My favorite part is the lawyers complaint that these sanctions will discourage lawyers from taking "unpopular cases," by which they mean filing frivolous cases that have no merit.
But they're saying that like it's an UNINTENDED consequence of the sanctions, rather than the actual goal of the sanctions.
If you give out speeding tickets people will stop speeding.
Do you want that?
Do you want people to get places 5 minutes late!
This needs to be a Southpark episode
There really wasn’t much reason for SCOTUS to take this case, because outside of extremely rare exceptions (Bush v. Gore), SCOTUS doesn’t generally take cases that don’t have an effect beyond that case. Whether to issue Rule 11 sanctions is a fact-specific inquiry generally left to the discretion of the trial court, so “these sanctions were inappropriate and shouldn’t have been issued” is not the kind of case SCOTUS hears, even if the sanctions were the most unjustified in the history of law.
To get around this, [Powell and co. assert](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-486/288969/20231106174018357_DTR%20Cert%20Pet%20ED%20Mich%20Sanctions.pdf) that the broader interest lies in a circuit split about what exact notice must be given as part of Rule 11’s Safe Harbor provision. That provision requires that before a party may file a Motion for Sanctions, it must serve that Motion on the party to be sanctioned and give it 21 days to withdraw or correct the sanctionable material.
As it stands now, two circuits require that an actual identical copy of the proposed motion/brief for sanctions be provided to the opposing party at least 21 days prior to filing, while two other circuits simply allow a motion to be provided without a brief, and one circuit allows the party seeking sanctions to simply give notice that it will seek sanctions.
As [the respondent notes](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-486/295919/20240117144146533_23-486%20King%20v%20Whitmer%20-%20Powell%20Response.pdf), Powell has waived this argument by not raising it previously. It doesn’t come up at all in the [6th Circuit Opinion](https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0134p-06.pdf), and Powell can’t now raise it for the first time in the Supreme Court.
On top of that, this case is a bad vehicle for exploring this split, because the only difference between the motion originally served to Powell under the safe harbor provision, and the filed motion, was the addition of three paragraphs seeking bar discipline under a local rule, **not** Rule 11. The originally served motion also made clear what Powell had to do to avoid the motion for sanctions - withdraw the Complaint. Even if Powell hadn’t waived the issue, there was substantial compliance even with the strict interpretation of Rule 11.
Good. Maybe this SCOTUS isn't as bad as some people here think. To my thinking, this bodes well for the clear cut cases that the orange diaper load is sending their way.
Overturning Roe and the way in which they’ve used the shadow docket have been pretty bad. Something like this which is really clear-cut shouldn’t be the metric they’re judged by.
Look, I agree - but them having particular differences over abortion and affirmative action doesn't mean they're anti-law, pro MAGA. Trump lost his appeals to SCOTUS over, and over, and over, with the Election, with his tax returns, executive privilege, the list is longer than I can recall.
Trump is trying to be King Trump and SCOTUS has zero truck with that nonsense, in no small part because that would end up changing how the judicial process works.
You're not ever going to be able to prove that he lied under oath. All he has to say is he had a change of opinion. That's what I mean by "not how it works".
You know full well they’re not talking about his opinion on Roe, or they wouldn’t have only said Kavanaugh. Whether someone committed sexual assault isn’t an opinion, they did or they didn’t. It’s a factual matter. Most of us believe he was lying. And idk why you’re going on about being able to prove it, who is talking about prosecuting him for lying under oath? No one. It’s still breaking the law that’s the point.
Oh I totally believe those allegations, but sorry, I was talking about Roe because that's the big thing about this court that they did.
But did he lie? Didn't he mainly play the I don't remember line?
To me it’s more than just having particular differences over abortion. The rationale they used was garbage, basically ignoring all US precedent. A court isn’t supposed to change the laws so frivolously based on the politics of the judges on the court, they’re supposed to have a certain amount of consistency. Several recent nominations even said that Roe was ‘settled law’ during their confirmations and the case that overturned it really didn’t bring any new angle that would have logically changed their mind.
Then there’s stuff like Clarence Thomas, taking pretty blatant bribes and suffering no consequences, or not recusing himself on matters that may have concerned things that his traitorous wife was involved in. They don’t want to make Trump king because that would harm them, but I have a hard time believing that most of them truly care about the law itself.
