan case crushed constitutional requirements for standing, bulldozed them and overrode the court's lack of jurisdiction. SCOTUS has created legal fiction at the level of The Big Lie, a hallmark of fascism. As we have been dealing with The Big Lie of election deniers, we are finally seeing recourse through our judicial system. My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. Here, however, the 303 Creative case in particular was advanced on facts not in evidence--a "gay" man who turned out to be heterosexual--a huge procedural issue, not to mention the hypothetical issue, but there is no court of appeal after SCOTUS.
As Joyce Vance writes tonight , we're looking at legal conduct that adds up to fraud and perjury for which attorneys are normally sanctioned. And the reactionary rogue majority on SCOTUS has created a slippery slope. Justice Sotomayor dissented that SCOTUS has now established the constitutional right for a business to refuse service to members of a federally protected class. LGBTQ+ with 303 Creative, and dark moneyed Federalist Society infrastructure putting cases in the pipeline for people of color, women, senior citizens, people of different religions, etc. next.
The magnitude of this threat to democracy of a legally sanctioned Big Lie that is now blindsiding us from the judicial branch of our government has my hair on fire. Like others have been saying, expand the court! Support the Judiciary Act of 2023, "legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats to create a 13-Justice bench."
I am with you. What little hair I had is now ashes on the floor. How can this be happening in the 21st century? How can we have a court taking us back to a time when white supremacy was a given? When diversity was a dirty word? Am I awake or in a nightmare? A daymare...?
But it is a waste of precious time and energy to try to expand the court now. It is an impossibility. While I completely support the idea, we should take a pro tip from Nancy Pelosi. Count your votes before you waste your time. The House would laugh it off. The Senate is crippled by two faux Democrats.
Every effort, every breath we take, every comment, every phone call, every post card, every call to our reps, every shout from the roof tops is precious now. Why not use those efforts for the ousting of the fascists on November 5, 2024? We win and then we attack the court with impeachments, codes of conduct, term limits and expansion. When we have the votes.
I and many, many others understand constitutional politics is complex, 3 dimensional chess on a clock, if you will. Constitutional victory can be accomplished. Buckle Up.
You think an election will magically fix anything? Seriously?
Throughout history, Congress has taken votes (and impeached a certain president twice), knowing that they wouldn't win, but they did it to create a full historical record of the crimes and misdemeanors committed, and how the GOP thwarted justice.
No magic. Just an effective majority that could accomplish what we both want. NOTHING of the nature you describe will get out of a committee run by Republicons.
You are right. We should push our agenda of justice. But attempting anything meaningful in a House of Reps owned by MAGA maniacs is like bringing a tennis racket to a hockey game.
Well summarized Ellie. Justice Sotomayor read her dissent out loud from the Bench.
Public sniping from Chief Justice Roberts over the last 36 hours has brought a direct public response from Justice Sotomayor. If a Community member has it, please post it in this Thread. Gracias.
Bingo Ellie! I have already lodged my official complaint at the Colorado Attorney General's Website v suggested Rule 44, Motion for Re-Hearing within the mandatory 25 days.
I als recommended that Colorado hire NEAL KATYAL to handle the Motion ... that would be Neals' 51st appearance at SCOTUS if they do hire the top appellate attorney in the Land
Thank you Ellie! T Greg's first sentence is extremely important in terms of the EXACT admissible evidence about the numerous "stipulations" agreed to by the State of Colorado, cited in the Majority Opinion. The Opinion relies on those "stipulations" to reach their desired 6-3 result.
Put aside the buden of proof (B/P) standard for Rule 60 for the moment because I do not believe that B/P will be "outcome determinative" in the next 20 or so calendar days.
As I stated a day ago & formally filed a complaint with AG Weiss, the state of Colorado MUST hire top counsel to take over the this Federal asap.
Mr Weiss has an Oath of office & a fiduciary duty to his Client, the state of Colorado and its citizens to let NEAL KATYAL or LAWRENCE TRIBE (given the 1st Amendment sophistry) take over now. Such attorneys can have the frank attorney client protected and "work product" discussions needed to bust this fraud on the Court..
