U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

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

https://collaborative.evergreenaction.com/memos/how-the-climate-movement-can-use-end-of-chevron-to-close-pollution-loopholes-13

18 year term limit (seems long, but would apply to Roberts, Alito and thomas) and appointments every two years
enforceable ethics code
constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/us/politics/biden-supreme-court-austin-texas.html

of course the issue would be is this 'ex post facto' or going forward, as I'm not convinced Clarence Thomas and Alito won't live to be 135

for the current bench, there's a survivor style competition every two years to decide which one gets voted out

of course the issue would be is this 'ex post facto' or going forward, as I'm not convinced Clarence Thomas and Alito won't live to be 135

the Scotus Horror, surely

GOP-Sothoth

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/30/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump-immunity-6-3-biskupic/index.html

Roberts is as bad as the rest of the conservative super majority and as Chief Judge maybe worse . Article has some insider anonymous source information on how the decision was reached

he devoted five pages (of his 43) in rejoinder to the dissenting justices’ condemnation of his majority opinion. He deemed it “fear mongering” and derided “the tone of chilling doom.”

Funny. He took a similar tut-tutting stance on the dangers of overturning the key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required federal oversight of any changes to the electoral laws of former Jim Crow states. He was blatantly wrong then, too.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/how-to-fix-presidential-primaries

sorry wrong thread! meant to post https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/31/politics/samuel-alito-supreme-court-netchoice-social-media-biskupic/index.html.

damn, that's juicy

Oh, so I just saw someone say that Alito’s draft opinions on those 2 cases being so extreme and causing him to lose support of some justices for his opinion, is the reason he didn’t show up to the Supreme Court a few times for announcement of those decisions. An Alito temper tantrum

Giant babies, all the way down

Justice Neil Gorsuch responded to President Joe Biden’s proposal for sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court in an interview that aired Sunday, telling Biden to “be careful.”

Asked by Fox News’ Shannon Bream to respond to Biden’s proposal, Gorsuch told her, “You’re not going to be surprised that I’m not going to get into what is now a political issue during a presidential election year. I don’t think that would be helpful.”

But the justice added that to Americans, the independent judiciary “means that when you’re unpopular, you can get a fair hearing under the law and under the Constitution. If you’re in the majority, you don’t need judges and juries to hear you and protect your rights. You’re popular.”

The judicial system is “there for the moments when, when the spotlight’s on you, when the government’s coming after you, and don’t you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions?” Gorsuch added.

“And so I just say, be careful,” he concluded.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-neil-gorsuch-warns-biden-careful-supreme-court-reforms-rcna165085

lol that Gorsuch sees himself and the conservative SCOTUS majority (who trump considers as his wholly owned subsidiary) as "ferociously independent" or that this is a quality that improves one's judgment. i can just as easily imagine in a different interview Gorsuch claiming that he and his conservative cadre are "wholly subservient" to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

“Independent “ ….today there is more news about more international travel Clarence Thomas took paid for by a billionaire but not previously disclosed

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/05/politics/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-hawaii-new-zealand/index.html

Paywalled site law360 tells me there are 7 vacancies on federal courts of appeals, plus many district court ones but the Congress is away from Washington for a month.

Durbin , for the District Court slots still follows the tradition of asking Republicans in the geographical areas of the district court nominees whether they will sign off on nominations.

5-4 ruling re appeals court orders

— The Supreme Court on Friday declined to let the Biden administration enforce portions of a new rule that includes protections from discrimination for transgender students under Title IX while legal proceedings continue.

The high court left intact two separate orders from federal courts in Kentucky and Louisiana, which blocked the Department of Education from enforcing the entirety of the rule across 10 states. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to put part of the decisions on hold, but it declined the requests.

From CBS News

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-biden-administration-title-ix-rule/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/09/us/politics/german-princess-alito-castle-visit.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Jk4.6HTS.KM6DlIJ5uvMF&smid=url-share

Alito received gifts and opera tickets and more from right wing German princess

i bet you can't guess which german music festival this was

i'll give you clue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrger_movement love love love it!

