U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

That happens to be your particular abnormality.

they need to say a justice is retiring in February pending a new nomination, vote that person in, then rescind the resignation. pack the courts by having justices change their mind

is there any reason hope the Democrats will ever do anything that radical? even the dual retirements scenario seems totally unlikely to me

No

pack the courts by having justices change their mind

sorry, but the only path to packing the court that would be legal first requires an act of Congress to officially allow more than nine justices on the court. only then could more seats be filled. simply bypassing Congress and pretending that suddenly there are ten or eleven justices because some resignations were rescinded would be no more legal than Trump's attempted coup d'etat was.

OK, cool.

I know there’s a containment thread for this but … there’s a not zero chance that Trump, TRUMP, picks over half the court’s nine seats

Nixon nominated Burger, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist. So! All the more reason to get the vote out.

Sandra Day O'Connor dead.

gutted

Jeez, I hope they catch the guy.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/12/oconnor-2

That is a pretty damning piece; fascinating

It would be a nice Murder, She Wrote episode to have a former Vice President murder a former Supreme Court Justice who kept him from becoming President. He waited 23 years so no one would suspect.

It's a damning piece in that it's mostly vitriol.

But he's kind of OTM that O'Connor didn't receive much vitriol while serving the Court mostly because she was a woman and because of Casey/Roe issues.

Vitriol can be true as it is in this case.

Well looks like Jack Smith is just throwing it out there:

Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, asked the Supreme Court on Monday to rule on Mr. Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution.

The request was unusual in two ways: Mr. Smith asked the justices to rule before an appeals court acted, and he urged them to move with exceptional speed.

looks to me like Smith is anticipating the Trump defense that's most likely to be accepted by a deferential Supreme court. if they rule in Trump's favor then Trump wriggles out again, plus the case against his co-conspirators is considerably weakened. maybe better to know now than wait to see.

hard to see this going Trump's way even with the current court, but you never know

The article I read said this is mostly about scheduling. Smith is trying to get the court to rule quickly to keep the May 2024 trial date. It is unlikely the trial could go forward by May 2024 if Smith had to wait for this to work it's way to the Court of Appeals (the normal channel) before going to the Supreme Court.

Bush v Gore in 2000 suggests to me this ruling against Trump isn't a slam dunk to be upheld by the SCOTUS

Trial date is March, not May.

Even more so then. If SC doesn't expedite their ruling, that isn't happening.

I don’t know the legal landscape on this issue really, but I sure as hell hope SCOTUS doesn’t say former presidents can’t be charged for anything they do in office. Hopefully even they might think that’s a bad idea!

If they DO rule that way, then Biden oughta go hog wild. Shoot a senator or two. Deport Melania. Tie up Harlan Crow and piss on his shoes.

He'd need to clear it with the Senate Dem caucus first. In case he got impeached they'd need to stonewall like the Republicans did for Trump.

I don’t know the legal landscape on this issue really, but I sure as hell hope SCOTUS doesn’t say former presidents can’t be charged for anything they do in office. Hopefully even they might think that’s a bad idea!

If they DO rule that way, then Biden oughta go hog wild. Shoot a senator or two. Deport Melania. Tie up Harlan Crow and piss on his shoes.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Monday, December 11, 2023

absolutely

If you shoot the right Senators they can’t impeach

Former presidents though. Watch your back, Brandon!

By many accounts this NYTimes piece on the behind the scenes Dobbs decision is a doozy:

https://archive.ph/HCnqc

Gorsuch signed off on the 98 page Dobbs decision ten minutes after getting it , and suggested no revisions!

Coney Barrett earlier argued they shouldn’t even take the case, then flip flopped and agreed to taking it and hearing it and signing off.

On Feb. 10 last year, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. showed his eight colleagues how he intended to uproot the constitutional right to abortion.

At 11:16 a.m., his clerk circulated a 98-page draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. After a justice shares an opinion inside the court, other members scrutinize it. Those in the majority can request revisions, sometimes as the price of their votes, sweating sentences or even words.

But this time, despite the document’s length, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote back just 10 minutes later to say that he would sign on to the opinion and had no changes, according to two people who reviewed the messages. The next morning, Justice Clarence Thomas added his name, then Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and days later, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. None requested a single alteration. The responses looked like a display of conservative force and discipline

Indeed!

Another oof

https://bsky.app/profile/propublica.bsky.social/post/3kgsuu6an422i

New: Clarence Thomas’ Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign

"how much can we pay him to stay?!"

Labor champion

Will Thomas recuse from voting on whether to take the special counsel & trump immunity petition appeal ?

lol seriously

Such a shock that this guy has turned out to be a shit judge.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus

Didn't we post this already?

Some is updated info, and I accidentally missed that Josh’s bluesky link was to this

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/supreme-court-trump-cases-democracy-disaster.html

D. Lithwick summary of the Court and recent disclosures--

closing paragraph

Lavish world cruises, secret deals with moneyed donors, threats to step down unless someone ponied up with a pay raise, fishing trips with parties who have business before the court, an amicus brief industrial complex wholly bought and paid for by billionaire donations, leaked drafts, and secret speeches are not the stuff of constitutional democracy, or infallibility, or finality. When the hyperpolitical supercharged Trump cases catch up with the court—and that is beginning to happen, right now, this week—all that stench will run headlong into the questions about why the husband of the woman who went to the pep rally for the insurrection and the folks who lied to us all about Dobbs are objective enough to decide the outcome of an election. The same people entrusted with the protecting the reputation of the court have blundered into being wholly responsible for protecting democracy. Not one thing suggests they will take the latter any more seriously than they took the former.

https://x.com/mjs_dc/status/1738283561101197505?s=46&t=u2ZSlsY3trRV36IPP6jNDQ

The U.S. Supreme Court that a number of times accepted Trump Administration cert requests to rule on issues without a circuit court having to hear them first , has rejected the special counsel request for it to hear the immunity issue request, and thus the dc circuit will hold a hearing in January and then issue a decision which will then get appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Tr-mp is trying to delay his trial and is succeeding

precisely why the handwringing over 'having a conviction first' before removing him from the ballot rings so hollow to me. these trials will all take forever and he is basically trying to use the Presidency to avoid being prosecuted and that is his main reason for running

I'm going to have to disagree on how common it is for the SC to accept these requests. It is not very common.

It’s not common but has been done.

How many justices would have to agree for it to happen?

It takes 4 justices to agree to hear a cert petition.

how many justices can dance on the head of Clarence Thomas?