•   
  •   
  •   

Opinion Why Does Elena Kagan Keep Roasting Brett Kavanaugh?

09:35  12 june  2021
09:35  12 june  2021 Source:   slate.com

Amy Coney Barrett Writes for Unusual SCOTUS Majority, Sides With Former Cop Who Used Computer for Improper Purpose

  Amy Coney Barrett Writes for Unusual SCOTUS Majority, Sides With Former Cop Who Used Computer for Improper Purpose The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of a former police sergeant who ran a license plate search in exchange for money from an acquaintance. The post Amy Coney Barrett Writes for Unusual SCOTUS Majority, Sides With Former Cop Who Used Computer for Improper Purpose first appeared on Law & Crime.The case is Van Buren v. United States, and it involves a former police sergeant who ran a license plate search in exchange for money. Nathan Van Buren had been a police sergeant in Georgia when he met Andrew Albo. After the two became friendly, Van Buren asked Albo for a personal loan.

Why Does Elena Kagan Keep Roasting Brett Kavanaugh ? The justice’s latest opinion may be an ominous sign for the Supreme Court’s upcoming blockbusters. Kavanaugh attempted to undermine Kagan and Thomas in several ways, all of which failed. First, he decried the fact that their opinions, combined, created a majority to exclude reckless crimes from ACCA’s scope. He was especially irked that Thomas sided against him, even though Thomas dissented from a previous decision striking down a part of ACCA that would have encompassed reckless crimes.

Elena Kagan (/ˈkeɪɡən/; born April 28, 1960) is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was nominated by President Barack Obama on May 10, 2010 and has served since August 7, 2010. Kagan is the fourth woman to become a member of the Court.

The Supreme Court is quiet. Too quiet. It is almost mid-June, and the court has yet to release any blockbuster decisions. What’s going on?

Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, John Roberts smiling in front of a curtain: Justice Elena Kagan, with Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. Pool/Getty Images © Provided by Slate Justice Elena Kagan, with Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. Pool/Getty Images

The simple answer is also the obvious one: These cases have sharply divided the justices, who are still circulating majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents between chambers, sniping at each other in acid footnotes that belie their public claims of collegiality, civility, and mutual respect. That’s nothing new; tempers frequently flair as the court completes its work for the term (usually by late June). This anger often boils over into smaller decisions that don’t grab headlines, but provide clues of what’s coming down the pike. On Thursday, the Supreme Court released such a decision. And while the outcome is progressive, the opinions themselves hint that the liberal justices are bracing for a wipeout in the coming weeks.

Supreme Court: Immigrant who entered country illegally can't get a green card because of TPS program

  Supreme Court: Immigrant who entered country illegally can't get a green card because of TPS program Some 400,000 people, most from El Salvador, live in the U.S. with Temporary Protected Status.Some 400,000 people, most from El Salvador, live in the U.S. with Temporary Protected Status, which permits them to remain as long as the government determines they cannot safely return. At issue in the case was whether those immigrants could apply for lawful permanent residency, or green cards, if they entered the United States illegally.

Justice Kagan sees no problem in upholding a Trump administration exemption for religious believers — a new administration may rewrite the rules. In Wednesday’s much-anticipated ruling on a religious liberty challenge to the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate, Justice Elena Kagan Elena Kagan Spielberg donates money from Israel's prestigious Genesis Prize to nonprofits Supreme Court permits state court lawsuits against Ford Supreme Court hears clash between California farm owners, labor unions MORE again demonstrated that she is not just the Supreme Court’s center.

Brett Kavanaugh has never when I have heard him speak or in any of the few private conversations I have had with him expressed any inclination to overrule settled Supreme Court precedents. The Nixon Tapes case is a settled precedent as are Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison v. Olson, on the removal issue. My best guess is that Judge Kavanaugh ’s views on executive power are almost identical to those of both Chief Justice Roberts and of Justice Elena Kagan ’s. I also think Judge Kavanaugh ’s views on the separation of powers generally align with the views of retiring Supreme Court Justice

Thursday’s decision, Borden v. United States, is not the kind of case that usually grabs headlines. It involves yet another dispute about the Armed Career Criminal Act, or ACCA, a federal law that consumes a shocking amount of the Supreme Court’s time. ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on people who are found guilty under federal law of illegally possessing a firearm if they were previously convicted of three “violent felonies” under state law. But every state has a different criminal code, and their definitions of a “violent felony” don’t map neatly onto ACCA’s. The law’s “elements clause” defines a “violent felony” as “the use” of “physical force against the person of another.” In Borden, the court had to decide whether a “reckless” offense—as opposed to one committed with criminal intent—falls under this definition.

