-
Recent Posts
- Remaining Races and Recounts
- Election Recap
- Electoral College Anachronism
- Election Security
- Election Night Preview — Part Six (Post-Midnight Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Five — The Local News and the West Coast (11:00 To 11:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Four — Prime Time Hour Three (10:00 to 10:59 P.M. Eastern)
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Colorado Donald Trump First Amendment Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting South Carolina Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas United Kingdom Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- tmess2 on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- DocJess on Don’t think we’re getting a contested convention
- Matt on Dems to nominate Biden early to avoid GOP Ohio nonsense
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Tag Archives: Second Amendment
Supreme Court Preview — Part 3 — Possible Cases for Later this Term
This post is always the speculative part of the term preview. The Supreme Court only grants review on about 1% of the applications that it receives. Our legal system is based on the principle that courts are always open to anybody with a legitimate case. In practical terms, that means that anybody can file a case and that courts sort out the clearly meritless cases after they are filed. And the Supreme Court certainly gets a significant number of applications from people who “want to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court” even though the lower courts clearly applied current law correctly and there is no good argument for Supreme Court review. But even eliminating those cases, there are still a large number of applications that raise issues that deserve to be decided by the Supreme Court.
In practical terms, the Supreme Court is looking for the “right” case to present an issue. The Supreme Court has, in recent years, gotten better at screening out cases that have procedural issues that might prevent the Supreme Court from reaching the “merits” of the issue raised by the “questions presented” part of the application for review. The application process means that (at least after the early October conferences) the Supreme Court considers accepting review of cases approximately 5-8 months after the decision by the lower appellate court. That means that the cases to be heard this year involve lower court decisions that have already been made.
Among the cases that we should learn about in October are a pair of cases involving Uber and Lyft. Both companies have agreements with their drivers requiring arbitration of disputes. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, those contracts are valid and enforceable. California, like many states, have laws that give the state government the power to enforce minimum wage and overtime laws. The issue presented in those case is whether those state laws allowing the government to take action to enforce the employees right to additional compensation is a valid way to get around the arbitration requirments.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, arbitration, election cases, Equal Protection Clause, Establishment Clause, Federal Arbitration Act, Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, Gun Laws, Purcell Principle, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — Part 3 — Possible Cases for Later this Term
Leaving Bump Stocks on the Market
While those involved in the gun industry (including some firearm fans and most regulators) were familiar with bump stocks, bump stocks did not enter the average person’s knowledge until they were used to help a gunman convert his semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun to kill multiple people at a concert in Las Vegas. A bump stock is a part that uses the recoil of the gun to fire multiple shots without requiring further pulls on the trigger.
Federal law bans the ownership of machine guns. The “definitions” part of this law defines a machine gun as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
Prior to the Las Vegas mass shooting, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms took the position that a bump stock did not meet this definition. After the shooting, to head off pressure to amend the law to clearly cover bump stocks, the Donald Trump ATF issued regulatory guidance that a bump stock did meet this definition — namely that it was a part intended to use to convert a weapon so that it would “automatically [shoot] more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger.”
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Chevron deference, machine guns, statutory interpretation, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Leaving Bump Stocks on the Market
Supreme Court Term 2023-24 — Two Weeks to Go (?) Update
This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court went from one opinion day (Thursday) per week to two opinion days (Thursday and Friday). But the Supreme Court only issued three opinions on each day — four of the six have some political significance and so there will be posts on them later. There are still 23 cases left to be decided (with 21-23 opinions) between them. Thus unless, the pace of opinions picks up (and maybe 4 per day is likely), the Supreme Court needs at least seven opinion days between now and June 28. The next opinion day is this Thursday. While it is more likely than not that opinions will also be released on Friday, that would still leave four or five opinion days for the last week in June. Maybe the last opinion day will be July 1 or July 2, but the Supreme Court tries really hard to leave town before July 4.
With this week’s opinion release, the dust has started to settle on who likely has what opinion. Until opinions are released, such guesses are who likely initially got the opinion. While not common, splits in how to decide a case and justices changing their minds as they dig further into writing an opinion can result in opinions being reassigned. These predictions are based on the Supreme Court’s practice of trying to maintain a balanced workload — both within each month’s argument session and across the term as a whole.
