SCOTUS Watch

[malchior]

Appearing at a legal conference Friday, Roberts declared, “You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is. And you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is.” He continued: “Yes, all of our opinions are open to criticism. In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time. But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”

He really doesn’t get it. The degree to which this court is utterly and completely tone-deaf to its role in the destruction of its own integrity remains a powerful reason for court expansion or term limits.

“Roberts’s failure to understand why the court has lost credibility with so many Americans smacks of ‘Let them eat cake,’ ” Joyce White Vance, a former prosecutor and a distinguished professor of the practice of law at the University of Alabama law school, told me. “The Supreme Court has a proud history of defending our rights, not taking them away. The Roberts court will go down in history as the first one” to strip away people’s rights.

University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman said: “I would be embarrassed to say something that naive and divorced from reality if I had said it as a first-year law student. For the chief justice to say it is just an insult to the intellect of everyone who knows anything about the court, American democracy and politics.”

Let’s start with the obvious. It’s a fact, not an accusation, that the court is losing the public’s confidence. One need only look at a slew of polls to see that the court’s self-image as a nonpartisan institution does not match public perception. The question that remains is whether Roberts and the other five conservative justices will make it worse.

Roberts would rather not address the root of the court’s credibility crisis: its conservative members’ blatant disregard of nearly 50 years of precedent, their misuse and abuse of facts and history, their penchant for delivering public screeds in political settings, their misleading answers in confirmation hearings, their improper use of the shadow docket, their prior placement on the shortlist of potential justices by right-wing dark-money groups attempting to transform the judiciary, their opposition to adhering to a mandatory code of judicial ethics — and a refusal by Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, despite the anti-democracy activism of his wife, Ginni.

And let’s not forget: The court got its 6-3 supermajority largely through GOP hypocrisy and Congress’s refusal to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

There is a price to be paid for such shenanigans.

[Carpet_pissr]

I assume they are mostly tone deaf given their historical status and job protection.

Guess it’s time for someone to scream ‘YOU’VE MADE YOURSELVES A JOKE!’ within hearing range.

[El Guapo]

You have to remember that Roberts is himself pretty deep in Federalist land. He's happy to use the power of the court in service of conservative policy goals, but it's just more important to him to put a tiny sheen of respectable gloss on the turds that they're dropping, which doesn't matter at all to the MAGA justices. Dobbs is the perfect example - he was fine with gutting 99% of Roe, but he just wanted to save that 1% fig leaf because it makes it easier to pretend that the conservative majority isn't as radical as it is.

[malchior]

[Carpet_pissr]

Some big time cases coming up this month.

Moore v Harper which has to do with the “independent state legislature theory” could be the nail in the coffin of American democracy as we know it if McConnell’s SCOTUS votes hard right again.

[malchior]

NY Times

Credit to the NY Times editorial board. They clearly describe the peril we face from SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court’s authority within the American political system is both immense and fragile. Somebody has to provide the last word in interpreting the Constitution, and — this is the key — to do so in a way that is seen as fair and legitimate by the people at large.

What happens when a majority of Americans don’t see it that way?

A common response to this question is to say the justices shouldn’t care. They aren’t there to satisfy the majority or to be swayed by the shifting winds of public opinion. That is partly true: The court’s most important obligations include safeguarding the constitutional rights of vulnerable minorities who can’t always count on protection from the political process and acting independently of political interests.

But in the bigger picture, the court nearly always hews close to where the majority of the American people are. If it does diverge, it should take care to do so in a way that doesn’t appear partisan. That is the basis of the trust given to the court by the public.

That trust, in turn, is crucial to the court’s ability to exercise the vast power Americans have granted it. The nine justices have no control over money, as Congress does, or force, as the executive branch does. All they have is their black robes and the public trust. A court that does not keep that trust cannot perform its critical role in American government.

And yet as the justices prepare to open a new term on Monday, fewer Americans have confidence in the court than ever before recorded. In a Gallup poll taken in June, before the court overturned Roe v. Wade with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, only 25 percent of respondents said they had a high degree of confidence in the institution. That number is down from 50 percent in 2001 — just months after the court’s hugely controversial 5-to-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore, in which a majority consisting only of Republican appointees effectively decided the result of the 2000 election in favor of the Republicans. This widespread lack of confidence and trust in the nation’s highest court is a crisis, and rebuilding it is more important than the outcome of any single ruling.

