Justice Sotomayor's oral dissent in the bump stocks case highlights why the Supreme Court should allow those who can't be in the courtroom to hear the justices' hand-down statements.
Speaking as a retired labor lawyer with an above average understanding of the NLRB’s workings, I can say that Justice Jackson’s opinions in Glacier last term and Starbucks last week reflect a degree of sophistication and comprehension that even her liberal colleagues seemingly can’t be bothered with.
I’m not a lawyer, but have been impressed with Judge Jackson’s opinions, etc. She seems to have a lot to say and a willingness to do so. It indicates she may have an important role to play in the future.
However, I was extraordinarily disappointed by Justice Jackson's question in the question of Trump's eligibility to be on the Colorado ballot: "“Why didn't they put the word president in the very enumerated list in section three? The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and president is not there.” There were ample amicus briefs that addressed this very specific question - as far as I'm concerned, all three (3) liberal justices failed to uphold the language and intent of Art. 14, Sec. 3.
I don’t think you can read into that as her genuinely believing that line of argument. I’d guess she saw the writing on the wall, knew Trump was winning the case the only question was how——and her goal was the narrowest possible ruling, which would’ve been president is exempt, but no one else is, instead of “states can’t enforce it for anyone.”
Cas: 23-235, 602 U.S. ___ (1924) the Mifepristone Opinion & the Thomas concurrence:
Did anyone take note of Justice Thomas " so-called "concurrence" wherein Thomas openly attacked "associational" standing which was & is a long standing procedure to bring Civil Rights cases to SCOTUS after 1964 & many other cases where a representative represents members, patients & others.
Here is Thomas Advertisement directed at faux Plaintiffs to bring a case to destroy "assciational" standing, Thomas:
"Associational standing, however, is simply another form of third-party standing. And, the Court has never explained or justified either doctrine's expansion of Article III standing. In an APPROPRIATE [ emphasis added ] case, we should explain how the Constitution permits associational standing."
A reader can find Thomas' dicta at the first full paragraph on page 3 of his "concurrence".
One comment, Stephen . . . I read the entire post waiting for you to "dwell a bit on the one respect in which the hand-down in Cargill was unusual." I expected some biting insight into Justice Sotomayor's takedown of the illiberal justices during the Hand-Down only to be left hangin'!!!😯 I hope you do share eventually!!!😃
The Justice used a metaphor that even non-lawyers can understand: "If it quacks like a Duck, Swims like A Duck & Walks like a Duck" the Bump Stock is a "machine gun".
Do you have any opinions on the reports that Thomas actually lied--or showed vast ignorance--on how bump stocks actually work in order to get this opinion where he wanted it to go?
Susan there is evidence that Thomas just votes to grant CERT & signals what type of cases he wants. A fund, NCLA (not a FamilyTrust Fubd) was behind the Mifepristone case.
Per Bloomberg Law's Lidia Wheeler on who exactly is behind certain SCOTUS cases, Ms. Wheeler wrote back on 1/2624 that so-called 'Donor Advised Fund' NCLA is behind the bogus Mifepristone case & 2 other cases before SCTUS this Term.
There are more than 20 Opinions yet to be published this Term
Susan, you obviously read Robert Hubbell's and Lucian Truscott's Substack pieces. Clearly, the conservative justices created a fiction to support their political decision since the video Robert provided clearly shows how a bumpstockj works. Sadly, as Robert said, they will have "blood on their hands."
Not saying you’re wrong, but can you explain further. I am not an expert on guns, but I was under the impression he correctly explained bump stocks function.
check out the substack pieces on this , particularly Lucian Truscott. I know zip about guns so the videos don't mean much to me. It apparently all has to do with how many times your finger has to twitch to mow down a crowd. Thomas makes a big deal about "single action of the finger."
PS: as for the lack of oral dissents in OT84, that was the Term I was there, and what I can say is that by that time Justice Brennan seemed to be increasingly uncertain about his ability to speak forcefully from the bench. So his questions during oral argument dropped to (almost?) zero (and perhaps he had unusually temperate law clerks that Term 😀 ?). Otherwise, I feel certain that he would have read a summary, at least, of his vigorous dissent in Elstad [btw, not a case assigned to me] which he concluded by describing the majority's decision as "but the latest of the escalating number of decisions that are making this tribunal increasingly irrelevant in the protection of individual rights, and that are requiring other tribunals to shoulder the burden."
I certainly agree with you Steve, about live-streaming the full audio from all opinion announcement sessions. BUT: as you wrote, "after COVID, it committed to full live-streaming of every argument." Yet they do NOT live-stream argument sessions in their entirely. As I have been whining about for a few years on Twitter (X), they say that oral arguments start at 10 am, but they almost never start then -- because the Justices routinely does some from-the-bench administrative work before the first argument starts (admissions to the SCt bar, thanks or eulogies to some Court people, etc.).
If the Court truly wants the public to hear how they do our Judiciary business, they should live stream the ENTIRETY of every session in which they are speaking from the bench. Including, on oral argument days, the "administrative" stuff they usually start with but which the public never hears. Indeed, I don't think the audio of those pre-argument minutes from the bench is EVER released. Is it? Please add to your advocacy of live-audio-transparency, the entirety of every oral argument session when they are on the bench. 😀
Speaking as a retired labor lawyer with an above average understanding of the NLRB’s workings, I can say that Justice Jackson’s opinions in Glacier last term and Starbucks last week reflect a degree of sophistication and comprehension that even her liberal colleagues seemingly can’t be bothered with.
