SCOTUS Watch

[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.

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.

Good lord. It's almost like I'm not talking about positions with actual data here. Except there is reams of it. Go read the many polls saying that public confidence has collapsed in the courts. I'm simply commenting on political reality. There are also many articles in reputable papers and journals on this subject.

But more to the point, show me where I said I believed there was proof of partisan intent. Spoiler: You can't because I never said it. I also don't believe it just to put a fine point on it. I was only taking a devil's advocate position to point out the flaw in the argument. To wit, that the conduct of Sotomayor should be compared to Thomas based on a pure 'mechanical' basis.

So what evidence would you accept that this is simply a normal part of Supreme Court business?

Go back read what I wrote. I never said it wasn't part of normal business. I was commenting on the politics of it because people somehow keep making fatal (edit: fatal to logic) presumptions that the politics aren't there or that they don't matter. Also, it appears to be my eyes there is some desperate rear guard action to disprove the obvious - that the system is breaking down around us. Again this is a position with lots of data. Ignore it at your own peril.

[Carpet_pissr]

it appears to be my eyes there is some desperate rear guard action to disprove the obvious - that the system is breaking down around us.

That’s…weird (to me).

To what end?

[malchior]

it appears to be my eyes there is some desperate rear guard action to disprove the obvious - that the system is breaking down around us.

That’s…weird (to me).

To what end?

People don't want to face reality. "It can't happen here..." Meanwhile we're two years out from 1/6 and we've spiraled further. There is also the concept emerging of the 'radical centrist'. Basically believing the center will hold no matter what evidence you put in front of them.

In any case, in practical terms there are lots of people out there right now rationalizing voting for radical Republicans because of what? Gas prices? Inflation? Really?

[Carpet_pissr]

That I get.

What you wrote prior sounded like there was some concerted organized effort to ‘disprove the obvious’.

[Unagi]

who is the rear guard in that sentence, I'm still confused.

[malchior]

That I get.

What you wrote prior sounded like there was some concerted organized effort to ‘disprove the obvious’.

That's where the idea of 'radical centrists' fits in. It's not a new concept but it's sort of evolved
into a comment on the original meaning. Especially recently.

Originally it referred to folks that espoused the idea that all solutions must be grounded in realism and had to be pretty much immediately achievable. They would hold that aspirational politics had no place because they weren't realistic. They were thus a waste of time. Sound familiar? We still hear it all the time. For example, people mocking progressives for not having immediately achievable goals. The reality has always been that progress has been fought over time by advocating for those ideas vocally even when they weren't achievable immediately.

In any case, those same folks now seem dead set on denying current political reality. That is what I see as a concerted effort. They are especially still trying to use their influence to push for solutions based on the ground rules and norms as they used to be. They'll cheer the rare bipartisanship as if it was a disproof of all the dysfunction. Even when that bipartisan, centrist approach used to be the routine and are now tooth-and-nail battles. They'll relish in pointing out the increasingly rare normal outcomes and ignore the increasing tide of the abnormal.

In effect, they are trying to avoid facing the reality that the system that they think follows their rules, that essentially used to fit their model of what's passes as good order, simply doesn't exist anymore, and thus will increasingly result in incorrect predictions of future political conditions.

For example, first it was Trump can't be elected. That morphed into Trump won't be that bad. He'll pivot to the center. He'll have to because there are rules. 4 years later it was well the electorate kicked him out and he'll go quietly. The system worked! They are the loud voices telling us how the center will hold and increasingly are being proven wrong. There are a decent number of these voices - IMO they overlap heavily with the 'very serious people' at the big papers and in the punditry at large.

[Unagi]

That I get.

What you wrote prior sounded like there was some concerted organized effort to ‘disprove the obvious’.

That's where the idea of 'radical centrists' fits in.

I'm an idiot - are you telling Carpet_pissr (Carpet Pisser) he is right - or "no no no, would you believe it if I told you" ...

[malchior]

That I get.

What you wrote prior sounded like there was some concerted organized effort to ‘disprove the obvious’.

That's where the idea of 'radical centrists' fits in.

I'm an idiot - are you telling Carpet_pissr (Carpet Pisser) he is right - or "no no no, would you believe it if I told you" ...

Neither. I was just expounding on the second part because I don't think it might have been clear what I was referring to since it's sort of an over the horizon talking point at the moment. I just happen to think it's fairly accurate.

[Kurth]

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.