[stessier]

Nothing here yet about The Onion filing an amicus brief? For shame!

The Brief

[Scraper]

Nothing here yet about The Onion filing an amicus brief? For shame!

The Brief

That's a real case that they are set to hear this term and if they really did file that brief they have some serious balls. The brief itself makes fun of the entire Supreme Court. It's pretty good.

[stessier]

Nothing here yet about The Onion filing an amicus brief? For shame!

The Brief

That's a real case that they are set to hear this term and if they really did file that brief they have some serious balls. The brief itself makes fun of the entire Supreme Court. It's pretty good.

That's a real brief that really was filed. They chose articles showing SCOTUS in a decent light - they could have referenced much worse. They aren't stupid.

[Scraper]

Nothing here yet about The Onion filing an amicus brief? For shame!

The Brief

That's a real case that they are set to hear this term and if they really did file that brief they have some serious balls. The brief itself makes fun of the entire Supreme Court. It's pretty good.

That's a real brief that really was filed. They chose articles showing SCOTUS in a decent light - they could have referenced much worse. They aren't stupid.

Still the image of Clarence Thomas picking up his neighbor's dog's poop and cussing in Latin did enter my head. Which I didn't even know I needed, but I did.

[Isgrimnur]

In support of Novak v. Parma

Ohio Man Arrested and Prosecuted for Facebook Joke Appeals to Supreme Court

[malchior]

Good brief but ultimately a waste of time. The Supreme Court almost certainly won't change its mind about the wisdom of the Frankenstein's monster called qualified immunity that the court created.

[stessier]

Good brief but ultimately a waste of time. The Supreme Court almost certainly won't change its mind about the wisdom of the Frankenstein's monster called qualified immunity that the court created.

They don't have to say it doesn't exist - they just have to say it doesn't apply in this case.

[malchior]

Good brief but ultimately a waste of time. The Supreme Court almost certainly won't change its mind about the wisdom of the Frankenstein's monster called qualified immunity that the court created.

They don't have to say it doesn't exist - they just have to say it doesn't apply in this case.

But they almost never do. Will they overturn the 6th? Maybe. Will that allow a lawsuit that allows them to hold the police accountable to move forward? Probably not.

[Smoove_B]

You might want to sit down.

BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas, acting unilaterally, issues a "shadow docket" ruling for Sen. Lindsey Graham, agreeing to temporarily halt Graham from testifying in probe of pro-Trump election interference in Georgia

Here's the article stub:

Justice Clarence Thomas, acting unilaterally on Monday, granted Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) request to temporarily shield the South Carolina Republican from testifying in probe of alleged pro-Trump election interference in Georgia.

The move comes after Graham on Friday filed an emergency request to Thomas, who handles matters arising from Georgia, and follows a ruling by a lower appeals court declining to halt Graham’s testimony before a Fulton County, Ga., special grand jury.

Developing

[El Guapo]

FWIW it sounds like the full court is likely to act on this within a week or so, one way or the other, so I'm not sure how much this administrative stay for now is likely to matter.

[stessier]

Also, he acted unilaterally because he oversees that circuit.

[El Guapo]

Also, he acted unilaterally because he oversees that circuit.

I'm also not sure that this is really "shadow docket" stuff. I think of shadow docket stuff being rulings on the merits that are done without a full briefing or oral argument. I don't think of it as encompassing all SCOTUS administrative actions.

[pr0ner]

Yeah, the reactions on Twitter to what is a wholly unsurprising temporary stay are, also unsurprisingly, completely overblown.

[Smoove_B]

I guess for the public sector, Ceasar's wife is no longer a thing. Carry on.

[El Guapo]

I guess for the public sector, Ceasar's wife is no longer a thing. Carry on.

[pr0ner]

I guess for the public sector, Ceasar's wife is no longer a thing. Carry on.

Not everything has to be immediately seen as disastrous.

[pr0ner]

I mean, reactions like the one in this co-tweet from Bad Legal Takes and Delusional Takes pretty much sums the overreaction up.

