U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

https://i.imgur.com/F8CNqXT.png
(Alito and Princeton Classmates, 1969)

They look like a synth-pop band.

oof. like milo z, earlier, in referring to mitch mcconnell as "cocaine mitch", i have unintentionally made a bad mad seem cooler. i am sorry

(i also want to say that ime people who frequently do coke are gigantic assholes. mcconnell is just so terrible that an association with cocaine is still an improvement to his likability)

bad man, i meant, but sure, bad man

No surprise here but ugh

Leonard Leo's "Honest Elections Project" files Supreme Court brief arguing state legislatures are not constrained by even state constitutions protecting voting rights when they regulate federal elections. https://t.co/iNdZVMSjls

— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) September 7, 2022

Missouri Sec of State has filed a brief that goes further; it argues that state legisl. action on congressional redistricts is NOT subject to being altered or overruled even by Congress. That's most extreme filing so far.

— Lyle Denniston (@lylden) September 7, 2022

Somewhere there's a county sheriff who has the authority over all US Elections

This is utter madness, with which a majority of the Court is likely to go along.

Somewhere there's a county sheriff who has the authority over all US Elections

Joe Arpaio

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s first questions from the bench, grilling a lawyer trying to gut the Clean Water Act. When he says a provision of the law is “unenlightening,” KBJ responds dryly: “Let me try to bring some enlightenment to it.” pic.twitter.com/1Tyllv0lJr

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 3, 2022

Turns out any day SCOTUS is active fills me with dread

otm

Good thread. Sotomayor calls out Alito by name:

Justice Kagan runs through the Supreme Court’s recent assaults on the Voting Rights Act then asks the Alabama solicitor general: If you succeed in blowing up the VRA’s ban on dilution of minority votes, what’s left of the law? pic.twitter.com/jrc0FXPiwP

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 4, 2022

Justice Sotomayor—joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson—dissent from the court's refusal to take up a case in which a racist jury sentenced a Black man to death. They would summarily reverse the 5th Circuit's decision upholding the capital sentence. https://t.co/iKR2eMfoUU pic.twitter.com/KMJfHMOHoD

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 11, 2022

Is this 2022 or 1942?

Progress is illusory. It's the same shit, different day.

dog whistles at deafening levels and people still pretending they can't hear

foghorn

there is no longer a need for a voting rights act because racism ended in the late 60s

if you walked around Florida saying that, you'd be corrected by many people that informed you that actually racism still exists but it's against white people now. and each person that responded that would be carrying a shotgun

basically white people need reparations

New: Justice Barrett rejects request without bothering to ask for response or refer to full court. She gave no explanation. https://t.co/MYVa9Jsvon

— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) October 20, 2022

The fact that the plaintiff states CHOOSE not to tax student debt relief as income does not give them standing to sue. They could redress the alleged harm by changing their laws. A bit sad that the court even had to explain this. https://t.co/4ToEnjPJrf pic.twitter.com/sr7F2PvxKz

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 20, 2022

BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas, acting unilaterally, issues a "shadow docket" ruling for Sen. Lindsey Graham, agreeing to temporarily halt Graham from testifying in probe of pro-Trump election interference in Georgia

— John Kruzel (@johnkruzel) October 24, 2022

To be clear, Justice Thomas issued an “administrative stay,” which blocks the Eleventh Circuit ruling only temporarily while the full Court decides whether to block it pending appeal.

Such a ruling is *not* predictive of how the full Court (or even Thomas) will vote on the stay. https://t.co/CSrBaDg9JP

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) October 24, 2022

What a piece of shit

so then, you're saying he hasn't changed at all over these several decades? seems correct.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alito-supreme-court-abortion-opinion-leak-targets-for-assassination/

Whatever, Alito, you asshole.

Chances of a SCOTUS justice being killed in an assassination still much lower than a SCOTUS justice being killed in a mass shooting twiw

It fucking rules that these people got everything they’ve been fighting for for their entire legal careers, and have now pivoted to complaining that people aren’t sufficiently respectful of them as a result https://t.co/UFHSyuKrkG pic.twitter.com/beTfDipBJE

— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) October 26, 2022

Alito is like a medieval conqueror, drinking wine from the skulls of his defeated enemies while his mind turns toward plots to overthrow him.

He's 100% right, it goes to character. The current Court is full of bad actors, of whom Alito and Thomas are only the most obvious examples.

Hope Alito chokes on a ham sandwich.

"It's not the bad shit we're doing, it's the *leaking* of the bad shit that's bad" is such a typical conservative take.

"can you explain these pictures of you torturing prisoners?"