Two quick comments in response to this and other comments about the Thomas administrative stay:

First, as others have already pointed out, there's nothing to mitigate here. This is normal, run-of-the-mill Supreme Court business. It's not the "shadow docket." It's not Thomas stepping in and doing something "unilaterally" that he's not supposed to do. It's an administrative application for a stay coming out of a case pending in GA, which is Thomas's responsibility. The SC doesn't need to do anything to mitigate the claim that it's acting in a partisan way here because the claim is wrong. Its alternative facts.

Second, we should think carefully about whether or not we actually want the Supreme Court acting to mitigate claims about how they appear to be acting. Ideally, we want the Supreme Court to decide the cases that are put to them in keeping with the Constitution and with precedent. We are on thin ice when we start to ask the Court to make decisions based on how they will appear to the public. I know this probably sounds more than a little naïve, and I'd readily concede that the Court is not fully insulated from public opinion and has certainly been influenced by it, but I'd just caution that some degree of insulation from public opinion is not a bug in the system, it's a feature. Or, at least, it has been up until now . . .

[malchior]

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.

Two quick comments in response to this and other comments about the Thomas administrative stay:

First, as others have already pointed out, there's nothing to mitigate here. This is normal, run-of-the-mill Supreme Court business. It's not the "shadow docket." It's not Thomas stepping in and doing something "unilaterally" that he's not supposed to do. It's an administrative application for a stay coming out of a case pending in GA, which is Thomas's responsibility. The SC doesn't need to do anything to mitigate the claim that it's acting in a partisan way here because the claim is wrong. Its alternative facts.

This is a little unfair. The non-alternative fact remains that his wife was deeply involved in multiple schemes to overturn the election. She was communicating with many of the players involved in the Fulton County at one time or another. As far as we know (I believe) she hasn't been linked to the Fulton County effort. However in context it is fair to say that Clarence Thomas has already ruled in one 1/6 related case that apparently involved his wife. And was the lone SCOTUS vote against that decision.

In that context, I also think it is fair to say based on what *we* know his wife does not appear to be a factor here but it isn't completely unfair to wonder if *he* knows differently. And digging in further this is partially why I disagree that the SC doesn't have to mitigate these sort of claims. There is still the federal standard for recusal which folks smarter than I are still divided on where it comes to Ginni Thomas, the events of 2020, and Clarence Thomas presiding over potential cases involving her. Some think Thomas should recuse himself and others don't. Still the idea remains that there is some basis for questioning his impartiality on this topic. It isn't necessarily partisan but it still isn't completely unfair to think it could be or worse.

The counterpoint for the analysis here is that from an administrative point of view as far as I know Thomas cannot step aside cleanly and hand it to another justice. There is no backstop for that circuit other than him for routine business no matter what it is. This is just a general issue that could rear its head in a number of ways. Graham does deserve an impartial review of his appeal that is a much stronger claim than "the public's" angst for sure. That is more a question of judicial organization/process which could be addressed but still it is how it presently works. If there wasn't historically low trust in the court and in particular Thomas this wouldn't even be a talking point. But that isn't where we are anymore.

Second, we should think carefully about whether or not we actually want the Supreme Court acting to mitigate claims about how they appear to be acting. Ideally, we want the Supreme Court to decide the cases that are put to them in keeping with the Constitution and with precedent. We are on thin ice when we start to ask the Court to make decisions based on how they will appear to the public. I know this probably sounds more than a little naïve, and I'd readily concede that the Court is not fully insulated from public opinion and has certainly been influenced by it, but I'd just caution that some degree of insulation from public opinion is not a bug in the system, it's a feature. Or, at least, it has been up until now . . .

I agree with this in principle but this is sort of what I'm talking about when I talk about folks trying to analyze reaction to the system based on how things were or should be. Those were the norms up to and until the GOP reverse packed the court with ideologues who then started running rampant across the law. The court itself has brought this scrutiny on itself by acting the way they have. Again there has been a lot of discussion on this by a lot of folks smarter than me. But the court created a lot of this mess for themselves. It also didn't help that conservative judges ran around during the summer whining about how unfair they are being treated and pointing back to these principles. They muddied the waters. It is like they don't understand how they themselves have shattered the trust by their actions.

And perhaps worse, these recent events have led people to become increasingly afraid about rapid reactionary change driven by this court. Lots of folks are closely watching the court in fear about what next shoe is going to fall. Again our system is simply unhealthy. The court is well outside mainstream thought and this is just another symptom of our dysfunction.

In any case, talking about the ideals and judicial area processes is a weird area (to me) to retreat into -- there I go with the rear guard analogies again -- to defend against the reality that things are not going well. So I don't think it is naïve entirely to hope for the SC to be above this stuff. This is sort of a wish for a return to normal. We all wish that but I don't think we are getting it anytime soon.

