Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

How Many Republicans Would Oppose A Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominee?

Remarkably, Sen. Lisa Murkowski told Alaska Public Media on Friday afternoon that she would not confirm a new Supreme Court justice before next year’s inauguration. “Fair is fair,” she said speaking hypothetically before the announcement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing.

She was talking, of course, about the precedent Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set for confirming justices before a presidential election when he refused to even consider President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia. Scalia died a full nine months before that year’s election. McConnell, pulling a Senate procedure out of his ass, said that the Senate could not possibly confirm a nominee before an election, and that the voters should be allowed to have their say on the direction of the court. And clearly, with McConnell being the destroyer of everything good in this world, he will push a nominee—in a total reversal of his previous doctrine.

Saturday, Sep 19, 2020 · 9:33:43 AM PST · Joan McCarter

There were early rumors circulating that Romney was going to be honorable and oppose a vote on a nominee. His spokesman has just declared that “grossly false.” I’m not sure where the “grossly” is to be applied here. Continue reading.

Stakes high for Supreme Court as Trump battles for reelection

The Hill logo

President Trump has a chance to transform the Supreme Court into a conservative supermajority if he wins another four-year term, underscoring the potential stakes of this year’s election for future court decisions on everything from the Second Amendment to abortion.

If reelected, Trump would likely get the opportunity to replace ailing liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, and possibly fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, 82, which would give conservatives a commanding 6-3 or 7-2 majority. It would also move the court’s fulcrum to the right of its current ideological center, Chief Justice John Roberts, whose stewardship of the court is seen by some conservatives with increasing skepticism.

At the same time, a Democratic win in November could lead to a dramatic reshaping in the opposite direction. A Biden administration might get the chance to field a liberal replacement for conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, 72. He is currently the longest-serving member of the court, and his 28-year tenure is beyond the typical length of service. Continue reading.

Supreme Court declines to halt Trump border wall

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Friday declined to block the Trump administration from using $2.5 billion in reallocated Pentagon funds to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall.

In a 5-4 ruling that broke along ideological lines, the court’s conservative majority denied a bid by interest groups to halt construction after a federal appeals court last month said the use of defense funding for the project is illegal. The court’s four more liberal justices dissented from the ruling.

The Sierra Club, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other challengers had asked the justices to lift their order from last July that allowed President Trump to begin spending the funds while legal challenges proceeded through the courts. Continue reading.

Ginsburg discharged from hospital after nonsurgical procedure

The Hill logoJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was released from the hospital Friday after undergoing a “minimally invasive” nonsurgical procedure earlier this week.

“She is home and doing well,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in a statement.

Ginsburg, 87, underwent a procedure Wednesday to revise a bile duct stent that was placed last August. Her doctors at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City said such procedures were “common occurrences” done to “minimize the risk of future infection.” Continue reading.

Ginsburg back in hospital for a nonsurgical procedure

Washington Post logoJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in the hospital again, this time for a “minimally invasive” nonsurgical procedure, the Supreme Court announced Wednesday night.

Ginsburg was treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, where she received a bile duct stent a year ago.

“According to her doctors, stent revisions are common occurrences and the procedure, performed using endoscopy and medical imaging guidance, was done to minimize the risk of future infection,” court spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg said in a statement. “The justice is resting comfortably and expects to be released from the hospital by the end of the week.” Continue reading.

Ginsburg undergoes another cancer treatment

Supreme Court justice is ‘tolerating chemotherapy well’

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed Friday that she has been undergoing treatment for liver cancer, but that she plans to continue on the Supreme Court and “can do the job full steam.”

The health concerns of the consistently liberal 87-year-old justice, which have accelerated in recent years, arise at a critical political moment with a looming presidential election in November.

Ginsburg’s latest round with cancer could elevate Supreme Court appointments as a key campaign issue between Republican President Donald Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Continue reading.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg announces recurrence of cancer

Axios logoSupreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced Friday that she is in the midst of treating a recurrence of liver cancer, but said she remains “fully able” to fulfill her duties on the court.

The big picture: The 87-year-old has survived multiple bouts of cancer, amid a slew of health complications in recent years. Earlier this week, she was hospitalized due to an infection but was subsequently released.

  • Ginsburg said she began a course of chemotherapy in May after discovering the cancer in a scan in February.
  • She added that her most recent scan on July 7 “indicated significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease.” She also said that she is “tolerating chemotherapy well” and will continue biweekly treatments.
  • She noted that her hospitalization earlier this week was not linked to her cancer. Continue reading.

The past 24 hours in Trump legal issues and controversies, explained

Supreme Court decisions, closed-door testimony, and developments for Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen.

A pair of Supreme Court decisions related to President Donald Trump’s financial records and a closed-door hearing featuring a fired US attorney were just the start of an eventful day for Trump’s legal problems Thursday.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that a New York state grand jury does have the authority to investigate President Trump. The Court also ruled that congressional subpoena power to investigate the president should be limited — but not eliminated out of hand, as Trump hoped.

But as for whether Trump’s financial records will actually be turned over anytime soon, don’t hold your breath. Both of these cases were sent back to lower courts for further proceedings, and Trump’s legal team has promised to challenge them further. Continue reading.

Trump gets no special protections because he’s president and must release financial records, Supreme Court rules

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump has no immunity, by virtue of being president, from a state grand jury subpoena for his business and tax recordsin a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney.

“[N]o citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.

The court rejected the president’s claims that permitting subpoenas from state prosecutors would open the floodgates to prosecutors nationwide, distracting him from his presidential duties. It reiterated what the court had said in a previous case in which President Bill Clinton had tried to avoid giving a deposition, Clinton v. Jones: The Constitution does not require protecting the president from state grand jury subpoenas. Continue reading.

Rulings let Trump keep his taxes under wraps for now, but his angry reaction underscores a political risk

Washington Post logoPresident Trump reacted angrily to a pair of Supreme Court rulings about his financial records Thursday, taking to Twitter to call them “not fair to this Presidency or Administration!” and describing himself as the victim of a “political prosecution.”

Hours later, the White House released a statement saying Trump was “gratified” by one of the decisions and had been “protected” in the other.

The disjointed responses underscore what in some ways represented a split decision for the president, marked by political and legal ramifications that hold both risks and advantages ahead of the November election. Continue reading.