Posted on 06/14/2024 6:10:11 AM PDT by CFW
A good reason for it is final reviews, changes, etc., as a final due dilligence.
In the case of the Trump immunity case, every day gives the president another day to delay any lower court responses. Hopefully, each delay helps push this beyond election day.
Each contempt citation by the House proves how necessary immunity is.
The travesty of the New York bookkeeping error case against President Trump proves that Judges and District Attorneys do NOT provide a protection against political prosecution.
The most important case of all is Trump’s, and nothing. But maybe that’s a good sign. Maybe they will say he is immune and they want to put that out last so they can flee to Malta...
The delay on that one is a good sign. If they were going to rule Trump had no immunity, they would have already issued a short opinion saying so. And you are right about the most important issues being the final ones of the term. The already have their flights booked and are “getting the hell out of Dodge” just after issuing those opinions.
More good news is that we have probably heard about all we are going to from Sotomayor and Jackson. They have both issued several opinions this term so the chances of them having many more is very slight.
Interesting. Hadn’t considered that.
I wish someone knew why they trickle out opinions so slowly. Are they really all getting decided the night before and they hand them out as they finish them?
Interesting... thanks!
Aren’t they also issuing the decision on the misuse of obstruction charges against J6 defendants?
It’s not Tuesday? Missed taco Tuesday at the diner - again!lol
The only decision that came down of any importance was the bump stock decision. Good news: You can keep your bumpstocks.
“Aren’t they also issuing the decision on the misuse of obstruction charges against J6 defendants?”
Yeah. That’s the Fischer case. That decision should come next week. There is already an opinion day scheduled for next Thursday. The Court will probably add another opinion day for Friday (not Wednesday since it is a national holiday).
I’ll have to take a look at how many opinions each justice has written this term. That may help us read the tea leaves on which judges will be writing the remaining opinions.
Feel free to tell us if that’s good or bad for conservatives LOL
Should have kept reading hehe
The Hammonds case is probably bad for conservatives since it was a win for the government.
Below is a comment from Scotusblog attorney, Amy Howe, in regards to the bump stock ban decision. Sotomayor is apparently NOT happy. LOL
“The question in this case is whether a bumpstock (an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger to fire very quickly) converts the rifle into a machinegun. The court holds that it does not.
This is *not* a Second Amendment case, but instead a statutory interpretation case — whether a bumpstock meets the statutory definition of a machinegun. The ATF in 2018 issued a rule, contrary to its earlier guidance that bumpstocks did not qualify as machineguns, defining bumpstocks as machineguns and ordering owners of bumpstocks to destroy them or turn them over to the ATF within 90 days.
Sotomayor is now reading from her dissent, which is a relatively rare occurrence.
The Thomas opinion explains that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” because it does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger” as the statute requires.
Alito has a concurring opinion in which he says that he joins the court’s opinion because there “is simply no other way to read the statutory language. There can be little doubt,” he writes, “that the Congress that enacted” the law at issue here “would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bumpstock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it.”
Alito suggests that Congress “can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation.”
In her dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson, Sotomayor write that “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.”
The ATF rule was promulgated in the wake of the 2017 mass shooting at a music festival in Las Vegas. Sotomayor writes that the “majority’s artificially narrow definition hamstrings the Government’s efforts to keep machineguns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter.”
Sotomayor has now finished reading from her dissent, and the justices have adjourned. The marshal announced Thursday as the next opinion session (there were no bar admissions because today’s session was added to the court’s calendar relatively late in the game).”
RE Sotomayor’s comments, what if she calls the bird a duck but it’s actually a woodpecker? Gosh, that lady is ignorant!
That is an unexpected ruling, given the latitude the ATF and other regulatory agencies have.
This may have knock on effects.
Good ruling.
Good! Now, how many illegals does that specifically make immediately deportable?
Good! Next, let’s get a ruling that the Second Amendment applies to everyone, equally, across the US, to preempt infringing state and local laws.
Who’s overdue to write opinions this term? Thoughts on who will be writing each of the upcoming opinions?
From a quick count, I see that Sotomayor has written 7 opinions this term. Thomas and Kavanaugh have each written 5. Alito, Kagan, and Jackson have each written four; Barrett has written 3; Gorsuch 2; and Roberts only one.
Since it’s the “Robert’s” Court, he usually keeps high profile and controversial cases for himself so he can “thread the needle” in order to try keep everyone happy. He thinks that helps “preserve the integrity” of the court (and possibly keep the screeching Senators off his back). We will probably hear from him quite a bit over the next two weeks and especially on the court’s final day.
Barret can be a bit wishy washy and the same goes for Gorsuch. They can take some convoluted paths to reaching a decision. So get ready for a lot of frustration (and possibly outrage) between now and July 1st.
However, we may be done hearing from Sotomayor at all in the final opinions (let us all pray) so that’s one good thing.
Is there a chance that they rule against Trump’s immunity? Most of what I’ve read says they’ll Grant immunity, especially since it heavily affects Biden and others. But just curious what you think of that
“That is an unexpected ruling, given the latitude the ATF and other regulatory agencies have.”
It’s further evidence of some Justices pushing back on law by bureaucratic fiat and gives hope that the Chevron deference is possibly on the way out.
Rehnquist was a much better Chief Justice and human body. He was just dealt a bad hand in terms of the associate justices. Roberts is a smarter Warren Burger. I do not mean that as a compliment.
“Is there a chance that they rule against Trump’s immunity? Most of what I’ve read says they’ll Grant immunity, especially since it heavily affects Biden and others. But just curious what you think of that”
I think they have little choice other than rule for immunity. Otherwise, a President (no matter who it is) will be so constrained by the possibilities of legal action by the opposing party that they will be unable to govern and make any decisions at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.