U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

Here we go. Trump v. Anderson live tweet thread:

Jonathan Mitchell out here making the claim that the President is not an officer of the united states.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) February 8, 2024

SCOTUS heads: What was the shittiest legal argument put forth by lawyers that still, in the end, prevailed in the end? (Not nec the shittiest moral argument that's prevailed, as I'm sure there are plenty of that genre.)

add another "in the end" there for extra emphasis

And in the end, the court you make
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12R4FzIhdoQ

In 2006 Sam Alito looked like another Reagan-era hack; he's pure evil these days.

Not listening, but sounds like Alito is instructing Trump lawyers as to the argument they ought to be making, rather than the one they are?

Libs and conservatives do it all the time but not on behalf of such twaddle.

I know it's hard in the present tense to make such calls, but Alito has far eclipsed Scalia as the most damaging Justice of the last quarter century

Scalia was once solid or better on search-and-seizure and First Amendment cases whereas I can't think of a single time when Alito was right

Scalito may be the best celebrity portmanteau since Bennifer. Discuss amongst yourselves.

Tholito

-lito works almost every time, we can all agree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIu0jQ5TaRQ

https://bsky.app/profile/rickhasen.bsky.social/post/3kkw6lfr5nv2g

that seems to be the consensus. only question is whether it's unanimous or not.

Ugh. Stern at Slate is predicting 9-0 or 8-1 decision overturning Colorado re removing Trump from ballot

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/supreme-court-trump-immunity-john-roberts.html

Will US Supreme Court delay on Trump immunity case when it comes to them

The result won't surprise me, the margin will.

They were asking zero questions about whether Trump was actually in insurrectionist, just about whether CO had the authority to kick him off the ballot, so it’s going to be a narrow ruling I expect.

this Court did NOT want to touch Jan. 6.

probably because at least two and the wife of one of these two think no insurrection happened

ok lol

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Roberts added.

We are indeed watching the last remnants of the Old Republic being swept away

probably because at least two and the wife of one of these two think no insurrection happened

Correction: They think an insurrection is happening and it's up to them to stop it

It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election

Wow, what a dystopian hellscape that would be

If it were to come to pass

When they were bringing up the idea that if the insurrection clause were self-executing then every act Trump in office after Jan. 6 would be invalid I wonder if the people he pardoned started sweating.

probably because at least two and the wife of one of these two think no insurrection happened

this Court did NOT want to touch Jan. 6

I can fondly recall how, during their confirmations, they were uniformly described as among the keenest legal minds of the nation, just the sort of deeply versed and brilliant jurists we could trust to disentangle for us the thorniest conundrums of constitutional interpretation. I mean, jeez, they look so impressive in their black robes, you'd think they could at least issue a definitive judgment that fully resolves the juridical requirements for applying section 3 or the 14th amendment.

https://i.imgur.com/XDKDX0o.gif

The lawyer defending Colorado responded to Roberts's argument by saying the Court could render that moot by actually defining what an insurrection is. But I don't think they have any interest in doing that.

So many of the questions were like "That would make a lot of work for us, don't you think?"

When they were asking "Well, what if some states decided to throw Biden off the ballot?" and the lawyer responded, "You guys could strike that down, since it's obvious nonsense," the Supremes had no comeback.

So many of the questions were like "That would make a lot of work for us, don't you think?"

That was literally the only hopeful sign in that recent case (yet to be decided) revisiting the Chevron doctrine. The conservative justices were all ready to overturn it in theory, the only real concern was the deluge of litigation that would follow.

Anyway, that was a really fucking depressing hearing, but not a surprise - Lawrence Lessig pretty much raised many of the same concerns last year.

xp They were too busy being hypnotized by the lawyer's comical, stage winking in their direction

I thought Murray made a poor case.

Justice Alito takes aim at Obergefell again, warning that the decision means "Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct" are being "labeled as bigots and treated as such" by the state and "society." https://t.co/R7bbBPwrPy pic.twitter.com/HgS6X6opKY

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) February 20, 2024

Fuck that guy. If you're a bigot, own it, don't ask everyone else to make you feel better about your shameful bullshit.

The right to not be called a racist or bigot is very very important to these guys. They can think of nothing worse, and it is so unfair that it happens to them so often.

I hope Alito winds up in a persistent vegetative state until he's 163 and nobody pulls the plug

Well they passed a law in '64, so you can't call me a bigot no more,
but it only goes so far...

I love how conservatives essentially hinge their hostility to racial justice on the idea that we "solved" all of this 60 years ago. By which they literally really only mean, MLK had that one dream. They never even talk about the Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act, because of course they've been trying with some success to roll them back ever since.

I mean come on, slavery ended 160 years ago, all that you had to deal with after that was peonage, Black Codes, Jim Crow, what's the big deal

They also don't talk about how "MLK had that one dream and then WE MURDERED HIM FOR IT."

Which proves that progress is dangerous

we solved racism and it's racist to say otherwise

I don't know. Maybe we have gone too far. My uncle got sent to the bigot camps just for telling a joke about people with dandruff.

those snowflakes

Interesting how he defines hatred of homosexuality as a traditional religious value but not say opposition to the death penalty as one

Old Testament vs. New Testament

The death penalty is as Old Testament as it gets.