"can you explain your violating my privacy?"

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/justice-alito-leaked-hobby-lobby-decision-contraception-2014-report_n_6378e896e4b0f04daf537b65

ClaudeRains.jpg

“We were invited to use seats from Nino and Sam,” she had written to Mr. Schenck days earlier, using nicknames for the justices. “Wow!”

From NY Times article on Alito and Hobby Lobby 2014 release :

Mr. Schenck recruited wealthy donors like Mrs. Wright and her husband, Donald, encouraging them to invite some of the justices to meals, to their vacation homes or to private clubs. He advised allies to contribute money to the Supreme Court Historical Society and then mingle with justices at its functions. He ingratiated himself with court officials who could help give him access, records show.

All the while, he leveraged his connections to raise money for his nonprofit, Faith and Action. Mr. Schenck said he pursued the Hobby Lobby information to cultivate the business’s president, Steve Green, as a donor.

Does Alito denial statement unfortunately make this a one day story for mainstream media and even for Senate Dems? Seems worthy of more investigation and coverage

Could a larger issue be the trust placed in Supreme Court Justices to decide their conflicts of interest? To me it seems like an egregious violation of trust. (No wonder Roberts hates Alito -- suspicion only!)

(How did Hobby Lobby get its name?(!))

They’re not going to allow ethic rules to apply to themselves.

at a certain level some people are so inherently moral and self-limiting that suspicion beyond self-suspicion is unnecessary. and improper really, right? riiiight.

Conservative majority up to no good in another way-

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/opinion/supreme-court-decisions-vacated.html

The Supreme Court is increasingly setting aside legally significant decisions from the lower courts as if they had never happened, invalidating them in brief procedural orders. The pace of these actions has increased in the past 22 months, neutralizing important civil rights and civil liberties decisions.

Reasoned opinions by the federal appeals courts on issues ranging from voting rights to Donald Trump’s border wall have been wiped from the books, leaving no precedent for the lower federal courts to follow. Legally, it is as if these decisions by the appeals courts, one rung below the Supreme Court, had never existed. The Supreme Court’s final, unilateral exercises of power in these cases have gone largely unreported.....

The Supreme Court is increasingly setting aside legally significant decisions from the lower courts as if they had never happened, invalidating them in brief procedural orders. The pace of these actions has increased in the past 22 months, neutralizing important civil rights and civil liberties decisions.

Reasoned opinions by the federal appeals courts on issues ranging from voting rights to Donald Trump’s border wall have been wiped from the books, leaving no precedent for the lower federal courts to follow. Legally, it is as if these decisions by the appeals courts, one rung below the Supreme Court, had never existed. The Supreme Court’s final, unilateral exercises of power in these cases have gone largely unreported....

,,,In 12 of the 13 lower court rulings vacated by the justices in the past 22 months, the court erased decisions that seemed to align with progressive values and objectives...

This court is the main reason I take little heart in the passing of the Respect for Marriage Act

Yep, the majority just invent their own rules. And then they have their lawyer stonewall questions from Congress on things like the Alito Hobby Lobby matter

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-stonewalls-defense-samuel-010255406.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFSvzIM6fx3gYLhH1pvNRvnmrqnWSqdLHNqfWZdtOBCXlpbB6Jsy7QZf0Zo8sY5PPA7-UsQO9XjADxvlr8EAq4X-P1Jt6LTLHZj8-6FCFtL-5GztBfSuxPuC2yvFvKdE2Ucrc3DUyPjj9oW0lfqdTHmZKspLOD4RuLgAFOjHBI9s

Torrey did not answer any of Whitehouse and Johnson’s questions regarding ongoing or potential ethics inquiries into the court’s leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, or into Alito’s alleged leak of the Hobby Lobby outcome. Nor did he say which justices received gifts as part of the religious right pressure campaign.

Torrey instead takes the tone of a defense counsel stonewalling an investigative body.

“There is nothing to suggest that Justice Alito’s actions violated ethical standards,” he wrote.

Torrey’s letter simply restates Alito’s denial of the alleged leak, saying that The New York Times report that the conservative justice leaked the Hobby Lobby outcome to Donald and Gail Wright, two supporters of Faith & Action remained “uncorroborated.” He goes on to say that Alito did not violate ethics rules in accepting meals and lodging from the Wrights because the couple “never had a financial interest in a matter before the Court.”

When lawyers call this Supreme Court lawless, this is what we mean. They're hearing oral argument on a case seeking an advisory opinion... something we all agreed they couldn't do in the 1790s. https://t.co/sqGa2NCclq

— Joe Patrice (@JosephPatrice) December 5, 2022

Dud