[Unagi]

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.

Two quick comments in response to this and other comments about the Thomas administrative stay:

First, as others have already pointed out, there's nothing to mitigate here. This is normal, run-of-the-mill Supreme Court business. It's not the "shadow docket." It's not Thomas stepping in and doing something "unilaterally" that he's not supposed to do. It's an administrative application for a stay coming out of a case pending in GA, which is Thomas's responsibility. The SC doesn't need to do anything to mitigate the claim that it's acting in a partisan way here because the claim is wrong. Its alternative facts.

This is a little unfair. The non-alternative fact remains that his wife was deeply involved in multiple schemes to overturn the election. She was communicating with many of the players involved in the Fulton County at one time or another. As far as we know (I believe) she hasn't been linked to the Fulton County effort. However in context it is fair to say that Clarence Thomas has already ruled in one 1/6 related case that apparently involved his wife. And was the lone SCOTUS vote against that decision.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Kurth (and others) have said. This specific act was a pencil-whip. We are free to watch Thomas with a skunk eye to see how he eventually leans on this, but this specific act was not that.

[malchior]

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.

Two quick comments in response to this and other comments about the Thomas administrative stay:

First, as others have already pointed out, there's nothing to mitigate here. This is normal, run-of-the-mill Supreme Court business. It's not the "shadow docket." It's not Thomas stepping in and doing something "unilaterally" that he's not supposed to do. It's an administrative application for a stay coming out of a case pending in GA, which is Thomas's responsibility. The SC doesn't need to do anything to mitigate the claim that it's acting in a partisan way here because the claim is wrong. Its alternative facts.

This is a little unfair. The non-alternative fact remains that his wife was deeply involved in multiple schemes to overturn the election. She was communicating with many of the players involved in the Fulton County at one time or another. As far as we know (I believe) she hasn't been linked to the Fulton County effort. However in context it is fair to say that Clarence Thomas has already ruled in one 1/6 related case that apparently involved his wife. And was the lone SCOTUS vote against that decision.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Kurth (and others) have said. This specific act was a pencil-whip. We are free to watch Thomas with a skunk eye to see how he eventually leans on this, but this specific act was not that.

I disagree it has nothing to do with it. First, most people don't understand the routine internal workings of the Supreme Court. And while it might be a 'pencil whip' it still could be protecting his wife. I don't get why people don't consider that. I don't know how likely that is but that it is a risk. If it comes out later then even more damage could be done. Much like the episode where that already happened! This isn't some theoretical concern. It was major news that some of the same folks pointed out at the time was a real problem! Frankly that is a good part of the reason why people are scrutinizing him. You have to step over a lot of context to ignore that to say...but routine...but temporary. The memory hole approach to analysis doesn't work for me. Edit: In the end I'm commenting on the *politics* and political risks here and not the legal realities. Hopefully folks can see the distinction here.

In the end though I don't get why people think standing around judging folks for their very real concerns works by defending the procedural minutia. It's such small ball.

[Little Raven]

In the end though I don't get why people think standing around judging folks for their very real concerns works by defending the procedural minutia. It's such small ball.

If you want to restore confidence in an institution, you have to defend the small ball. Nothing causes people to lose faith in a process faster than twisting it for "political concerns."

[El Guapo]

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.

Two quick comments in response to this and other comments about the Thomas administrative stay:

First, as others have already pointed out, there's nothing to mitigate here. This is normal, run-of-the-mill Supreme Court business. It's not the "shadow docket." It's not Thomas stepping in and doing something "unilaterally" that he's not supposed to do. It's an administrative application for a stay coming out of a case pending in GA, which is Thomas's responsibility. The SC doesn't need to do anything to mitigate the claim that it's acting in a partisan way here because the claim is wrong. Its alternative facts.

This is a little unfair. The non-alternative fact remains that his wife was deeply involved in multiple schemes to overturn the election. She was communicating with many of the players involved in the Fulton County at one time or another. As far as we know (I believe) she hasn't been linked to the Fulton County effort. However in context it is fair to say that Clarence Thomas has already ruled in one 1/6 related case that apparently involved his wife. And was the lone SCOTUS vote against that decision.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Kurth (and others) have said. This specific act was a pencil-whip. We are free to watch Thomas with a skunk eye to see how he eventually leans on this, but this specific act was not that.

