The second Trump administration's most controversial policy initiatives are likely to reach the Court quickly. The question will then become what lessons (if any) the justices have learned since 2017.
One of my favorite Carl Sagan books is subtitled, "Science As A Candle In The Dark." I appreciate the work that you have done in recent years to be that candle in the dark regarding the Shadow Docket. I, too, agree that the general increase in public awareness of emergency applications and how the Court is (ab)using them can only be a good thing.
But, I don't hold out much hope with regard to Justice Barrett (or, for that matter, the Chief Justice, who I feel had not just a sharp turn, but a 're-turn', to the right). Barrett did have some cautionary comments about emergency litigation, but my opinion is that her voice has not been strong enough in standing up to the extremes of the other conservative Justices. I know I am going against conventional wisdom of the major media outlets, who have also been trumpeting the ways Justice Barrett's recent actions have sometimes aligned more with the liberal side of the Court. But, I can't forget the comments she made back in 2022 (at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library) for Americans to "read the opinion" when judging the Court's decisions. That admonition rings hollow for me, when so many significant rulings are being made that are unsigned and unexplained.
And, regarding Mitch McConnell's floor speech: His legacy, for me, will never, ever escape the hypocrisy of denying President Obama the chance to confirm Merrick Garland (9 months before the ensuing election), but then facilitating the nomination of Barrett when the 2020 presidential election was only 38 days away. He is a political animal, pure and simple, without integrity...please feel free to ignore any verbal "sticks and stones" he may cast your way.
I have a hard time with drawing conclusions about how SCOTUS might act in 2025 from its behavior, or the behavior of specific justices, during President Biden's term in office. If conservatives have been consistent about anything in recent years, it's been their immunity to acknowledging or reacting to their own hypocrisy. I can fully see Coney Barrett and Roberts acquiescing to emergency relief requests from the Trump administration that they would've denied from the Biden administration, even where the merits of the request are exactly the same.
Sorry, Steve, but I can’t leave it alone. Derisive and false accusations from McConnell and his ilk are to be expected because the light you shine on the shortcomings of the federal judiciary causes your detractors to squirm because they don’t have any credible, rational, fact-based arguments to counter yours.
Mr. Beatty is absolutely correct t. McConnell of ALL people is among the least qualified to undertake a defense of the "independence" of the Judiciary and that he dares to criticize your writings and views is offensive. First, McConnell has so far as I am aware never even appeared before the Supreme Court or any Federal Court in his entire career which has exclusively involved running for office in Kentucky. Second, his performance as Majority and Minority Leader should get him disbarred. According to McConnell, when a Democratic President seeks to fill a Supreme Court Vacancy close to an election, the Constitution instructs McConnell to refuse to consider it but McConnell's rule is very different when it comes to the appointment by a Republican President (Trump)--- days before that President was defeated in his run for re-election. And that is how we protect the "independence of the Judiciary" ? Ironically, as this issue of your Newsletter points out, McConnell's last---for eternity--- distortion of the Appointments Process, Justice Barrett, may actually prove somewhat more independent than he planned. While I can understand that you would rather move on from the sordid adventures of the Federalist Society Meeting, this does not strike me as the time for silence on the shortcomings of the federal judiciary.
One of my favorite Carl Sagan books is subtitled, "Science As A Candle In The Dark." I appreciate the work that you have done in recent years to be that candle in the dark regarding the Shadow Docket. I, too, agree that the general increase in public awareness of emergency applications and how the Court is (ab)using them can only be a good thing.
But, I don't hold out much hope with regard to Justice Barrett (or, for that matter, the Chief Justice, who I feel had not just a sharp turn, but a 're-turn', to the right). Barrett did have some cautionary comments about emergency litigation, but my opinion is that her voice has not been strong enough in standing up to the extremes of the other conservative Justices. I know I am going against conventional wisdom of the major media outlets, who have also been trumpeting the ways Justice Barrett's recent actions have sometimes aligned more with the liberal side of the Court. But, I can't forget the comments she made back in 2022 (at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library) for Americans to "read the opinion" when judging the Court's decisions. That admonition rings hollow for me, when so many significant rulings are being made that are unsigned and unexplained.
And, regarding Mitch McConnell's floor speech: His legacy, for me, will never, ever escape the hypocrisy of denying President Obama the chance to confirm Merrick Garland (9 months before the ensuing election), but then facilitating the nomination of Barrett when the 2020 presidential election was only 38 days away. He is a political animal, pure and simple, without integrity...please feel free to ignore any verbal "sticks and stones" he may cast your way.
I read your Harvard Law Review article on the Shadow Docket, and then proceeded to buy your book on that Docket.
So I particularly enjoyed reading today’s material.
Keep up the good work.
Ditto!👍
McConnell and Jones probably won't be letting this go anytime soon.
Probably not, but Mr. Vladeck keeps moving on for all of us/democracy!
How does him moving on help democracy?
I have a hard time with drawing conclusions about how SCOTUS might act in 2025 from its behavior, or the behavior of specific justices, during President Biden's term in office. If conservatives have been consistent about anything in recent years, it's been their immunity to acknowledging or reacting to their own hypocrisy. I can fully see Coney Barrett and Roberts acquiescing to emergency relief requests from the Trump administration that they would've denied from the Biden administration, even where the merits of the request are exactly the same.
Sorry, Steve, but I can’t leave it alone. Derisive and false accusations from McConnell and his ilk are to be expected because the light you shine on the shortcomings of the federal judiciary causes your detractors to squirm because they don’t have any credible, rational, fact-based arguments to counter yours.
Mr. Beatty is absolutely correct t. McConnell of ALL people is among the least qualified to undertake a defense of the "independence" of the Judiciary and that he dares to criticize your writings and views is offensive. First, McConnell has so far as I am aware never even appeared before the Supreme Court or any Federal Court in his entire career which has exclusively involved running for office in Kentucky. Second, his performance as Majority and Minority Leader should get him disbarred. According to McConnell, when a Democratic President seeks to fill a Supreme Court Vacancy close to an election, the Constitution instructs McConnell to refuse to consider it but McConnell's rule is very different when it comes to the appointment by a Republican President (Trump)--- days before that President was defeated in his run for re-election. And that is how we protect the "independence of the Judiciary" ? Ironically, as this issue of your Newsletter points out, McConnell's last---for eternity--- distortion of the Appointments Process, Justice Barrett, may actually prove somewhat more independent than he planned. While I can understand that you would rather move on from the sordid adventures of the Federalist Society Meeting, this does not strike me as the time for silence on the shortcomings of the federal judiciary.