U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

Roberts = "swing" vote
Alito = GOP party hack
Thomas = "It's not in the Constitution I think exists? No? Out it goes."
Gorsuch = pseudo-libertarian streak
Kavanaugh = "I've known a few gay people and women who've had abortions"
Barrett = "Where do I sign?"

all of them= prime candidates for MISTER CHOPPY

Exactly. You want to argue that Alito is extra special bad? Fine. But the rest of them aren't babes in the woods, they know exactly what they are doing.

They have an extra vote to give, so they can throw it to one of them as a counter vote to build plausible deniability. Remember that one time Kavanaugh voted against the majority? Guess they really are principled after all!

In her first solo dissent, Jackson wrote that the courts had “no business delving into this particular labor dispute at this time.”https://t.co/gDqGo25KFg

— The Hill (@thehill) June 1, 2023

[T]he majority also misapplies the Board’s cases in a manner that threatens to impede both the Board’s uniform development of labor law and erode the right to strike,” Jackson dissented.

The case arose after the union directed its drivers to go on strike on a morning the company was mixing concrete, loading it onto trucks and making deliveries. The concrete mixed that day was ruined, and Glacier sued the union for damages in state court.

Under a 1959 Supreme Court precedent, San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a federal law that governs strikes and collective bargaining, preempts state law when the two arguably conflict.

After the union got the lawsuit tossed at the Washington Supreme Court under Garmon, Glacier Northwest appealed to the nation’s highest court.

In a majority opinion authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and joined by four of her colleagues, the court ruled that the NLRA did not preempt the lawsuit, because the strike did not take reasonable precautions to protect the company’s property from foreseeable, imminent danger.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4030151-ketanji-brown-jackson-issues-solo-dissent-in-ruling-against-teamsters-strike/

Justice Jackson: "Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master. They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected..." https://t.co/ahEvLbkO0M pic.twitter.com/hzmXlCbZJR

— Jessica Mason (@jessicafmason) June 1, 2023

In the court’s orders list on Tuesday, Alito noted his recusal from BG Gulf Coast and Phillips 66 v. Sabine-Neches Navigation District—a case about two energy companies shirking their obligation to help fund improvement of a waterway that they use for shipping. (The court declined to take up the case, leaving in place a lower court decision against the companies.) But the justice did not explain his reason for recusing, one of Roberts’ promised “practices.” To obtain that information, you must dig through his financial disclosures, which reveal that he holds up to $50,000 of stock in Phillips 66, one of the parties. Alito is one of two sitting justices who still holds individual stocks (as opposed to conflict-free assets like mutual funds). The only other sitting justice who maintains investments in individual stock is Roberts himself.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/alito-violates-supreme-court-ethics-rules.html

Uh:

In short, Rehnquist consistently contended—and the current Supreme Court majority is likely to contend—that the Reconstruction Amendments were drafted not to protect disadvantaged groups from racially biased treatment at the hands of the government but rather to prohibit the government from using race-conscious measures to ever remediate inequality.

We will learn in the coming weeks whether this vision of the Reconstruction Amendments will lead to the further erosion of rights for some of the most historically marginalized Americans. If the court fully embraces Rehnquist’s vision, it will be a posthumous victory for him as the court concomitantly crushes minority rights and waxes poetic about its lofty and ongoing commitment to racial equalit

Ugh. A long ugly history of racism at the court that they seek to justify with faux originalism. A bunch of decisions I think are scheduled to come out next week. We may likely see an Alito, Roberts, etc decision that reflects this twisted take

The thing is, that position is demonstrably wrong, both historically and textually.

The Supreme Court denies a stay of execution to Michael Tisius.

Six of the jurors who sentenced Tisius to death have come forward to support a grant of clemency. https://t.co/Osb5oIB0w2 pic.twitter.com/FQlErrV6cz

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 5, 2023

The Supreme Court's first opinion of the day is in Talevski. Justice Jackson's 7–2 opinion for the court firmly rejects a red state assault on Medicaid. This is very much a bullet dodged. https://t.co/m1Is9bEGC5

Background from @imillhiser: https://t.co/SCiHIZZQRQ

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 8, 2023

Need to read more to understand the details, but any decision that upholds the Voting Rights Act is a good one I guess.

WHOA! The Supreme Court's final decision of the day is a 5–4 ruling that AFFIRMS the Voting Rights Act's protection against racial vote dilution! Roberts and Kavanaugh join the liberals. This is a HUGE surprise and a major voting rights victory. https://t.co/qMN96f0FXr

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 8, 2023

conservative justices feeling that pressure?

And in non-opinion news Thomas and Alito get 90 day extensions on financial form filings

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/07/us/supreme-court-thomas-alito-financial-disclosures.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Kavanaugh went WOKE pic.twitter.com/yVaPM2og7v

— felix (@Leftist_Kiwi) June 8, 2023

The inevitable "not so fast"

Some initial thoughts on Allen v. Milligan.

