U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

OL, if you missed out on the big motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota, there's always this year!

Ghoulish

First opinion of the day is in Jones v. Mississippi. By a 6–3 vote with Kavanaugh writing, the court rules that a sentencer need NOT make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing a defendant under 18 to life without parole. https://t.co/XS5CPsa2In

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 22, 2021

Fucking why?

Easier way to keep propping up the for profit prison system is what it basically comes down to, I assume. Not that it is in any way a defensible position.

the sick thing about this is juvenile detention has been dropping over the past couple decades iirc

some info here: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/juvenile-life-without-parole/

Kavanaugh ( who has forgotten about his own youthful indiscretions) believes youths who get arrested for crimes deserve life . So-called Christian Coney Barrett too

Fucking why?

Our present SCOTUS has six justices with an inherent bias toward strengthening the current power structure instead of protecting individuals from its abuses. They won't ever admit it, and if questioned would throw up a smokescreen of solemn legalistic nonsense, but a white supremacist oligarchy suits them just fine.

The 2012 Montgomery case Majority that ruled against Juvenile life sentences was : Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

Kennedy is gone, and Roberts decided to stick with the conservatives this time

...
Long before the Trump era, Ruddy was best known as the young New York Post reporter probing the 1993 suicide of Clinton White House aide Vince Foster — and exploring the wilder, false claims that he had been murdered. His work made its mark: Brett M. Kavanaugh, then working for Kenneth Starr's investigation into the Lewinsky affair, circulated Ruddy's articles to lawyers who joined the team.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/ruddy-newsmax-trump/2021/05/05/32b09714-9d32-11eb-9d05-ae06f4529ece_story.html

from a piece on piece of shit Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy. imagine America's Golden Boy Brett Kavanaugh working for Kenneth Starr and Lewinsky, bringing in a fucking NYPost article on Vince Foster, and then he not only doesn't lose his job, but in fact he goes on to be given a blatantly stolen SC seat

"oh wow, what's this New York Post article? GREAT research work, ya golden boy! this is a VERY good source!!"

well, remember when Kav's teary-beery monologue mentioned the Clintons?

i did, but then angry mom lindsey graham came in and yelled at everyone to leave the good boy alone

uncle durbin should have chugged a beer and thrown a table

love that this clown will probably outlive me

Arsehole.

Justice Stephen Breyer — a Bill Clinton appointee who has served on the Supreme Court since 1994 — has chosen this moment to admonish liberals for failing to respect the rule of law.

He’s done so despite the fact that less than five months ago, a violent mob of former President Donald Trump’s supporters invaded the US Capitol in a vain attempt to keep Trump, who had just lost his bid for reelection, in office without an electoral mandate. In the months that followed, state-level Republicans loyal to Trump passed legislation that appears to serve no purpose other than to restrict voting. And now, Republican leaders are blocking a bipartisan investigation into the January 6 riots at the Capitol.

And yet, in the midst of what might be the greatest threat to liberal democracy in the United States since Jim Crow, Breyer warns that liberals are endangering the rule of law because a small minority of Democrats have suggested taking aggressive action to rein in the Supreme Court.

And Breyer is doing this at the same time that he’s urging Democrats to find common ground with a party that refuses to investigate an attack that endangered much of Congress.

In a book to be published this fall, Breyer warns the US will pay a heavy price if it does not show deference to the judiciary — and that even though the Supreme Court is now more conservative than at any point in the last three generations, it is a mistake to think any of his colleagues are rank partisans.

“A judge’s loyalty is to the rule of law,” Breyer writes, “not the political party that helped to secure his or her appointment.”

Breyer is trapped in a bubble into which political reality rarely intrudes itself.

7-2 gonna be wild af

bleak thread about asymmetry in how we make judges:

thankfully, this episode is over. but one outlet has identified the students who made the complaint & those students' future clerkships, which are notable for what they suggest about some asymmetries in the clerkship hiring process. https://t.co/s1AGPyt2iC

— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) June 4, 2021

^it’s possible I missed it but I wonder if this bullshit or, say, Emily Wilder getting fired from the AP caused the same level of moral panic for the substack trolls or the serious minded centrists littering our esteemed op ed pages that they have on reserve for cAnCeL cuLtUrE

BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Obama-era health care law, preserving coverage for millions of Americans. https://t.co/lIwN9IeEGF

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 17, 2021

surprised Thomas and Coney Barrett joined the libs

Alito is displeased. https://t.co/UZjWJGoPc6 pic.twitter.com/0iTGN38sp4

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 17, 2021

any chance at restoring the penalty tax?

As somebody looking for ACA marketplace coverage for the first time, this ruling is a big relief. Our marketplace options are all pretty expensive to what we've been paying for cushy employer insurance, but manageable — and the coverage is pretty good.

pretty cool that it was 8-1 in favor of child slavery tho

i just checked neal katyal's twitter to see if he has commented. weird that he'd be tweeting about the ACA case but not the child slavery case he won. must be very busy.

but lol

Been so busy w/briefs I didn't realize @matsoR and @Jbrekkie both just released new records. Can't wait to listen. And @mountain_goats released like 3 records recorded in 1 month, slackers.

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) June 17, 2021

#onethread

let's file some briefs and be alright

let's fill some briefs

Obama's Solicitor General out here doing work!

Yes We Can (have child slaves)

— Islamo-leftist (@EngelsFreddie) December 2, 2020

The Supreme Court's second decision of the day is in NCAA v. Alston. In an opinion by Gorsuch, the court *unanimously* upholds the district court's injunction against the NCAA based on "established anti-trust principles"! This is a big deal. https://t.co/JcdyRepr9l pic.twitter.com/FlEVHAZhTF

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 21, 2021

If only "established anti-trust principles" could be revived against US mega-corporations then we'd be getting somewhere.

why so anti-trust, we need MORE trust in America!!

Fortunately I read the part where Kav endorses collective bargaining before lunch

even a stopped clock etc etc

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/1001382019/supreme-court-rules-cheerleaders-f-bombs-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment

The union decision tho

I'm in Clarence Thomas's little home town, ask me anything!

have you considered changing your display name to Josh in Pin Point?

COFFIN FLOP

xpost Too late, already gone. it's a small town.

We're going to end up with a 7-2 court because the calendar of a liberal justice's book promotion tour made it more appealing for him to cultivate suspense around his retirement during the rare window of Dem governance... https://t.co/dmY2cOkD4X pic.twitter.com/h1LfxVQ4ss

— Taniel (@Taniel) August 27, 2021

just an old man thinkin' bout things

yes

The conservative Supreme Court justices argued that allowing the Biden eviction moratorium to remain could pave way for these kinds of outcomes pic.twitter.com/zsJ0rIryik

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) August 30, 2021

Not the best day.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp-video/mmvo119970885688

Supreme Court showing how destructive it can be by doing nothing.

What recourse is there if the court blatantly ignores constitutional infractions? Like, what if a state overturned, say, election results, with no legit legal basis, and the court just let that stand?

Like, what if a state overturned, say, election results, with no legit legal basis, and the court just let that stand?

I don't think we'll have to wait longer than say, a little over one or three years, to find out what happens.

I still think the court is going to rule on this. Not doing so kind of flies in the face of their gutting liberal priorities very slowly tactic that Roberts has implemented. But it’s also possible they don’t care anymore.