There was no ruling in the EMTALA case on Wednesday, but Bloomberg reported on an "inadvertently" posted doc. Also: SCOTUS conservatives make corruption easier.
Out of curiosity, when a President appoints a new Justice to the "supreme" court (I cringe when using that title for the Robert's Kangaroo court), can a new Chief Justice be named as well (i.e. demote a deeply incompetent political hack like Roberts and elevate someone like KBJ?
Or must we just suffer along in the corruption, cowardice, and incompetence of Roberts until the scumwad resigns, retires, or dies??
So that means that a new justice can't be appointed as Chief Justice until the current zero vacates? Bummer. Thanks for the answer (I kinda figured we were stuck with this loser, but was hoping there was a way out . . .).
Justices on the Court (particularly male Justices who are not personally impacted by the final decision) parse legal terms in the EMTALA case, while women’s healthcare suffers. It reminds me of the writing of the Greek philosopher Bion: Though boys throw stones at frogs in sport, yet the frogs do not die in sport, but in earnest.
So Kavanaugh joins Gorsuch (and is joined in turn by him) in the "if you don't like the facts, change them" club. Bremerton coach, Creative 303, Dobbs, Thomas on bump stocks. It is never ending.
Given the partisan records of the majority, it’s easy to imagine that they took the case and then sent it back in an effort to help Trump’s re-election. If they rule in favor of Idaho, as one would expect from a bunch of Republican Catholics, then it makes the issue more salient for the Democrats. This way, they don’t have to make a final decision for a while and can buy time for their party’s leader.
I find the inclusion of gift cards when compared to commemorative plaques and photos particularly egregious. I have never served in public office but in my professional life I got the occasion plaque and photo and they had no monetary value in terms of resale. If I wanted something from an elected official I could theoretically go buy a $5000 American Express gift card and as long as I presented it after the fact, e.g. a gratuity, as opposed to before the favor took place, e.g. a bribe, both I and the elected official would be breaking no law here.
I think that example was apt for Kavanaugh’s purpose. He was not talking about a $5000 gift card. He was talking about a $25 gift card for Dunkin Donuts that you get a teacher. It was disingenuous like the others — though it could certainly be higher, too.
Also, I would just note: An act could still violate state laws or even other federal laws — just not this one.
Gorsuch concurs to say he gladly goes along with the majority, emphasizing the "rule of leniency," since any fair reading of the statute would lead to the conclusion the application was doubtful.
He in the process goes out of the way to emphasize how wrong he thinks the dissent is.
Gorsuch concurred multiple times in June & added a comment he respects the views of those who took another position. He did not do that for Jackson personally. This is the second time too. For instance, he strongly pushed back against her dissent in a case about sentencing. Jackson has significant experience in the area.
Gorsuch: "But the bottom line is that, for all those reasons, any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt about whether it covers the defendant’s charged conduct."
Jackson: "And the text of §666 clearly covers the kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment Snyder solicited after steering the city contracts to the dealership."
I think you’re stretching there. He’s with the majority. How is he “going out of the way” to emphasize something he doesn’t even explicitly say when what he does say is essential to his reading of the majority opinion? Like, I think this is pretty much as anodyne of a concurrence as he could have written. The most offensive line is that he is “pleased” to join Kavanaugh’s opinion.
He explicitly says, "any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt." Him doing so in a quick statement makes it stand out.
The dissent thinks it is obvious the other way. He didn't have to concur separately. His statement underlines the belief that the dissent is not a fair reading. It isn't just -- like he did in multiple opinions lately -- saying there is a reasonable difference of opinion. Any "fair" reader would go his way.
I see it differently from you, but a fair reader can disagree with me.
He didn't have to concur. He joined the majority in full. He could have tossed in a "I respect" bit -- he did that repeatedly. He did not.
His concurrence emphasizes that he thinks the dissent, written by Jackson, was not a fair reading. I know it's the rule. It was not "literally" necessary for him to do the rest. Gorsuch twice finds a way not to play nice with the same justice while doing so with others in about a week, and it concerns me.
KBJ put the majority to utter shame. She is the Rookie of the Decade for sure.
She is becoming the "keeping it real" or "I'm going to tell it like it is, people" justice.
