U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

a federal judge, Carl J. Nichols, who is hearing cases related to the Capitol riot, is also a former clerk of Justice Thomas’s....Judge Nichols, the former clerk to Justice Thomas, is overseeing the criminal prosecution of Mr. Bannon, who was charged with contempt of Congress in November after refusing to comply with a subpoena from the committee.

The judge is also handling the high-profile defamation lawsuits that Dominion Voting Systems filed last year against two lawyers closely associated with Mr. Trump: Rudolph W. Giuliani and Ms. Powell.

Perhaps most important, Judge Nichols is the only federal jurist in Washington so far to have thrown out the key obstruction of Congress charge that the Justice Department has used against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants to describe the political results of a pro-Trump mob storming into the Capitol. Differing from 12 other federal judges, Judge Nichols wrote in a ruling this month that prosecutors had stretched the statute beyond its original intent.

The ruling could prove important to the House committee as it weighs whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department of Mr. Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/us/ginni-thomas-january-6-committee.html

Mindy Moderate of Maine is in:

Miami’s Ketanji Brown Jackson will have bipartisan support when her nomination to the Supreme Court comes up for a Senate vote in the near future after a key Republican senator announced that she’ll vote for the judge. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the only Republican to oppose Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation in 2020, said Tuesday morning that she will support President Joe Biden’s nominee to the high court following two one-on-one meetings with Jackson.

“In my meetings with Judge Jackson, we discussed in depth several issues that were raised in her hearing. Sometimes I agreed with her; sometimes I did not. And just as I have disagreed with some of her decisions to date, I have no doubt that, if Judge Jackson is confirmed, I will not agree with every vote that she casts as a Justice,” Collins said in a statement Tuesday a day after her second meeting.

That quote from her "statement" (aka press release) is so flabby it makes me want to cry.

so she was yes on Brett and no on Amy. spectacular. iirc(?) she didn’t like the norms being violated re the proximity to the election and the rushed process, but totally cool with credible account of sexual assault and a blubbering, raging emotional wreck of a douche during confirmation.

a truly beautiful mind, that one.

I loled

Speaker Pelosi in the Dem caucus meeting, on Justice Thomas: "It's up to an individual justice to decide to recuse himself if his wife is participating in a coup." @NBCNews

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) March 30, 2022

about as effectual as handclapping at Trump during the SOU

of course but it's a fun read

pelosi has no effective power over Clarence Thomas, so making her opinion of him clear is about as far as she can go. at least more people hear her than hear you or me.

Jackson got Mittens and Murkowski's support besides Mindy's:

The Senate paved the way for a final confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson after the Judiciary Committee deadlocked on advancing her nomination earlier Monday.

The 53-47 vote included support from all 50 Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Murkowski and Romney announced their support for Jackson as the procedural vote was taking place.

“My support rests on Judge Jackson’s qualifications, which no one questions; her demonstrated judicial independence; her demeanor and temperament; and the important perspective she would bring to the court as a replacement for Justice [Stephen] Breyer,” Murkowski said. “She will bring to the Supreme Court a range of experience from the courtroom that few can match given her background in litigation.”

In a statement published on Twitter, Romney said Jackson is a “well-qualified jurist and a person of honor” who “more than meets the standard of excellence and integrity.”

i have paid zero attention to the GOP senate arguments here, but are they even bothering to explain why they all voted for her for the DC district and circuit court of appeals positions a few years, ago but now are voting no? i believe this is the list

Chuck Grassley (Iowa)

Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)

Richard Shelby (Alabama)

Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma)

Mike Crapo (Idaho)

John Cornyn (Texas)

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)—twice!

Lindsay Graham (South Carolina)—twice!

Richard Burr (North Carolina)

John Thune (South Dakota)

John Barrasso (Wyoming)

Roger Wicker (Mississippi)

Jim Risch (Idaho)

Roy Blunt (Missouri)

Jerry Moran (Kansas)

Rob Portman (Ohio)

John Boozman (Arkansas)

Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)

John Hoeven (North Dakota)

Marco Rubio (Florida)

Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)

Rand Paul (Kentucky)

Mike Lee (Utah)

Tim Scott (South Carolina)

Ted Cruz (Texas)

Deb Fischer (Nebraska)

does anyone even ask them the question? it's possible that they just never get asked because they're dicking around on conservative podcasts or whatever where they just get to make up whatever

seems like the McConnell blockade of Garland was the breaking point and everything related to the Supreme Court will be super partisan from now on

Merrick Garland was just another escalation in the partisan war. The hyper-partisan battle began when Reagan nominated Robert Bork and it has never ended. It should be noted that prior to Bork, the Senate had no problem confirming O'Connor, elevating Rehnquist to Chief Justice, or confirming Scalia to replace him. Bork's nomination was hyper-partisan because Bork himself was hyper-partisan and never bothered to conceal it. His nomination was his reward for unswerving loyalty to Nixon and the party.

