SCOTUS
Supreme Court Lets Its Jesus Freak Flag Fly
But which Christian denomination should be the state religion?
July 09, 2020 04:00 PM
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court gave two big wins to people who seek to discriminate against others and blame it on their religion.
In two 7-2 rulings (yes, you read that right, NOT COOL BREYER AND KAGAN), the Court gave its blessing to legalized discrimination in the name of religion. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, SCOTUS gave the green light to employers to strip their employees of birth control coverage for "religious" and "moral" reasons. And in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, it gave religious schools the right to discriminate against basically any of their teachers, at any time, for any reason.
So that's fun!
<h2><em>Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania</em><br></h2><p>Oh goodie, our favorite nuns who really hate women's healthcare are back!</p><p>If you're having a sense of déjà vu right now, it's not just you. This case was <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/say-goodbye-to-your-little-friends" target="_blank">yet another</a> fight over the ACA's birth control mandate, because Republicans and religious zealots just can't seem to get over the fact that it's now easier and cheaper for women and people who can get pregnant to get birth control.<br></p><p>The ACA requires health insurance plans to cover "additional preventive care and screenings" for women. Because of this, the Department of Health and Human Services promulgated rules that require plans to cover FDA-approved birth control to people who can get pregnant at no charge.</p><p>This has pissed off Republicans and misogynists everywhere ever since, because when women can control when they get pregnant and have children, they have more control over their own lives. And <em>obviously</em>, any kind of bodily autonomy, or just plain autonomy, for women is an evil that must be stopped.<br></p><p>With a vote of 7-2, the Court upheld the Trump HHS rule that allows an exceptionally broad exemption based on religious or moral beliefs. The only dissenters were RBG and Sonia Sotomayor. Democratic appointees Justices Breyer (Clinton) and Kagan (Obama) sided with the Court's five conservatives to uphold the rule that takes insurance coverage away from thousands of women.<br></p><p>For the Court, Clarence Thomas writes that the ACA gave HHS "virtually unbridled discretion to decide what counts as preventive care and screenings[.]" And because the ACA gives HHS broad discretion, it can do basically whatever it wants! (Kind of like Trump and his <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/king-trump-hereby-orders-hahahahahahahahahahaha-we-cant-finish-this-headline" target="_blank">Article II</a>.)<br></p><blockquote>Congress could have limited [HHS's] discretion in any number of ways, but it chose not to do so.</blockquote><p>And so,</p><blockquote>the same capacious grant of authority that empowers [HHS] to make these determinations leaves its discretion equally unchecked in other areas, including the ability to identify and create exemptions from its own Guidelines.</blockquote><p>Therefore, </p><blockquote>[u]nder a plain reading of the statute, then, we conclude that the ACA gives [HHS] broad discretion to define preventive care and screenings and to create the religious and moral exemptions.</blockquote><p>So screw you and your contraception, women who already have the misfortune of working for anti-woman extremists!<br></p><p>Clarence Thomas, being Clarence Thomas, also felt the need to praise the nuns who have declared war on reproductive rights, <br></p><blockquote>For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother. [...] But for the past seven years, they — like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rule makings leading up to today's decision — have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.</blockquote><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<a href="https://media3.giphy.com/media/l1IXWaOsgYSU8IC7m/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76202f8678c97b4d46d8111a5ff973253cf2978dd2&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NTQ1Ny9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjI3MTE5Nn0.mMCO9y7Zt01pBH8vgfyM_9PZUQiIl_W3K9xjaYFgOAY/img.gif?width=980" id="c89f7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6d5bdfbf19ab8da5b71e2bb48ef66ee2" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></a>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/filmeditor-christmas-movies-bill-murray-l1IXWaOsgYSU8IC7m" target="_blank"></a>
</small>
