SCOTUS

[Farfromgeneva]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

The difference in terms and tenure is problematic though no?

[Farfromgeneva]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

Nope. I have no problem with someone as qualified, measured and thoughtful as Roberts or David Souter or Lewis Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor -- no matter how much I might disagree with them. These folks understood/understand that the Court's institutional place in the republic and in the operation of the constitutional order was crucial, and required an effort at staying above or outside of the political game.

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are outcome determinative foot soldiers of the culture wars. My mind isn't made up about Kavanaugh, and I think Barrett is not really qualified for this job. I don't, respectfully, think you have a proper feel for just how jarring the outcomes created by Alito and Co. are in the legal world. The Bremerton coach case was the most brazen, sordid effort at gaining a specific outcome that I have ever seen. The gun cases, starting with Heller are nearly laughable contortions of "history" to deliver the gun lobby the result it wanted and clamored for. Comparing Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas to, say, Breyer and Kagan, suggesting that they are just politicians with a different outlook, is almost juvenile.

Any reservations about Justice Brown in her young tenure on the court? I'm guessing she checked all your boxes before she was ever sworn in? Before you have an aneurysm counselor I like justice Brown. She just hasn't had the opportunity being solidified with the liberal wing of the court to really tick off the other side via her very vocal dissents. Pretty soon the pendulum will swing in Justices Brown direction. Can you imagine counselor what the Republicans will start saying about Justice Brown when the tables turn in a few years? I noticed that Adam Schiff has introduced a brand new version of a constitutional amendment to revoke Citizens United. So when you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling you want a constitutional amendment to address your grievance? So maybe the Republicans should have went the constitutional amendment route to abolish R v W ???? You see where I'm going with this counselor? I'm not the seasoned legal eagle that you are but trying to correct a perceived wrong via a constitutional amendment is a fools errand. It is great for political theatrics but it is a dead end.

Yes when a congressperson believes the constitution, as upheld/administered by the Supreme Court, isn’t appropriate for the situation today then that’s what said congressperson should pursue. Jesus my 4th grade son understand this.

[Farfromgeneva]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

Nope. I have no problem with someone as qualified, measured and thoughtful as Roberts or David Souter or Lewis Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor -- no matter how much I might disagree with them. These folks understood/understand that the Court's institutional place in the republic and in the operation of the constitutional order was crucial, and required an effort at staying above or outside of the political game.

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are outcome determinative foot soldiers of the culture wars. My mind isn't made up about Kavanaugh, and I think Barrett is not really qualified for this job. I don't, respectfully, think you have a proper feel for just how jarring the outcomes created by Alito and Co. are in the legal world. The Bremerton coach case was the most brazen, sordid effort at gaining a specific outcome that I have ever seen. The gun cases, starting with Heller are nearly laughable contortions of "history" to deliver the gun lobby the result it wanted and clamored for. Comparing Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas to, say, Breyer and Kagan, suggesting that they are just politicians with a different outlook, is almost juvenile.

Any reservations about Justice Brown in her young tenure on the court? I'm guessing she checked all your boxes before she was ever sworn in? Before you have an aneurysm counselor I like justice Brown. She just hasn't had the opportunity being solidified with the liberal wing of the court to really tick off the other side via her very vocal dissents. Pretty soon the pendulum will swing in Justices Brown direction. Can you imagine counselor what the Republicans will start saying about Justice Brown when the tables turn in a few years? I noticed that Adam Schiff has introduced a brand new version of a constitutional amendment to revoke Citizens United. So when you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling you want a constitutional amendment to address your grievance? So maybe the Republicans should have went the constitutional amendment route to abolish R v W ???? You see where I'm going with this counselor? I'm not the seasoned legal eagle that you are but trying to correct a perceived wrong via a constitutional amendment is a fools errand. It is great for political theatrics but it is a dead end.

Hmm.

This is what someone who has given up and just angry believes.

[Farfromgeneva]

So when you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling you want a constitutional amendment to address your grievance? So maybe the Republicans should have went the constitutional amendment route to abolish R v W ???? You see where I'm going with this counselor? I'm not the seasoned legal eagle that you are but trying to correct a perceived wrong via a constitutional amendment is a fools errand. It is great for political theatrics but it is a dead end.