[Smoove_B]

It's not a "disastrous" thing it's just amazing to me that after so much talk of how the Court is perceived now, no effort is being made (on the part of the Court) to do anything that mitigates validity to the claim that they appear to be anything other than non-partisan.

The amount of paperwork I need to submit and certify compared to the complete lack of power and influence I actually have vs the complete and total disregard for appearances at the highest levels of office in our nation is bothersome (to me).

I'm not calling for arrests or disbarments or anything remotely close. I'm asking for once (maybe) people in high office conduct themselves with the idea that appearances matter. Knowing what's on the line here and knowing that Thomas is already seen as questionable (given his associations), the idea that he would still do anything as a lone actor in this specific situation is problematic (to me).

[malchior]

That's how I took it and that's my biggest issue with things like this. These partisan judges will cry and whine that people are saying mean things about their jurisprudence while they do things that look like abuses of power on the regular. While this one might not be an abuse of power or all that meaningful, tut-tutting the reactions being hyperbolic or not based on merits are not that important to me. They are instead a reflection of the larger problem. They are a symptom that people have lost all confidence in the fairness of our system. Sort of like how a riot isn't at all helpful but an expression of complete outrage. That's where we are.

[Pyperkub]

It's not a "disastrous" thing it's just amazing to me that after so much talk of how the Court is perceived now, no effort is being made (on the part of the Court) to do anything that mitigates validity to the claim that they appear to be anything other than non-partisan.

The amount of paperwork I need to submit and certify compared to the complete lack of power and influence I actually have vs the complete and total disregard for appearances at the highest levels of office in our nation is bothersome (to me).

I'm not calling for arrests or disbarments or anything remotely close. I'm asking for once (maybe) people in high office conduct themselves with the idea that appearances matter. Knowing what's on the line here and knowing that Thomas is already seen as questionable (given his associations), the idea that he would still do anything as a lone actor in this specific situation is problematic (to me).

This, but my problem is more with Graham for refusing to testify, given his Oath of Office - that Thomas supports this (thus far) is just even worse...

[pr0ner]

It's not a "disastrous" thing it's just amazing to me that after so much talk of how the Court is perceived now, no effort is being made (on the part of the Court) to do anything that mitigates validity to the claim that they appear to be anything other than non-partisan.

The amount of paperwork I need to submit and certify compared to the complete lack of power and influence I actually have vs the complete and total disregard for appearances at the highest levels of office in our nation is bothersome (to me).

I'm not calling for arrests or disbarments or anything remotely close. I'm asking for once (maybe) people in high office conduct themselves with the idea that appearances matter. Knowing what's on the line here and knowing that Thomas is already seen as questionable (given his associations), the idea that he would still do anything as a lone actor in this specific situation is problematic (to me).

This, but my problem is more with Graham for refusing to testify, given his Oath of Office - that Thomas supports this (thus far) is just even worse...

I don't know that you can instantly assume Thomas supports this. Just last month Justice Sotomayor issued a stay on a lower court ruling in the Yeshiva University case until the full SCOTUS could issue a ruling. She was then in the majority in the eventual ruling upholding the lower court. A Justice granting a stay is not a surefire indication of how they're going to rule on something.

[pr0ner]

It's not a "disastrous" thing it's just amazing to me that after so much talk of how the Court is perceived now, no effort is being made (on the part of the Court) to do anything that mitigates validity to the claim that they appear to be anything other than non-partisan.

The amount of paperwork I need to submit and certify compared to the complete lack of power and influence I actually have vs the complete and total disregard for appearances at the highest levels of office in our nation is bothersome (to me).

I'm not calling for arrests or disbarments or anything remotely close. I'm asking for once (maybe) people in high office conduct themselves with the idea that appearances matter. Knowing what's on the line here and knowing that Thomas is already seen as questionable (given his associations), the idea that he would still do anything as a lone actor in this specific situation is problematic (to me).

I'm fully aware of appearances mattering and how ethics rules are applied differently to me as a standard civil servant vs those higher up in power. But I don't see any point in having my outrage meter set to full outrage for everyone and everything all the time.