</p><p>RBG, joined by Sotomayor, wrote in dissent that<br></p><blockquote>In accommodating claims of religious freedom, this Court has taken a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs. [...] Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.</blockquote><p>And birth control is important.<br></p><blockquote>Ready access to contraceptives and other preventive measures for which Congress set the stage in §300gg–13(a)(4) both safeguards women's health and enables women to chart their own life's course.</blockquote><p>As Ginsburg notes, the majority's decision<br></p><blockquote>leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer's insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.</blockquote><p>Alito, joined by Gorsuch, felt the need to chime in about how it's just really not important for women to have access to birth control, anyway. Those damn women folk and their silly demands!<br></p><p>This decision could result in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/supreme-court-birth-control-obamacare.html" target="_blank">more than 100,000</a> people losing access to birth control. Isn't it just adorable how the same people who claim abortion is murder also keep fighting against the most effective way to stop unplanned pregnancies?<br></p><h2><em>Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru</em><br></h2><p>Yesterday's other super happy fun case gives religious private schools free rein to do all the discrimination they want! Woo!<br></p><p>Because of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, religious institutions have a "ministerial exception" to employment discrimination laws. It makes a lot of sense when you're talking about actual ministers — of course religious institutions have to be able to make employment decisions based on things like religion. </p><p>This case extends the ministerial exception to ... pretty much any teachers at religious schools, regardless of what they actually teach. The ruling will allow religious schools to discriminate against people for any reason whatsoever.</p><p>It's important to remember that the ministerial exception doesn't just say religious institutions can discriminate on the basis of religion; it grants them broad authority to discriminate in any way they want. The plaintiffs here had argued they were discriminated against not for reasons having any relation whatsoever to religion, but for receiving cancer treatment and getting older.<br></p><p>Although the teachers weren't required to have any ministerial training or education, Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that the ministerial exception should extend to them anyway. Because obviously, a gym teacher at a Catholic school and a priest are totally the same thing.</p><p>Once again, the Court's two most badass ladies dissented. Joined by RBG, Sotomayor writes that the majority's "simplistic<br>approach has no basis in law and strips thousands of school teachers of their legal protections[.]" And this ruling strips rights from<br></p><blockquote>countless coaches, camp counselors, nurses, social-service workers, in-house lawyers, media-relations personnel, and many others who work for religious institutions. All these employees could be subject to discrimination for reasons completely irrelevant to their employers' religious tenets.</blockquote><p>The first paragraph of the dissent gives a perfect summary of what happened, here.<br></p><blockquote>Two employers fired their employees allegedly because one had breast cancer and the other was elderly. Purporting to rely on this Court's decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171 (2012), the majority shields those employers from disability and age-discrimination claims. In the Court's view, because the employees taught short religion modules at Catholic elementary schools, they were "ministers" of the Catholic faith and thus could be fired for any reason, whether religious or nonreligious, benign or bigoted, without legal recourse. The Court reaches this result even though the teachers taught primarily secular subjects, lacked substantial religious titles and training, and were not even required to be Catholic. In foreclosing the teachers' claims, the Court skews the facts, ignores the applicable standard of review, and collapses Hosanna-Tabor's careful analysis into a single consideration: whether a church thinks its employees play an important religious role.</blockquote><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<a href="https://media0.giphy.com/media/6BHo4gLh9rqtW/giphy.gif?cid=2fb0ca76b1875d02f1eaa951ddebf0a42893af23715751be&rid=giphy.gif" target="_blank"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NTU0NS9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNDk2NTA0MH0.6qy2tzLB8EACj7KXePWZBkf5JEAqB9cVZW5p5dRLYfs/img.gif?width=980" id="bff39" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6685a804dde3827238fea6818adf3c7f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></a>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/mrw-great-asks-6BHo4gLh9rqtW" target="_blank"></a>
</small>
</p><h2>Welcome to religious oligarchy!<br></h2><p>Okay, maybe things aren't <em>that</em> bad [yet]. But they also aren't good.</p><p>Combined with <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/an-obituary-for-the-separation-of-church-and-state" target="_blank">last week's</a> ruling that Montana has to give tax credits for kids to be brainwashed by religious private schools, the Robert Court has shown that it will side with the most extreme "YAY RELIGION!" viewpoints it can find — that is, so long as litigants are Christian. </p><p>As Adam Liptak noted at the <em>New York Times</em>, <br></p><blockquote>The three decisions were part of a broad examination of the relationship between church and state over the 15-year tenure of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in which the court's conservative majority has almost always sided with religious groups.