At this point, enough opinions have been released to identify who still has opinions left to write from the first five months of arguments with two question marks. The two question marks are two sets of companion cases — one from January in which two cases seek to overturn Chevron deference (a doctrine created by Justice Scalia that has courts deferring to administrative agencies over the proper interpretation of ambiguous regulatory statutes) and the other from February in which two cases involve state attempts to regulate interstate social media websites. For both sets, it is possible that the Supreme Court will issue separate “authored” (i.e. the justice writing is identified) or that the Supreme Court will issue one “authored” opinion in one case with a brief per curiam (i.e. the justice writing is not identified) in the second case or that the Supreme Court will issue one opinion covering both cases. If only one authoried opinion is released in both sets of cases, then things fall more smoothly in terms of the number of opinions per justice through February. If either set has a second authored opinion, that adds an additional opinion for some justice making things more uncertain.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Bankruptcy, Chevron deference, Confrontation Clause, EPA, income tax, presidential immunity, Purdue Pharma, Social Media, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court Term 2023-24 — Two Weeks to Go (?) Update
Supreme Court Update — Appropriations and Redistricting
We are at that point of the Supreme Court terms when we are waiting for the other shoe to drop. All the arguments and briefing for the term is done, and what is left is for the opinions to slowly drip out. For now, the Supreme Court is only holding one opinion day per week. That will be changing soon.
In May, we tend to get the older cases (October, November, and December) that have multiple opinions and newer cases (March and April) that were “easy” unanimous decisions. As we get later into June, we will get the 5-4 decisions from February, March, and April, and the number of cases will pick up.
So far, in May, there have been three opinion days (with one more set for this Thursday). On those opinion days, we have gotten, two, three, and three opinions. With eight opinions down, we still have approximately thirty-five opinions (approximately because there are a few cases that could be consolidated) left to come over the next five weeks. That number is why we are likely to get multiple opinion days per week in the latter part of June as we need nine to twelve opinion days.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Appropriations Clause, Bankruptcy, Chevron deference, Chief Justice John Roberts, Consumer Finance Protections Bureau, Equal Protection, Free Speech, Immigration, income tax, opioids, Originalism, Purdue Pharma, Securities and Exchange Commission, South Carolina, Supreme Court, textualism, Voting Rights
Comments Off on Supreme Court Update — Appropriations and Redistricting
Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 1
We are three weeks away from the First Monday in October which means that the Supreme Court will soon be back in session. Putting to the side the continued questions about the ethical failings of certain ultra-conservative justices (who unfortunately would never be convicted by the Senate even in the unlikely event that the more ethically-challenged Republican caucus in the House would actually allow articles of impeachment to pass), that means time to look ahead to the politically-significant cases on this year’s docket.
For a brief refresher, during its annual term, the U.S. Supreme Court sits in seven argument sessions. Each of these argument sessions lasts for two weeks. After five of these argument sessions, the U.S. Supreme Court takes a two-week break (with longer breaks over the holidays and after the January argument session). Typically, for ease of convenience, the sessions are referred to as the October, November, December, January, February, March, and April sessions even though some sessions will begin in one month and conclude in another month (like the November session this year which will begin on October 30). During the argument session, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. If one of those days is a holiday, that day is skipped. There is no firm rule (as the Supreme Court will make adjustments if the docket requires it), but a “full” docket will have two arguments in the morning on each day. Subject to adjustment if a third party (usually the Solicitor General if a case involves a federal statute) is permitted to argue, the party that lost below gets thirty minutes to argue and answer questions followed by thirty minutes for the party that won below followed by a brief rebuttal argument by the party that lost below.
