U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

this is apparently real??

Trump is wilding out even for him pic.twitter.com/Tf3wr4BYd7

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) July 1, 2024

playing right to the base. they love that shit.

Kevin Kruse says congrats Roberts Court, you're the literal worst ever

https://substack.com/home/post/p-146170415

The advisors part of that ruling is freaking insane. The rationale for that is presumably a form of the attorney-client privilege, which under normal circumstances has an exception for crime/fraud.

On the bright side, I think the head of the Biden crime family is going to skate

Morbid, from Jackson, but I laughed out loud. pic.twitter.com/FqYT9insge

— emptywheel (chicklet) (@emptywheel) July 1, 2024

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/07/05/magazine/05mag-sessions-07/05mag-sessions-07-mediumSquareAt3X.jpg

Honestly, I think most blue states will just outright ignore the Supreme Court, as they well should. Pack the court and have term limits, you fucking cowards

Constitutional crisis is probably inevitable, with like CA saying, "We're banning assault weapons. You guys are nuts."

i'm guessing if trump wins people will just start civil suits against him while he's in office for anything that they think is illegal or not an official act, no? which could be a lot of things knowing him...

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in September 2018:

“Under the Constitution, the president is not above the law. No one is above the law…The president remains subject to the law.” pic.twitter.com/wx6VcHr4VV

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024

well geez, good thing they nailed him down on that, he's gonna be so embarrassed when they play the footage for him

"Hypocrisy!" I cry

That fucking rapist needs a pineapple up his ass in hell

No Democratic president is above the law.

Honestly, I think most blue states will just outright ignore the Supreme Court, as they well should. Pack the court and have term limits, you fucking cowards

Doesn't matter if blue states disobey when the inevitable lawsuits go to red federal courts and law enforcement is largely red everywhere

idk if you can just keep such a blatantly unconstitutional policy on the books like this

The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to hold hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive — a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/supreme-court-immunity-trump-jan-6.html

I have to keep reminding myself today that not all is lost.

they're saving that decision for tuesday

lol, i had forgotten that at trump's second impeachment trial, part of his team's defense was that he shouldn't be impeached because he could already be subject to criminal prosecution.

At least they shot down that particular absurdity, in the course of committing much great absurdities.

(I mean the idea that he couldn't be prosecuted unless he'd been impeached and convicted.)

But because Roberts did not send the case back to lower courts “forthwith,” as the special counsel had asked, Chutkan will have to wait until early August to begin those determinations.

A weird and frustrating detail from the decision that I just read in the Washington Post

i learned earlier today that even if chutkan rules that all the "unofficial" stuff trump did should actually be "official", trump can appeal that decision...back to the supreme court

i heard they're good up there on the supreme court

The thing I just still have so much trouble wrapping my brain around is the idea that so many people are willing to blow up American democracy for a two bit shill like Donald fucking Trump. Like, really? THIS is the guy you want to risk it all over?

I think it's only about Trump himself for a minority, the hardcore MAGAs. For a lot of people like Bannon or Alito, he's just a vehicle — it's the blowing up the democracy part that really gets them hard.

i learned earlier today that even if chutkan rules that all the "unofficial" stuff trump did should actually be "official", trump can appeal that decision...back to the supreme court

― z_tbd, Tuesday, 2 July 2024 01:55 (forty-five minutes ago) link

Well, he can petition them to hear it. They don't have to. TBH, while I'm not saying they won't, it would seem kind of weird to punt back to the lower court on those issues only to then accept an appeal on the same issues.

i might just be on a different wavelength but i think they're corrupt, i think it's very clear that they would delay things as long as possible to give trump every advantage, regardless of the merit. who are they accountable to?

stepping back, do you think they're corrupt or that they're still acting in a disinterested way?

Well the decision says the court isn't ruling on the exact parameters of the immunity right now, but clearly leaves it open for them to consider later. Maybe they're anticipating several years of the appeals courts sending up rulings in this case that they send back saying, "not quite, try again."

Also they are obviously corrupt, in the literal financial and also intellectual senses.

