U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

The Supreme Court's first decision of the day is U.S. v. Hansen. Barrett's 7–2 opinion for the court finds that a criminal bar on "encouraging or inducing" illegal immigration does not violate the First Amendment. Sotomayor and KBJ dissent. https://t.co/Rj3m7Zilp2 pic.twitter.com/F6AuYi5KkY

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 23, 2023

From a May 2023 Mark Stern article for Slate

Look at any single Supreme Court opinion—as the press and the public usually do, for a maximum of one news cycle—and you’ll miss the cumulative impact of its jurisprudence. But the layers of decisions stack atop one another until they suffocate the rights of the most marginalized people. In one opinion, the court will say it has no power to protect people from state abortion bans, striking a pose of deference; in another, it will claim that states have no power to protect people from predatory CPCs, rejecting the work of the democratic process. If you string together these decisions, the court’s sweeping ideological project comes sharply into focus. If you examine them in isolation, you can get caught up in the minutiae: which side had a better reading of precedent, or more persuasive rhetoric, or better historical analysis, or whatever else distracts us from the court’s broader agenda. When the press covers cases this way, it loses sight of the real story: the arc that this court is most assuredly not bending toward justice.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/crisis-pregnancy-centers-influence-post-dobbs-abortion-supreme-court.html

SCOTUS REJECTS INDEPENDENT STATE LEGISLATURE THEORY:

"The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections."https://t.co/T9IjFQwNdM pic.twitter.com/R0T3v8OxoC

— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) June 27, 2023

whew

3 Justices endorse the dumbest fucking theory ever

Chief Justice Roberts' opinion for the court holds that state legislatures do NOT have plenary authority over election law, and that federal courts do NOT have freestanding authority to strike down election laws that ostensibly conflict with the state legislature's preferences. pic.twitter.com/tf6QLUH8KW

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 27, 2023

I'd love to read a Toobin book just on Roberts' behind-the-scenes wooing of Kav and Barrett.

3 Justices endorse the dumbest fucking theory ever

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent...not to endorse the ISL, but rather to say the case became moot when the NC Supreme Court reversed itself. pic.twitter.com/S5mWVxuIJJ

— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) June 27, 2023

xp I was under the impression Kavanaugh was pretty close to Roberts to begin with in terms of wanting to maintain the court's legitimacy

Hold on to your butts as we await the John-Roberts-saved-democracy op-eds and cable news gasbags.

It is darkly funny watching Roberts staring at his place in history and going “oh, oh NO” at parts of it

genuinely surprised at this decision. I had this one penned in as a certainty.

Hold on to your butts as we await the John-Roberts-saved-democracy op-eds and cable news gasbags.

I mean, given where we've gotten of late, not entirely off the mark? (I'll grant it's Munchausen syndrome by proxy.)

genuinely surprised at this decision. I had this one penned in as a certainty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/27/supreme-court-true-threat-stalking/

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the conviction of a man who made extensive online threats to a stranger, saying free speech protections require prosecutors to prove the stalker was aware of the threatening nature of his communications.

In a 7-2 ruling authored by Justice Elena Kagan, the court emphasized that true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. But to guard against a chilling effect on non-threatening speech, the majority said states must prove that a criminal defendant has “disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.

The case concerned a Colorado law used to convict Billy Raymond Counterman of stalking and causing “emotional distress” for Coles Whalen, a singer-songwriter he had never met. Counterman, who had previously been convicted of making threats to others, served four years in prison in the Whalen case.

https://i.imgur.com/Fn4jhba.gif

Thanks for the kind message! I loved this photo of you, but if you want some tips on squatting to build up those legs, I’m here for you. https://t.co/ssMZSzy4NO pic.twitter.com/xSmBPi7B47

— Arnold (@Schwarzenegger) October 26, 2022

Wait, here's the current tweet:

Hi Jeff! I know the Supreme Court went my way in Moore v. Harper and not yours, but I’m still here for leg training tips! You can get some free workouts and positivity here (it might help you!): https://t.co/vhhrgxQq1x https://t.co/2rUVJBcTHZ

— Arnold (@Schwarzenegger) June 27, 2023

lol wow

Remind me: Was Clark the guy who was jockeying before January 6 to be the top guy at the justice department so he could let Trump declare a “state of emergency” or suspend the constitution or whatever?

he was. and he's probably getting disbarred soon

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/08/federal-judge-trump-ally-jeffrey-clark-00101183

I read that as Wes Clark and was like “okay now, let’s dial this back”

In absolutely we all know this was coming news:

The Supreme Court's third opinion is in the affirmative action cases. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion for the court holds that Harvard and UNC's race-conscious admissions policies violate the equal protection clause. https://t.co/bck5KDsCgB

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 29, 2023

Win some, lose some! -- John Roberts.

but of course we need equal protection for whites -- it's whom the 14th Amendment was written for.