Out of curiosity, when a President appoints a new Justice to the "supreme" court (I cringe when using that title for the Robert's Kangaroo court), can a new Chief Justice be named as well (i.e. demote a deeply incompetent political hack like Roberts and elevate someone like KBJ?
Or must we just suffer along in the corruption, cowardice, and incompetence of Roberts until the scumwad resigns, retires, or dies??
The Chief Justice of the United States is a specific, Senate-confirmed, constitutional position … so, Roberts is there.
So that means that a new justice can't be appointed as Chief Justice until the current zero vacates? Bummer. Thanks for the answer (I kinda figured we were stuck with this loser, but was hoping there was a way out . . .).
Justices on the Court (particularly male Justices who are not personally impacted by the final decision) parse legal terms in the EMTALA case, while women’s healthcare suffers. It reminds me of the writing of the Greek philosopher Bion: Though boys throw stones at frogs in sport, yet the frogs do not die in sport, but in earnest.
A very astute quote for our times. 💔
So Kavanaugh joins Gorsuch (and is joined in turn by him) in the "if you don't like the facts, change them" club. Bremerton coach, Creative 303, Dobbs, Thomas on bump stocks. It is never ending.
Given the partisan records of the majority, it’s easy to imagine that they took the case and then sent it back in an effort to help Trump’s re-election. If they rule in favor of Idaho, as one would expect from a bunch of Republican Catholics, then it makes the issue more salient for the Democrats. This way, they don’t have to make a final decision for a while and can buy time for their party’s leader.
I find the inclusion of gift cards when compared to commemorative plaques and photos particularly egregious. I have never served in public office but in my professional life I got the occasion plaque and photo and they had no monetary value in terms of resale. If I wanted something from an elected official I could theoretically go buy a $5000 American Express gift card and as long as I presented it after the fact, e.g. a gratuity, as opposed to before the favor took place, e.g. a bribe, both I and the elected official would be breaking no law here.
I think that example was apt for Kavanaugh’s purpose. He was not talking about a $5000 gift card. He was talking about a $25 gift card for Dunkin Donuts that you get a teacher. It was disingenuous like the others — though it could certainly be higher, too.
Also, I would just note: An act could still violate state laws or even other federal laws — just not this one.
If what Snyder got wasn’t a criminal gratuity, then we will be seeing more of the same in state and local government settings.
Gorsuch concurs to say he gladly goes along with the majority, emphasizing the "rule of leniency," since any fair reading of the statute would lead to the conclusion the application was doubtful.
He in the process goes out of the way to emphasize how wrong he thinks the dissent is.
Gorsuch concurred multiple times in June & added a comment he respects the views of those who took another position. He did not do that for Jackson personally. This is the second time too. For instance, he strongly pushed back against her dissent in a case about sentencing. Jackson has significant experience in the area.
I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t think Gorsuch even mentions the dissent?
I'm saying he did so by implication.
Gorsuch: "But the bottom line is that, for all those reasons, any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt about whether it covers the defendant’s charged conduct."
Jackson: "And the text of §666 clearly covers the kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment Snyder solicited after steering the city contracts to the dealership."
I think you’re stretching there. He’s with the majority. How is he “going out of the way” to emphasize something he doesn’t even explicitly say when what he does say is essential to his reading of the majority opinion? Like, I think this is pretty much as anodyne of a concurrence as he could have written. The most offensive line is that he is “pleased” to join Kavanaugh’s opinion.
He explicitly says, "any fair reader of this statute would be left with a reasonable doubt." Him doing so in a quick statement makes it stand out.
The dissent thinks it is obvious the other way. He didn't have to concur separately. His statement underlines the belief that the dissent is not a fair reading. It isn't just -- like he did in multiple opinions lately -- saying there is a reasonable difference of opinion. Any "fair" reader would go his way.
I see it differently from you, but a fair reader can disagree with me.
That’s literally necessary for the rule of lenity to matter. He’s describing a standard, not attacking Jackson.
He didn't have to concur. He joined the majority in full. He could have tossed in a "I respect" bit -- he did that repeatedly. He did not.
His concurrence emphasizes that he thinks the dissent, written by Jackson, was not a fair reading. I know it's the rule. It was not "literally" necessary for him to do the rest. Gorsuch twice finds a way not to play nice with the same justice while doing so with others in about a week, and it concerns me.