Yes, you ceate a constitutional amendment. That's literally how our Constitution works, even if it's a fools errand.

I feel like I'm in Schoolhouse Rock. If something is not in the constitution or ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, and you want it in the constitution? You propose a thing called an Amendment to add it to the constitution. We have the ability to change the United States Constitution if enough people want to.

Citizens United is extremely unpopular among Democrats AND Republicans. We're talking enough people to create an amendment banning it if it were up to the voting public. But of course it's up to politicians who benefit from it.

And of course a Citizens United amendment is only a fools errand because Republican states wouldn't ratify it even if their Republican constituents want them to.

They remade the songs/soundtrack in the 90s-I love blind melons version of 3 is the magic number

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LVfe6rdHRKI

[cradleandshoot]

So when you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling you want a constitutional amendment to address your grievance? So maybe the Republicans should have went the constitutional amendment route to abolish R v W ???? You see where I'm going with this counselor? I'm not the seasoned legal eagle that you are but trying to correct a perceived wrong via a constitutional amendment is a fools errand. It is great for political theatrics but it is a dead end.

Yes, you ceate a constitutional amendment. That's literally how our Constitution works, even if it's a fools errand.

I feel like I'm in Schoolhouse Rock. If something is not in the constitution or ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, and you want it in the constitution? You propose a thing called an Amendment to add it to the constitution. We have the ability to change the United States Constitution if enough people want to.

Citizens United is extremely unpopular among Democrats AND Republicans. We're talking enough people to create an amendment banning it if it were up to the voting public. But of course it's up to politicians who benefit from it.

And of course a Citizens United amendment is only a fools errand because Republican states wouldn't ratify it even if their Republican constituents want them to.

Mr Schiff is practicing symbolism over substance. Citizens United is about the money that is pumped into our elections by private companies. In my world the money being pumped into the political meat grinder should be restricted on all levels. All of those 10 thousand dollar a plate fund raisers work the same way. Money is the prime motivating factor for any candidate. Without huge amounts of campaign donations winning any election no matter your political persuasion is almost impossible. How come nobody ever mentions the built in advantage any incumbent has in an election?? Your party will always have your back. Some folks here are whing about where the money is coming from. The sad reality is that healthy influxes of cash is the grease that keeps the political machines of both parties running. If it comes from the right source all is copacetic. I get just as disgusted at 10 thousand dollar a plate fundraisers. Do you??? So IMO opinion nobody really cares about how much money is raised as long as it doesn't come from private companies. This is the calamity that Adam Schiff believes requires a constitutional amendment. This is the reason the SCOTUS is becoming more irrelevant everyday. If they make a decision your side doesn't like, then find a way to circumvent the decision. Here in NYS gov. Hochul sidestepped the concealed carry SCOTUS decision by declaring you can carry a concealed weapon you just can't carry in her long list of sensitive locations. So now the endless appeals can now begin. The SCOTUS made a ruling regarding 2nd amendment rights. Instead of abiding by the SCOTUS decision it was now time to play games by the far left folks who dislike firearms and the 2nd amendment in general. IMO if you pass the exhaustive background check to be issued a concealed carry permit why would a governor deliberately out of vindictiveness limit that privilege? That is how the game is played.

[dislaxxic]

The New Kavanaugh Documentary Changes Nothing

...the Liman film, and whatever resultant probe it generates, actually only replicates the problem faced by Ford back in 2018, and by Anita Hill and the other Clarence Thomas accusers back in 1991: No matter how much evidence you amass, no matter how many tips you investigate, no matter how many people eventually turn up to corroborate your story, there is nobody to call. There is no entity in existence to properly evaluate the claims, and there is no instrument to test them and to bring about accountability. Liman’s rolling tip line may indeed be a welcome move to correct the factual record and to amp up a cultural conversation about judicial behavior, and that is not a trivial intervention. But what it cannot be—because we haven’t yet built such a thing—is a formal political or legal engine for actual change in the judicial appointment system, or to the judiciary.

Doug Liman’s intentions are surely good, but I cannot help but worry that the film will be retraumatizing for many of us. It will surface a lot of pain and fury. And once again, without actual rules and enforceable systems of accountability, it will be yet another reminder that the women who are abused have no power, and that once the justices are seated, their relative power is boundless.