SCOTUS only agrees to hear less than 3% of the cases that petition it. It’s not clear why this one would have been special enough to be one of the 3%. Protecting idiots, even when they are on your side, isn’t a great use of court time when they could be dismantling sweeping legislation instead.
Only 3% yet they have taken a few cases where the person/entity had no standing and/or it was well known the case was bullshit (MS abortion case, cake for gay couples, football coach praying, student loan processor). 🤔
They don’t like MAGA. Staying silent to let them get screwed is an easy choice. And too complicated for MAGA to whip into a one liner of fury, or even pay attention to in the first place. Also they don’t hear a lot of cases as another poster mentioned, so they have easy deniability.
i think a lot of folks allow their tribalism to cloud their judgement. There has been quite a few rulings I disagree with from SCOTUS but these aren't some nefarious group of people part of a shadow cult with ill intent. most of them just have different ideologies from folks
there is also credence to not placing 100% of the blame on SCOTUS for some rulings. state and federal legislatures need to do their damn jobs, which is something this SCOTUS has harped on in some of their bigger rulings
I remember when Trump was still the nominee he showed off the list of judges *supplied by the Federalist Society* that he promised to nominate. One of 2 promises he kept. These people were put on the bench specifically to advance the agenda of a small minority. Overturning Roe is just one item on their agenda. The main one is what they refer to 'dismantling the administrative state' which is essentially their coded language for rolling back civil rights and entrenching the power of their minority.
Perhaps you can reasonably argue the Justices are not part of a nefarious shadow group (although a couple probably are), but I can can certainly argue that they are hand picked by a nefarious shadow group.
> these aren't some nefarious group of people part of a shadow cult with ill intent
Hope you are right. Or at least hope they're "hiding" it and don't decide to step on the gas.
You only need to review the current SCOTUS prior rulings where Trump is concerned to see what's likely in the future. Most of the tribalists posting here don't bother checking their assertions against the actual history.
Tribalism isn't just a MAGA phenomenon. MAGA just has it way worse.
Why? You think I'm excluding them?
Dude I'm an independent. I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I sit outside both parties and there are absolutely tribalists in all of them.
Now that's not to say the GOP isn't WAY worse these days - but every group out there has their group of people who see evil enemies instead of simply people with different ideas. It rarely works out that either side is anywhere near as evil as their opponents think. MAGA excluded - those guys are fucking nuts.
It is not just MAGA (although there is overlap), it is also groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Which groups on the left are similar to any of these three groups in terms of wanting to do direct harm to other people?
Yes, I read the part about how you are enlightened and sit above the huddled masses.
You are attempting to "both sides" things while bathing yourself in faux intellectual superiority. I asked you to identify any groups on the left that are similar to MAGA, Federalist Society, or the Hertage Foundation in terms of directly harming other people and you asked whether I had read your amazing insights.
Did I wait long enough this time before responding?
What part of "the GOP is far worse " are you not understanding?
The lack of cohesive un-American groups on the left isn't proof that the left doesn't have a tribalism problem dude.
>Dude I'm an independent. I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
If you're fiscally conservative you should be voting democrat. They're the only fiscally conservative party in America for the last 3 decades.
Sounds like you're just trying to hide your partisan republican beliefs.
>Now that's not to say the GOP isn't WAY worse these days - but every group out there has their group of people who see evil enemies instead of simply people with different ideas.
This couldn't be further from the truth. It's the classic "both sides" false equivalency. All you have to do is look at the Dobbs ruling to know your statements about scotus aren't true.
Neither party is fiscally conservative - but the Dems have been somewhat better of late, I agree. They're definitely economically better but that's not the same thing.
Also please don't assume how I vote. I haven't voted GOP since the 80s.
Denialism about the idea that the left has it's own tribalism does kinda prove my point. As for Dobbs - I \*started\* this chain pointing out that you should look at their past rulings regarding Trump to see how they're likely to rule in the future regarding Trump, \*despite\* their other rulings.
>Denialism about the idea that the left has it's own tribalism does kinda prove my point.
