He was originally (as in when he was in high school) a liberarian/conservative. He has held onto some of that libertarian thinking over the years. I think he’s a brilliant legal scholar, and I agree with him more often than not, but like a lot of very smart people, he is overly confident in his ability to persuade others. He kind of has engineer’s disease, or the legal version of it.
ETA: Also, I didn’t realize this, but he clerked for both Richard Posner and Antonin Scalia. He was basically the token liberal on their clerk staffs. I don’t think most judges today would do that. Can you see Thomas or Alito having a liberal clerk?
Were that true, SCOTUS wouldn’t have found that Biden couldn’t discharge student loan debt, but Trump could dismantle the entire Department of Education. Hypocrisy is one of the cornerstones of conservatism.
“Laws for thee, but not for me…” Ingroups laws protect but do not bind, etc. Yup, absolutely cannot run a “conservative” (fascist) government without a huge helping of hypocrisy.
See also, “You can’t gerrymander based on race, but here’s a dissent with a blueprint on how to gerrymander based on race in a way we will definitely uphold…”
Sandra Day O’Connor was notorious for writing opinions like that. She’d say something was unconstitutional and then add things like “If, instead, the city/state/Congress had enacted a law that did x, y, and z instead of just x and y, then this would likely not violate the xth Amendment.”
ETA: Here’s a good example of that. O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Chicago v. Morales, an anti-loitering case. CHICAGO V. MORALES
Possibly. Again, this was not an appeal on the merits of the case, just on the injunction. The merits were discussed by the majority, but the dissenter discussed only jurisdiction and standing. Which is a constant refrain in these cases. When these injunctions are stayed, they never discuss the merits of the claim, only whether an injunction is proper for technical reasons. And that’s telling, because the Administration really doesn’t have a leg to stand on when you reach the merits of the claim.
Anyway, this appeal was decided by a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit. So the next step with probably be the Administration demanding a reconsideration by the entire 9th Circuit en banc (there are 29 active judges who sit on the 9th Circuit bench, 10 of them appointed by Trump). They will probably agree with this ruling. Then, Trump will appeal to SCOTUS.
The actual lawsuit has not had its trial yet, and won’t until the unjunction issue is resolved one way or the other. It could literally be 5 or 6 years before this case reaches SCOTUS on the merits of the case itself.
Yes, indeed, although I really fear what this SCOTUS will do as they have been just begging for someone to give then an excuse to turn over Obergefell.
Most think that the hard question in constitutional law is to determine what the Constitution means. In fact, the hardest question is whether and when the courts must stand up to governmental actors who are resisting the Constitution. Judges have long understood that courts can’t right every wrong. The challenge is always to defend the Constitution while preserving the role of an independent court.
The president has already generated more genuine disputes about his power than the court has space on its annual docket. But beyond one important exception (Abrego Garcia v. Trump), the Supreme Court has done little to slow his grasping of power, and it has, bizarrely, used its shadow docket to block lower courts that have tried to step into the breach (the recent Department of Education case).
None should minimize, however, how difficult the court’s position is. Trump has triggered a constitutional moment. Whether this court — or any court — can resist such a president is not obvious. If it resists and is ignored, it will have weakened the institution for generations. But if it doesn’t resist this remaking now, when could it? Will the court return us to the presidency that was when a Democrat comes to power? And how exactly could it do that, while preserving the “integrity of the decisions of [the] court in the eyes of the country”?
Sorry, Larry, the SC has already shown that its majority are hypocrites that will do what they can to prevent a Democrat from being president again, ever.
I expect Thomas, Alito to retire and younger trumpier judges will take their place. And I have doubts that either or both of Kagen and Sotomayor will be able to keep serving the rest of Clownstick’s term.
This is a load of crap. I mean grade A, stinky as hell, bullshit. This isn’t hard. This is easy, if you care about the Constitution. It certainly hasn’t been a tough call for Sotomayor, Kagan, or Jackson. Trump isn’t doing things that are of questionable Constitutionality. He’s not taking advantage of ambiguous language in the Constitution. He is ignoring parts of the Constitution, and doing things that are explicitly in opposition to the Constitution. This is the easiest fucking call in the history of easy calls. Do you want to know what’s tough, Mr. Lessig? Trying to decide whether you should show up for your next immigration hearing, knowing that there’s a nonzero chance ICE may grab you if you do, even if you haven’t committed a crime, while also knowing that if you don’t show up for your next immigration hearing, you may be giving the government legal justification to deport you. That’s a tough decision. Trying to decide, as a Supreme Court Justice, whether you should DO YOUR FUCKING JOB or not is not a tough decision. Fuck this asshole. What a loser.
The other aspect is that the Court, by running active interference for T****, suppresses public reaction. It’s one thing when the Executive violates the Constitution blatantly. It’s another when they violate court decisions calling out that violation. What Lessing is missing is that, if SCOTUS rules against T**** and gets ignored, that represents the line most people in this country will not allow them to cross without direct action. With SCOTUS running interference, such action becomes much more difficult.
This update includes disclosures filed in May and made public late last month. Justice Samuel Alito received a 90-day extension, and his disclosure is expected later this summer.