I confess to hearing from people who are worried that with Kavanaugh as the new median swing justice, it would be better not to antagonize him with yet another round of viral accusations that cannot be tested in any formal way. Isn’t this just going to make him madder, further committed to his whole “reap the whirlwind” pledge about punishing his accusers from the bench? There is perhaps no better evidence that uncheckable lifetime appointments are the most dangerous and corrosive threat to the rule of law than “Don’t antagonize them, because they cannot be removed.” But that too feels like a dynamic that can’t change without massive formal system reform.

It’s certainly possible that Liman’s film, and the tips that continue to roll in as a result of his investigation, and the films that will come after, will start to change the culture in ways that eventually force the FBI and the federal judiciary and Congress and the legal profession to consider crafting a functioning system for the next Christine Blasey Ford or the one that follows her. I fervently hope that it does. But a tip line from the outraged to the outraged still operates in a closed loop. And until it connects to actual power and meaningful reform, it will also still roil us up to enrage us and then remind us that there is still, somehow, nothing to be done.

..

[Seacoaster(1)]

Next up on the Court's effort to privilege religion over everything else, and run roughshod over a century of deference to Congressional inaction on matters of federal statutory law:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/30/opin ... court.html

"Federal civil rights law requires employers to accommodate their employees’ religious needs unless the request would impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Congress didn’t bother to define “undue hardship,” so 46 years ago the Supreme Court came up with a definition of its own.

An accommodation requiring an employer “to bear more than a de minimis cost” — meaning a small or trifling cost — need not be granted, the court said in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. In that case, an airline maintenance worker claimed a legal right to avoid Saturday shifts so he could observe the tenets of the Worldwide Church of God, which he had recently joined. Ruling for the airline, the court noted that if one worker got Saturdays off for religion reasons, the burden would fall on other workers who might have nonreligious reasons for wanting to have the weekend off.

“We will not readily construe the statute to require an employer to discriminate against some employees in order to enable others to observe their Sabbath,” the court said.

Treating religion as nothing particularly special, the decision reflected the spirit of the times but was deeply unpopular in religious circles. There have been many attempts over many years to persuade Congress to amend the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to shift the balance explicitly in favor of religiously observant employees. Between 1994 and 2019, more than a dozen such bills were introduced. None emerged from Congress.

And so now, a very different court from the one that ruled 46 years ago is about to do the work itself.

That isn’t an idle prediction but rather the surely foreordained outcome of the new case the justices recently added to their calendar for decision during the current term. The appeal was brought by a conservative Christian litigating group, First Liberty Institute, on behalf of a former postal worker, Gerald Groff, described as a Christian who regards Sunday as a day for “worship and rest.”

Mr. Groff claimed a legal right to avoid the Sunday shifts required during peak season at the post office where he worked. Facing discipline for failing to show up for his assigned shifts, he quit and filed a lawsuit. The lower courts ruled against him, with the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressing no doubt that the disruption and loss of morale Mr. Groff’s absences caused in the small rural post office where he worked exceeded the de minimis threshold that the Supreme Court’s 1977 precedent requires an employer to demonstrate.

The decision to hear his appeal brings the Supreme Court to a juncture both predictable and remarkable. It is predictable because Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have all called for a case that would provide a vehicle for overturning a precedent that is clearly in tension with the current court’s privileging of religious claims above all others, whether in the context of public health measures during the Covid-19 pandemic or anti-discrimination claims brought by employees of religious organizations.

The court in 1977 worried about the burden on nonreligious workers from accommodations granted to their religious colleagues. To today’s court, as Justice Alito has repeatedly expressed it, the real victims of discrimination are those who take religion seriously.

It takes the votes of four justices to grant a case, and it’s hardly surprising that this determined troika found a fourth, and most likely a fifth and sixth as well. Mr. Groff’s petition, filed in August, even describes Trans World Airlines v. Hardison as an “egregious error,” as if to remind Justice Alito of the words “egregiously wrong” he used to describe Roe v. Wade in his Dobbs opinion overruling that decision two months earlier.

