U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

so these fascists want to keep a zombie abortion ban going for as long as they can no matter how many cases they lose.

i'm sorry, can't read this post because i'm too busy keeping up with the "election fraud" cases that keep going no matter how obvious it is that it's wrong

yup

"flood the zone with shit" has expanded beyond its original bounds of media

TBF, the election fraud lawyers have been sanctioned, and there's a pretty good chance they'll also be disbarred, so there are potential consequences for such an approach.

how much money did they make along the way?

as far as i can tell, that's an awesome way to retire. just make a bunch of money, say "fuck you" to everyone you know, and go buy some island and do rich people things

so Sidney, what do you do?

what did i do? back on the mainland? i was a...a paralegal

hi, the name's Rudy! don't mind that pus coming out of those pores, it's perfectly normal! back on the mainland i started my own successful chain of putt-putt complexes along the I-70 corridor!

Hey here's another chilling thought - so-called "election fraud" would make a perfect subject matter for another texas-style bounty law.

Yeah as terrible as the abortion law is it's also an insane legal way to try to do/undo all sorts of things. You could create a private cause of action against just about anyone or anything. It will almost certainly get shot down on all of those grounds, but imagine the possibilities if it doesn't.

It feels very troll-ish, like sovereign citizen style lawmaking.

I also think it was extra effective as something like abortion in Texas because there were apparently only like 24 abortion providers in the entire state, so there were pretty good odds of just scaring all 24 of them into shutting down. If a law like this was enacted regarding a more commonplace behavior, all hell would probably break loose at some point, and you'd certainly have legal challenges reaching the court faster.

It's fucking bad, and to roughly paraphrase the way I heard Adam Liptak put it, it just kind of seems like it can't be that you can enact a blatantly unconstitutional law and get away with it just because you were clever. On the other hand, it's important to remember that this didn't really happen just because they were "clever," it happened because the GOP got political power and used it to take over the Supreme Court. Admittedly, some of that was probably a lucky accident as Trump stumbled his way into the White House and then got three motherfucking nominations, but there have also been other very concerted and strategic long-term efforts that brought us to the current court.

Hello there, fucking Federalist Society!

...Which seems like a misnomer, because the original Federalists were in favor of a strong central government, not keeping the federal government as weak as possible and scattering political power to the states.

JUSTICE ALITO SPECIFICALLY QUOTES FROM/CALLS OUT @AdamSerwer @TheAtlantic PIECE & CALLS IT "INFLAMMATORY"https://t.co/2MygIMJKZ0

— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) September 30, 2021

Serwer article criticized Texas abortion shadow docket midnight decision

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/09/my-we-are-not-nullifying-roe-v-wade-t-shirt-has-many-people-asking-questions-already-answered-by-by-shirt

I’m dipping in & out of his talk, but Justice Alito’s level of indignation / defensiveness at criticisms of the shadow docket revealing that he consumes a lot more mainstream media than I would have guessed https://t.co/9ibYfg97Nd

— Kate Shaw (@kateashaw1) September 30, 2021

Alito isn’t likely to change but it’s good he is aware of this criticism

Why? He won't change.

he already had the dissents available to him pointing out why he was wrong. he's been aware. supreme court justices are lawyers, too. they know people disagree with them and it just makes them dig in harder. ask me how i know!

he's discovered hate-reading and he can't bear to not respond to something that makes him mad. he should post on ilx.

Alito was very much against having the event taped or streamed but it was eventually allowed. Now videos of it are all over the internet with people dunking on him. I don't think this was the outcome he was going for.

And he won't care because he's an asshole who's made grievance his shtick since 2006. He's by far the worst nominee of the last 20 years. Look at him -- he looks like the ultimate nerd whose head was rubbed and is getting his revenge.

he's discovered hate-reading and he can't bear to not respond to something that makes him mad. he should post on ilx.