Senators ask Marshals Service for information on past Supreme Court justice travel

  Senators ask Marshals Service for information on past Supreme Court justice travel Supreme Court justices have to disclose some travel, but groups seeking more transparency say there are large loopholes in the law."The justices of our highest court are subject to the lowest standards of transparency of any senior officials across the federal government," wrote Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and John Kennedy, R-La., in a June 4 letter made public Tuesday.

Kavanaugh wrote, "If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode." ( Kavanaugh quotes from a law review article by Professor Richard Pildes, a current CNN Contributor, whose words were Last week, the United States Supreme Court declined to block a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling permitting state officials to count mail-in ballots received up to three days after Election Day. The Court's three liberal justices (Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan ), joined by Chief Justice John Roberts

Kavanaugh said repeatedly that he is aware of the consequences of his decisions, including in his dissenting opinion that would have struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. Kavanaugh supporters say he was just repeating language used by the groups that filed the lawsuit, though his 2015 opinion did not use those words. Showing kagan some love. William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy may be Kavanaugh ’s judicial heroes, but the nominee invoked Justice Elena Kagan , a nominee of President Barack Obama, more than any of

Again: This case is not the stuff of breaking news chyrons. But Justice Elena Kagan drew more attention to Borden than it might have otherwise received by relentlessly owning Justice Brett Kavanaugh at every turn. Kagan did not just rebuke Kavanaugh’s dissent; she ridiculed it with the wry incandescence of a stand-up comedian shutting down a heckler.

While the Borden case came out 5–4, there was no majority opinion; Kagan wrote the plurality opinion for herself and three others, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, authored a solo opinion concurring in the judgment. Kavanaugh dissented along with the rest of the conservatives. So the decision was really 4–1–4.

Kagan and Thomas’ analysis differed, but they ended up in the same place. Kagan wrote that the phrase “use of force,” when combined with the words “against the person of another,” implies intent: An individual must intend to harm someone else, so mere recklessness doesn’t cut it. Thomas wrote that the phrase “use of force,” on its own, denotes intent, which similarly excludes “reckless” crimes from ACCA’s elements clause. Kavanaugh, in dissent, claimed that both Kagan and Thomas got it wrong, insisting that reckless crimes do qualify. This debate can be illustrated with the real-world example of a fleeing shoplifter who jumped from a balcony and unintentionally landed on a woman, seriously injuring her. To Kagan and Thomas, that crime would not count as a “violent felony” under ACCA because the shoplifter did not intend to hurt her victim—she was reckless, not intentionally violent. To Kavanaugh, it would.

Kagan Goes After Kavanaugh for Lengthy Footnote: There’s Nothing ‘Unfair’ About This Outcome

  Kagan Goes After Kavanaugh for Lengthy Footnote: There’s Nothing ‘Unfair’ About This Outcome The Supreme Court of the United States handed down a 5-4 ruling Thursday, holding that crimes requiring a mental state of recklessness are insufficient to trigger mandatory minimum sentences under federal law. Both Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh had some thoughts in the footnotes. The post Kagan Goes After Kavanaugh for Lengthy Footnote: There’s Nothing ‘Unfair’ About This Outcome first appeared on Law & Crime.The case is Borden v.

Does anyone think it’s better if they are confused and uncertain and changing at the last minute? As Kavanaugh notes, a preference for rules established well ahead of time accords with the so-called Purcell principle against late changes imposed by courts. That refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2006 Is that so hard? In her dissent sharply taking issue with Kavanaugh , Justice Elena Kagan implicitly gives away the store. She makes policy arguments for why an extension of Wisconsin’s deadline is preferable. Even if this is correct, if she wants laxer election rules in Wisconsin, Kagan

Brett Kavanaugh delivered an angry and unhinged opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 28th. And Twitter has thoughts. After the committee spent the morning questioning Ford, Kavanaugh took her place, sharing an opening statement of his own. Unlike the earnest, composed, and yes, at times, emotional statement from Ford, Kavanaugh appeared angry and defiant. Some even described the judge as “unhinged.”

Kavanaugh attempted to undermine Kagan and Thomas in several ways, all of which failed. First, he decried the fact that their opinions, combined, created a majority to exclude reckless crimes from ACCA’s scope. He was especially irked that Thomas sided against him, even though Thomas dissented from a previous decision striking down a part of ACCA that would have encompassed reckless crimes. In a lengthy footnote, Kavanaugh tried to depict Borden as Potemkin precedent, its facade concealing internal divisions that rob it of coherence.

Kagan, in response, dismissed Kavanaugh’s complaint as “a complicated counting exercise” apparently meant to show “how unfair it is” that his “view has not prevailed here.” She added that “there is nothing particularly unusual about today’s line-up.”