The moment is remarkable for the bold activism the court is about to display. In the days when the justices professed respect for the doctrine of stare decisis, or adherence to precedent, the general understanding was that decisions that interpreted statutes should be harder to overturn than those that interpreted the Constitution. That may seem counterintuitive at first glance, but the reasoning went like this: Only the Supreme Court can issue a definitive constitutional interpretation, so only the court can revisit a constitutional precedent if the justices later perceive a problem with it. But Congress has the last word on the meaning of a federal law, so the court should stay its hand and let Congress repair an erroneous statutory interpretation.

That Congress has refused for decades to revisit the meaning of “undue hardship” carries no weight with the justices pressing to revisit the issue on their own. That was certainly the view expressed by Justices Gorsuch and Alito two years ago in dissent from the court’s decision not to hear an earlier case challenging the 1977 precedent. “There is no barrier to our review and no one else to blame,” the two wrote in Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water. “The only mistake here is of the court’s own making — and it is past time for the court to correct it.”

The plaintiff in that case, Jason Small, was a Jehovah’s Witness. In two other cases the court has turned down in the past few years, the employees seeking religious accommodations were Seventh-day Adventists. The religious-accommodation provision of Title VII — a foundational civil rights law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race and sex as well as religion — has long been understood to protect adherents of just such minority faiths. A friend of the court brief filed in the new case by scholars of religion and employment law on behalf of Mr. Groff argues that the provision, properly interpreted, furthers constitutional values by making sure that followers of underrepresented faiths may worship in their own way “without putting their job at risk, to the same extent as adherents of more familiar faiths that are less often burdened by employers.”

It may be just a coincidence, but the plaintiff who finally persuaded the justices to take his case is in fact, according to the joint statement of facts agreed to by the parties, “an evangelical Christian within the Protestant tradition.” When the court doubtless rules for him later this term, the decision will not stand for a vindication of minority rights. It will instead signify the court’s complete identification with the movement in the country’s politics to elevate religion over all other elements of civil society.

Whether today’s Supreme Court is helping to lead that movement or has been captured by it is by now beside the point. Religion is the lens through which the current majority views American society; as I have written, there is no other way to understand the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The endpoint of this project is not yet in view. Those of us not on board are left to watch, to try to understand, and to call the court out with each additional step it takes."

[NattyBohChamps04]

Next up on the Court's effort to privilege religion over everything else, and run roughshod over a century of deference to Congressional inaction on matters of federal statutory law:

7 of the 9 judges are Catholic... ~20% of the population is Catholic. Kind of a head scratcher there representation-wise.

Minority rule is pretty cool, huh guys?

[Seacoaster(1)]

The Court and the Conflicts of Interest. I really do wish they would police this stuff more carefully. I am doubtful that there is really a big problem here, and I respect the Chief. But the PR issues are real.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/us/j ... berts.html

"After Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the Supreme Court, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, gave up her career as a law firm partner to become a high-end legal recruiter in an effort to alleviate potential conflicts of interest. Mrs. Roberts later recalled in an interview that her husband’s job made it “awkward to be practicing law in the firm.”

Now, a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice. Seeking an inquiry, the ex-colleague has provided records to the Justice Department and Congress indicating Mrs. Roberts has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.

In his letter last month, Kendal Price, a 66-year-old Boston lawyer, argued that the justices should be required to disclose more information about their spouses’ work. He did not cite specific Supreme Court decisions, but said he was worried that a financial relationship with law firms arguing before the court could affect justices’ impartiality or at least give the appearance of doing so.

“I do believe that litigants in U.S. courts, and especially the Supreme Court, deserve to know if their judges’ households are receiving six-figure payments from the law firms,” Mr. Price wrote.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, Patricia McCabe, said that all the justices were “attentive to ethical constraints” and complied with financial disclosure laws. The chief justice and his wife had also consulted the code of conduct for federal judges, Ms. McCabe said, including a 2009 advisory opinion that a judge “need not recuse merely because” his or her spouse had worked as a recruiter for a law firm with issues before the court.

Mrs. Roberts previously said that she handled conflicts on a case-by-case basis, avoiding matters with any connection to her husband’s job and refraining from working with lawyers who had active Supreme Court cases.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, did not address how the committee would respond to Mr. Price, but said in a statement that his letter raised “troubling issues that once again demonstrate the need” for ethics reforms to “begin the process of restoring faith in the Supreme Court.”

