I was surprised at the contempt aspect of the case in a different way: I thought a lot of the time, contempt is punished without even much of a trial to speak of, because it's supposed to be so obvious that the judge can just say "I find you in contempt" and send you from the courtroom to jail. Has that changed, or is this situation different?
I don't really see a reason to believe that Justice Gorsuch's dissent is disingenuous in this case. This was a weird case and, as shown by the competing theories offered in the two government briefs, an odd blurring of lines between branches. Why couldn't they get 2 more votes for cert? Probably because the circumstances here are just so rare.
2 There's civil contempt and there's criminal contempt. The first is for the benefit of the opposite party, and the second is for the state. You get a separate trial for the latter, not least because the state isn't in your case already.
I guess I'm at the point where I'm no longer seeing "because the court said so" as a compelling moral reason for doing something. The United States justice system is corrupt from top to bottom, and its at the point where the Supreme Court can and will rewrite whatever laws they want. As courts continue to bleed legitimacy, automatic submission to their dictates can no longer be a given.
As I think about it, and the precedent (Young) that would have been at issue if they'd taken Donziger, I'm not convinced that there should be any court appointments for criminal contempt. Suppose someone lies in their deposition. A prosecution for perjury is a possibility, but if the county attorney (or DA or whatever it's called where you live) declines to prosecute, we don't just deputize the judge to pick some lawyer friend to take up the prosecution. (In Young case, dealing with knock-off Vuitton handbags, the judge appointed the opposing party to prosecute. SC said no, has to be disinterested.) No, if someone lies in their deposition -- a daily occurrence in this great country of ours -- and the government isn't interested in prosecuting, you suck it up.
If you ask nicely, I could go fix those italics. Otherwise you're in contempt.
I don't understand any of this. My son is saying he wants to go to law school. Maybe I should stop him?
5 You and Donald Trump, peas in a pod?
7 Sorry! Yes, please fix. Young and Donziger are meant to be italicized.
8 I have a terrible track record when it comes to trying to talk people out of it.
I'm not convinced that there should be any court appointments for criminal contempt
This seems fine as a policy proposal. It would be a departure from status quo though, right? Such appointments currently are not common but do happen from time to time?
You and Donald Trump, peas in a pod?
Maybe, but he broke it. I'm just noticing its broken. At some point its going to be broken enough that procedural liberalism won't save us.
15 No point in rehashing that recent discussion.
Anyway, the Supreme Court decided a case today. You're free, I suppose, to ignore their pronouncement about whether or not the general statute of limitations for actions against the US government is jurisdictional, as opposed to mere claim processing. The lower courts are not. This is nearly all of what the US Supreme Court does; even in the big policy cases you -- we -- don't like, they're not generally telling you what to do, they're telling judges what to do. Our approval/acceptance isn't sought, required, or, usually, relevant.
(It's not a general SOL, but the SOL in the quiet Title Act. Is Justice Sotomayor right on this one? Surely.)
Our approval/acceptance isn't sought, required, or, usually, relevant.
I am aware there is little we can do but escalate public reprobation of the court system as a means of withdrawing the consent of the governed. Maybe you don't think that's a good idea, but show me better options.
14 Certainly, and there's a rule that allows this.
Minivet, you might enjoy this: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol124_%20permitting_private_initiation.pdf
16: Hello, is/ought distinction! That's how things work in normal times, but it's happened before that the institution went so far astray from public understanding of right and wrong that they had to be disobeyed, delegitimized, and torn down before being built back better. I hope we follow in Honest Abe's footsteps.
It's really hard not to see this as a private corporately funded prosecution. It stinks.
18 Elect progressive majorities in legislative bodies, and to executive positions. Never ever under any circumstances elect Republicans to anything at all. Ever. This is a big lift in a closely divided country, and we can only do it if we all act together.
Abe Vigoda was a great procedural liberal on Barney Miller.
21: What makes it corporate-funded? Did Chevron pay for it?
19: Thanks. I guess I'm curious if you think: is "no private prosecutions for contempt" just good policy, or is it directly required by separation of powers in the Constitution? Because the former seems plausible, but the latter seems like special pleading just as bad as the novel theory that is "nondelegation".
24: No, Lincoln did what FDR merely threatened, and much more.
25 The article I linked is convincing me that in the DV order of protection context, private prosecution for violations is necessary. I'm less convinced re knock-off handbags or what Donziger did. Maybe it's the safety aspect, maybe it's the centuries of misogyny, maybe both.
Not to rehash, but I don't think separation of powers is always special pleading. I think the diffusion of power is an important concept, and this has to include some definition and policing of boundaries between authorities. (I'm definitely out of the mainstream in my views re art II -- I think it includes a whole lot less inherent power than our current consensus. Special pleading is a term I would reserve for the Yoo types who happily find different limits to executive power depending on whether it's being wielded by a Republican.)