Hell, the Senate had no problem confirming Breyer and Ginsburg.

yes, it was a big escalation. Ginsburg was voted in 96-3, Elena Kagan 63-37, Sotomayor 68-31

that is never going to happen again

to be clear, the Dems had huge majorities in 2009 and 2010.

point taken though

roy blunt, for example. he's even retiring at the end of the term! he (nominally) assessed her record a few years ago and decided she was worthy of one of those most important positions in the judicial system. but now (unless news breaks that some now roy blunt is temporarily not a fucking asshole), even with no prospect of having to do rallies in front of thousands of racist dipshit show-me staters, he feels like he can't risk a "yes" vote? fuuuuuuck

Why would anyone ever vote to confirm someone who's going to vote against their interests and ideology?

after that McConnell stunt it just seems like from now on the republicans aren't going to vote for democratic nominees and the democrats aren't going to vote for republican nominees, and whenever the opposition party controls the senate they will block the president from nominating and confirming anyone, for years if necessary

we can only dream of Democrats playing hardball like Republicans

After reading about the nominees the GOP and Dixiecrat-courting Dems have sent up to the Senate in the last 120 years, I've never gotten the point of bipartisan comity. Sure, "elections have consequences," etc., but if a nominee's positions offend you why the fuck would you vote for them, especially in an era when (welcome!) polarization has made "betrayals" like Souters impossible.

the republicans have already pretty clearly demonstrated this is their policy, but knowing the democrats' penchant for acting how they think "the grown up in the room" ought to act, we may not see that from them until the party has assumed a different shape.

don't think anything about the polarization is welcome

Is it? I would not vote for any nominee the GOP summons.

NPR just now reporting that Murkowski and Romney will join Collins in voting to confirm.

xps - It's a political office, would you vote for a competent conservative over an incompetent liberal? I wouldn't, I'll take the absolute ninny more inclined to agree with me over the calculating genius that wants to live la vida 1850.

The Supreme Court's aggressive move to revive a Trump-era rule shredding the Clean Water Act is so extreme that even Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. Roberts! A longtime foe of the Clean Water Act! This is getting out of control really quickly. https://t.co/Dyz4gEimDy

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 6, 2022

By 5-4 vote (with Chief Justice Roberts joining the progressives in dissent), #SCOTUS issues shadow docket stay of district court decision that had vacated a Clean Water Act certification rule. Per Kagan, J.: "That renders the Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all." pic.twitter.com/yX6qvSrzLc

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) April 6, 2022

Current conservative majority is setting a record for most shadow docket decisions without opinions or hearings. This one reinstates a Trump administration rule re: when and how states can provide certifications that allow for discharges of pollutants into navigable waters.

they're wilding

majority there issued a brief statement, while the dissent (the 3 libs plus Roberts) issued a full opinion.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/supreme-court-trump-clean-water-act-john-roberts.html

Stern article excerpt

Now the Supreme Court has agreed and revived the Trump rule—though we don’t know why, because the five-justice majority did not deign to explain its action. This silence left Justice Elena Kagan to issue a bewildered dissent, joined by the chief justice along with Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan pointed out that, by law, the Supreme Court can issue this kind of stay “ in extraordinary circumstances,” when there is “an exceptional need for immediate relief,” including evidence of “irreparable harm.” Here, the Trump rule’s defenders insisted that states were obstructing vital energy projects. But, Kagan wrote, they “have not identified a single project that a state has obstructed” under the district court’s decision or “cited a single project that the court’s ruling threatens.” Put simply, they failed to explain how returning to the pre-Trump regime—“which existed for 50 years”—would hurt them at all.

Gonna be fun when GOP, upon taking control, expands the court further.

U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Democracy Edition "Let's Just Do It and Be Legends"

I’m guessing absolutely nothing at all will come of Ginnnii Thomas situation

With regard to her husband's position on the Court, I am sure you are right.

Hell, I doubt anyone with any power or influence is going to suffer any consequences more serious than the inconvenience of having to answer a contempt charge.

It is done.

lol @ MSNBC anchors fretting over whether Jackson resigns from the DC Circuit and whether she will recuse herself. It's a new era and these fuckwits don't get it.

uphold those norms!

It's a new era and these fuckwits don't get it.

CBS's Major G. openly stating that the future of the SCOTUS is for a "reverse expand the court" in the future whenever the executive and legislative branches aren't from the same party -- from 9 justices to 8, from 8 to 7, etc.

Thomas will be eventually be the only one left

xp

Knock it down to 1. Then replace that person with a Magic 8-Ball.

Public defenders everywhere should take a shot of the hard stuff tonight

It's kind of nuts that a black woman who was 21 years old when Anita Hill testified is joining Clarence Thomas on the bench

Somebody pointed out that she'll be the first Gen Xer on the court.. hoping to hear some Sleepless in Seattle references in her dissents

Isn't ACB younger than her?

Yes, but she's a reptilian humanoid who never listened to Dinosaur Jr.

Amy Coney Barrett is aware of music

She likes the noise of democracy.

All of Trump's appointees are Gen Xers. KBJ is the fourth.

(Kavanaugh 1965, Gorsuch 1967, Jackson 1970, Barrett 1972)