тАЬThe facts in the 303 case were stipulated, meaning both sides agreed to them and the Court is required to take them as true for purposes of making its decisionтАЭ
тАЬ You can have a judgment set aside under Rule 60(b)(2) for "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered"
But тАУ as the media coverage shows тАУ that evidence *could* have been discovered with reasonable diligenceтАЭ
тАЬThere's no fraud when the State of Colorado agreed to it
Even if were, the deadline for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion to set aside for fraud would have been 1 year after the trial court's ruling -- so that deadline already passed back in 2018тАЭ
Regarding bad due diligence:
тАЬThis assumes the State cared. They may have assumed a case of this sort was inevitable eventually anyway, and may as well get an appellate ruling on it sooner than laterтАЭ
тАЬI don't know enough about Colorado politics or law to know if that had any influence on why things went how they did, but her 4-year tenure did overlap with the major case points: initially filed in 2016, trial court decisions in 2017 and 2018, 10th Circ appeal in 2019тАЭ
Regarding Neal Katyal said CO AG should get rehearing:
тАЬLet's assume that procedurally all of this is 100% possible (it's not, btw): which 2 of the 6 SCOTUS justices would change their minds based on this?тАЭ
Doucette advised reading the lower courtsтАЩ opinions available on SCOTUS blog:
Also in the meantime is this article by Dale Carpenter arguing that the ruling is very narrow regarding free speech (so donтАЩt worry about protected classes getting unprotected in subsequent cases?).
"My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. "
Yes. an appellate court is a court of review. If there is new evidence in a case under appeal, the case will be referred back to the original court.
There is one thing that hasn't been done - that the Civil Rights Act should be amended to include LGBTQ persons. And the obvious thing here is that the Supreme Court should not have heard this case. They seem to relish, as a bunch of right wing religious ideologues, ruling against people who instead should be protected. Look what they did to women, and this country's shameful lack of gun safety laws. Ruling that people have the right to carry guns inside churches does nothing other than kiss the ass of the NRA. President Biden also had the power to forgive student loans, but the court ruled incorrectly and there is no recourse for that.
Here's the cool thing about this nutty fact pattern: The facts adduced by the reporter about the non-existent injury to the non-existent plaintiff in the non-existent case reveals a lack of jurisdiction, i.e., no case and controversy, a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction, the power of the court to even hear the case.
And subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised at any time, even after the judgment is final. The parties to a case may not agree to confer juristion where it does not exist.
"Stewart" is a Web Designer in San Francisco, a very competitive digital trade. In interview talks with 1 particular reporter, "Stewart" stated he did become aware of the case through normal digital industry chatter.
FYI, the Colorado AG's Office has an excellent homepage tech design. I was able to easily file a complaint yesterday with the CO AG, Phil providing my trial experience & ABA membership as background but, the URL is available to the Public.
I recommended that Phil's Office file a Rule 44 Motion for Re-hearing at SCOTUS. I even went further recommending that the State of Colorado hire NEAL KATYAL to handle or advise on the Motion for Re-Hearing. I also alerted my Colorado contacts of my complaint.
I agree. Neal would be great. I just doubt SCOTUS would do anything despite their repeated pronouncements that they do not address hypothetical cases. (I though Stewart was in Washington state, but not important.) I'm just shocked the CO AG didn't figure this out. I would've researched the hell out of this person and been in contact for his "side" of what happened (and would have, as a result, learned that his "request" was bogus.)
Then: During confirmation of the Trump appointees to the court - they said they couldn't comment on "hypotheticals."
Now: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis based on a "phony controversy"
A pure hypothetical.
Not even an "actual controversy" required for "standing". We need 13 Justices, 1 for each Federal Circuit and several 7-6 opinions.
I filed a complaint to the Colorado Attorney General, PHIL WEISER, to file a Rule 44 Motion for a Rehearing at SCOTUS to vacate this abomination.
Exactly right! Biden needs to get on board with this the way Obama got on board with gay marriage. Nine isn't a magic number handed down by the imaginary sky guy.
Write to the President and tell him.
Thx Celeste. I am hoping the reliable JEN PSAKI will deal with the DRAFT legislation later this Sunday morning 7/2.