26 You and I have different perceptions regarding the post Civil War Supreme Court. You've surely studied it more closely than I . . .
Funny the bit in the article linked in 19 where the Supreme Court implied that only public prosecutors "will be guided solely by [their] sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice", vs. the current public and even pop-culture understanding that prosecutors see their job as to prosecute as aggressively as possible consistent with the law. (At least USAs aren't elected like their state counterparts.)
Jeez, that case just keeps going.
Hi, all. The Donziger case was really crazy. I don't know enough about the underlying facts to have an opinion on them. I did see enough of the decisions to have a gut feeling that Judge Kaplan should not have been the one making the decision to prosecute Donziger. "To perform its high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice," &c. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Appointments Clause requires that result.
30-32 It's an interesting opinion. I'd have gone with the dissent I think.
Huh. I think some doubts about the judge had to do with information about the judge. I am only linking to Jacobin because I can't find another source.
https://jacobin.com/2021/10/steven-donziger-loretta-preska-law-corruption-courts-corporate-influence
So this is also Fed Soc v. Fed Soc not Fed Soc v. 'administrative state.'
It's pretty interesting, in fact. This confirms your suspicion that the liberal justices were worried about the implication for administrative state.
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/gorsuch-kavanaugh-supreme-court-donziger/
It's one of those odd situations where there is overreach perhaps but you also have lawlessness looming. So while you don't want lawlessness, will letting overreach go on be a barrier to it? Not with these guys, they do what they want.
Huh. I think some doubts about the judge had to do with information about the judge. I am only linking to Jacobin because I can't find another source.
https://jacobin.com/2021/10/steven-donziger-loretta-preska-law-corruption-courts-corporate-influence
So this is also Fed Soc v. Fed Soc not Fed Soc v. 'administrative state.'
It's pretty interesting, in fact. This confirms your suspicion that the liberal justices were worried about the implication for administrative state.
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/gorsuch-kavanaugh-supreme-court-donziger/
It's one of those odd situations where there is overreach perhaps but you also have lawlessness looming. So while you don't want lawlessness, will letting overreach go on be a barrier to it? Not with these guys, they do what they want.
Huh. I think some doubts about the judge had to do with information about the judge. I am only linking to Jacobin because I can't find another source.
https://jacobin.com/2021/10/steven-donziger-loretta-preska-law-corruption-courts-corporate-influence
So this is also Fed Soc v. Fed Soc not Fed Soc v. 'administrative state.'
It's pretty interesting, in fact. This confirms your suspicion that the liberal justices were worried about the implication for administrative state.
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/gorsuch-kavanaugh-supreme-court-donziger/
It's one of those odd situations where there is overreach perhaps but you also have lawlessness looming. So while you don't want lawlessness, will letting overreach go on be a barrier to it? Not with these guys, they do what they want.
Huh. I think some doubts about the judge had to do with information about the judge. I am only linking to Jacobin because I can't find another source.
https://jacobin.com/2021/10/steven-donziger-loretta-preska-law-corruption-courts-corporate-influence
So this is also Fed Soc v. Fed Soc not Fed Soc v. 'administrative state.'
It's pretty interesting, in fact. This confirms your suspicion that the liberal justices were worried about the implication for administrative state.
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/gorsuch-kavanaugh-supreme-court-donziger/
It's one of those odd situations where there is overreach perhaps but you also have lawlessness looming. So while you don't want lawlessness, will letting overreach go on be a barrier to it? Not with these guys, they do what they want.
Who are you?
Who are you, are you, are you
It seems kinda lost in all this that Chevron did massive damage to the environmental and harm to indigenous people, and got away with it.
But we mustn't disrespect the system that lead to this outcome, oh no.
The system that led to that outcome in Ecuador is the Ecuadorean government (including its courts), which seems to be dodgy as hell and generally uninterested in the welfare of their populations. Disrespect them as much as you like. The US judicial system only got involved after the damage had been done, and to the defeated may say alas but can neither help nor pardon.
Re: the Serial case, a public defender on Twitter who I knew from college debate posted, "I am begging journalists who cover the courts to learn something about the law so they don't mislead readers. This order likely just means a new hearing--with more notice to Ms. Lee's family--so prosecutors can again ask the conviction be vacated, and the judge can again grant it."
The pictures of the prison are absolutely terrifying--the size, scope and likely conditions.
Eventually people will know the cost. That's not to say it's surprising that it is popular but it is popular when nobody knows the cost.
What kind of society can there be in the future when the current government wields this much power?