The Supreme Court's two biggest rulings last week tee up an important but complicated question: What's the right way to contextualize major rulings that divide the justices in unexpected ways?
I’m sure that on many issues that are technical and difficult this court is simply doing its business normally. But on the Ines that matter it is acting corruptly. It has done everything it can do to shelter Trump and has succeeded
Sorry to dissent but I think the idea of comparing decisions of this Court to decisions made by prior courts tells us nothing useful, because it assumes that the prior Courts determinations were above average and there are some serious thinkers ( ie not MAGA supporters) who do not accept that view. The exclusive focus should be upon the extent to which the decision is persuasive in its own terms and faithfully sticks to the task of saying what the law is and not what a majority of the court wants the law to be; That is what is so deeply disturbing about the Court's handling of the Trump Immunity case in which the Majority of the Court has through the manipulation of the Shadow Docket essentially e created a Constitutional Immunity by preventing the Trial from taking place.
How about "stick[ing] to the task of saying what the law is" *applicable to the case before them*, instead of taking an "opportunity" to "reach out" to state "what a majority of the court wants the law to be" *more generally*, i.e., to express in binding precedential terms the majority's views on Constitutional questions *beyond what the case before them requires*? The questioning in the Trump post-term-presidential-criminal-immunity oral argument seemed to me to relate to generalized questions on the topic that are *entirely unnecessary to reach or even address* in a case related to a felonious attempt to retain the office despite losing the election. Why no straightforward affirmance (months ago) of the dist ct, *or* the DC Cir, on the narrrow ground that, whatever the limits on such a prosecution, they don't extend to cases of oath-breaking encouragement of violent insurrection?
Absolutely correct. Gorsuch’s “Rule for The Ages” is an evasion which only applies to policies that MAGA supports, e.g. that Abortion is a Moral Issue to be decided by those States that agree with the Court’s majority.
Can you discuss the differences in the interpretation of "shall" in Harrow and Smith? One basically says "shall means must, what were you thinking?" and the other says "shall doesn't really mean shall when it comes to deadlines sometimes." Or at least that's how I read them.
The in-depth analysis of Alito will be paywalled. So, I will underline my bottom line: this Supreme Court is broken in significant ways. Two justices have done things where there is a serious argument for impeachment proceedings (if such a thing actually was likely to occur).
When Fortas did less, he was pressured to resign by Chief Justice Warren. This guy won't even say why he recuses. That is left to Kagan and Jackson (Sotomayor not having a chance recently). This is underlined today, as noted by a tweet by the author himself -- Kavanaugh and Jackson recused in the same case. Only one said why.
The firmest solutions are deemed partisan, even by reasonable law professors. And Dobbs is a basic problem. A packed/stacked Court gave us that. But only Republicans are allowed to do that sort of thing. It is too "partisan" to respond in kind. We are left with the latest "WTF" while they try to find ways to look reasonable, such as the appropriations case.
I do suspect that we ALL are very much looking forward to Thursday's Bonus Issue and Professor Vladek's analysis of the upside down flag episode. I certainly am
I’m sure that on many issues that are technical and difficult this court is simply doing its business normally. But on the Ines that matter it is acting corruptly. It has done everything it can do to shelter Trump and has succeeded
Sorry to dissent but I think the idea of comparing decisions of this Court to decisions made by prior courts tells us nothing useful, because it assumes that the prior Courts determinations were above average and there are some serious thinkers ( ie not MAGA supporters) who do not accept that view. The exclusive focus should be upon the extent to which the decision is persuasive in its own terms and faithfully sticks to the task of saying what the law is and not what a majority of the court wants the law to be; That is what is so deeply disturbing about the Court's handling of the Trump Immunity case in which the Majority of the Court has through the manipulation of the Shadow Docket essentially e created a Constitutional Immunity by preventing the Trial from taking place.
How about "stick[ing] to the task of saying what the law is" *applicable to the case before them*, instead of taking an "opportunity" to "reach out" to state "what a majority of the court wants the law to be" *more generally*, i.e., to express in binding precedential terms the majority's views on Constitutional questions *beyond what the case before them requires*? The questioning in the Trump post-term-presidential-criminal-immunity oral argument seemed to me to relate to generalized questions on the topic that are *entirely unnecessary to reach or even address* in a case related to a felonious attempt to retain the office despite losing the election. Why no straightforward affirmance (months ago) of the dist ct, *or* the DC Cir, on the narrrow ground that, whatever the limits on such a prosecution, they don't extend to cases of oath-breaking encouragement of violent insurrection?
Absolutely correct. Gorsuch’s “Rule for The Ages” is an evasion which only applies to policies that MAGA supports, e.g. that Abortion is a Moral Issue to be decided by those States that agree with the Court’s majority.
Can you discuss the differences in the interpretation of "shall" in Harrow and Smith? One basically says "shall means must, what were you thinking?" and the other says "shall doesn't really mean shall when it comes to deadlines sometimes." Or at least that's how I read them.
The in-depth analysis of Alito will be paywalled. So, I will underline my bottom line: this Supreme Court is broken in significant ways. Two justices have done things where there is a serious argument for impeachment proceedings (if such a thing actually was likely to occur).
When Fortas did less, he was pressured to resign by Chief Justice Warren. This guy won't even say why he recuses. That is left to Kagan and Jackson (Sotomayor not having a chance recently). This is underlined today, as noted by a tweet by the author himself -- Kavanaugh and Jackson recused in the same case. Only one said why.
The firmest solutions are deemed partisan, even by reasonable law professors. And Dobbs is a basic problem. A packed/stacked Court gave us that. But only Republicans are allowed to do that sort of thing. It is too "partisan" to respond in kind. We are left with the latest "WTF" while they try to find ways to look reasonable, such as the appropriations case.
I do suspect that we ALL are very much looking forward to Thursday's Bonus Issue and Professor Vladek's analysis of the upside down flag episode. I certainly am