</blockquote><p>But Liptak and others skip over an important point: Christianity. The Roberts Court is less about religious freedom and more about promoting Christianity as the state religion. The Court has stepped in, time and time again, specifically when the litigants are Christian. </p><p>I find it very hard to believe Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would be so adamant about giving tax dollars to religious schools, allowing indiscriminate discrimination, and letting religion decide the kind of healthcare people receive if we were talking about <em><em></em></em>madrassas and mosques rather than Catholic schools and Christian churches.</p><p>Anyway, both opinions are trash, but here they are if you're masochists like us and want to read them.<br></p><p>Little Sisters: <br></p><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="null" data-auto-height="true" data-rm-shortcode-id="99970ed111fe4251eede8946704f7012" frameborder="0" height="600" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/468580279/content?start_page=1&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><p>And Our Lady of Guadalupe:<br></p><p><br></p><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="null" data-auto-height="true" data-rm-shortcode-id="9db97afcd675588a8d7b8237ab8ed6b2" frameborder="0" height="600" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/468580604/content?start_page=1&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe><p><br></p><p>[ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/supreme-court-birth-control-obamacare.html" target="_blank">NYT</a> ]<br></p><p>Follow Jamie on <a href="https://twitter.com/jamielynncrofts" target="_blank">Twitter</a>!<br></p><p></p><p><a href="https://amzn.to/33mKzZe" target="_blank">Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons</a>.</p><p></p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form><p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
SCOTUS
Supreme Court To Trump: You Are So Screwed, Eventually!
It's not bad!
July 09, 2020 03:09 PM
Finally, it's here! At long last, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling in the Trump tax cases. Chief Justice John Roberts, Kegstand, and Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices in two 7-2 decisions. Hooray! We must have won, right?
Well ... that depends.
If your definition of a "win" is preserving a legal system where the president is not above the law, then yes, we won. If you were hoping that before the election we'd get to see whatever it is that Trump has been fighting so hard to keep hidden, not so much. On the plus side, Trump's chances of retaining the White House look worse by the day, and the court just enshrined protections for a future President Biden (God willing!) against harassment by a future Republican Congress (God forbid!). And that's a really fucking good thing!
<p>
Evan already
<a href="https://www.wonkette.com/justice-kegstand-and-the-other" target="_blank">re-splained the cases</a> to you this morning. But in a nutshell, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf" target="_blank">Trump v. Vance</a> answers the question "Can a sitting president be subpoenaed — really investigated at all — by a state prosecutor?" And in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf" target="_blank">Trump v. Mazars</a>, the issue is "Can a sitting president be subpoenaed by Congress?"
</p>
<p>
In
<em>Vance</em>, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." Even Justices Thomas and Alito agreed that Jay Sekulow's <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/oyez-two-can-the-president-shoot-a-dude-liveblogging-scotus-on-presidential-immunity" target="_blank">maximalist howling</a> about PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY was bullshit. In fact, they treated his entire appearance like a fart in church. When they say "The President claims," they mean that yammering dipshit Sekulow, and not in a good way.
</p>
<blockquote>
The President next claims that the stigma of being subpoenaed will undermine his leadership at home and abroad. Notably, the Solicitor General does not endorse this argument, perhaps because we have twice denied absolute immunity claims by Presidents in cases involving allegations of serious misconduct.
</blockquote>
<p>
Even via Zoom, his Fox-news style vamping was a gross violation of their hallowed chamber, and the court basically ignored him and concentrated on the quasi-rational arguments of Solicitor General Noel Francisco.
</p>
<p>
In their
<em>Vance</em> dissents, Justice Thomas argues that presidents are far too busy to deal with state courts, even presidents who spend all goddamn day watching television and tweeting, and who have played golf 365 days already, while Justice Alito agrees with Francisco's argument that the president is a special snowflake who requires a balancing test to determine whether he should have to comply with state process. But in the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts notes that Presidents Jefferson, Monroe, Grant, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all managed to produce documents or testify in judicial proceedings, and Commander Couch Potato can find time in his busy schedule to do it, too.
</p>
<blockquote>
Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.
</blockquote>
<p>
Now the case will go back to the lower court where Trump will assert all the normal, not insane defenses to subpoena available to everyone else: It's overly broad, too burdensome, not related to the conduct under investigation, etc.
