U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

...Which seems like a misnomer, because the original Federalists were in favor of a strong central government, not keeping the federal government as weak as possible and scattering political power to the states.

JUSTICE ALITO SPECIFICALLY QUOTES FROM/CALLS OUT @AdamSerwer @TheAtlantic PIECE & CALLS IT "INFLAMMATORY"https://t.co/2MygIMJKZ0

— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) September 30, 2021

Serwer article criticized Texas abortion shadow docket midnight decision

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/09/my-we-are-not-nullifying-roe-v-wade-t-shirt-has-many-people-asking-questions-already-answered-by-by-shirt

I’m dipping in & out of his talk, but Justice Alito’s level of indignation / defensiveness at criticisms of the shadow docket revealing that he consumes a lot more mainstream media than I would have guessed https://t.co/9ibYfg97Nd

— Kate Shaw (@kateashaw1) September 30, 2021

Alito isn’t likely to change but it’s good he is aware of this criticism

Why? He won't change.

he already had the dissents available to him pointing out why he was wrong. he's been aware. supreme court justices are lawyers, too. they know people disagree with them and it just makes them dig in harder. ask me how i know!

he's discovered hate-reading and he can't bear to not respond to something that makes him mad. he should post on ilx.

Alito was very much against having the event taped or streamed but it was eventually allowed. Now videos of it are all over the internet with people dunking on him. I don't think this was the outcome he was going for.

And he won't care because he's an asshole who's made grievance his shtick since 2006. He's by far the worst nominee of the last 20 years. Look at him -- he looks like the ultimate nerd whose head was rubbed and is getting his revenge.

he's discovered hate-reading and he can't bear to not respond to something that makes him mad. he should post on ilx.

Sad lol

Imo the Hobby Lobby case was his New Jersey

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/mcconnell-lauds-thomas-says-supreme-court-should-not-heed-rule-of-polls/2021/10/21/2766cbcc-32b9-11ec-9241-aad8e48f01ff_story.html

Supreme Court rules that Texas anti-abortion law can stay in effect for now but they will hear 2 challenges to it on November 1, the day before the state of Virginia governor Election Day. Meanwhile the Heritage Association throws a 30th anniversary celebration of Thomas getting on the court and Thomas is there along with a bunch of Republicans. Seems like kinda political and biased thing to do period, and especially weeks before a hearing. Sotomayor dissented from decision to let Texas law stay in effect for now

re: thomas, his wife is openly one of the most republican republicans of all republican republican Republican. of all time.5 of the 6 of them are that openly republican, and by that i republican republican

Scum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ginni-thomas-apology-clarence-thomas-clerks-trump-rally/2021/02/02/a9818cce-6496-11eb-8c64-9595888caa15_story.html

Above items about Thomas’ wife and conservative justices were somehow never mentioned when Biden’s new Supreme Court Commission worried in print that expanding the court could hurt its legitimacy. As if that hasn’t already been done

Not just the EPA’s authority; #SCOTUS has agreed to take up Congress’s *constitutional* authority to delegate to the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. https://t.co/sapajhqiDw

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) October 29, 2021

but Stephen Breyer will save us

Breyer will save us by adding lots of footnotes in his dissent to the eventual 6-3 decision and tell us that is how the system works

imagine needing to get an abortion in TX, and then doing some "research" online to figure out where else you can go

And while the states near Texas may not have the draconian six-week ban that the Supreme Court allowed to stand before it hears the case, many are still hostile to abortion rights. Oklahoma requires an ultrasound and 72-hour waiting period. Kansas has a 24-hour waiting period and both private insurance (without an additionally purchased rider) and plans in the state’s health exchange only cover the procedure in cases of life endangerment. Arkansas has a 72-hour waiting period that only begins after an in-person, state-directed counseling session aimed at dissuading the patient from having the abortion.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/texas-abortion-oklahoma-arkansas-kansas

It all seems very bad!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

Now

Texas is making a terrible case.

Chief Justice Roberts does not sound happy with Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, who resisted his (very good) hypothetical, leading Roberts to snipe: "My question is what we call a 'hypothetical.'" But remember that Roberts voted to block SB 8 from the start.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) November 1, 2021

does any of that matter though? it's not about who can make a more convincing argument

98 percent of the time, yeah. But Kav sounded like he was on the fence.

must have not talked to the groups that bankroll him yet today

tbf, the incompetence of the Texas AG and the utterly threadbare qualities of this law may be the saving grace here, but that's a small comfort in the grand scheme of things

To me it sounds like Barrett, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch and maybe others may rule procedurally that this has to play out in the Texas courts first as in their view the chilling of the constitutional right here is not more severe than the chilling of other constitutional rights that have occurred ( 2nd a gun rts and 1st amendment religion ones)

The conservative justices are going to go out of their way to save the Texas attorney general

Kav sounded disturbed at the thought that anti-gun AGs will enforce similar laws.

