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.
When you’re at work it’s not your rights. Especially when you work for government.
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.
Exactly.
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.
Aren’t there 9 justices?
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.
A late Friday night 6-3 SCOTUS decision dismissing her case seems like a great way to avoid Trump facing any consequences issuing a pardon instead.
The coverup is happening. What do you want to bet there’s a scotus on that list or two.
I mentioned somewhere around here awhile back that I had an idea to write a biography of former Justice Robert H. Jackson, because I find him interesting and there didn’t seem to be a good, thorough biography of him out there. Apparently someone else had the same thought. This is being published in October. Oh well. I’ll definitely read this, though.
https://a.co/d/5eVF6Ly
Well, of course, that doesn’t mean YOU can’t write a book too! You could read it and see their arguments, and then decide if they cover all the things you think matter… that’s how historical writing works! You can argue against this author with your own arguments… like a very dense and long-winded twitter fight!
True. I’m sure I would have a different perspective. G. Edward White is 84 years old. He clerked for Earl Warren.
ETA: Also . . . this actually makes me feel good, because I recognized that this was someone noteworthy deserving of a biography, and someone who is an actual scholar, writer, and attorney clearly agreed. So if I like this biography and don’t feel I have anything to add, maybe I could find someone else to write about.
YOU are too. You busted your ass to get through law school, and that means you are a scholar.
But yeah, you could find some one else to write about…
What more do you need?
So there is another one - as in ONE, total - out there already. And? Your’s will be different and can offer perspectives and insights no-one else could.
Here’s a little extra motivation.
Seconded.
When I see your avatar in a thread @danimagoo, where the law is under discussion, I get particularly happy because I’m going to learn something interesting, and I know you’ll probably make it fun. I would love to see your words in a book.
Justice Sotomayor Appears to Say That Term Limits for the Court Would be Unconstitutional, Even if Done by Constitutional Amendment
I think this is a misread of what she is saying. I think her statement is that any term limits imposed on the court would not retroactively affect already-seated members of the court, since ex-post-facto laws are unconstitutional. Presumably, future seatings would be term-limited.
I think term limits for SCOTUS that boot justices out of the judiciary would be a mistake. That would make them too beholden to potential future employers during their term. However, booting them back out into the federal judiciary would bypass that concern. Essentially, rotating federal judges through SCOTUS and back out into the general pool of judges would allow them to remain independent but still limit the damage caused by shitty or corrupt judges like Thomas and Alito.
Of course, ethics rules with teeth are probably a higher priority…