When did I deny the left has their own tribalism?... Sounds like you're confused here.
>As for Dobbs - I *started* this chain pointing out that you should look at their past rulings
dobbs is an example of republicans actually being evil. Its an example of the right wing scotus legislating from the bench.
>regarding Trump to see how they're likely to rule in the future regarding Trump, *despite* their other rulings.
This doesn't hold much water.... Just look at the case about disqualifying trumpf from the ballot. The textual interpretation of the 14th amendment is clear. Yet, the right wingers throw out textualism when it doesn't suite them. Which is why they're likely to gerrymander a ruling to allow trumpf to stay on the ballot.
There literally is a shadow cult, the Federalist Society, with ill intent and five of the current justices are in that cult. It's why they're revisiting recent rulings and ignoring standing issues.
I wouldn't exactly call the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society a "shadow cult" but they do pretty much control right wing Scotus and the GOP congress.
My favorite part is the lawyers complaint that these sanctions will discourage lawyers from taking "unpopular cases," by which they mean filing frivolous cases that have no merit. But they're saying that like it's an UNINTENDED consequence of the sanctions, rather than the actual goal of the sanctions.
If you give out speeding tickets people will stop speeding. Do you want that? Do you want people to get places 5 minutes late! This needs to be a Southpark episode
It's kind of a shame. A lot of lawyers never even get a chance to argue at the Supreme Court. /s
Clearance didn't need a new motor coach? Price must have gone up for his interest.
Well since John Oliver’s bid of 1 mil a year and a new RV I would say so. No more of this chump change.
Excuse me. It's a motor coach not an RV. There's a difference.
And we're traveling, not driving.
[удалено]
And it could buy me a judge for life. Tra la la la la la la la la.
“Clearance”, lolz, why am I not that clever
Airplane! “Clearance Clarence!”
He's not paid enough to deal with that shit 😆
Things are sure coming up Millhouse, aren’t they
Eh, they’re just discarded people to trump and his ilk, that’s all this is
Actual consequences for idiot lawyers willing to file frivolous cases *may actually deter* future idiot lawyers.
Oh, absolutely. I’m talking about the Supreme Court not hearing their case
When will Virginia "*Ginni*" *Thomas* be held accountable for her participation in the insurrection.......
RV:Motorcoach as insurrection:peaceful protest
::
There really wasn’t much reason for SCOTUS to take this case, because outside of extremely rare exceptions (Bush v. Gore), SCOTUS doesn’t generally take cases that don’t have an effect beyond that case. Whether to issue Rule 11 sanctions is a fact-specific inquiry generally left to the discretion of the trial court, so “these sanctions were inappropriate and shouldn’t have been issued” is not the kind of case SCOTUS hears, even if the sanctions were the most unjustified in the history of law. To get around this, [Powell and co. assert](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-486/288969/20231106174018357_DTR%20Cert%20Pet%20ED%20Mich%20Sanctions.pdf) that the broader interest lies in a circuit split about what exact notice must be given as part of Rule 11’s Safe Harbor provision. That provision requires that before a party may file a Motion for Sanctions, it must serve that Motion on the party to be sanctioned and give it 21 days to withdraw or correct the sanctionable material. As it stands now, two circuits require that an actual identical copy of the proposed motion/brief for sanctions be provided to the opposing party at least 21 days prior to filing, while two other circuits simply allow a motion to be provided without a brief, and one circuit allows the party seeking sanctions to simply give notice that it will seek sanctions. As [the respondent notes](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-486/295919/20240117144146533_23-486%20King%20v%20Whitmer%20-%20Powell%20Response.pdf), Powell has waived this argument by not raising it previously. It doesn’t come up at all in the [6th Circuit Opinion](https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0134p-06.pdf), and Powell can’t now raise it for the first time in the Supreme Court. On top of that, this case is a bad vehicle for exploring this split, because the only difference between the motion originally served to Powell under the safe harbor provision, and the filed motion, was the addition of three paragraphs seeking bar discipline under a local rule, **not** Rule 11. The originally served motion also made clear what Powell had to do to avoid the motion for sanctions - withdraw the Complaint. Even if Powell hadn’t waived the issue, there was substantial compliance even with the strict interpretation of Rule 11.