98 percent of the time, yeah. But Kav sounded like he was on the fence.

― So who you gonna call? The martini police (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, November 1, 2021 11:24 AM (ten minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

lmao, he's on the fence like Susan Collins is always on the fence.

I think the fact that there is no state-level recourse is a much stronger argument than the idea that some other state might do this but with guns

Another state might do this but with guns - at least this would force them to explicitly overrule Roe v. Wade, which they sort of don't want to do (they do want to do it, but via the back door).

Amy Coney Barrett now suggests that, due to the way the Texas law is written, clinics cannot fully vindicate their constitutional rights in state court. "The full constitutional defense cannot be asserted in the defensive posture, am I right?" she asks. Big remark from Barrett.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) November 1, 2021

xp

1. another state is never going to do this with guns

2. the SC can say it applies here, but not over here. There is no one to force them to be consistent.

it's not about who can make a more convincing argument

My take is that the Texas legislature and AG know that their willingness to endorse a crazy-ass law to effectively end abortions in Texas has nearly zero political cost, so they are quite willing to go to the SCOTUS with a nonsense argument in its favor, but the conservative justices know they would have to sign on to a written opinion in this case and it will have to make some kind of legal sense, because any argument they endorse in their opinion could affect vast swathes of settled precedents and procedures in ugly ways if the written opinion is just a pile of crazy nonsense. They need something halfway sane to hang their opinion on.

I think they probably do still see it that way a bit, but that they are also quickly learning that none of it matters and they can do whatever they want

I think these conservative justices really wish they could sign off on this, and it really really pains them that they probably can't, being able to do whatever they want aside. someone was asking from the bench, the brief window while I was listening, about whether a state government could pretty much do the exact same law with any constitutional right, from gun control, to same sex marriage to obtaining contraceptives, anything. I think there was a specific example about integrating the schools. and the lawyer for I presume Texas said, well, then it's up to the states to enforce the constitutionality. and the justice replied, well, that's not what happened in 1957 at all. The states totally didn't respect the constitutionality.

I'm starting to feel encouraged that SCOTUS might not let this stand, but at the same time I feel like there is a long history of the conservative court deciding not to let us descend into total hellscape at the last minute, such that we are thankful to have made only incremental steps toward hellscape.

Is the idea of packing SCOTUS dead now? Would it even be wise?

Esp in light of Manchin/Sinema wrecking ball elsewhere in politics?

was it ever alive?

It had a slightly detectable pulse right after the Barrett confirmation, but Biden backed off it, largely because it was too abstruse for the general population to understand. It's a dead issue, at least until the SCOTUS commits an outrage so massive that it makes people want to burn the court down.

It had a slightly detectable pulse right after the Barrett confirmation, but Biden backed off it

ah, because had Biden not backed off, it would surely be a one deal now

what with the support of the mighty Joe Biden and his imperial ability to change stuff

*done deal

an outrage so massive that it makes people want to burn the court down.

The planet will burn down before the Court does it for us.

Um, I think I indicated that it never had very robust support, YMP. I mentioned Biden because as long as he left the door ajar that he might consider backing it, it was barely alive, but the moment he publicly backed off it was completely and thoroughly dead.

cool, Aimless - didn't intend a dig at you. Rather I get a little grumbly at the general air of "Democrats could accomplish X if they wanted to" which is sometimes true! and sometimes not!

I think we are finding out what the limitations of razor-thin majorities, a presidency just barely hanging on, and a fragile coalition

Especially given the headwind of utterly committed and ruthlessly efficient lockstep obstruction

Like, Rs are incompetent in so many ways, just not this one. They have become really good at saying No regardless, No always, No entirely, because fuck you

that's called Murc's law and it's all over this board and Twitter always

I think these conservative justices really wish they could sign off on this, and it really really pains them that they probably can't

Maybe, I dunno. At least some of the conservative justices have an appreciation for the form of the law, and that Texas bill is so wonky in so many ways that I'd think it would offend some of them just on principle. Plus the courts are already full to the brim with cases that will give them the chance to narrow or jettison Roe if they want to, it's hard for me to see them endorsing this particular construction. It would absolutely set a precedent for private-cause-of-action laws that could be applied to just about anything.