In major victory for California, Supreme Court rejects Trump's challenge to state sanctuary law
Source: LA Times
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the Trump administrations challenge to a California sanctuary law, leaving intact rules that prohibit law enforcement officials from aiding federal agents in taking custody of immigrants as they are released from jail.
Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted to hear the administrations appeal.
The courts action is a major victory for California in its long running battle with President Trump.
At issue was a clash between federal power and states rights.
Read more: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-15/supreme-court-rejects-trumps-challenge-to-california-sanctuary-law
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,854 posts)I've said in other posts that those two are the most extreme members of the court. I'm no fan of Kavanaugh or Gorsuch but so far they haven't been as bad as Thomas and Alito. And Rehnquist was worse than any of them, even Scalia.
bucolic_frolic
(43,289 posts)from somewhere other than Scalia-Alito Territory. What were they teaching in those schools that brought 2 of them to the Supreme Court?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,854 posts)Scalia was an originalist (as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh also claim to be), meaning he believed the Constitution should be interpreted in light of what was going on in society at the time the Constitution was written, and that courts shouldn't apply modern conditions or reasoning to its words. IMO that's nuts, but what do I know? There are other legal philosophies as well - Critical Legal Studies is a theory that proposes that the law is always intertwined with social issues and has inherent social biases. Proponents of CLS believe that the law supports the interests of those who create the law, and is intended to maintains the status quo in favor of existing power structures. There are also legal realists, legal relativists, believers in natural law, etc., etc. Law students are exposed to many of these theories but there might be a chicken/egg thing going on - that is, if a person were already inclined to be conservative they'd probably be attracted to originalism; if they were already liberal they'd probably go for legal realism or CLS.
bucolic_frolic
(43,289 posts)Supreme Court Justices hailing from Lawrenceville NJ or thereabouts? And both right wingers? Is it a school of thought that predates the Republic? Ignore the law and laissez-faire and all that?
I mean I know Nuclear scientists mostly graduated from the same school in Germany. They were teaching something important.
And Joe Garagiola and Yogi Berra lived across the street from one another as kids.
Something's going on in the world.
Bernanke taught at nearby Princeton. Somebody had GWB's ear.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,854 posts)and the political and social connections they've developed. As in all professions, there are informal networks; it's not what you know, it's whom you know. If your friends from your town or your school have connections you can tap into them. It's the way everything works everywhere.
sandensea
(21,665 posts)When it came to installing Dubya, it was "because I said so."
forgotmylogin
(7,531 posts)Basically "Yeah, we can't take any modern technology they didn't have into account except for the 2nd amendment yeah go ahead with your laser sighted high-fire-rate machine guns that's totally okay LOL"
reACTIONary
(5,771 posts).... are sometimes grouped under the concept of "the living constitution".
An interesting book concerning this distinction is David Strauss The Living Constitution.
https://www.amazon.com/Living-Constitution-INALIENABLE-RIGHTS/dp/0195377273
klook
(12,166 posts)Those have been very helpful in bolstering the originalist viewpoint.
Jersey Devlin
(85 posts)Worse than Scalia? HE's the one today's "conservatives" get all teary-eyed about!
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,854 posts)was both clever and caustic, and they loved the jabs he took at the liberal justices. But although Scalia was a Constitutional originalist - IMO a silly theory, but I'm not on the Supreme Court - and he almost always took the side of corporations vs. individuals, he wasn't such a crackpot that he couldn't come up with an argument supporting his decisions. He also was a strong advocate for the First Amendment. I didn't like him but he wasn't a knee-jerk reactionary like Alito and especially Thomas.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)dvduval
(260 posts)Read it for free here
https://www.union-bulletin.com/news/national/in-major-victory-for-california-supreme-court-rejects-trump-s-challenge-to-state-sanctuary-law/article_6fb9824d-6167-5322-a57e-6a78967fa51b.html
News should be a right not a privilege
DeminPennswoods
(15,290 posts)Two surprising decisions today rejecting rw arguments.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,196 posts)KY_EnviroGuy
(14,494 posts)Lookie who spearheaded this challenge.....
(snip)
But Trump still got his free bully pulpit moment on Faux News.......
roamer65
(36,747 posts)I had to steal a little from Jello Biafra.