Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Pedantic, but you can sue, but you probably don't have standing.

[unofan]

OK, so they weren't being sued personally, they were placeholders for a suit against the USG. That makes sense.

I never quite understand how and when political entities can be sued. Certainly you can sue claiming your rights have been abridged, but you can't sue if, say, Congress bans asbestos and you own Asbestos Kwik-E-Mart, right?

In not going to be able to cram an entire civil procedure course into a single post, but the short short short version is:

Start with presumption of sovereign immunity. If the sovereign violates your constitutional rights, you can ask for that to be remedied. Mostly that doesn't mean monetary compensation, but instead equitable relief (stop doing X, and/or do Y instead)

If you want monetary compensation, you have to fall into a specific exemption to sovereign immunity created by statute. This primarily means something like the Tort Claims Act, but there are also court created (common law) exceptions, too. the big one when it comes to the Fourth Amendment are called Bivens actions.

[burd]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Interesting. I would have thought that you couldn't sue federal government officials personally for administrative actions in any event, as long as they followed USG policy. Seems odd to me that the case even went forward, so I must be missing something important.

What you're missing is that the officials were sued in their official capacity, so the plaintiffs were essentially suing the USG.

The court essentially said "you should've brought a habeas petition to get free sooner, but you can't sue for money even if your detention was unlawful"

What is interesting about that is that government officials in some jurisdictions (like Wisconsin) do not enjoy immunity for tort actions or omissions that are purely ministerial in nature but do enjoy immunity for actions that involve official discretionary decision making. For instance, if a hiker is injured in a fall as a result of a missing warning sign by a cliff, he may be able to sue the appropriate governmental official if the sign was designed into the plan (and probably initially installed) but not replaced when it deteriorated and fell down or if it was installed in a way that was dangerous and did not conform with the plan. He would not be able to sue based on what he felt was a faulty exercise of judgment if the government official decided not to use a sign in that location in the first place. In any case, though (and as you suggest, Kep), the official is being sued in his or her governmental capacity, not individually.

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

In not going to be able to cram an entire civil procedure course into a single post, but the short short short version is:

Start with presumption of sovereign immunity. If the sovereign violates your constitutional rights, you can ask for that to be remedied. Mostly that doesn't mean monetary compensation, but instead equitable relief (stop doing X, and/or do Y instead)

If you want monetary compensation, you have to fall into a specific exemption to sovereign immunity created by statute. This primarily means something like the Tort Claims Act, but there are also court created (common law) exceptions, too. the big one when it comes to the Fourth Amendment are called Bivens actions.

From what I read of the commentary on the ruling, these comments appear to apply only to the federal government, not to state governments. It read as if the same defendants had been detained under state law rather than under federal law, then the state could have been sued for monetary damages while the feds cannot be.

[unofan]

From what I read of the commentary on the ruling, these comments appear to apply only to the federal government, not to state governments. It read as if the same defendants had been detained under state law rather than under federal law, then the state could have been sued for monetary damages while the feds cannot be.

States are sovereigns as well. Complete with their own immunities and exceptions thereto.

[joecct]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I do recall that while I was working for USDA that a recent court case held that federal managers could be held liable if they were found to be negligent.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I put this in the Prez-thread also, but ...

Chris Hayes of MSNBC is claiming there's a non-zero chance of Justice Kennedy resigning on Monday.

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...ring-monday%2F

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I put this in the Prez-thread also, but ...

Chris Hayes of MSNBC is claiming there's a non-zero chance of Justice Kennedy resigning on Monday.

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...ring-monday%2F

It looks like every right wing crank website is reporting this as gospel. Here's hoping it's just fever swamp speculation.

How any judge could deliberately hand another nomination to this sh-tbird is beyond me.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It looks like every right wing crank website is reporting this as gospel.

How any judge could deliberately hand another nomination to this sh-tbird is beyond me.

If you made me put down $20 on this, I'd bet the under (as in not happenin').
However, Kennedy is 80 years old. Maybe he wants to actually have a day of retirement.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

If you made me put down $20 on this, I'd bet the under (as in not happenin').
However, Kennedy is 80 years old. Maybe he wants to actually have a day of retirement.

I would be shocked for a couple reasons:

1. Kennedy is a drama queen, and right now the Court breaks so that his decisions will have maximum impact and visibility.

2. Kennedy is, despite his various blindnesses, still a serious judge. He's not going to want to give Dump another pick unless he's ill.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

... unless he's ill.

"Just asking the question" ... are we?


In retrospect, Notorious RBG should've bailed when she hit 80 (four years ago) and let Mr. Obama fill her seat. There'd be far less fear and loathing right now.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

"Just asking the question" ... are we?


In retrospect, Notorious RBG should've bailed when she hit 80 (four years ago) and let Mr. Obama fill her seat. There'd be far less fear and loathing right now.

If we're doing shoulda couldas, SCOTUS shouldn't have become a fully owned subsidiary of the RNC in 2000 and we might have avoided the last 17 years of hell.

But the rich got their tax cut, and that's what matters.

[ericredaxe]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Another article: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/24/politi...ors/index.html

[unofan]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

No retirements. Court will hear the discriminatory cake baker case (he didn't want to make a same sex wedding cake). Court will hear the travel ban in October, leaves current injunctions in place for most people.

Gorsuch writes/joins a number of opinions putting him right of Alito and on par with Thomas.

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

No retirements.

Are we sure? I mean, he could just announce tomorrow or the next day.