On the Friday before the argument session, the justices meet to review pending petitions for review and to finalize any opinions to be released the following week. There are similar conferences on the Fridays on the weeks in which there are arguments at which the justices also discuss the arguments that were heard that week and take an initial vote on those cases which is used to assign a justice to write an opinion. On the Mondays of argument week (and the Monday after the argument week), the Supreme Court releases on order list announcing the decision on pending petitions for review. In the early part of the term, there might be a separate list announcing the cases accepted for review on Friday to give the parties additional time to start preparing their briefs (the written arguments on the case) as the time schedule gets rather tight for completing the briefs before the oral argument. Because of those time limits on the written briefs, the January argument session is effectively the cut-off date for a case being heard during the term. If review is granted after January, the case is held for the following term. Thus, the cases that we are about to discuss are those that the Supreme Court granted review on between February and June. (On rare occasions, as it did for one case this year, the Supreme Court may add a case during its summer recess, but the norm is that — other than emergency matters — the period between July 1 and October 1 is quiet.) The cases that they will accept (some of which may be discussed in Part III of this preview) in the next several weeks will be argued in the second half of this term.
Posted in Civil Rights, House of Representatives, Judicial
Also tagged Americans with Disabilities Act, appropriations, Entitlements, Equal Protection, Free Speech, redistricting, Social Security, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 1
Supreme Court — October Term 2022 Preview (Part 2)
The Supreme Court begins its annual term this upcoming Monday, October 3. Unofficially, the term begins later today when the Supreme Court holds its opening conference (at which it will start selecting the cases that will start to fill out its January and February argument sessions). In Part 1, we covered the cases that have been scheduled for argument in October and November. In this post, we will cover the cases that were previously accepted for argument back in the Spring but which have yet to be assigned to an argument docket (as of yesterday). Any day now, we should have a list of the December cases (which will actually begin on November 28 and be half in November and half in December).
Percoco vs. United States and Ciminelli vs. United States are related cases involving bidding fraud and government contracting. One aspect of the cases is whether a lobbyist with political connections (here a former campaign manager) can be found guilty for “honest services fraud” (a means of holding elected officials liable for their part in going along with fraud).
Moore vs. Harper may be the biggest election law case of the term. The Constitution grants initial power over federal elections to state legislatures. The two elections clauses — one for congressional elections and one for the choosing of presidential elections — have typically been interpreted as referring to the state legislative power rather than specific bodies (recognizing that, even in the 1780s, there were differences between the states in how they structured their governments). This traditional interpretation recognized that the people of the states had the authority to enact restrictions on election laws in their state constitutions. In recent years, conservatives have come up with the “independent state legislature” theory. Under this theory, the federal elections clauses granted power to the state legislatures that are beyond the control of state constitutions and state laws and rules. In relevant part, absent an express grant in the state election laws, this theory contends that state courts may not invalidate state elections laws related to federal elections based on state constitutions and that state executive branch officials may not deviate from the express commands in those state elections laws. This case arises in the context of congressional redistricting, but the theory of the North Carolina legislature would open up a convoluted mess of when a court or an election authority is merely interpreting the relevant state statues and when they are altering it.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Adminsitrative Procedure Act, Chevron deference, civil rights, Free Exercise Clause, Immigration, Independent State Legislature, Supreme Court, term limits
Comments Off on Supreme Court — October Term 2022 Preview (Part 2)
The Supreme Court — Faux Originalism and the Reactionary Ascendency
This is a hard week to post about. There were three opinion days this week. And each one featured a new decision that ripped at the fabric of modern society and featured a rewriting of history in the service of originalism to allow the reactionary members of the court to push through an agenda that lacks electoral support based on a misreading of the Constitution.
Tuesday started off the week with Carson vs. Makin, the Maine school voucher case. Traditionally, there have been two prongs to the Free Exercise Clause — one prong involves the power to follow one’s religious beliefs without penalty and the other prong involves discrimination based on religion. Posed against the Free Exercise Clause is the Establishment Clause which forbids the government from establishing an official religion or religions. Traditionally, the big fights have been in the “no penalty” prong.
On the penalizing religion prong, the battle has always been the reasonableness of the proposed accommodations measured against the significance of the government interest. And in the late 1980s, after one of the low points of religious freedom in which Justice Scalia basically limited this prong to the right to have beliefs without penalty for those beliefs (but no right to act on those beliefs), Congress overreacted by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which went to the other extreme. The RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause are on the verge of being interpreted as allowing people to claim religious exemptions from civil rights laws. And we are likely to see another case in this prong later this week allowing a coach at a public school to pray publicly while on the job at a school function.
Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, Free Exercise Clause, Originalism, same-sex marriage, Supreme Court
Comments Off on The Supreme Court — Faux Originalism and the Reactionary Ascendency
Supreme Court — End of Term Preview 2022
Normally, by this time of the year, the Supreme Court term is coming into focus. With three weeks to go, typically, there is one or two cases left from the Fall. While there are always question marks, it is possible to try to figure out results in the key case by who is in the running for getting the remaining opinions from a month.
This year is different. There are still 29 opinions outstanding out of 62 cases. While there have been years with more opinions outstanding heading into the last three weeks, those years were back when the Supreme Court was hearing a lot more cases per year.
To date, almost all of the opinions have been in cases that (other than the parties) mostly interested those practicing in that field. The biggest attention getting case was the decision reinstating (at least for now) the death penalty against the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. The legally biggest case of the year so far also came from Boston in a Free Exercise/Free Speech case involving Boston’s refusal to let a Christian group use one of the city’s flagpoles in connection with an event even though it routinely gave such permission to nonreligious groups. That decision may be an indicator of the likely result in some of the remaining cases, but it was merely a continuation of the recent trend in Free Exercise cases.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, EPA, Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court — End of Term Preview 2022
Supreme Court October Term 2021 Preview — Part I
Once again, it’s that time of year. Every year, the Supreme Court starts a new term on the first Monday in October. This is the first full term for the new alignment of justices. While one term is not enough to predict the future, it seems that we have a 2-3-1-2-1 court with Justices Thomas and Alito on the far right with the three Trump justices (it is unclear where they line up and there are some weird issues where they flip) on the right, Chief Justice Roberts on the center-right, Justices Breyer and Kagan on the center-left and Justice Sotomayor on the left.
As noted in pervious years, the Supreme Court follows a routine during their sittings of four week cycles (a/k/a argument sessions). In Week 1, the Supreme Court issues an “order list” on Monday , holds arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and meets in a conference on Friday. The same thing occurs in Week 2. In Week 3, there is an order list issued on Monday. Finally, in Week 4, the Supreme Court meets in a conference on Friday. At the conference, the Supreme Court reviews that weeks arguments (if any) and takes a tentative vote on each of the cases. Based on that vote, the senior justice in the majority (either the Chief Justice or the longest serving Associate Justice) gets to decide which justice gets the opinion. Also at the conference, the Supreme Court reviews some of the pending petitions for certiorari (the formal name for an application seeking Supreme Court review of a lower court decision). (If a justice believes that an application potentially should be granted, it is added to the agenda for the weekly conference. If no justice believes that an application should be granted, it is denied.) During the first half of the term, the Supreme Court tends to announce grants of certiorari immediately after the conference to give the parties three more days to complete their written legal arguments (called briefs). The Monday order list includes any grants not previously announced, some summary reversals (which is supposed to be limited to lower court decisions that are so clearly wrong that further argument is not needed), and, mostly, denials of certiorari. As noted above, most cases are denied at the initial conference (and the Supreme Court website contains a feature that allows you to run a docket search on a case to see its current status). In recent years, if the Supreme Court is interested in a case, the justices have typically “relisted” the case for a second conference to make sure that there is no procedural flaw that will prevent consideration of the main issue. While the Supreme Court typically has a four-week cycle, the December and January sessions tend to have a six week cycle (to push the January sitting past New Year’s Day and to get the February session past the worst part of winter). If there are opinions on argued cases, they can be announced at any time but usually are announced immediately before the Tuesday and Wednesday arguments. The Supreme Court calendar features seven argument sessions. After the last argument session, May and June are spent finalizing the remaining opinions from the year. After the Supreme Court releases its last opinion, they recess for the summer. Even during the summer recess, there are still some orders — periodic order lists addressing motions for rehearing (which are routinely denied) and miscellaneous orders on emergency application).
As noted above, during the argument sessions, there are six days set for argument (unless a holiday falls on one of those six days). On a typical day, there are two arguments (of approximately one hour each) in the morning. Rarely, there are additional afternoon arguments. More often, there is only one argument on a day. The argument docket for a month tends to be released approximately two months prior to the argument. There are currently nine cases set for October and nine cases set for November.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, First Amendment, free exercise, Free Speech, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court October Term 2021 Preview — Part I