Public confidence in the court recently fell to a historic low, polls showed, and Democrats in Congress have called for greater transparency, including stronger disclosure and recusal standards. The Justice Department declined to comment.

Mr. Price and Mrs. Roberts both had worked as legal recruiters for Major, Lindsey & Africa, a global firm based in Maryland. According to the letter, Mr. Price was fired in 2013 and sued the firm, as well as Mrs. Roberts and another executive, over his dismissal.

He lost the case, but the litigation produced documents that he sent to Congress and the Justice Department, including spreadsheets showing commissions attributed to Mrs. Roberts early in her headhunting career, from 2007 to 2014. Mrs. Roberts, according to a 2015 deposition in the case, said that a significant portion of her practice was devoted to helping senior government lawyers land jobs at law firms and that the candidates’ names were almost never disclosed.

“I keep my placements confidential,” she said in the deposition.

Mrs. Roberts, now the managing partner of the Washington office of Macrae Inc., had spent two decades at the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, where she became a partner in the global technology group and also focused on talent development. In 2007, she changed careers and soon ascended the ranks of her new industry. Partners at leading law firms in Washington on average make well over $1 million a year, and at the high end, they can be paid over $7 million. Recruiting firms take a large cut from those placements, often equivalent to a quarter of the new hires’ first-year salaries.

The spreadsheets list six-figure fees credited to Mrs. Roberts for placing partners at law firms — including $690,000 in 2012 for one such match. The documents do not name clients, but Mr. Price recalled her recruitment of one prominent candidate, Ken Salazar, then interior secretary under President Barack Obama, to WilmerHale, a global firm that boasts of arguing more than 125 times before the Supreme Court.

Justices, who are largely self-policed, are required to make annual disclosures about their finances — including the source of spouses’ income, the type and the date but not the amount. In his annual disclosure, the chief justice, who has apparently never recused himself from a case because of his wife’s work, listed her employers but not the names of her clients or her earnings, usually offering a brief description: “attorney search consultants — salary.”

Mr. Price argued in his letter that the labeling was misleading, because salaries are “guaranteed and steady,” but commissions “depend on cultivating and capitalizing on relationships in order to consummate particular deals.”
.
Joshua L. Dratel, who is representing Mr. Price, said in an email that the 2009 advisory opinion cited by the court gave credence to the ethical concerns raised in the letter, because Mrs. Roberts’s placements were not necessarily “isolated activities” but rather a “pattern of continuing involvement.”

The opinion says that judges should recuse themselves in certain situations, including if a spouse performed “four high level executive recruitments” for the same company in a year and collected large fees. That would constitute a “substantial and ongoing relationship,” but if the work were spread over a considerably longer period, “recusal may not be required.”

An ethics opinion by Bennett L. Gershman, a Pace University law professor and former Manhattan prosecutor, accompanied the letter and said “it is plausible that the Chief Justice’s spouse may have leveraged the ‘prestige of the judicial office’” to “raise their household income.” He added that those concerns, coupled with what he described as the chief justice’s lack of disclosure of potential conflicts, “threaten the public’s trust in the federal judiciary, and the Supreme Court itself.”

But another ethics expert, Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, said in an interview that Chief Justice Roberts appeared to have met his disclosure obligations. Ms. Frost said that judicial spouses should be able to have their own careers and that the chief justice would not need to recuse himself based on the nature of his wife’s work.

“It feels hard to imagine how this would corrupt his vote,” she said.

During the past year, the Supreme Court has contended with the leak of the draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade, as well as reports about the activities of Virginia Thomas, who joined efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. Her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, later participated in court matters involving the election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Mr. Price, in an interview, cited a “wave of revelations about the court and questionable decision-making or questionable behavior” as his impetus for coming forward now.

Last September, Politico reported on Mrs. Roberts’s recruiting work and the confidentiality of her clients.