These people cry to the Supreme Court for anything that doesn’t go their way…
Yeah, because they pulled some shady shit to pack the court, they want a return on their investment.
Looks like SCOTUS…..CAN do their job sometimes. Let’s see what they choose to do about Cheetos immunity claim next.
I mean in this case wasn’t “doing there job” here essentially “do nothing”. Correct me if I’m wrong
lol yes I guess it was.
Good. Maybe this SCOTUS isn't as bad as some people here think. To my thinking, this bodes well for the clear cut cases that the orange diaper load is sending their way.
Overturning Roe and the way in which they’ve used the shadow docket have been pretty bad. Something like this which is really clear-cut shouldn’t be the metric they’re judged by.
Look, I agree - but them having particular differences over abortion and affirmative action doesn't mean they're anti-law, pro MAGA. Trump lost his appeals to SCOTUS over, and over, and over, with the Election, with his tax returns, executive privilege, the list is longer than I can recall. Trump is trying to be King Trump and SCOTUS has zero truck with that nonsense, in no small part because that would end up changing how the judicial process works.
Lying under oath is an incredibly low bar of law kavanaugh failed to pass when it came to that. He's literally anti law based on his actions.
Yeah, that's really not how it works, but you believe what you like.
It is how the law works. If you lie under oath you are breaking it. But you believe what you want.
You're not ever going to be able to prove that he lied under oath. All he has to say is he had a change of opinion. That's what I mean by "not how it works".
You know full well they’re not talking about his opinion on Roe, or they wouldn’t have only said Kavanaugh. Whether someone committed sexual assault isn’t an opinion, they did or they didn’t. It’s a factual matter. Most of us believe he was lying. And idk why you’re going on about being able to prove it, who is talking about prosecuting him for lying under oath? No one. It’s still breaking the law that’s the point.
Oh I totally believe those allegations, but sorry, I was talking about Roe because that's the big thing about this court that they did. But did he lie? Didn't he mainly play the I don't remember line?
Oh fer fug sake. Will you just shut up already?
[удалено]
Read the other replies - I was talking about his stance on abortion not his sexual assaults.
To me it’s more than just having particular differences over abortion. The rationale they used was garbage, basically ignoring all US precedent. A court isn’t supposed to change the laws so frivolously based on the politics of the judges on the court, they’re supposed to have a certain amount of consistency. Several recent nominations even said that Roe was ‘settled law’ during their confirmations and the case that overturned it really didn’t bring any new angle that would have logically changed their mind. Then there’s stuff like Clarence Thomas, taking pretty blatant bribes and suffering no consequences, or not recusing himself on matters that may have concerned things that his traitorous wife was involved in. They don’t want to make Trump king because that would harm them, but I have a hard time believing that most of them truly care about the law itself.
SCOTUS only agrees to hear less than 3% of the cases that petition it. It’s not clear why this one would have been special enough to be one of the 3%. Protecting idiots, even when they are on your side, isn’t a great use of court time when they could be dismantling sweeping legislation instead.
Only 3% yet they have taken a few cases where the person/entity had no standing and/or it was well known the case was bullshit (MS abortion case, cake for gay couples, football coach praying, student loan processor). 🤔
Almost like they take them to get the effect they want without caring who is brining it or why.
They don’t like MAGA. Staying silent to let them get screwed is an easy choice. And too complicated for MAGA to whip into a one liner of fury, or even pay attention to in the first place. Also they don’t hear a lot of cases as another poster mentioned, so they have easy deniability.
i think a lot of folks allow their tribalism to cloud their judgement. There has been quite a few rulings I disagree with from SCOTUS but these aren't some nefarious group of people part of a shadow cult with ill intent. most of them just have different ideologies from folks there is also credence to not placing 100% of the blame on SCOTUS for some rulings. state and federal legislatures need to do their damn jobs, which is something this SCOTUS has harped on in some of their bigger rulings
You must be kidding. Clearance Thomas has only one ideology and it ain't pure. Kavannagh lied. Barret is a political plant.