</p>
<p>
Presumably Trump's business records and tax returns are related to treating the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels as a business expense, so Trump will probably lose. But that might take a while, and anyway grand jury proceedings are secret. So maybe we'll get to see them eventually, and maybe we won't.
</p>
<p>
Considering what New York's Department of Financial Services just
<a href="https://www.wonkette.com/deutsche-bank-agrees-to-150-million-fine-for-jeffrey-epstein-dealings-mistakes-were-made" target="_blank">did</a> to Deutsche Bank over its dealings with Jeffery Epstein, let's take a wildass guess that Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance isn't going to let the matter drop once Trump is out of office. But that's neither here nor there, because, <em>hello</em> we've got a whole 'nother case and serious constitutional issues to deal with here!
</p>
<p>
In
<em>Mazars</em>, as in <em>Vance</em>, the Court refused to accept Trump's argument that he is absolutely immune from congressional subpoena of his personal documents. But here the majority agreed that there <em>should</em> be a balancing test because the president and Congress are both branches of government.
</p>
<blockquote>
The approach proposed by the House, which relies on precedents that did not involve the President's papers, fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the President's information. The House's approach would leave essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President's personal records. A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the political branches and allow Congress to aggrandize itself at the President's expense. These separation of powers concerns are unmistakably implicated by the subpoenas here, which represent not a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved. The interbranch conflict does not vanish simply because the subpoenas seek personal papers or because the President sued in his personal capacity. Nor are separation of powers concerns less palpable because the subpoenas were issued to third parties.
</blockquote>
<p>
If Congress wants to subpoena the president personally, then it must satisfy a four-part test demonstrating that:
</p>
<ol class="ee-ol">
<li>It is necessary to demand this information of the president herself because no "other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it needs in light of its particular legislative objective";</li>
<li>The subpoena is "no broader than reasonably necessary";</li>
<li>The subpoena "advances a valid legislative purpose"; and</li>
<li>That complying with the subpoena is not overly burdensome, "particularly because they stem from a rival political branch that has an ongoing relationship with the President and incentives to use subpoenas for institutional advantage."</li>
</ol>
<p>
In practical effect, this likely means that House Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters is not going to get her hands on 10 years of every Trump family member's financial documents based on a generalized legislative plan to "consider proposals to prevent the abuse of the financial system" and "address any vulnerabilities identified" in the real estate market. And you know what? THAT'S FINE. Because that subpoena is qualitatively different from HPSCI Chair Adam Schiff's demand to examine Trump's relationship with Deutsche Bank "as part of an investigation into foreign efforts to undermine the U.S. political process."
</p>
<p>
We can be partisan without being propagandistic. And we can acknowledge that Solicitor General Jeff Wall
<a href="https://www.wonkette.com/lets-liveblog-trump-splaining-to-scotus-how-actually-the-president-is-boss-of-congress-because-constitution" target="_blank">had a point</a> when he argued that the logical extension of the House argument is that Congress would be entitled to subpoena the president's fifth grade report card if it claimed to be considering legislation to promote childhood literacy. That result simply can't be right.
</p>
<p>
More importantly, it is fundamentally unhealthy for our democracy when the government engages in politically motivated fishing expeditions — no matter whether it's Bill Barr holding the fishing rod, or Maxine Waters.
<em>Yes</em>, Donald Trump and his family are a pack of crooks. Of course we should be able to see his tax returns. But getting back to a normal, healthy democracy with functioning guardrails is <em>more important</em> than bringing these assholes to justice.
</p>
<p>
And next year (God willing, again!), the shoe is going to be on the other foot. We Democrats have a pretty good shot at taking both the Senate and the White House. But if we don't, you know damn well that Lindsey Graham's first order of business is going to be subpoenas of every scrap of Hunter Biden's financial and medical records from the past 30 years. The Supreme Court could have dodged this bullet and said it was an injusticiable political question (i.e., outside the court's purview), but they didn't. They gave us a rubric which we will no doubt come to appreciate when we are inevitably on the other side of this litigation.
