U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

i have temporary content up

I read the rest of his opinion and it was actually more horrifying than just that sequence alone.

You need 4 to take cert and have oral arguments. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were close .

wondering what drove Kav and Coney's "no" vote

so uh having dinner w/my sis at the posh Biltmore's outdoor courtyard I think I saw Sam Alito. Y'all be the judge. The bald spot, Fed society striped tie, and dumbfounded mien gave him away.

https://imgur.com/a/pDCxA16

https://i.imgur.com/4kOL378.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/PgxvxYz.jpg

He got up to ogle the wild parrots.

oh baby I will Venmo you $112 USD if you can make him uncomfortable enough to leave

so was this him? Am I mad?

lol I honestly can’t tell for certain

how bout those pants

well, i certainly didn't see *this* development coming

So close and yet so inconsequential.

Lonely justice thinking baout parrots

I think I saw Sam Alito. Y'all be the judge.

Is this what you said to him

https://i.imgur.com/OG8GqtO.gif?noredirect

among a true embarrassment of binches
he really is the worst one isn’t he

Probably. Alito adjudicates like a Republican Party hack. Beyond loyalty to the current party line, he has no coherent judicial philosophy whatsoever. Even Justice Thomas has a rather eccentric philosophy that seems to guide his votes.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/03/stephen-breyer-needs-to-retire-now

The only problem I see with that argument in favor of Breyer retiring asap is that Breyer would not find it convincing. I say that because it is an argument based solely upon politics and the future composition of the court. In that way it reflects how every ilxor is likely to view the question, but not how I think Breyer would.

He emerged from a period when the court and its justices were idealized as non-partisan and non-ideological, so that the politics of the Senate should not be a vital consideration in whether a justice should retire. But mainly, I'm pretty sure that every single sitting justice believes in their own ability to arrive at the 'most correct' interpretation of a case and that in their absence, no replacement could be trusted to do so to the same degree as as they trust themselves. iow, it's an ego thing.

yeah, Democrats of his generation take the above-the-fray shit too seriously -- as if the last 20 years haven't proved Breyer and Ginsberg wrong. And Ginsberg made a colossal mistake staying on when the whole planet knew she was seriously ill and even if she weren't you don't want to see your legacy in tatters thinking that as an 80-plus-year-old woman you can wait for the next Dem Senate to vote for your successor.

Honestly, I don't know really anything about Breyer as a person. Kennedy joined the court 6 years prior to Breyer, and his retirement was clearly partisan and ideological, but I assume you're correct about Breyer's self-image.

It's depressing though; "cannot adapt to significant changes in society" and "is convinced of his own immutable rightness" are extremely strong arguments in favor of setting term limits on justices, not that there's any enthusiasm for anyone to battle the conservatives over that any time soon.

Clarence and Alito being burned alive in a go-karting accident would also be nice

Kennedy joined the court 6 years prior to Breyer, and his retirement was clearly partisan and ideological

Republicans serving in office are in very consistent in viewing all issues through the lens of power, so that attaining and keeping the greatest amount of power becomes their primary motive in all their actions. Lots of Democrats in office think similarly, but they are far less unanimous and consistent in that regard.

According to NPR, Ginsburg dictated the following statement to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, shortly before she died: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

these are the last words of someone who knows they fucked up.

Whoa. @SenWhitehouse asks Merrick Garland to investigate FBI's background check of Brett Kavanaugh--alleging that it may have been 'fake'. https://t.co/k9u5B3ecnf

— Mark Elliott (@markmobility) March 16, 2021

iirc, it was definitely “fake”

we don't call them background checks, we call them factground checks.

anything else is fake

Forget the background, just give me the facts, Jack. That’s what I’d say if I were Gordon Cole.

Give me the facts, Jack
Spy on QAnon, Ron
Is there a Deep State, Nate?
Just give it to me

pic.twitter.com/CxkgwkyHTY

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) March 16, 2021

🙃🙃🙃

lol same guy pic.twitter.com/GPv144dosu

— ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ ❌🍁❌ (@mattgcn) March 16, 2021

Noah Feldman probably gullible enough to believes what he writes. Obviously, this makes him useful as a cat's paw for promoting various publications' unstated editorial stances.

hai boo

🚨Clarence Thomas suggests that social media companies may NOT have a First Amendment right to regulate speech on their platforms, analogizing them to "common carriers" and "places of public accommodation." https://t.co/2zx7nCtIAz pic.twitter.com/ZleTE1aI0S

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 5, 2021

I analogize Justice Clarence Thomas to a common carrier.

I have to hand it to him, the man really loves standing up for people who want him dead.

I don't know, it's been pretty dizzying seeing conservatives adopt the longstanding arguments of liberal/leftish social media and ISP critics. This "common carrier" argument is almost exactly equivalent to the Net Neutrality position--though pertinently, those critics were talking about the Internet's network infrastructure rather than specific platforms (indeed, one of the NN fears was a scenario where Verizon makes you pay extra to use Google or Facebook). Still, there are liberal/left arguments that FB and Google have become infrastructural (deliberately) and should be regulated as such.

That said, and I should click through to the whole opinion, but I am very curious how he squares this interpretation of social media with personal-data-driven algorithmic content feeds and microtargeted advertising, i.e., the mass personalization/customization that is the entire business model of these supposed common carriers. Those aren't the forms of speech moderation that conservatives are upset about but I don't see a meaningful legal distinction.

love that Very Serious People jumped through hoops for years to square Scalia’s bald-faced activism from the bench. Thankfully I don’t see much of that any more for these clowns. At least not from anyone very serious. (Or perhaps I’m not looking in the right spots)

The only positive thing one can say about Scalia is that he could write— he was a great stylist.

But, yknow, a lot of evil motherfuckers have been great writers, so...

great post rob.

The only positive thing one can say about Scalia is that he could write— he was a great stylist

Can't agree with this; I think his style was flashy but in the end more attention-grabbing than good.

Jiggery-pokery, come on, that's some warmed over William Safire shit.

he could write

Who hasn't danced a jiggery whenever they're about to pokery?

i have a legal writing book by him which makes me feel bad every time i see it on the shelf. i think i will sell it. i have long hated reading his opinions and think his style is grating and smug. the book does have good advice on writing for lawyers, which is obv not the same as opinion writing.

In the context of footnote-laden and windy legal prose, Nino stood out in the late '80s and early '90s. Read one of his opinions from the last decade of his life. They read like copy-and-pasted Tweets, no doubt by clerks.

Agreed. I was referring to the stuff from the 80s and 90s.

Who hasn't danced a jiggery whenever they're about to pokery?

― avatar of a kind of respectability homosexual culture (Eric H.), M

Not since March '20.

Taken from someone’s tweet re the 5-4 decision released around midnight April 9

As a result of the SCOTUS rule, until April 15 (when the reg changes), Californians can host people from more than three households in their homes ONLY if they are engaged in religious practices. Bible study: yes; BBQ: no.

Religious non-discrimination or religious favoritism?

CALI SANTERIA PARTY IS A GO