I mean, when the court also strikes down college debt relief, no one's going to want to matriculate anymore anyway

Apparently colleges can still consider race as an individual impact or something.

A cheerful thread to read before the holiday weekend:

The system wasn’t designed to accommodate multiracial, pluralistic democracy - it consistently awards disproportionate power to a shrinking minority of white conservatives; the GOP is basically guaranteed enough power to obstruct Democratic governance at the federal level. 15/

— Thomas Zimmer (@tzimmer_history) June 29, 2023

A notable footnote from Roberts: the court "does not address" whether affirmative action is constitutional for military academies. pic.twitter.com/B9rA8a4WqX

— Matt Ford (@fordm) June 29, 2023

LOL of course -- we need to keep recruiting the poor and poor POC.

Can't a college admit or deny someone for any reason anyway, more or less?

The armed forces poach from 3 groups of students which often overlap : kids of colour, the poor, and students with learning differences. If I have done any good as a special education instructor, it’s been to dissuade multiple students with learning disabilities to never enlist, as they’ll become cannon fodder (and, of course, terrorists who destabilize foreign powers)

From Washington Post - Roberts said the admissions programs at Harvard and UNC “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.”
But he added that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise

Someone needs to challenge legacy admissions

👀 Ketanji Brown Jackson has a two-part footnote on Clarence Thomas.

She says he "responds to a dissent I did not write... demonstrates an obsession with race consciousness that far outstrips my or UNC’s... ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here." pic.twitter.com/s4XQ39kyyI

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) June 29, 2023

The hatred coursing through Thomas’ veins will give him a coronary soon enough

He probably has a backup robotic heart

One can hope, certainly, but he has been around quite a while.

The strategy of "let's wait for the horrible people to die, and then everything will be great" hasn't panned out yet.

He can always put that internalized racism where his heart ought to be

The strategy of "let's wait for the horrible people to die, and then everything will be great" hasn't panned out yet.

well, it did--if you are a Republican, and the horrible old person is RBG

Yeah but, she didn't die before gays got to marry each other, for instance

Same-sex marriage didn’t provide the equal rights that are desperately needed. That should have been the real objective, and now people are fucked. What’s the victory in being able to get married when shithole flyover states can still fire you for your sexuality or gender identity?

I don’t understand Americans’ obsessions with marriage, anyway. No one does it anymore in Canada or the U.K., as common law protections are more than adequate.

They aren't here, at least, not in all states.

I know. That’s crazy to me as well. In California, I registered for a domestic partnership with my opposite-sex partner. Anything to bypass that institution

Always liked this quote from the late Jane Rule:

"To be forced back into the heterosexual cage of coupledom is not a step forward but a step back into state-imposed definitions of relationship. With all that we have learned, we should be helping our heterosexual brothers and sisters out of their state-defined prisons, not volunteering to join them there.”

What’s the victory in being able to get married when shithole flyover states can still fire you for your sexuality or gender identity?

this isn't true.

I missed in the shuffle that the post office worker Sundays case was unanimous

I don’t understand Americans’ obsessions with marriage, anyway. No one does it anymore in Canada or the U.K., as common law protections are more than adequate.

― beamish13, Thursday, June 29, 2023 12:15 PM (fourteen minutes ago)

not to derail, but this isn't true in Quebec — unless you have children, you are not entitled to anything your name isn't on in a common-law separation

Xxxpost Agree with that being the ultimate goal, but there's the pesky part about US and state governments conferring rights to married couples that weren't afforded to domestic partners (including not having to pay imputed income tax for medical/dental benefits).

Some health plans also wouldn't cover domestic partnerships. Or only opposite sex DPs.

So until that barrier is removed, this institution will continue to thrive in the US

Not to mention to be considered a domestic partner in terms of benefit eligibility, your relationship had to be at least 18 months old