A Monumental SCOTUS Term Begins: Our Reluctant Curtain-Raiser
Sep 30, 2023
auto_awesome
The podcast discusses the upcoming Supreme Court term, highlighting cases related to commerce and second amendment extremism. It explores topics such as the influence of wealth on rulings, the challenges faced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, weak physician harm claims, the wealth tax case, and potential implications of a Trump victory on the Supreme Court.
58:00
AI Summary
Highlights
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
The outcome of the Moors case challenging the constitutionality of a wealth tax could impact its future application.
Ongoing challenges to reproductive rights may be diffused by the Supreme Court and have implications for the 2024 election.
The Supreme Court may prefer to avoid involvement in Trump-related cases to avoid conflicts and potential bias.
Deep dives
Fifth Circuit ruling on wealth tax and the interpretation of the 16th Amendment
The Moors have filed a case challenging the constitutionality of a one-time mandatory repatriation tax, playing a role in the issue of a proposed wealth tax. They argue that the 16th Amendment only permits taxation on realized income, and thus wealth cannot be taxed until it is realized. However, this interpretation does not align with the text of the Constitution or prior court decisions. The outcome of this case could potentially impact the application of a wealth tax in the future.
Challenges to Mifeprexone and restrictions on reproductive freedoms post-Dobbs
There are ongoing challenges to restrictions on reproductive rights, including the Mifeprexone case. The plaintiffs argue that the 16th Amendment prohibits taxing income until it is realized, hindering the ability to implement a wealth tax. The Supreme Court may seek to diffuse the case by denying standing. The court may also consider the implications of these challenges and the potential for further restrictions on reproductive freedoms leading up to the 2024 election.
Ramifications of the law of Trump and potential Supreme Court involvement
The numerous criminal cases involving Trump, such as the Trump Corporation case and the eugene case, as well as attempts to disqualify Trump from running for office raise complex legal questions. The justices may be wary of involving themselves in cases related to Trump to avoid potential conflicts and the appearance of bias. The court may also prefer to let other courts handle these cases due to the complications and potential backlash. However, the outcome is uncertain and will depend on the specific issues that arise in each case.
Supreme Court's reluctance in engaging with Trump-related cases
The conservative justices, except for Thomas and Alito, may not have strong allegiance to Trump and may prefer to distance themselves from his cases. Kavanaugh and Roberts have shown a willingness to establish reasonable limits on the Second Amendment, suggesting that they may not be in favor of Trump's claims regarding firearms. The court may try to avoid involvement in Trump-related cases, especially those with weak constitutional arguments or potential for controversy.
Predictions on future Supreme Court engagement regarding Trump-related cases
Predicting the Supreme Court's involvement in Trump-related cases is challenging due to the numerous complexities and potential legal issues. The court is likely to prioritize standing and may be hesitant to engage in cases that involve a considerable level of novelty or potential for backlash. The conservative majority may prefer to preserve the status quo and avoid making decisions that would disrupt the current tax code or the ability of individuals to run for office. The court's decisions will depend on the specific arguments and circumstances presented in each case.
Refusing to play the traditional first Monday in October game, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern squint through the cloud of ethics scandals enveloping the High Court to see a docket aimed squarely at unfettering commerce from outside supervision, with a side order of second amendment extremism. What could possibly go wrong?