I disagree it has nothing to do with it. First, most people don't understand the routine internal workings of the Supreme Court. And while it might be a 'pencil whip' it still could be protecting his wife. I don't get why people don't consider that. I don't know how likely that is but that it is a risk. If it comes out later then even more damage could be done. Much like the episode where that already happened! This isn't some theoretical concern. It was major news that some of the same folks pointed out at the time was a real problem! Frankly that is a good part of the reason why people are scrutinizing him. You have to step over a lot of context to ignore that to say...but routine...but temporary. The memory hole approach to analysis doesn't work for me. Edit: In the end I'm commenting on the *politics* and political risks here and not the legal realities. Hopefully folks can see the distinction here.

In the end though I don't get why people think standing around judging folks for their very real concerns works by defending the procedural minutia. It's such small ball.

That we are in an ongoing crisis of political and democracy legitimacy does not make every action or event a crisis or a problem. This order is simply not significant in any meaningful way. I would say that the *only* significant thing about it as it stands is that Thomas did not recuse himself. That's somewhat notable but not exactly shocking even if Thomas was scrupulous on the ethics of recusal.

Otherwise, I'm not really judging the reactions so much as just working to understand whether this matters or not. I will say though that the original tweet that was posted here on this (which looks like it has since been deleted) wasn't especially helpful since it did not describe the order in a particularly accurate way. That kind of stuff is not especially useful - if people post dramatic sounding "OMG FREAK OUT" type tweets to stuff that doesn't matter, then it will be harder to get people to react appropriately later to the stuff that does matter.

[malchior]

That we are in an ongoing crisis of political and democracy legitimacy does not make every action or event a crisis or a problem. This order is simply not significant in any meaningful way. I would say that the *only* significant thing about it as it stands is that Thomas did not recuse himself. That's somewhat notable but not exactly shocking even if Thomas was scrupulous on the ethics of recusal.

Absolutely no disagreement here. Not saying it's a crisis. I'm saying we are at the point where the meaningless is seen as part of the crisis. That's just becoming a political reality. A bunch of lawyers and elites saying 'calm down' isn't going to be heard anymore.

Otherwise, I'm not really judging the reactions so much as just working to understand whether this matters or not. I will say though that the original tweet that was posted here on this (which looks like it has since been deleted) wasn't especially helpful since it did not describe the order in a particularly accurate way. That kind of stuff is not especially useful - if people post dramatic sounding "OMG FREAK OUT" type tweets to stuff that doesn't matter, then it will be harder to get people to react appropriately later to the stuff that does matter.

RIght but important to note we as a society are susceptible to this now. The politics are out of control and the details don't matter. Everything that isn't 'justice being served' in cartoonish, straightforward ways is another part of the ongoing crisis to folks because they are fried, confused, and/or afraid by what is going on. That's all I'm getting at.

[Kurth]

That we are in an ongoing crisis of political and democracy legitimacy does not make every action or event a crisis or a problem. This order is simply not significant in any meaningful way. I would say that the *only* significant thing about it as it stands is that Thomas did not recuse himself. That's somewhat notable but not exactly shocking even if Thomas was scrupulous on the ethics of recusal.

Absolutely no disagreement here. Not saying it's a crisis. I'm saying we are at the point where the meaningless is seen as part of the crisis. That's just becoming a political reality. A bunch of lawyers and elites saying 'calm down' isn't going to be heard anymore.

Otherwise, I'm not really judging the reactions so much as just working to understand whether this matters or not. I will say though that the original tweet that was posted here on this (which looks like it has since been deleted) wasn't especially helpful since it did not describe the order in a particularly accurate way. That kind of stuff is not especially useful - if people post dramatic sounding "OMG FREAK OUT" type tweets to stuff that doesn't matter, then it will be harder to get people to react appropriately later to the stuff that does matter.

Right but that is why I'm trying to comment on the politics only. Lots of folks want to dissect how meaningful or accurate and then say well it's meaningless - why the outrage!? Which I'm just saying is a fairly silly way to analyze what's happening. The politics are out of control and the details don't matter. Everything that isn't 'justice being served' in straightforward ways is another part of the ongoing crisis to folks because they are fried, confused, and/or afraid by what is going on. That's all I'm getting at.

I hear you, and I don't think you're necessarily wrong about the current political climate. That said, I disagree when you appear to be taking people to task for focussing on "how meaningful or accurate" (or truthful) people are being when they are reporting about and reacting to things like the Thomas administrative stay. What are people who are educated and informed about the situation that's giving rise to the "OMG FREAK OUT" crisis of the day supposed to do if not try to calm people down by pointing to the actual facts in play?