Only a half-dozen of the people she recruited have been publicly identified, according to news reports reviewed by The Times. They are Robert Bennett, former lawyer to President Bill Clinton, recruited to Hogan Lovells in 2009; Neil MacBride, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to Davis Polk in 2013; Mr. Salazar, to WilmerHale in 2013; Brendan Johnson and Timothy Purdon, former U.S. attorneys for South Dakota and North Dakota, to Robins Kaplan in 2015; and Michael Held, former lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to WilmerHale in 2022. (Mr. Salazar is now U.S. ambassador to Mexico, and Mr. MacBride is general counsel at the Treasury.)

About two years ago, Mrs. Roberts discussed her Washington office’s work in one key sector, saying in an interview that of the nation’s 50 leading law firms, more than half had “asked us for help in growing their antitrust practices.”

[cradleandshoot]

"We have five or six votes, so f*ck yourselves." This so-called standard has now crept into matters of guns and religion (and hey, what's the difference between guns and religion for some of these f*ckheads?). It is about the power of the majority, and not about the law under any principled understanding of the Constitution. And we live in an age in which people increasingly understand this, and now think of the Court as a nine-person cohort of political hacks.

It has been this way our entire lives, the votes were just leaning a different direction.

Ultimately our three-pronged checks-and-balances approach to governmental power is supposed to leverage the unbridled lust for power of one branch against that of the others to help keep them from eating us little people....

I don't agree, at least to the extent this ethos prevails today. We are seeing now the results of a process that places litmus test ideologues on the Court for life. It wasn't like this -- both in membership and results -- in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This Court majority is unique in my lifetime.

The only difference between now and the rest of our country's history is that the "ethos" is being talked about more openly than it was in the past. Certainly since Bork, it has been well in the open.

Perhaps you didn't notice the litmus tests being applied, because you didn't have an issue with the way the tests were being applied?

Nope. I have no problem with someone as qualified, measured and thoughtful as Roberts or David Souter or Lewis Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor -- no matter how much I might disagree with them. These folks understood/understand that the Court's institutional place in the republic and in the operation of the constitutional order was crucial, and required an effort at staying above or outside of the political game.

Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are outcome determinative foot soldiers of the culture wars. My mind isn't made up about Kavanaugh, and I think Barrett is not really qualified for this job. I don't, respectfully, think you have a proper feel for just how jarring the outcomes created by Alito and Co. are in the legal world. The Bremerton coach case was the most brazen, sordid effort at gaining a specific outcome that I have ever seen. The gun cases, starting with Heller are nearly laughable contortions of "history" to deliver the gun lobby the result it wanted and clamored for. Comparing Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas to, say, Breyer and Kagan, suggesting that they are just politicians with a different outlook, is almost juvenile.

Any reservations about Justice Brown in her young tenure on the court? I'm guessing she checked all your boxes before she was ever sworn in? Before you have an aneurysm counselor I like justice Brown. She just hasn't had the opportunity being solidified with the liberal wing of the court to really tick off the other side via her very vocal dissents. Pretty soon the pendulum will swing in Justices Brown direction. Can you imagine counselor what the Republicans will start saying about Justice Brown when the tables turn in a few years? I noticed that Adam Schiff has introduced a brand new version of a constitutional amendment to revoke Citizens United. So when you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling you want a constitutional amendment to address your grievance? So maybe the Republicans should have went the constitutional amendment route to abolish R v W ???? You see where I'm going with this counselor? I'm not the seasoned legal eagle that you are but trying to correct a perceived wrong via a constitutional amendment is a fools errand. It is great for political theatrics but it is a dead end.

Yes when a congressperson believes the constitution, as upheld/administered by the Supreme Court, isn’t appropriate for the situation today then that’s what said congressperson should pursue. Jesus my 4th grade son understand this.

Does your 4th grade son understand the foolishness of peeing into the wind? Symbolism over substance FFG. Why start something you know you will never win? Let me guess, any publicity is good publicity? Time and energy wasted on foolish errands will never be recovered. If Schiff believes it is worth the fight.. then go for it.

[ggait]

Seems to me that robert’s wife being a headhunter for biglaw is a snoozer nothing burger to me. Really hard to even hypothesize how that activity could lead to a real conflict.

She places lots of lawyers at lots of different big dc law firms. Many of those partners would never argue a scotus case. Almost all the firms would argue a scotus case from time to time. So if she places an m&a lawyer at Skadden, then none of the other 3,000 lawyers at skadden can ever argue a scotus case?