</p>
<p>
So, yeah, Donald Trump is going to be able to drag this out until after the election. We'll probably never get to see those tax returns. But we got laws to prevent a future Donald Trump pulling this same CONGRESS AIN'T MY DADDY shit and protection from congressional harassment for future Democratic presidents.
</p>
<p>
<em>Take the win.</em>
</p>
<p>
[
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf" target="_blank">Trump v. Vance</a> / <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf" target="_blank">Trump v. Mazars</a>]
</p>
<p>
<strong>Follow Liz Dye on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/5DollarFeminist" target="_blank">RIGHT HERE!</a></strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong>Please click here to support your Wonkette. And if you're ordering your quarantine goods on Amazon, <a href="https://amzn.to/2wbH77j" target="_blank">this is the link to do it.</a></strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong><a href="https://amzn.to/2wbH77j" target="_blank"></a></strong></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form>
<p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
SCOTUS
Trump Can't Always Get What He Wants, Not Even From Gorsuch And Kegstand :(
The rule of law won today at the Supreme Court.
July 09, 2020 11:56 AM
The Supreme Court just dropped its season finale rulings in the cases we had been most anticipating, on Donald Trump's taxes and financials, and we are going to call them WINS. Why? Well for one thing, because they are. Also, Trump seems to know he lost, because he sure is rage-screaming!
We screengrabbed this one because GOT CAIGHT is our new favorite presidential typo:
The full, reposted thread is here. There were also these:
Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. BUT NOT ME!— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump)1594305539.0
The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won… https://t.co/0uE5fWPCIi— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump)1594305492.0
You hate to see it.
However, don't pop the champagne just yet, because we probably won't be reading Trump's taxes and financials on the internet anytime soon, at least not before the election.
<p>
Both cases were 7-2 rulings, and in both cases, Donald Trump's handpicked boys Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the more sane members of the Court to agree that Trump is not the king, laws exist, and that it matters how these things are done. You know how Trump likes to play "You Can't Always Get What You Want" at his rallies? Well sometimes, you get what you need.</p><p>
(Pause here to note that it's possible/probable that both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are fully aware that the president who installed them is DOA, and they are thinking about their future abilities to kick Democratic presidents in the shins.)
</p><p>
Stay tuned for full lawsplainers from the lawyers, but here, briefly, is what happened:
</p><h2>Trump v. Vance</h2><p>
The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf" target="_blank">first ruling</a> released this morning (<em>Trump v. Vance</em>) was about <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/throw-some-salt-over-your-shoulder-knock-on-wood-turn-around-three-times-and-spit-because-scotus-will-be-ruling-on-trumps-tax-returns" target="_blank">subpoenas for Trump's taxes</a> from Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/throw-some-salt-over-your-shoulder-knock-on-wood-turn-around-three-times-and-spit-because-scotus-will-be-ruling-on-trumps-tax-returns" target="_blank">in his investigation</a> into Trump's hush-money porn payments before the election. It was a 7-2 ruling with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch issuing their own concurring opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President." However, that was the only specific issue at hand, whether Trump is literally the king and the Manhattan DA is not his real dad. That's what the Court ruled on, and nothing more.
</p><p>
Roberts:
</p><blockquote>
"The arguments here and in the Court of Appeals were limited to absolute immunity and heightened need. The Court of Appeals, however, has directed that the case may be returned to the District Court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate."
</blockquote><p>
In other words, it's going back down to the appeals court, and then to the district court, where other arguments against disclosure may be considered, and that court will likely just say fuckin' hand the shit over.
</p><p>
Roberts agreed that presidents have a right to challenge subpoenas in criminal investigations, but the overarching theme of this opinion, and the second one, is that there is a <em>right way to do these things</em>, and that it still matters.
</p>Trump's taxes will still go to Cy Vance's grand jury. Eventually. Whether or not we ultimately ever get to see them ...<h2>Trump v. Mazars/Trump v. Deutsche Bank</h2><p>
The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf" target="_blank">second ruling</a> (<em>Trump v. Mazars </em>and <em>Trump v. Deutsche Bank</em>) was about subpoenas from the DISHONEST AND VERY CRAZY Democratic House of Representatives, in their investigations into ERRTHING. Mazars is Trump's accounting firm. Deutsche Bank and Capital One are banks that dumbly loaned Trump money. (Vance also subpoenaed Mazars.)