Earlier, you said my comparison to "alternative facts" wasn't fair, but if we start concentrating and validating how people are feeling about what's going on rather than what's actually going on, I feel like we're drifting into that territory.

[malchior]

In the end though I don't get why people think standing around judging folks for their very real concerns works by defending the procedural minutia. It's such small ball.

If you want to restore confidence in an institution, you have to defend the small ball. Nothing causes people to lose faith in a process faster than twisting it for "political concerns."

I think the reactions point out the folly here. We're well beyond the scope where the steadfast administration of routine matters is going to restore confidence in this institution.

[malchior]

I hear you, and I don't think you're necessarily wrong about the current political climate. That said, I disagree when you appear to be taking people to task for focussing on "how meaningful or accurate" (or truthful) people are being when they are reporting about and reacting to things like the Thomas administrative stay. What are people who are educated and informed about the situation that's giving rise to the "OMG FREAK OUT" crisis of the day supposed to do if not try to calm people down by pointing to the actual facts in play?

The problem is no one is listening. The people saying 'calm down' aren't trusted anymore. This is beginning to look like the worst of what happens when institutions fail. Again I'm talking pure politics but I think injecting technical legalese they don't understand isn't helpful anymore...unless it comes from a voice they trust. And boy do we have people abusing those trust arrangements now. We're in a real hole here.

Earlier, you said my comparison to "alternative facts" wasn't fair, but if we start concentrating and validating how people are feeling about what's going on rather than what's actually going on, I feel like we're drifting into that territory.

I'm saying it is unfair to call it alternative facts because Thomas had a scandal (a very long 6 months ago now) that was directly applicable! People have a reasonable basis to not trust him in matters like this. That's it.

[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.

Two quick comments in response to this and other comments about the Thomas administrative stay:

First, as others have already pointed out, there's nothing to mitigate here. This is normal, run-of-the-mill Supreme Court business. It's not the "shadow docket." It's not Thomas stepping in and doing something "unilaterally" that he's not supposed to do. It's an administrative application for a stay coming out of a case pending in GA, which is Thomas's responsibility. The SC doesn't need to do anything to mitigate the claim that it's acting in a partisan way here because the claim is wrong. Its alternative facts.

Second, we should think carefully about whether or not we actually want the Supreme Court acting to mitigate claims about how they appear to be acting. Ideally, we want the Supreme Court to decide the cases that are put to them in keeping with the Constitution and with precedent. We are on thin ice when we start to ask the Court to make decisions based on how they will appear to the public. I know this probably sounds more than a little naïve, and I'd readily concede that the Court is not fully insulated from public opinion and has certainly been influenced by it, but I'd just caution that some degree of insulation from public opinion is not a bug in the system, it's a feature. Or, at least, it has been up until now . . .

Ok, so if Thomas had denied the administrative request, would that have been partisan?

To a degree, that's implied by your argument.

IMHO, Graham is making a specious argument for dramatically expanding the speech and debate protections and by even hearing it, Thomas is acknowledging that maybe that expansion is warranted, which seems very dangerous and susceptible to enabling even more corruption in Congress to me.

[El Guapo]

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.

Two quick comments in response to this and other comments about the Thomas administrative stay:

First, as others have already pointed out, there's nothing to mitigate here. This is normal, run-of-the-mill Supreme Court business. It's not the "shadow docket." It's not Thomas stepping in and doing something "unilaterally" that he's not supposed to do. It's an administrative application for a stay coming out of a case pending in GA, which is Thomas's responsibility. The SC doesn't need to do anything to mitigate the claim that it's acting in a partisan way here because the claim is wrong. Its alternative facts.

Second, we should think carefully about whether or not we actually want the Supreme Court acting to mitigate claims about how they appear to be acting. Ideally, we want the Supreme Court to decide the cases that are put to them in keeping with the Constitution and with precedent. We are on thin ice when we start to ask the Court to make decisions based on how they will appear to the public. I know this probably sounds more than a little naïve, and I'd readily concede that the Court is not fully insulated from public opinion and has certainly been influenced by it, but I'd just caution that some degree of insulation from public opinion is not a bug in the system, it's a feature. Or, at least, it has been up until now . . .

Ok, so if Thomas had denied the administrative request, would that have been partisan?

To a degree, that's implied by your argument.

IMHO, Graham is making a specious argument for dramatically expanding the speech and debate protections and by even hearing it, Thomas is acknowledging that maybe that expansion is warranted, which seems very dangerous and susceptible to enabling even more corruption in Congress to me.