I’m not a lawyer, but have been impressed with Judge Jackson’s opinions, etc. She seems to have a lot to say and a willingness to do so. It indicates she may have an important role to play in the future.
However, I was extraordinarily disappointed by Justice Jackson's question in the question of Trump's eligibility to be on the Colorado ballot: "“Why didn't they put the word president in the very enumerated list in section three? The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and president is not there.” There were ample amicus briefs that addressed this very specific question - as far as I'm concerned, all three (3) liberal justices failed to uphold the language and intent of Art. 14, Sec. 3.
I don’t think you can read into that as her genuinely believing that line of argument. I’d guess she saw the writing on the wall, knew Trump was winning the case the only question was how——and her goal was the narrowest possible ruling, which would’ve been president is exempt, but no one else is, instead of “states can’t enforce it for anyone.”
Cas: 23-235, 602 U.S. ___ (1924) the Mifepristone Opinion & the Thomas concurrence:
Did anyone take note of Justice Thomas " so-called "concurrence" wherein Thomas openly attacked "associational" standing which was & is a long standing procedure to bring Civil Rights cases to SCOTUS after 1964 & many other cases where a representative represents members, patients & others.
Here is Thomas Advertisement directed at faux Plaintiffs to bring a case to destroy "assciational" standing, Thomas:
"Associational standing, however, is simply another form of third-party standing. And, the Court has never explained or justified either doctrine's expansion of Article III standing. In an APPROPRIATE [ emphasis added ] case, we should explain how the Constitution permits associational standing."
A reader can find Thomas' dicta at the first full paragraph on page 3 of his "concurrence".
One comment, Stephen . . . I read the entire post waiting for you to "dwell a bit on the one respect in which the hand-down in Cargill was unusual." I expected some biting insight into Justice Sotomayor's takedown of the illiberal justices during the Hand-Down only to be left hangin'!!!😯 I hope you do share eventually!!!😃
The Justice used a metaphor that even non-lawyers can understand: "If it quacks like a Duck, Swims like A Duck & Walks like a Duck" the Bump Stock is a "machine gun".
Even a Duck can spray death.
Do you have any opinions on the reports that Thomas actually lied--or showed vast ignorance--on how bump stocks actually work in order to get this opinion where he wanted it to go?
Susan there is evidence that Thomas just votes to grant CERT & signals what type of cases he wants. A fund, NCLA (not a FamilyTrust Fubd) was behind the Mifepristone case.
Per Bloomberg Law's Lidia Wheeler on who exactly is behind certain SCOTUS cases, Ms. Wheeler wrote back on 1/2624 that so-called 'Donor Advised Fund' NCLA is behind the bogus Mifepristone case & 2 other cases before SCTUS this Term.
There are more than 20 Opinions yet to be published this Term
Susan, you obviously read Robert Hubbell's and Lucian Truscott's Substack pieces. Clearly, the conservative justices created a fiction to support their political decision since the video Robert provided clearly shows how a bumpstockj works. Sadly, as Robert said, they will have "blood on their hands."
Not saying you’re wrong, but can you explain further. I am not an expert on guns, but I was under the impression he correctly explained bump stocks function.
check out the substack pieces on this , particularly Lucian Truscott. I know zip about guns so the videos don't mean much to me. It apparently all has to do with how many times your finger has to twitch to mow down a crowd. Thomas makes a big deal about "single action of the finger."
PS: as for the lack of oral dissents in OT84, that was the Term I was there, and what I can say is that by that time Justice Brennan seemed to be increasingly uncertain about his ability to speak forcefully from the bench. So his questions during oral argument dropped to (almost?) zero (and perhaps he had unusually temperate law clerks that Term 😀 ?). Otherwise, I feel certain that he would have read a summary, at least, of his vigorous dissent in Elstad [btw, not a case assigned to me] which he concluded by describing the majority's decision as "but the latest of the escalating number of decisions that are making this tribunal increasingly irrelevant in the protection of individual rights, and that are requiring other tribunals to shoulder the burden."
I certainly agree with you Steve, about live-streaming the full audio from all opinion announcement sessions. BUT: as you wrote, "after COVID, it committed to full live-streaming of every argument." Yet they do NOT live-stream argument sessions in their entirely. As I have been whining about for a few years on Twitter (X), they say that oral arguments start at 10 am, but they almost never start then -- because the Justices routinely does some from-the-bench administrative work before the first argument starts (admissions to the SCt bar, thanks or eulogies to some Court people, etc.).
If the Court truly wants the public to hear how they do our Judiciary business, they should live stream the ENTIRETY of every session in which they are speaking from the bench. Including, on oral argument days, the "administrative" stuff they usually start with but which the public never hears. Indeed, I don't think the audio of those pre-argument minutes from the bench is EVER released. Is it? Please add to your advocacy of live-audio-transparency, the entirety of every oral argument session when they are on the bench. 😀