I wonder if every rich person who got a fashion spread in 80s magazines is now a fascist like "Princess TNT"

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhux4Dz15ZBcSv6TpzBkhR7xC5igrHDLQYyXrVAtnZXsYK3wBe0QuPRRVNR-hmZW84D7e29NhHODqEbvApogGSrkcNXBSEGqKIrGLx2Mpv4Y7vqOk3hN7oUIpLj8OkDKJTzltN4bpDoeSQ/s1600/111262884.png

Alito in addition to the opera tickets made stock deals and some payments back

He is likely still not disclosing all the trips he has taken with “friends.”

Yes , Justice Jackson got Beyonce tickets earlier. An enforceable ethics code and gift restrictions are needed for the Supreme Court

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/09/samuel-alito-supreme-court

Samuel Alito is the only Supreme Court member with a stake in more than two dozen individual companies — a distinction that should force his recusal from major business cases before the Court.

Alito or his wife own tens of thousands of dollars of stock in companies including…

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) September 9, 2024

There's a good reason why such assets are usually managed as a blind trust.

I think it makes sense to ban justices and politicians from holding stocks in individual companies, but also "tens of thousands" is not necessarily a crazy number where I'd assume he's in the pocket of these organizations. I'm positive there are members of congress with stakes in companies in the millions.

yeah, I don't disagree with that post but it applies to like 95% of elected representatives and federal judges.

Justice Roberts is delusional . New NY Times article with background info on recent cases including the immunity ones:

In his writings on the immunity case, the chief justice seemed confident that his arguments would soar above politics, persuade the public, and stand the test of time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/15/us/justice-roberts-trump-supreme-court.html

More from the NY Times article-

“It’s a strange, sprawling opinion,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk to the chief justice. “It’s hard to tell what exactly it is trying to do.”

Others said the ruling was untethered from the law. “It’s certainly not really tied to the Constitution,” said Stephen R. McAllister, a law professor at University of Kansas and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

But inside the court, some members of the majority had complimented the chief justice even as they requested changes. Two days after the chief justice circulated his first draft in June, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh responded to what he called an “extraordinary opinion.”

In a final flourish, he wrote, “Thank you again for your exceptional work.”

Soon afterward, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch added another superlative: “I join Brett in thanking you for your remarkable work.”

Roberts and the rest are in such a MAGA conservative bubble.

Unrelated aside - Jay Willis wrote on Bluesky that Gorsuch did appearances for his book this summer on programs hosted by Ben Shapiro, Megyn Kelly, Hugh Hewitt, & Fox & Friends

Roberts allowing Alito to stay on Trump cases despite knowing of the flag controversy for years

Remember, CJ Roberts knew about the Alitos’ upside down flag controversy shortly after it happened, and he assigned the Jan 6 case to Alito anyway — showing he saw no problem with it. He only took over the opinion from him once news of the flag leaked.

A rotten institution. https://t.co/HHpXwWKeM6 pic.twitter.com/69GObgCs8a

— Secrets and Laws (@secretsandlaws) September 15, 2024

A Trump-appointed judge upended labor law Tuesday in granting an injunction in favor of a company arguing that the National Labor Relations Board is unconstitutional.

Judge Mark Pittman in Texas issued the injunction for Findhelp, a tech company headquartered in Austin accused of unfair labor practices. The NLRB is a federal government agency that enforces labor law practices as well as collective bargaining.

The preliminary injunction cites the recent Supreme Court decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which weakened federal regulatory agencies. Findhelp argued that the NLRB’s judge system, which hears cases, violates the separation of powers, and Pittman agreed in granting the injunction. This does not bode well for the NLRB, and signals a long legal fight between big business and unions, divided along ideological lines between conservatives and liberals. The case could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where it would meet a pro-business majority handpicked by Donald Trump himself.

Conservatives and their corporate allies have been attacking the NLRB for quite some time, with Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Starbucks, and Trader Joe’s all mounting legal cases against the agency in an attempt to destroy it. Trump’s time as president was four years of pro-business practices, appointing corporate-aligned attorneys to the Department of Labor and weakening laws that would have expanded worker pay and strengthened unions.

fucking hell. this is class warfare with the Federalist Society replacing the Pinkerton Detective Agency.

America is a center-right right-to-work country.

it is til you say otherwise