Sad lol

Imo the Hobby Lobby case was his New Jersey

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/mcconnell-lauds-thomas-says-supreme-court-should-not-heed-rule-of-polls/2021/10/21/2766cbcc-32b9-11ec-9241-aad8e48f01ff_story.html

Supreme Court rules that Texas anti-abortion law can stay in effect for now but they will hear 2 challenges to it on November 1, the day before the state of Virginia governor Election Day. Meanwhile the Heritage Association throws a 30th anniversary celebration of Thomas getting on the court and Thomas is there along with a bunch of Republicans. Seems like kinda political and biased thing to do period, and especially weeks before a hearing. Sotomayor dissented from decision to let Texas law stay in effect for now

re: thomas, his wife is openly one of the most republican republicans of all republican republican Republican. of all time.5 of the 6 of them are that openly republican, and by that i republican republican

Scum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ginni-thomas-apology-clarence-thomas-clerks-trump-rally/2021/02/02/a9818cce-6496-11eb-8c64-9595888caa15_story.html

Above items about Thomas’ wife and conservative justices were somehow never mentioned when Biden’s new Supreme Court Commission worried in print that expanding the court could hurt its legitimacy. As if that hasn’t already been done

Not just the EPA’s authority; #SCOTUS has agreed to take up Congress’s *constitutional* authority to delegate to the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. https://t.co/sapajhqiDw

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) October 29, 2021

but Stephen Breyer will save us

Breyer will save us by adding lots of footnotes in his dissent to the eventual 6-3 decision and tell us that is how the system works

imagine needing to get an abortion in TX, and then doing some "research" online to figure out where else you can go

And while the states near Texas may not have the draconian six-week ban that the Supreme Court allowed to stand before it hears the case, many are still hostile to abortion rights. Oklahoma requires an ultrasound and 72-hour waiting period. Kansas has a 24-hour waiting period and both private insurance (without an additionally purchased rider) and plans in the state’s health exchange only cover the procedure in cases of life endangerment. Arkansas has a 72-hour waiting period that only begins after an in-person, state-directed counseling session aimed at dissuading the patient from having the abortion.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/texas-abortion-oklahoma-arkansas-kansas

It all seems very bad!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

Now

Texas is making a terrible case.

Chief Justice Roberts does not sound happy with Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, who resisted his (very good) hypothetical, leading Roberts to snipe: "My question is what we call a 'hypothetical.'" But remember that Roberts voted to block SB 8 from the start.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) November 1, 2021

does any of that matter though? it's not about who can make a more convincing argument

98 percent of the time, yeah. But Kav sounded like he was on the fence.

must have not talked to the groups that bankroll him yet today

tbf, the incompetence of the Texas AG and the utterly threadbare qualities of this law may be the saving grace here, but that's a small comfort in the grand scheme of things

To me it sounds like Barrett, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch and maybe others may rule procedurally that this has to play out in the Texas courts first as in their view the chilling of the constitutional right here is not more severe than the chilling of other constitutional rights that have occurred ( 2nd a gun rts and 1st amendment religion ones)

The conservative justices are going to go out of their way to save the Texas attorney general

Kav sounded disturbed at the thought that anti-gun AGs will enforce similar laws.

98 percent of the time, yeah. But Kav sounded like he was on the fence.

― So who you gonna call? The martini police (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, November 1, 2021 11:24 AM (ten minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

lmao, he's on the fence like Susan Collins is always on the fence.

I think the fact that there is no state-level recourse is a much stronger argument than the idea that some other state might do this but with guns

Another state might do this but with guns - at least this would force them to explicitly overrule Roe v. Wade, which they sort of don't want to do (they do want to do it, but via the back door).

Amy Coney Barrett now suggests that, due to the way the Texas law is written, clinics cannot fully vindicate their constitutional rights in state court. "The full constitutional defense cannot be asserted in the defensive posture, am I right?" she asks. Big remark from Barrett.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) November 1, 2021

xp

1. another state is never going to do this with guns

2. the SC can say it applies here, but not over here. There is no one to force them to be consistent.

it's not about who can make a more convincing argument

My take is that the Texas legislature and AG know that their willingness to endorse a crazy-ass law to effectively end abortions in Texas has nearly zero political cost, so they are quite willing to go to the SCOTUS with a nonsense argument in its favor, but the conservative justices know they would have to sign on to a written opinion in this case and it will have to make some kind of legal sense, because any argument they endorse in their opinion could affect vast swathes of settled precedents and procedures in ugly ways if the written opinion is just a pile of crazy nonsense. They need something halfway sane to hang their opinion on.