Thomas's action here isn't really acknowledging that the expansion may be warranted. I assume in general that Thomas is inclined to do crazy radical things in general whenever he gets the chance, so I think there's a decent chance that he adopts some radical view to shield Graham, but this administrative action doesn't really move the needle on the odds of that. And the delay *from this action* is very small - maybe a week or so as I understand it.

Now, if the full SCOTUS keeps the stay on, that would potentially matter.

[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.

Two quick comments in response to this and other comments about the Thomas administrative stay:

First, as others have already pointed out, there's nothing to mitigate here. This is normal, run-of-the-mill Supreme Court business. It's not the "shadow docket." It's not Thomas stepping in and doing something "unilaterally" that he's not supposed to do. It's an administrative application for a stay coming out of a case pending in GA, which is Thomas's responsibility. The SC doesn't need to do anything to mitigate the claim that it's acting in a partisan way here because the claim is wrong. Its alternative facts.

Second, we should think carefully about whether or not we actually want the Supreme Court acting to mitigate claims about how they appear to be acting. Ideally, we want the Supreme Court to decide the cases that are put to them in keeping with the Constitution and with precedent. We are on thin ice when we start to ask the Court to make decisions based on how they will appear to the public. I know this probably sounds more than a little naïve, and I'd readily concede that the Court is not fully insulated from public opinion and has certainly been influenced by it, but I'd just caution that some degree of insulation from public opinion is not a bug in the system, it's a feature. Or, at least, it has been up until now . . .

Ok, so if Thomas had denied the administrative request, would that have been partisan?

To a degree, that's implied by your argument.

IMHO, Graham is making a specious argument for dramatically expanding the speech and debate protections and by even hearing it, Thomas is acknowledging that maybe that expansion is warranted, which seems very dangerous and susceptible to enabling even more corruption in Congress to me.

Thomas's action here isn't really acknowledging that the expansion may be warranted. I assume in general that Thomas is inclined to do crazy radical things in general whenever he gets the chance, so I think there's a decent chance that he adopts some radical view to shield Graham, but this administrative action doesn't really move the needle on the odds of that. And the delay *from this action* is very small - maybe a week or so as I understand it.

Now, if the full SCOTUS keeps the stay on, that would potentially matter.

Yes, but the fact that he didn't just shut down the administrative action speaks to it at least to a degree.

[malchior]

Yes, but the fact that he didn't just shut down the administrative action speaks to it at least to a degree.

Not really or a very small degree. The problem if you look at this neutrally is that the alternative is that Graham is potentially wrongly compelled to testify. If Thomas shuts it down, then Graham has no recourse potentially. It doesn't matter if the 11th or SCOTUS rules one way or another. He will have still testified. Weighed against that potential impact is what is believed to be a short-wait. That's why so many people are saying this outcome is fairly reasonable. It is neutrally the fair outcome. From a straight read, I agree with folks who think you can't read too much into it what Thomas would do based on this. It instead looks bad from a political lens because of the larger issue of ethics and politicization with Thomas and to some extent SCOTUS at large.

[Kurth]

Yes, but the fact that he didn't just shut down the administrative action speaks to it at least to a degree.

Not really or a very small degree. The problem if you look at this neutrally is that the alternative is that Graham is potentially wrongly compelled to testify. If Thomas shuts it down, then Graham has no recourse potentially. It doesn't matter if the 11th or SCOTUS rules one way or another. He will have still testified. Weighed against that potential impact is what is believed to be a short-wait. That's why so many people are saying this outcome is fairly reasonable. It is neutrally the fair outcome.

All of this.

It's one of those things where you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Permitting the stay until the full SC can decide Graham's stupid emergency application just makes sense.

And no, I don't think it would have been partisan for Thomas to deny the administrative stay, but it would have been really weird.

[Unagi]

I’m confused. What’s new

To me, just now malchior finally said what we have all been trying to get malchior to agree to.

So I must be totally missing the meta or the nuance that malchior had been trying make earlier.

[Pyperkub]

Yes, but the fact that he didn't just shut down the administrative action speaks to it at least to a degree.

Not really or a very small degree. The problem if you look at this neutrally is that the alternative is that Graham is potentially wrongly compelled to testify. If Thomas shuts it down, then Graham has no recourse potentially. It doesn't matter if the 11th or SCOTUS rules one way or another. He will have still testified. Weighed against that potential impact is what is believed to be a short-wait. That's why so many people are saying this outcome is fairly reasonable. It is neutrally the fair outcome.

All of this.

It's one of those things where you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Permitting the stay until the full SC can decide Graham's stupid emergency application just makes sense.