Celeste, ss you may know, Jen focused on the lineup cases coming to SCOTUS that MAY roll back Constitutional rights on other issues.
No worries, Both NEAL KATYAL & LAWRENCE TRIBE have responded with focused recommendations. I have asked the Colorado AG to file a Motion for Re-hearings at SCOTUS asap.
I wouldnтАЩt hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
You're right.
Biden recently stated he didnтАЩt think an increased number of Supreme Court justices was the right way to go. IтАЩm really not clear on his reasoning and I do believe your idea is one to consider.
I am only speculating. But here goes. If Biden is to win next year and if we are to achieve victory in the way of significant majorities in the House and Senate, we need to choose our campaign subjects carefully. The only thing that matters - for democracy and the Planet itself, is defeating the fascists on election day.
That means that every statement by every politician is a campaign ad. Like it or not. Biden knows this better than anyone. He is a superior strategist.
I also believe in changing the Supreme Court. Term limits. Code of Conduct. Impeachment. And yes, a larger court. But there are 10 or 12 other items to be running on that are more apt to swing independent and youthful voters.
I speculate that Biden could shift his public pronouncements about the court in January 2025 after he takes the oath of office again.
Your comment is good political science not speculation. Perhaps one of these LFAA days, HCR will illuminate the post Civil War time when we had ten (10) Justices in this Country. First, Lincoln & Grant had to defeat the Seditionist Robert E Lee.
agree.
Well said.
If, by January 2025, Democrats have enough votes to expand the court, Biden will change his mind.
From your keyboard to God's eyes. The MAGA era has revealed the cracks in our country's underpinnings. There need to be additional qualifications specified for the office of President, senators, House representatives. Time to stop letting a small minority terrorize the rest of us. No more filibuster, equalize representation in the Senate. Wyoming should not have 2 senators for 500,000 plus people and D.C. have none. I do realize updating our governance will take years.
Jenn, ever since tfg ran and won* the presidency, I have thought that we need stricter rules (laws) about these things. For starters, if a person wants to run for president, they must pass a standard background check and qualify for a security clearance. It still makes me nauseous to think that tfg _and his family who did not qualify for security clearances_ had access to top secret information for 4 years, and beyond, since he stole our nations secret documents.
I think we've all been shocked by how many things we thought were laws & rules turned out to be only norms & guidelines. Who knew we needed an actual law for half the things TFG did? That's why "no precedence for xyz" has been so over-used... we never knew we needed to have laws to stop this behavior.
If we don't wind up with a republican President.
Not a chance. Come on.
I am in disagreement with Biden on this issue. My hope is that when 2024 rolls around and he wins the nomination again, that he goes back on his word and starts the judicial process.
He has to win the general election first, and he needs enough Democrats in both houses to accomplish any changes to the Supreme Court. I don't believe this is something he can accomplish by executive order. If there aren't enough Dems to do it, he'd have to get buy-in from a few Republicans. But he can't begin that fight until after the election.
He said doing so might politicize the court.
That statement tells me quite clearly he lives in some idealized world in his head, not the stark, ugly reality the rest of us live in. He canтАЩt or wonтАЩt face reality (in multiple areas) and we, not him, live with the damage.
I am going to disagree. The strategy is to reinforce belief in the democracy for those who are rocked by the Trump agenda. To show what a reasonable president looks like who follows the rules as they are set in our democracy. Changing the rules smacks of dictatorship, which is what he does not want to appear by. I suspect there are a lot of Americans that will be swayed by the play by the rules attitude. Biden is still pitting himself as a contrast to what Trump has to offer, which is to not play by the rules, and to bend every governmental body to his every whim. It has worked thus far for him, so to suddenly become unreliable Joe, who goes after the wrongs by changing the rules might not work for him. He has Merrick Garland to do that. I am not saying he is perfect in everything he does, but as much as I wish to see him add to the courts, I can see how he is trying to appear fair and honorable, and that might call that into question, and give the right something to go after. In the short term we are going to be living with a lot of shitty, rulings, which the courts do not have the means to enforce if the President goes against them, but he will not. We have to be in this for the long game. That is get the Republicans out in 2024. The Supreme Court did help with this, because there is some time for Red states to get better districting, and get rid of some of the laws that make voting more difficult. That is the fight to take on right now. The Supreme Courts gave us an opening. We need to take that.