Dumb and lame.

Now Ginni Thomas is a totally different thing.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Seems to me that robert’s wife being a headhunter for biglaw is a snoozer nothing burger to me. Really hard to even hypothesize how that activity could lead to a real conflict.

She places lots of lawyers at lots of different big dc law firms. Many of those partners would never argue a scotus case. Almost all the firms would argue a scotus case from time to time. So if she places an m&a lawyer at Skadden, then none of the other 3,000 lawyers at skadden can ever argue a scotus case?

Dumb and lame.

Now Ginni Thomas is a totally different thing.

I read a little more about this. Apparently the lawyer who brought the matter against Mrs. Chief Justice has a long ax-grind going on with her. I agree, this one is pretty attenuated, and maybe even dumb.

[jhu72]

... my reaction as well. The complaint against Roberts is pretty weak sauce.

[njbill]

Not much evident collegiality among the five justices at the state of the union.

[Brooklyn]

Biden, Democrats celebrate 100th judicial confirmation


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2 ... nfirmation






The Senate voted 54-45 to confirm Gina Méndez-Miró to be U.S. district court judge for Puerto Rico Tuesday. She makes history as the first LGBTQ+ judge on the court. She also makes history as President Joe Biden’s 100th confirmed judge.

Senator Cortez Masto
@SenCortezMasto
I just voted to confirm the 100th judge of the Biden administration.

I'm so proud of our work these past two years that's making sure America's judiciary represents the incredible diversity of our nation.





The Senate voted 54-45 to confirm Gina Méndez-Miró to be U.S. district court judge for Puerto Rico Tuesday. She makes history as the first LGBTQ+ judge on the court. She also makes history as President Joe Biden’s 100th confirmed judge.


President Biden celebrated it, too. “I’m especially proud that the nominees I have put forward—and the Senate has confirmed—represent the diversity that is one of our best assets as a nation, and that our shared work has broken so many barriers in just 2 years,” he said in a statement.

“I have appointed more federal circuit judges with experience as public defenders than all prior presidents combined,” Biden continued.




Now let's diversify the US Supreme Court with real Americans rather than far right radicals so that we can have a better society.

[jhu72]

A troubling decision.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Pretty interesting read:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... gifts-crow

Anyone surprised?

[CU88]

Pretty interesting read:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... gifts-crow

Anyone surprised?

"Nothing to see here", says the party of law & order...

[MDlaxfan76]

Pretty interesting read:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... gifts-crow

Anyone surprised?

"Nothing to see here", says the party of law & order...

ughh...taken to extremes.

On a way, way smaller scale, my dad and mom used to be invited to an annual hunting weekend at the Eastern Shore home of the CEO of a prominent bank and reputedly wealthiest Marylander, and a major force in the Catholic Church. My dad was chair of the Audit Committee of the bank and a long time friend and ally of the CEO, (fought the takeover of one of the banks by BCCI) so natural to be invited along; also a hunter. Justices O'Connor and Scalia were frequently in attendance with maybe 10-12 guests in all. My dad said that they rarely talked any sort of politics much less legal matters, though I'd imagine there was a level of access; did a little hunting, played some pool, smoked cigars, drank a lot of excellent wine...There were also quail hunts in Georgia, but I don't recall those including any of the Justices. My mom and dad said O'Connor was very charming, nice, smart but not showy smart, Scalia was whip smart and funny, a charming entertainer.

Thomas is way, way more political, and his wife is way, way out there looney tunes partisan. They're hanging out with political activists, not just accepting all sorts of super expensive benefits. Putting those two elements together is especially ugly and pernicious.

All of this should require disclosure rules, ethics guidelines, and recusals when overlapping with political players, beneficiaries of rulings when you accepted gifts...

Alternative is just don't go...don't accept 'gifts'. But minimum should be sunshine.

And this dark money thing may be the ugliest part of all this.

[ggait]

The photo shows Thomas hanging out at the Adirondack lodge with Leonard Leo for gods sake.

Leo is hardly just some personal friend sharing quality vacation time...

But Thomas has life tenure and few ethics rules to comply with. He can do what we wants.

18 year SCOTUS term limits please. That is so long overdue. Even conservatives say so.