[El Guapo]

That's how I took it and that's my biggest issue with things like this. These partisan judges will cry and whine that people are saying mean things about their jurisprudence while they do things that look like abuses of power on the regular. While this one might not be an abuse of power or all that meaningful, tut-tutting the reactions being hyperbolic or not based on merits are not that important to me. They are instead a reflection of the larger problem. They are a symptom that people have lost all confidence in the fairness of our system. Sort of like how a riot isn't at all helpful but an expression of complete outrage. That's where we are.

I'm not tut tutting the reactions, I'm more just trying to calibrate whether this stay is significant or not. The guy who posted the linked tweet was using dramatic language, but from what I can tell this doesn't matter - the full court should make a decision within a week or so on whether to stay the 11th Circuit, and that decision is what will matter.

[Smoove_B]

I'm fully aware of appearances mattering and how ethics rules are applied differently to me as a standard civil servant vs those higher up in power. But I don't see any point in having my outrage meter set to full outrage for everyone and everything all the time.

That's my secret, Captain.

[malchior]

That's how I took it and that's my biggest issue with things like this. These partisan judges will cry and whine that people are saying mean things about their jurisprudence while they do things that look like abuses of power on the regular. While this one might not be an abuse of power or all that meaningful, tut-tutting the reactions being hyperbolic or not based on merits are not that important to me. They are instead a reflection of the larger problem. They are a symptom that people have lost all confidence in the fairness of our system. Sort of like how a riot isn't at all helpful but an expression of complete outrage. That's where we are.

I'm not tut tutting the reactions, I'm more just trying to calibrate whether this stay is significant or not. The guy who posted the linked tweet was using dramatic language, but from what I can tell this doesn't matter - the full court should make a decision within a week or so on whether to stay the 11th Circuit, and that decision is what will matter.

Right. Not aimed at anyone in particular. I am commenting that we can talk about the merits and it's usefully predictive to a level. However, the noise we are hearing not being tethered to reality is at high levels. While truth and reality are important we should all worry about the collapse in institutional confidence.

But I don't see any point in having my outrage meter set to full outrage for everyone and everything all the time.

That's great and all but people's outrage meters appear to be in reality maxed out and they apparently have had it with things. That usually ends up going to bad places.

I think we're at a point where it is simply important to acknowledge it is happening, and start thinking about why it's happening. And it's progressed beyond the usual pat answers such as 'it's the social media algorithms'. Things that were unimaginable are happening on a regular basis. Folks saying, "Calm down" over and over isn't working. We're at (or well past) the 'find out' part of the nation's fucking around.

[Pyperkub]

It's not a "disastrous" thing it's just amazing to me that after so much talk of how the Court is perceived now, no effort is being made (on the part of the Court) to do anything that mitigates validity to the claim that they appear to be anything other than non-partisan.

The amount of paperwork I need to submit and certify compared to the complete lack of power and influence I actually have vs the complete and total disregard for appearances at the highest levels of office in our nation is bothersome (to me).

I'm not calling for arrests or disbarments or anything remotely close. I'm asking for once (maybe) people in high office conduct themselves with the idea that appearances matter. Knowing what's on the line here and knowing that Thomas is already seen as questionable (given his associations), the idea that he would still do anything as a lone actor in this specific situation is problematic (to me).

This, but my problem is more with Graham for refusing to testify, given his Oath of Office - that Thomas supports this (thus far) is just even worse...

I don't know that you can instantly assume Thomas supports this. Just last month Justice Sotomayor issued a stay on a lower court ruling in the Yeshiva University case until the full SCOTUS could issue a ruling. She was then in the majority in the eventual ruling upholding the lower court. A Justice granting a stay is not a surefire indication of how they're going to rule on something.

Hence the "Thus far"

[pr0ner]

But I don't see any point in having my outrage meter set to full outrage for everyone and everything all the time.

That's great and all but people's outrage meters appear to be in reality maxed out and they apparently have had it with things. That usually ends up going to bad places.

I think we're at a point where it is simply important to acknowledge it is happening, and start thinking about why it's happening. And it's progressed beyond the usual pat answers such as 'it's the social media algorithms'. Things that were unimaginable are happening on a regular basis. Folks saying, "Calm down" over and over isn't working. We're at (or well past) the 'find out' part of the nation's fucking around.