"*Reinforce* belief in democracy"? I've been skeptical about democracy since I realized there were few checks and balances on economic power. This was almost 10 years before Reagan was elected. The last 40+ years have proven me more right than I ever wanted to be.
On the whole I think President Biden is doing the best job anyone could do in the current situation, with such a narrow margin in the Senate, the GOP having gone to hell in a clown car, infrastructure crumbling from decades of neglect, and white supremacists out of the closet and armed to the teeth -- oh yeah, and climate change. If we manage to ride the current rapids and emerge reasonably intact on the other side, we as a country are going to have to come up with ways to rein in concentrated economic power so that it never again comes this close to undermining our progress toward real democracy.
I disagree with you. Time will tell which of us was closer to the mark.
In the meantime, there are quite a lot of people whose lives are now much worse because of those тАЬshitty, rulings (sic)тАЭ. ThatтАЩs hardly fair to them.
Relying on Garland to seek actual justice is akin to Biden seeing whatтАЩs happening with absolute clarity instead of the mindset that allows him to think the Court isnтАЩt politicized yet, that McConnell is an honorable man and McCarthy is a good man (all things he has said publicly). Garland took exactly zero steps to holding trump accountable for the Jan 6th insurrection until forced to do so by the overwhelming evidence made public by the Committee hearings. He also gave trump months - months! - to return classified documents.
Neither one gives me тАЬbelief in the democracyтАЭ.
The danger is that this is not "short term." Unless those 6 conservative justices decide to resign, or they die (and none of them is in precarious health, as RBG was), they will be on the bench for decades. Decades. They'll be sitting on the court long after Biden dies.
Biden is doing the "turn the other cheek" thing, when he could be doing what is within his powers as president to do. He voices disappointment but leaves deeply harmful court rulings to continue the rot the GOP is feeding every day.
You sure don't know our President. Look at his track record. We have a very wise man and politician in the WH and one with integrity and a REAL patriot.
The right will scream "he's politicizing the court!!!!" no matter what he does, so he might as well do it. I do understand showing he's reasonable and normal, but not doing something because the right will complain is no way to govern. They're going to say whatever they need to, no matter how false or hypocritical, so we might as well actually get done what we can and show that our side is for progress and their side wants to repeal the 20th century.
Of course if, say, Thomas resigned and Biden proposed anyone to the left of him, even a hair, the GOP would scream he is "politicizing" the court. Witness the nomination of Merrick Garland. For the right, "politicizing" is the all-purpose cry for ANYTHING they don't like, right behind "but Hunter Biden's Laptop."
Exactly!
He cannot do it by executive order. He needs approval from Congress, and he cannot get it with the Republican majority in the House. He must be re-elected and have a Congress which will support it, but not this year.
After heтАЩs elected in 2024тАжтАж.
The court has always been politicized. This is nothing new.
Write to the President and tell him.
From some pure "hypocritical"s
These SCOTUS decisions in 303 Creative and in the student loan case crushed constitutional requirements for standing, bulldozed them and overrode the court's lack of jurisdiction. SCOTUS has created legal fiction at the level of The Big Lie, a hallmark of fascism. As we have been dealing with The Big Lie of election deniers, we are finally seeing recourse through our judicial system. My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. Here, however, the 303 Creative case in particular was advanced on facts not in evidence--a "gay" man who turned out to be heterosexual--a huge procedural issue, not to mention the hypothetical issue, but there is no court of appeal after SCOTUS.
As Joyce Vance writes tonight , we're looking at legal conduct that adds up to fraud and perjury for which attorneys are normally sanctioned. And the reactionary rogue majority on SCOTUS has created a slippery slope. Justice Sotomayor dissented that SCOTUS has now established the constitutional right for a business to refuse service to members of a federally protected class. LGBTQ+ with 303 Creative, and dark moneyed Federalist Society infrastructure putting cases in the pipeline for people of color, women, senior citizens, people of different religions, etc. next.
The magnitude of this threat to democracy of a legally sanctioned Big Lie that is now blindsiding us from the judicial branch of our government has my hair on fire. Like others have been saying, expand the court! Support the Judiciary Act of 2023, "legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats to create a 13-Justice bench."