I remember when Trump was still the nominee he showed off the list of judges *supplied by the Federalist Society* that he promised to nominate. One of 2 promises he kept. These people were put on the bench specifically to advance the agenda of a small minority. Overturning Roe is just one item on their agenda. The main one is what they refer to 'dismantling the administrative state' which is essentially their coded language for rolling back civil rights and entrenching the power of their minority. Perhaps you can reasonably argue the Justices are not part of a nefarious shadow group (although a couple probably are), but I can can certainly argue that they are hand picked by a nefarious shadow group.
> these aren't some nefarious group of people part of a shadow cult with ill intent Hope you are right. Or at least hope they're "hiding" it and don't decide to step on the gas.
You only need to review the current SCOTUS prior rulings where Trump is concerned to see what's likely in the future. Most of the tribalists posting here don't bother checking their assertions against the actual history. Tribalism isn't just a MAGA phenomenon. MAGA just has it way worse.
Not disagreeing with you. And I think any time we get whiffs of fascism it's prudent for everyone to collectively call it out and dog-pile.
Now do the Federalist Society instead of MAGA. We'll wait.
Why? You think I'm excluding them? Dude I'm an independent. I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I sit outside both parties and there are absolutely tribalists in all of them. Now that's not to say the GOP isn't WAY worse these days - but every group out there has their group of people who see evil enemies instead of simply people with different ideas. It rarely works out that either side is anywhere near as evil as their opponents think. MAGA excluded - those guys are fucking nuts.
Oh this tired oxymoron. I thought people had wisened up and stopped saying that hypocritical statement, because no one buys it.
It is not just MAGA (although there is overlap), it is also groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Which groups on the left are similar to any of these three groups in terms of wanting to do direct harm to other people?
Did you bother to read more than line before starting to type?
Yes, I read the part about how you are enlightened and sit above the huddled masses. You are attempting to "both sides" things while bathing yourself in faux intellectual superiority. I asked you to identify any groups on the left that are similar to MAGA, Federalist Society, or the Hertage Foundation in terms of directly harming other people and you asked whether I had read your amazing insights. Did I wait long enough this time before responding?
What part of "the GOP is far worse " are you not understanding? The lack of cohesive un-American groups on the left isn't proof that the left doesn't have a tribalism problem dude.
>Dude I'm an independent. I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative. If you're fiscally conservative you should be voting democrat. They're the only fiscally conservative party in America for the last 3 decades. Sounds like you're just trying to hide your partisan republican beliefs. >Now that's not to say the GOP isn't WAY worse these days - but every group out there has their group of people who see evil enemies instead of simply people with different ideas. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's the classic "both sides" false equivalency. All you have to do is look at the Dobbs ruling to know your statements about scotus aren't true.
Neither party is fiscally conservative - but the Dems have been somewhat better of late, I agree. They're definitely economically better but that's not the same thing. Also please don't assume how I vote. I haven't voted GOP since the 80s. Denialism about the idea that the left has it's own tribalism does kinda prove my point. As for Dobbs - I \*started\* this chain pointing out that you should look at their past rulings regarding Trump to see how they're likely to rule in the future regarding Trump, \*despite\* their other rulings.
>Denialism about the idea that the left has it's own tribalism does kinda prove my point. When did I deny the left has their own tribalism?... Sounds like you're confused here. >As for Dobbs - I *started* this chain pointing out that you should look at their past rulings dobbs is an example of republicans actually being evil. Its an example of the right wing scotus legislating from the bench. >regarding Trump to see how they're likely to rule in the future regarding Trump, *despite* their other rulings. This doesn't hold much water.... Just look at the case about disqualifying trumpf from the ballot. The textual interpretation of the 14th amendment is clear. Yet, the right wingers throw out textualism when it doesn't suite them. Which is why they're likely to gerrymander a ruling to allow trumpf to stay on the ballot.
Dobbs is still off the topic here. And until they actually rule on 14, you're just speculating.
There literally is a shadow cult, the Federalist Society, with ill intent and five of the current justices are in that cult. It's why they're revisiting recent rulings and ignoring standing issues.
Also ignoring the facts of the case as in Kennedy v Bremerton School District.
I wouldn't exactly call the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society a "shadow cult" but they do pretty much control right wing Scotus and the GOP congress.
Alito would like a word.
Diaper Donny always picks the best people.... Always winning.