Posted on 03/05/2021 8:15:01 AM PST by Deo volente
Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Thursday issued her first majority opinion since joining the Supreme Court in October, siding against an environmental group that sought access to government records.
In the 7-2 ruling, Barrett wrote that the records detailing internal agency deliberations did not need to be turned over under a federal public disclosure law. The five other conservatives and liberal Justice Elena Kagan joined Barrett’s opinion, with liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in dissent.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Really conservative if Elena Kagan joins........../s
Trying to support the woman on the court is all. Very little to do with law, constitutional opinions ect.
“Really conservative if Elena Kagan joins........../s”
**************************************************
Really leftist if all the conservatives join in......../s
There is maybe two conservatives on the court.
Sorry, no respect for any of the SCOTUS weaklings who allowed our country to have a phony election victory. They could have allowed the lawsuits to be fully heard and even if they found them in error they should have aired the two sides once and for all.
Big deal. When it counts she’s absent.
She had ONE moment to shine, show some courage and patriotism, and promptly dodged it, back in January.
Anything she does now is moot.
But I guess that’s OK to her, because she’s “part of the Club” now.
Alito and Thomas may be the only true conservatives remaining in the federal judiciary. I wonder about the 300 or so “conservative” judges that Mitch pushed through under President Trump. I really wonder...
It’s easy to rule on issues that have no real impact.
So, Barrett won a participation award, consisting of participation? Won for what, good behavior?
“The five other conservatives and liberal Justice Elena Kagan”
And what five conservatve would that be? I only see two.
Based upon my nearly 20 years as a FOIA officer, this decision does have an impact and she states it in the 2 paragraphs below:
“Barrett wrote that the records were shielded under a FOIA exemption that allows agencies to keep internal deliberation under wraps in order to encourage frank discussion among officials.”
“To encourage candor, which improves agency decision making, the privilege blunts the chilling effect that accompanies the prospect of disclosure,” Barrett wrote.
I’ll wait and see if we get any actually significant 5-4 cases with Roberts in the minority.
I do too.
Thanks. I was being a little flippant in my comment. I'm sure it does have impact in certain circles. It pales in comparison to an issue that could very well spell doom for the Republic, though. My intent was to demean SCOTUS not the issue.
This wasn’t a right/left decision. It was a government uber alles decision. The peasants aren’t allowed to know why our supposed “public servants” are doing with our money.
Regarding the fed's constitutionally limited powers…
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
"Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof [emphasis added]; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
I use the U.S. Post Service clause as a litmus test to start pulling threads on possible federal government overreach on any issue. This post is relatively short because I don’t have the time right now for a better write-up of critiques. I don’t know where to begin.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supremes did not even question the following concerns.
Question privacy afforded to non-elected officials, especially when issue being discussed is not U.S. Post Service, since elected members of Congress are constitutionally required to maintain a congressional record.
Question so-called congressional committees seemingly established in early 1900s that are somehow exempt from the congressional record, especially when “official” business is not U.S. Post Service.
Question any action of the so-called Environmental Protection Agency since the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to dictate policy for INTRAstate purposes.
Question if the wildlife land in question was properly constitutionally acquired by the feds.
In this example, possibly neither the Sierra Club legal council, or the author of the referenced article, are up to speed with the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. So key information is overlooked. And Sierra Club legal council is possibly in ozone layer as much as Supremes seem to be.
As a side note to this post, please consider the following.
Possibly a good way for patriots to challenge federal government’s constitutionally limited powers is for pro-2nd Amendment (2A) patriots, in addition to arguing 2A, also argue that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime restrictive gun laws.
Patriots who accept my challenge please report blank look responses to missing federal powers to make peacetime restrictive gun laws back to FR.
Sad but true....
Thank you.
A comparison might be wanting the final recipe for a cake versus, wanting all of the rejected recipes that were tried before the baker got what he/she thought was a good end product and he was going to sell.
Here I’m thinking about the America’s Test Kitchen show where they usually mention some of the ways they tried to prepare a dish before they settled on the ingredients in their final product that they show you how to make.
Or asking Thomas Edison for all of the thousand failed experiments before he got the one that made the incandescent light bulb a success.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.