Media is trumpeting this as a "victory" for the Voting Rights Act. And it is. And I don't want to be a turd in the punchbowl... but this is pretty weak sauce from this Court.

— Melissa Murray (@ProfMMurray on Spoutible 🐳 ) (@ProfMMurray) June 8, 2023

Kavanaugh after Republicans went to war against Bud Light pic.twitter.com/4RqaJe3K6B

— ettingermentum (@ettingermentum) June 8, 2023

hahahaha

Ha!

That thread's perspective on the VRA is valuable and good, and I did note on a quick read of it that the decision leaves open future narrowing of that section. But hell, these days you take what you can get.

Don't ask me to explain why, but Justice Gorsuch is the strongest and most consistent ally of Native American tribes ever to sit on the Supreme Court. And it's not particularly close. https://t.co/spqRRwCZSW pic.twitter.com/kSwQtZ5sYG

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 15, 2023

I'm guessing he sees a parallel with religious groups

I've sort of imagined that being from Colorado has something to do with it too, some sort of romanticization of the old west. Whatever the case, it's a very good thing that he has that quirk (though the ICWA ruling was 7-2!)

he was raised Catholic but he's Episcopalian; the Episcopal Church recognizes and repents of its harmful treatment of Native Americans (their language from BBcode didn't want quotes in the link) and is active in this -- my "I believe what people tell me" naïveté should be factored in here, statements on websites are easy to do, but I think Gorsuch is informed by his reading of his faith on this & it's an active question in his church

The work of a law prof who my spouse works with regularly was cited a number of times in the decision and they were very HOLY SHIT about it.

It made us wonder how you cite "supreme court decision" on your academic CV

Love these guys.

https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

ProPublica emailed some questions for a story to Sam Alito and instead of answering the questions or just ignoring the email, he ran to his little gremlin friends at the WSJ Opinion section and wrote a blog post about it https://t.co/Jti0xZz9Tk pic.twitter.com/TmodINRuTA

— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) June 20, 2023

fucking hell. that's even worse than the thomas/crow stuff.

That collusion with the WSJ is super fucked up.

WSJ shouldn't exist

Thomas' response was classy in comparison

Thomas DGAF about anything. Alito has a bug in his butt about everything. He is perpetually aggrieved.

Good

[BREAKING] Building on @propublica's bombshell exposing Justice Alito's ties to billionaire investor Paul Singer, we dug into Singer's support for litigants in the SCOTUS student debt relief cases.

This is #corruption.

Alito must immediately recuse.https://t.co/LccKKuEUK2 pic.twitter.com/ljfesI4dT0

— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) June 21, 2023

Alito on wine

On the trip Alito was served "meals of Alaskan king crab legs or Kobe filet," and while "one. of the lodge's fishing guides" heard guests bragging that the wine was over $1000, Alito insists that 👏he 👏knows 👏what👏 $1000 👏wine 👏tastes 👏like 👏and 👏this 👏wasn't👏 it👏. pic.twitter.com/rhUudGjiId

— Leah Litman - @leahlitman.bsky.social (@LeahLitman) June 21, 2023

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/durbin-announces-vote-on-supreme-court-ethics-bill-00102935

The Illinois Democrat announced Wednesday that his panel will vote on ethics legislation for the high court in July,...Even if Durbin can round up Democratic votes on his committee, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made clear he will try and sink anything on the Senate floor.

these motherfuckers

SCOTUS is the ultimate example in the U.S. system of great power with basically no accountability, so corruption feels more inevitable than in any way surprising. I’m glad they’re at least being made uncomfortable enough to be mad about it, even if it’s hard to see any real consequences.

With great power comes no responsibility.

Don't you see, it is precisely *because* they are totally independent and accountable to no one that these lavish trips and gifts have absolutely no sway.

good morning!

shorter Alito:

https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-06-2017/izImbu.gif

The Supreme Court's first decision of the day is Arizona v. Navajo Nation. In a 5–4 opinion, Kavanaugh holds that the federal government is NOT required to secure water for the tribe under an 1868 treaty. Gorsuch and the liberals dissent. https://t.co/OMno9VA1if pic.twitter.com/KgKJ8eDyqC

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 22, 2023

UGH final op is Jones . Thomas writes (6-3) that even if an intervening federal case shows *you were convicted of something that isn't a crime* OR *were sentenced to more time than the law allows* you CANNOT file a federal habeas petition. https://t.co/fUE5TnGtJ2

— Leah Litman - @leahlitman.bsky.social (@LeahLitman) June 22, 2023

The Supreme Court's second decision is Pugin v. Garland. In a 6–3 opinion, Kavanaugh holds that a federal "obstruction of justice" law may be violated even when there's no pending investigation or proceeding to obstruct. https://t.co/YAa8PnnEoB pic.twitter.com/x5leB9DzVX

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 22, 2023

these motherfuckers

and Gorsuch the indigenous advocate

More decisions expected 10 am ET Friday today