</p><p>
This was a 7-2 ruling, where Kavanaugh and Gorsuch simply joined the Court's ruling. And this case is also going back to the lower courts, where Trump has been thoroughly <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/and-the-prize-for-handing-trump-his-ass-in-a-court-ruling-goes-to-dc-judge-amit-mehta" target="_blank">smacked down already</a>. Hooray.
</p><p>
The <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/supreme-court-might-let-trump-tell-congress-america-to-get-bent" target="_blank">House wants</a> Trump's financial records, paystubs, and any write-ups he's gotten for violations of the employee handbook. You can read what happened in the oral arguments <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/lets-liveblog-trump-splaining-to-scotus-how-actually-the-president-is-boss-of-congress-because-constitution" target="_blank">here,</a> but some court watchers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/us/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns.html" target="_blank">felt</a> that the justices were less open to the House's arguments than they were to Vance's, even though the Trump <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/trump-lawyers-makin-shit-up-again-cause-its-tuesday" target="_blank">lawyers' arguments</a> in both cases were basically "NONE OF YOU THE BOSS OF ME, I AM THE KING OF ALL PRESIDENTS!"
</p><p>
What the Court found was that sure, <em>absolutely</em> Congress is allowed to subpoena the president, if they can show their work and a good enough reason. But at the same time, they found that <em>neither</em> side's arguments were fully compelling, and that lower courts didn't really do a good job of adjudicating concerns about the separation of powers between Congress and the president. They're not amused by the <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/trump-lawyers-makin-shit-up-again-cause-its-tuesday" target="_blank">president's argument</a> that Congress is not his real dad, is not allowed to ask questions, and therefore does not exist. But at the same time, Roberts writes of the House's arguments for why it should be able to see any damn thing it wants:
</p><blockquote style="margin-left: 20px;">
Far from accounting for separation of powers concerns, the House's approach aggravates them by leaving essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President's personal records. Any personal paper possessed by a President could potentially "relate to" a conceivable subject of legislation, for Congress has broad legislative powers that touch a vast number of subjects.</blockquote><p>
In other words, you are all bad, and you should feel bad, and now you have to go back to the lower Court to try to DO BETTER.
</p><p>
Or in Roberts's words:
</p><blockquote>
When Congress seeks information "needed for intelligent legislative action," it "unquestionably" remains "the duty of all citizens to cooperate." Watkins, 354 U. S., at 187 (emphasis added). Congressional subpoenas for information from the President, however, implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and the Second Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
</blockquote><p>
There's a right way to do things, and it matters.
</p><p>
So back to the DC and Second Circuit it goes! And again, Congress will probably eventually get what it wants. No fun before the election, though :(
</p><p>
But Donald Trump did not get what he wanted today. And part of that was delivered by the numbnuts boys he stuck on the Supreme Court to protect him.
</p><p>
Womp womp.
</p><p>
[<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf" target="_blank">Trump v. Mazars/Deutsche Bank</a> / <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf" target="_blank">Trump v. Vance</a>]
</p><p>
<strong>Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter <a href="http://twitter.com/evanhurst" target="_blank">RIGHT HERE, DO IT RIGHT HERE!</a></strong>
</p><p>
<strong>Wonkette is fully funded by readers like YOU. If you love Wonkette, WE NEED YOUR LOVE GIFTS TO KEEP US GOING.</strong><br>
</p><p>
</p><p><a href="https://amzn.to/33mKzZe" target="_blank">Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons</a>.</p>
<p></p><p>
</p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form>
<p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
SCOTUS
John Roberts Fell And Hit His Head, Clinton Hit Squad Thwarted Again
Trump not quite pushing people out windows yet.
July 08, 2020 10:50 AM
Chief Justice John Roberts spent a night in the hospital last month after he fell and hit his head, the Washington Post reports. Fortunately, it was not a serious injury and Roberts is expected to keep on pissing off Donald Trump when he's not pissing off all the rest of us.
The 65-year-old chief justice was taken by ambulance to a hospital after the June 21 incident at the Chevy Chase Club, which was serious enough to require sutures. He stayed at the hospital overnight for observation and was released the next morning.