Later, Kagan mocked Kavanaugh for “reprising (if at higher volume) the government’s flawed argument.” She scorned him for “essentially repeating what the government says, though with a distinctively question-begging quality.” In one brutal passage, Kagan even accused Kavanaugh of engaging in “machinations” by rewriting ACCA to mean what he wanted it to say, adding: “Statutory construction does not work that way: A court does not get to delete inconvenient language and insert convenient language to yield the court’s preferred meaning.”

Biden poised to double the number of Black women appeals court judges

  Biden poised to double the number of Black women appeals court judges Biden is on course to increase the number of Black women appellate judges to eight. Advocates say the added diversity builds trust in the federal bench.While advocates for greater diversity say the share is still too small, Biden is on track to grow the number of Black female appellate judges to eight from four, ensuring that at least one Black woman is serving on more than half the nation's circuit courts.

At one point, Kagan used an extended metaphor comparing Kavanaugh to an amateur magician who inadvertently revealed his trick to the audience. Kavanaugh, Kagan explained, “is putting the rabbit in the hat” by adding words that do not appear in ACCA. Her kicker: “We must construe the elements clause as it is—without first inserting the word that will (presto!) produce the dissent’s reading.”

Presto! It’s great writing. (Though I must note that it may be inspired by Justice Antonin Scalia’s joke about the “Supreme Wand,” which was punctuated not with a “Presto!” but a “Poof!”.) As satisfying as it may be, however, it feels slightly out of place in an opinion with comparatively low stakes.

Perhaps Kagan was simply having fun and assumed Kavanaugh could roll with the punches. If so, she miscalculated. Kavanaugh’s dissent contains not an iota of humor. He did not take up Kagan’s invitation to spar, as Chief Justice John Roberts often does. Instead, Kavanaugh seemed offended, almost wounded, by Kagan’s rhetoric. His dissent is interminable—longer than Kagan and Thomas’ opinions combined—and whiny. Kavanaugh spilled much ink suggesting that Kagan had imperiled the public by allowing lenient sentences for dangerous criminals. He even used the classic ploy of describing, in graphic detail, brutal assaults that no longer qualify as “violent felonies” under ACCA thanks to Borden.

On the ACA, Obama will have the last laugh (opinion)

  On the ACA, Obama will have the last laugh (opinion) With the Supreme Court turning back yet another challenge to the Affordable Care Act, it's becoming clear that the odds of dismantling Obama's signature legacy at this point are slim, writes Julian Zelizer. Joining the ranks of other programs like Social Security, the ACA will remain the law of the land for the foreseeable future, and Republicans, thus rebuked, will need to pursue new wedge issues.Once again, the Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The conservative-leaning court ruled Thursday that 18 Republican states (and several individuals) did not have the legal standing to overturn the law.

“Today’s decision will have significant real-world consequences,” Kavanaugh huffed, asserting that there will be gruesome “human costs” to Kagan’s “erroneous decision.”

Presumably, while she and Kavanaugh were going back and forth behind the scenes, Kagan recognized that her colleague had not taken well to her roasting. She could have toned it down, but instead seems to have amped it up. Her opinion in Borden does not evince deep concern for Kavanaugh’s feelings or respect for his intellect. Like Sotomayor, Kagan sounds as if she is done trying to appease Kavanaugh, to woo him over to her side. Indeed, Borden marks the second time in a month that Kagan has taken direct aim at Kavanaugh’s style of judging: In May, she criticized him for treating “judging as scorekeeping—and more, as scorekeeping about how much our decisions, or the aggregate of them, benefit a particular kind of party.” Now she has charged him with acting like a crybaby, regurgitating bad arguments, and warping the words of the law to expand mandatory minimums.

This tactic does not inspire confidence that Kagan has talked Kavanaugh into finding a middle ground on this term’s blockbusters. Over the next several weeks, the court is due to release opinions in several major cases where Kavanaugh’s vote could make the difference. In Fulton v. Philadelphia, the court could force Philadelphia to fund foster care agencies that refuse to work with same-sex couples. In Brnovich v. DNC, the court could kneecap what remains of the Voting Rights Act, opening the door to even more voter suppression. In Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, it could give high-dollar donors to political “charities” a constitutional right to conceal their identities from the public, and weaken the constitutional basis for campaign finance disclosure laws.

If Kagan had persuaded Kavanaugh to defect from the conservative bloc on any of these blockbusters, we might expect her to go easy on the justice in an off-the-radar case like Borden. By turning up the heat instead, she may have given us a distressing forecast of the gloomy weeks ahead.

Supreme Court turns back Obamacare challenge, allowing individual coverage mandate to stand .
The Affordable Care Act case is among the most consequential the Supreme Court considered this term. It follows years of fiery debate over Obamacare.In a 7-2 ruling, the court issued a narrow ruling holding that the conservative states that sued over the law did not have standing to do so because they were not directly harmed.

usr: 28
This is interesting!