And no, I don't think it would have been partisan for Thomas to deny the administrative stay, but it would have been really weird.

I don't believe having a public servant compelled to testify can be 'wrong' (given that there is evidence he has material information). He can take the 5th and/or resign or state under Oath that it was speech & debate and then have the issue decided by the Courts once he has claimed that Under Oath.

[stessier]

Yes, but the fact that he didn't just shut down the administrative action speaks to it at least to a degree.

Not really or a very small degree. The problem if you look at this neutrally is that the alternative is that Graham is potentially wrongly compelled to testify. If Thomas shuts it down, then Graham has no recourse potentially. It doesn't matter if the 11th or SCOTUS rules one way or another. He will have still testified. Weighed against that potential impact is what is believed to be a short-wait. That's why so many people are saying this outcome is fairly reasonable. It is neutrally the fair outcome.

All of this.

It's one of those things where you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Permitting the stay until the full SC can decide Graham's stupid emergency application just makes sense.

And no, I don't think it would have been partisan for Thomas to deny the administrative stay, but it would have been really weird.

I don't believe having a public servant compelled to testify can be 'wrong' (given that there is evidence he has material information). He can take the 5th and/or resign or state under Oath that it was speech & debate and then have the issue decided by the Courts once he has claimed that Under Oath.

Why would under oath matter for speech & debate? It's a position that is either legally valid or not. Him saying it under oath doesn't have any effect on the outcome.

[Pyperkub]

Yes, but the fact that he didn't just shut down the administrative action speaks to it at least to a degree.

Not really or a very small degree. The problem if you look at this neutrally is that the alternative is that Graham is potentially wrongly compelled to testify. If Thomas shuts it down, then Graham has no recourse potentially. It doesn't matter if the 11th or SCOTUS rules one way or another. He will have still testified. Weighed against that potential impact is what is believed to be a short-wait. That's why so many people are saying this outcome is fairly reasonable. It is neutrally the fair outcome.

All of this.

It's one of those things where you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Permitting the stay until the full SC can decide Graham's stupid emergency application just makes sense.

And no, I don't think it would have been partisan for Thomas to deny the administrative stay, but it would have been really weird.

I don't believe having a public servant compelled to testify can be 'wrong' (given that there is evidence he has material information). He can take the 5th and/or resign or state under Oath that it was speech & debate and then have the issue decided by the Courts once he has claimed that Under Oath.

Why would under oath matter for speech & debate? It's a position that is either legally valid or not. Him saying it under oath doesn't have any effect on the outcome.

Him "claiming" it under Oath does make a difference, especially with regards to specifics. He should NOT get a blanket block against testifying for it, again, given that there is substantial evidence that he is a material witness who may have committed crimes.

[Kurth]

Alarm! Alarm! They’ve done it again: The Supreme Court has blocked another Jan. 6 subpoena with an administrative stay.

That’s twice in one week. Damned partisan hack judges. Something must be done.

Spoiler:

Justice Kagan temporarily blocks Jan. 6 committee subpoena seeking phone records of Arizona GOP Chair Kelli Ward
The House panel investigating the attack on the Capitol is seeking records from Ward over her role as a "fake elector" in an alleged scheme to overturn the 2020 election results.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Wednesday temporarily blocked enforcement of the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena seeking the phone records of Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward.

The move by Kagan, a liberal justice who handles emergency applications that originate in Arizona, means the Supreme Court as a whole will decide how to proceed. The House committee has until Friday to respond to Ward's request to quash the subpoena, which was filed earlier Wednesday.

The committee declined to comment on the subpoena pause.

[stessier]

Yes, but the fact that he didn't just shut down the administrative action speaks to it at least to a degree.

Not really or a very small degree. The problem if you look at this neutrally is that the alternative is that Graham is potentially wrongly compelled to testify. If Thomas shuts it down, then Graham has no recourse potentially. It doesn't matter if the 11th or SCOTUS rules one way or another. He will have still testified. Weighed against that potential impact is what is believed to be a short-wait. That's why so many people are saying this outcome is fairly reasonable. It is neutrally the fair outcome.

All of this.

It's one of those things where you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Permitting the stay until the full SC can decide Graham's stupid emergency application just makes sense.

And no, I don't think it would have been partisan for Thomas to deny the administrative stay, but it would have been really weird.

I don't believe having a public servant compelled to testify can be 'wrong' (given that there is evidence he has material information). He can take the 5th and/or resign or state under Oath that it was speech & debate and then have the issue decided by the Courts once he has claimed that Under Oath.