One of the things that really gets my goat in all of this is that these same pigfucking assholes will talk endlessly about lawlessness on our nation’s streets or whatever, when they are the ones setting the example. It’s breathtakingly hypocritical, and they all deserve the rack.

The conservatives both sides and twist things to try to make their hypocrisy seem less bad. They are in the fantasy world Trump espoused in the debate where Portland was was burned down and destroyed in 2020 but the J6 folks didn’t obstruct the constitutional election process , didn’t cause police to die, and caused no damage. In their world getting rid of Chevron is just getting rid of the opinions of pointy head elitist woke geeks at agencies and democratizing the process. Plus much of the Supreme Court majority worked for Presidents like the Bushes and therefore they see what they’re doing as just restoring the imperial rule sought by those who worked in the executive branch then.

I don't think its hypocrisy exactly. Conservatives are perceived as pro "Law and Order' but I don't think this is true at all, they are explicitly pro-Order but anti-Law.

Order is hierarchical and top-down whereas law is bi-directional, or at least has the potential to be. Laws and regulations must be swept away as they get in the way of order and in the way of the big man who will impose order. Power must exist in the man not the office and rules should not be written down or codified where people might use them and access them. It is better for the rules to be hidden from view

I realize the terms are used interchangeably and conflated, but I don't see these as synonymous at all, I think they're opposites

https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-accepted-yacht-trip-to-russia-chopper-flight-to-putins-hometown-democrats

Thomas trip to Russia included in list by Dem Senators Whitehouse and Wyden referral to Attorney General requesting appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Thomas .

Also , AOC has introduced articles of impeachment against Thomas and Alito . With Republicans controlling House this won’t go anywhere for now , but along with the steps taken by the Dem senators it may get some attention

Thomas had to visit Putin for some advice on getting the country in line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KZy3NSqnkg

go Wyden go

AOC's speech upon her introduction of articles of impeachment for Thomas and Alito is straight fire.

Of course, Dem Judiciary Committee chair Durbin would not sign on to the Dems on his committee referral to the Justice Deportment re Thomas . Durbin is probably still convinced that if he is nice to everyone, he can magically get Republicans to sign off on approving Biden nominated judges in the last few months of the session.

Justice Thomas's "Cannon-currence" worked.

(In the Trump immunity case, Justice Thomas wrote separately to suggest the special counsel was unlawfully appointed; the reasoning laid out the roadmap for this (wrong) result/decision.) https://t.co/r58hw7DK7K

— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) July 15, 2024

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-reforms/

Now Biden who had previously opposed Supreme Court proposed changes ideas, is supporting some historian Lawrence Tribe proposed ones including term limits for Supreme Court justices, and an enforceable ethics code . But he’s not proposing to enlarge the court. Also , none of this can happen unless Dems hold the presidency, the House, and get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate ( or somehow get rid of filibuster)

It came up on the politics thread last night.

It's not that hard to get rid of the filibuster...as we'll learn when Trump and the GOP Senate do it next year

https://wapo.st/3Slzp1n

30 million donation from a private equity rich guy to the Brennan Center to "launch a first-of-its-kind center pushing to overhaul the Supreme Court, after a series of ethics controversies and conservative rulings prompted rising scrutiny of the justices."

i think the private equity guy is the son of one of the KKR guys

Interesting.

But here's the real dream situation- A Dem majority in Senate with no fibuster, Dems in House and Presidency and a President willing to do this:

While justices are no longer required to travel to hear cases within their given territory, they are responsible for handling things like emergency requests and other administrative matters for appeals that come up from their circuits. That’s why you see, for example, Alito’s name on orders to allow an execution to go through in Louisiana.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to argue that given the number of issues that certain members of the court must bear, it would be much more equitable to increase the number of justices to share that load. It would just so happen that in doing so, Democrats would be able to rebalance the court after its steady swing to the right over the last several decades. Doing so would shift the court from a 6-3 conservative supermajority to one that has seven liberals and six Republican-appointed justices.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-reforms-more-seats-rcna162326

100 liberals, 6 conservatives pls

the glenn branca approach to court appointment