Roberts didn't make the tumble public, and the Post only learned of it from a tipster, who said others at the club saw the fall and that Roberts's head was covered in blood. Which, as we learned from some movie or another — Twister? — can be misleading, since minor scalp wounds can bleed like a stuck pig. Which, coincidentally, is how Donald Trump squealed when Roberts ruled his administration had done sloppy homework in its attempt to repeal DACA.
<p>A Supreme Court spokesperson, Kathleen Arberg, confirmed the injury in response to an inquiry from the <em>Post</em>, and said doctors didn't believe the falls were related to two seizures Roberts had suffered in the past, one in 1993, the other in 2007. Arberg's statement said,</p><blockquote>The Chief Justice was treated at a hospital on June 21 for an injury to his forehead sustained in a fall while walking for exercise near his home. The injury required sutures, and out of an abundance of caution, he stayed in the hospital overnight and was discharged the next morning. His doctors ruled out a seizure. They believe the fall was likely due to light-headedness caused by dehydration.</blockquote><p>WaPo notes that the statement "did not address why Roberts had not disclosed his hospitalization," and noted that traditionally, it's been up to individual justices to decide how they share medical information with the public. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, </p><blockquote>has been open about her many medical issues, which include several bouts with cancer. The 87-year-old was recently diagnosed with a gall bladder condition <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-treated-at-johns-hopkins-for-gall-bladder-condition/2020/05/05/2b365308-8f31-11ea-a0bc-4e9ad4866d21_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_24" target="_blank" title="www.washingtonpost.com">that required hospitalization</a>. She participated in one of the court's teleconference hearings in May from her hospital room.</blockquote><p>That may well be due to her Terminator-like tenacity, which will have her on the Court and kicking ass Ruthfully for as long as she wants, we hope. </p><p>While wingnuts are already making very funny jokes about how Roberts hit his head and turned into a lib, hurr hurr, we wish him — in keeping with <a href="http://wonkette.com/466226/programming-note-rules-for-commenting-radicals" target="_blank">our commenting rules</a> — nothing but good health. Until he dies of natural causes, alone, unloved, and haunted by the knowledge of what he's done to democracy. </p><p>[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/john-roberts-hospitalized-supreme-court/2020/07/07/6bc230ae-c0a0-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>]</p><p>Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by your donations. Please help us keep the lights on, and the writers' very good health insurance paid for. We're staying away from high windows, just in case. </p><p></p><p><a href="https://amzn.to/33mKzZe" target="_blank">Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons</a>.</p><p></p><p></p><form name="donation" method="post" class="donation-form"><p class="subheadline">How often would you like to donate?</p><div class="form-row row--plan"><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="once" class="plan-type" required="" checked> Just once
</label><label class="plan-type__label"><input type="radio" name="plan_type" value="monthly" class="plan-type" required=""> Monthly
</label></div><div class="form-row row--amount"><p class="subheadline">Select an amount (USD)</p><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="200" data-value="2.00" data-amount="Two Dollars">$2</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2500" data-value="25.00" data-amount="Twenty Five Dollars">$25</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="500" data-value="5.00" data-amount="Five Dollars">$5</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="5000" data-value="50.00" data-amount="Fifty Dollars">$50</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1000" data-value="10.00" data-amount="Ten Dollars" checked>$10</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="10000" data-value="100.00" data-amount="One Hundred Dollars">$100</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="1500" data-value="15.00" data-amount="Fifteen Dollars">$15</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="50000" data-value="500.00" data-amount="Five Hundred Dollars">$500</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="2000" data-value="20.00" data-amount="Twenty Dollars">$20</label><label class="amount__label"><input type="radio" name="amount" class="amount" value="100000" data-value="1000.00" data-amount="One Thousand Dollars">$1000</label></div><div class="row--buttons"><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="strip"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208879/2000x.png" alt="Credit cards" class="donate-button__img"></button><button type="submit" class="donate-button" data-payment="paypal"><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18208880/2000x.png" alt="PayPal" class="donate-button__img"></button></div></form><p></p>
Keep reading...
Show less
Newsletter
©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc