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/05/16/2023/sen-markey-rep-johnson-announce-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-restore-its-legitimacy-alongside-sen-smith-reps-bush-and-schiff
And per fellow reader Eric Doub herein:
JustMajority.org is leading the charge.
I am with you. What little hair I had is now ashes on the floor. How can this be happening in the 21st century? How can we have a court taking us back to a time when white supremacy was a given? When diversity was a dirty word? Am I awake or in a nightmare? A daymare...?
But it is a waste of precious time and energy to try to expand the court now. It is an impossibility. While I completely support the idea, we should take a pro tip from Nancy Pelosi. Count your votes before you waste your time. The House would laugh it off. The Senate is crippled by two faux Democrats.
Every effort, every breath we take, every comment, every phone call, every post card, every call to our reps, every shout from the roof tops is precious now. Why not use those efforts for the ousting of the fascists on November 5, 2024? We win and then we attack the court with impeachments, codes of conduct, term limits and expansion. When we have the votes.
I and many, many others understand constitutional politics is complex, 3 dimensional chess on a clock, if you will. Constitutional victory can be accomplished. Buckle Up.
You think an election will magically fix anything? Seriously?
Throughout history, Congress has taken votes (and impeached a certain president twice), knowing that they wouldn't win, but they did it to create a full historical record of the crimes and misdemeanors committed, and how the GOP thwarted justice.
No magic. Just an effective majority that could accomplish what we both want. NOTHING of the nature you describe will get out of a committee run by Republicons.
You are right. We should push our agenda of justice. But attempting anything meaningful in a House of Reps owned by MAGA maniacs is like bringing a tennis racket to a hockey game.
Well summarized Ellie. Justice Sotomayor read her dissent out loud from the Bench.
Public sniping from Chief Justice Roberts over the last 36 hours has brought a direct public response from Justice Sotomayor. If a Community member has it, please post it in this Thread. Gracias.
Neal Katyal says Colorado AG should ask SCOTUS for rehearing on 303 Creative:
https://twitter.com/VelshiMSNBC/status/1675565558962552833?s=20
We can contact CO AG Phil Weiser:
https://complaints.coag.gov/s/contact-us
Bingo Ellie! I have already lodged my official complaint at the Colorado Attorney General's Website v suggested Rule 44, Motion for Re-Hearing within the mandatory 25 days.
I als recommended that Colorado hire NEAL KATYAL to handle the Motion ... that would be Neals' 51st appearance at SCOTUS if they do hire the top appellate attorney in the Land
Neal Katyal is the absolute best at presenting to the Supreme Court.
Rule 44, Neal KatyalтАФbrilliant! Thank you!
Neal is brlliant. The top appellate attorney I have heard argue before SCOTUS.
Legal mindsтАЩ review, please, of this thread by Greg Doucette:
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1675646942498390017?s=46&t=G1vnalQqxYifVbjonWfCIA
Noon Pacific, Oh, T. Greg Doucette, the lawyer. The "T" in T. GREG DOUCETTE is Important ....
Thank you Ellie! T Greg's first sentence is extremely important in terms of the EXACT admissible evidence about the numerous "stipulations" agreed to by the State of Colorado, cited in the Majority Opinion. The Opinion relies on those "stipulations" to reach their desired 6-3 result.
Put aside the buden of proof (B/P) standard for Rule 60 for the moment because I do not believe that B/P will be "outcome determinative" in the next 20 or so calendar days.
As I stated a day ago & formally filed a complaint with AG Weiss, the state of Colorado MUST hire top counsel to take over the this Federal asap.
Mr Weiss has an Oath of office & a fiduciary duty to his Client, the state of Colorado and its citizens to let NEAL KATYAL or LAWRENCE TRIBE (given the 1st Amendment sophistry) take over now. Such attorneys can have the frank attorney client protected and "work product" discussions needed to bust this fraud on the Court..
Sorry. T. Greg Doucette excerpts:
тАЬThe facts in the 303 case were stipulated, meaning both sides agreed to them and the Court is required to take them as true for purposes of making its decisionтАЭ
тАЬ You can have a judgment set aside under Rule 60(b)(2) for "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered"
But тАУ as the media coverage shows тАУ that evidence *could* have been discovered with reasonable diligenceтАЭ
тАЬThere's no fraud when the State of Colorado agreed to it
Even if were, the deadline for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion to set aside for fraud would have been 1 year after the trial court's ruling -- so that deadline already passed back in 2018тАЭ
Regarding bad due diligence:
тАЬThis assumes the State cared. They may have assumed a case of this sort was inevitable eventually anyway, and may as well get an appellate ruling on it sooner than laterтАЭ
Regarding Republican CO AG when case was filed:
https://coloradosun.com/2019/01/08/cynthia-coffman-colorado-ag-exit-interview/
тАЬI don't know enough about Colorado politics or law to know if that had any influence on why things went how they did, but her 4-year tenure did overlap with the major case points: initially filed in 2016, trial court decisions in 2017 and 2018, 10th Circ appeal in 2019тАЭ
Regarding Neal Katyal said CO AG should get rehearing:
тАЬLet's assume that procedurally all of this is 100% possible (it's not, btw): which 2 of the 6 SCOTUS justices would change their minds based on this?тАЭ
Doucette advised reading the lower courtsтАЩ opinions available on SCOTUS blog:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/
Also in the meantime is this article by Dale Carpenter arguing that the ruling is very narrow regarding free speech (so donтАЩt worry about protected classes getting unprotected in subsequent cases?).
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/03/how-to-read-303-creative-v-elenis/
Well, Greg DoucetteтАЩs Twitter thread is long with lots of replies from others, so IтАЩm working on a workaround. In the meantime is the article:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sham-customer-likely-didnt-affect-supreme-court-ruling-sex-weddings-ex-rcna92366
"My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. "
Yes. an appellate court is a court of review. If there is new evidence in a case under appeal, the case will be referred back to the original court.
There is one thing that hasn't been done - that the Civil Rights Act should be amended to include LGBTQ persons. And the obvious thing here is that the Supreme Court should not have heard this case. They seem to relish, as a bunch of right wing religious ideologues, ruling against people who instead should be protected. Look what they did to women, and this country's shameful lack of gun safety laws. Ruling that people have the right to carry guns inside churches does nothing other than kiss the ass of the NRA. President Biden also had the power to forgive student loans, but the court ruled incorrectly and there is no recourse for that.
Here's the cool thing about this nutty fact pattern: The facts adduced by the reporter about the non-existent injury to the non-existent plaintiff in the non-existent case reveals a lack of jurisdiction, i.e., no case and controversy, a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction, the power of the court to even hear the case.
And subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised at any time, even after the judgment is final. The parties to a case may not agree to confer juristion where it does not exist.
The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. Just annoyed that the State of Colorado didn't figure that out a long time ago.
There was some feeble activity by Colorado but, it was very late in the briefing schedule. Hence the need for a Rule 44 Motion.
I'm just astonished that Stewart wasn't even aware until a few days ago. It means that CO AG's office never reached out to him.
"Stewart" is a Web Designer in San Francisco, a very competitive digital trade. In interview talks with 1 particular reporter, "Stewart" stated he did become aware of the case through normal digital industry chatter.
FYI, the Colorado AG's Office has an excellent homepage tech design. I was able to easily file a complaint yesterday with the CO AG, Phil providing my trial experience & ABA membership as background but, the URL is available to the Public.
I recommended that Phil's Office file a Rule 44 Motion for Re-hearing at SCOTUS. I even went further recommending that the State of Colorado hire NEAL KATYAL to handle or advise on the Motion for Re-Hearing. I also alerted my Colorado contacts of my complaint.
Have Compter No Need to Travel ... bsm
I agree. Neal would be great. I just doubt SCOTUS would do anything despite their repeated pronouncements that they do not address hypothetical cases. (I though Stewart was in Washington state, but not important.) I'm just shocked the CO AG didn't figure this out. I would've researched the hell out of this person and been in contact for his "side" of what happened (and would have, as a result, learned that his "request" was bogus.)
Josh HawleyтАЩs wife litigated this fraud?
That's what I saw! Well, birds of a feather and all that...