Do you ever get tired of writing variations of this multiple times a day in multiple threads?

[pr0ner]

It's not a "disastrous" thing it's just amazing to me that after so much talk of how the Court is perceived now, no effort is being made (on the part of the Court) to do anything that mitigates validity to the claim that they appear to be anything other than non-partisan.

The amount of paperwork I need to submit and certify compared to the complete lack of power and influence I actually have vs the complete and total disregard for appearances at the highest levels of office in our nation is bothersome (to me).

I'm not calling for arrests or disbarments or anything remotely close. I'm asking for once (maybe) people in high office conduct themselves with the idea that appearances matter. Knowing what's on the line here and knowing that Thomas is already seen as questionable (given his associations), the idea that he would still do anything as a lone actor in this specific situation is problematic (to me).

This, but my problem is more with Graham for refusing to testify, given his Oath of Office - that Thomas supports this (thus far) is just even worse...

I don't know that you can instantly assume Thomas supports this. Just last month Justice Sotomayor issued a stay on a lower court ruling in the Yeshiva University case until the full SCOTUS could issue a ruling. She was then in the majority in the eventual ruling upholding the lower court. A Justice granting a stay is not a surefire indication of how they're going to rule on something.

Hence the "Thus far"

"Thus far" really doesn't matter as a qualifier, as Thomas's stay can't seriously be taken any indication that he supports Graham.

[malchior]

But I don't see any point in having my outrage meter set to full outrage for everyone and everything all the time.

That's great and all but people's outrage meters appear to be in reality maxed out and they apparently have had it with things. That usually ends up going to bad places.

I think we're at a point where it is simply important to acknowledge it is happening, and start thinking about why it's happening. And it's progressed beyond the usual pat answers such as 'it's the social media algorithms'. Things that were unimaginable are happening on a regular basis. Folks saying, "Calm down" over and over isn't working. We're at (or well past) the 'find out' part of the nation's fucking around.

Do you ever get tired of writing variations of this multiple times a day in multiple threads?

Edit: The original post reads meaner than I wanted it to. I think what I was trying to get at is this 'your posting style - doesn't meet my tastes' type of commentary usually isn't all that constructive.

[pr0ner]

You repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again isn't constructive either.

[malchior]

"Thus far" really doesn't matter as a qualifier, as Thomas's stay can't seriously be taken any indication that he supports Graham.

Why not? I'm seriously asking this. This analysis steps over a lot of history. Sotomayor ruling against LGBTQ rights temporarily is *never* going to be mistaken for a partisan position. Thomas ruling however temporarily or with justification in favor of a position that appears partisans is additive to what he has said and done in the past. It's simply not the same.

No matter how much folks can dislike acknowledging 'the same point' over and over (even though it's not - there are many facets), it is because folks want to talk about their faith in a system *that does not appear to exist anymore*. Many of us can wish others had the luxury to assume neutral impartial justice. Especially since none of us are really impacted. But lot's of people's rights are being trampled right now, the public doesn't believe in this system anymore, and we have to live with dealing with unreasonable reactions because the politics are what they are now. It's folly to pretend anything else now.

You repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again isn't constructive either.

It's not the same point. Though perhaps that's how you're choosing to interpreting my posting.

[pr0ner]

You are so entrenched into your position that there's no point in answering your question.

[malchior]

You are so entrenched into your position that there's no point in answering your question.

Good grief. My position!? I'm pointing out a major flaw in your argument. It isn't worth defending? Like at all?

[stessier]

"Thus far" really doesn't matter as a qualifier, as Thomas's stay can't seriously be taken any indication that he supports Graham.

Why not? I'm seriously asking this. This analysis steps over a lot of history. Sotomayor ruling against LGBTQ rights temporarily is *never* going to be mistaken for a partisan position. Thomas ruling however temporarily or with justification in favor of a position that appears partisans is additive to what he has said and done in the past. It's simply not the same.

This could be a problem with the system or it could be a problem with your bias. Like, you say it's not the same because you see the world falling apart around you. There is no argument you will accept where they are the same because you've already made up your mind about how the actors operate. So what evidence would you accept that this is simply a normal part of Supreme Court business?