Why would under oath matter for speech & debate? It's a position that is either legally valid or not. Him saying it under oath doesn't have any effect on the outcome.

Him "claiming" it under Oath does make a difference, especially with regards to specifics. He should NOT get a blanket block against testifying for it, again, given that there is substantial evidence that he is a material witness who may have committed crimes.

That's not how it works though. The question right now is what, if anything, falls under Speech and Debate. The Circuit Court already gave some ground rules - some questions are allowed while others are verboten. Graham is asking SCOTUS to say all of it falls under Speech & Debate. They could agree with him, the Circuit Court, or come up with their own reasoning. The substance of what he would say doesn't influence the analysis.

[Pyperkub]

That's not how it works though. The question right now is what, if anything, falls under Speech and Debate. The Circuit Court already gave some ground rules - some questions are allowed while others are verboten. Graham is asking SCOTUS to say all of it falls under Speech & Debate. They could agree with him, the Circuit Court, or come up with their own reasoning. The substance of what he would say doesn't influence the analysis.

And I contend that he is 100% full of crap because it's a specious argument and that Thomas should have said so immediately.

[Kurth]

That's not how it works though. The question right now is what, if anything, falls under Speech and Debate. The Circuit Court already gave some ground rules - some questions are allowed while others are verboten. Graham is asking SCOTUS to say all of it falls under Speech & Debate. They could agree with him, the Circuit Court, or come up with their own reasoning. The substance of what he would say doesn't influence the analysis.

And I contend that he is 100% full of crap because it's a specious argument and that Thomas should have said so immediately.

Please see above.

That's not how it works though.

[malchior]

I’m confused. What’s new

To me, just now malchior finally said what we have all been trying to get malchior to agree to.

So I must be totally missing the meta or the nuance that malchior had been trying make earlier.

I never disagreed with what I wrote. I was talking about the politics which is very different! People freaking out is something we have to deal with because trust in institutions has cratered. I was always arguing that the routine action is probably the fair outcome - from a neutral point of view - but to regular folks it looks bad because so much damage has been done by the actors involved. They think the fix is in.

We're very much down the road where populist voices will continue to demand things - like instant justice - instead of waiting for the things to play out. And I simply was expressing some sympathy for that point of view. Even if it is "wrong" it makes some sense for people to be overly sensitive to routine things they don't understand considering how things have been going with the courts.

[Unagi]

I guess I will just say that I feel the proper reply to those people that take this act as a political act, is to explain to them how this isn't - and then the moment there is one, I would then follow up and say, remember that thing that wasn't - well THIS IS.

And, I know you know that, etc. I didn't follow why you didn't just expound on basically only that. It's me.

[Smoove_B]

Let's see who's on deck now - some guy named...Trump?

WASHINGTON, Oct 31 (Reuters) - Former President Donald Trump on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his fight to prevent a U.S. House of Representatives committee from gaining access to his tax returns for reasons he claims are politically motivated.

Trump filed an emergency request to put on hold a lower court ruling against the Republican former president that upheld the Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee's request for the tax materials as a justified part of its legislative work while his attorneys prepare an appeal.

"If allowed to stand, it will undermine the separation of powers and render the office of the Presidency vulnerable to invasive information demands from political opponents in the legislative branch," Trump's lawyers wrote, referring to the division of authority among the three branches of the U.S. government.

[Octavious]

I'm sure they will wait until after the midterms to reply. And then he will have run out the clock. AMERICA!

[Zarathud]

Never mind that Presidents for 40 years disclosed their tax returns, to avoid this issue and perceptions of conflicts of interest. Nixon released his tax returns while under audit in 1973. During Watergate.

[malchior]

Only 3 years and counting.

I'm sure they will wait until after the midterms to reply. And then he will have run out the clock. AMERICA!

This is likely the correct answer. They could easily slot this into the docket for spring.

[LordMortis]

Never mind that Presidents for 40 years disclosed their tax returns, to avoid this issue and perceptions of conflicts of interest. Nixon released his tax returns while under audit in 1973. During Watergate.

And that he totally wanted to publish tax returns as far back as 2015 but he was under audit and his hands were tied.

Edit: I can only find a 2016 statement...

https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-trum ... rts-2016-2

[Octavious]

Oh look stay has been granted. I'm shocked... This country is a total joke.

[malchior]

Oh look stay has been granted. I'm shocked... This country is a total joke.

This is a case where this is both entirely normal, expected, but also is ridiculous. This has been going on for 3 years. If they want to belay any partisan rhetoric, they hopefully would fast track this before the next Congress meets and moots the whole thing. I won't hold my breath.