SCOTUS

[bob]

In both cases, the Supreme Court did NOT take up either case. Yes, both Gorsuch and Sotomayor did not recuse themselves, and both of them voted "no" to take up the case. But if they had recused themselves, there still would not have been four votes to take up the cases. I'm not aware that if two justices recuse themselves then that reduces the number of "yes" votes required to take up the cases. Whether they recused or voted as they did, the cases still would not have been taken up, leaving the publishing house as the winner since it had won in the lower court.

Per the CNN article:

In both cases, the publisher won at the lower court level, and those decisions stood.

Dissents from cert. denials are rarely published, but it is fair to assume in both cases the justices didn't vote to grant cert. Meaning their likely "no" votes were consistent with upholding rulings that favored their publishers.

But the standard (for other judges) isn't an actual conflict of interest; it is the appearance of impropriety, such as voting on a case in which you have a financial connection to a litigant.

"The Rule of Four" actually isn't a rule; it is a custom. SCOTUS could decide to grant cert. with only three, at least six, etc., votes. And because the "rule" actually isn't one, changing the number of justices doesn't change the cert. requirements, i.e., even if only seven justices participate, four votes are still required for cert. (Fewer justices, however, do lower the threshold for a majority, which most votes require.)

[raison de arizona]

Links galore in the original.

Neil Gorsuch’s List of “Civil Liberties Intrusions” Is, Uh, Missing a Few Things

On Thursday, Justice Neil Gorsuch released his latest (and possibly final) cri de coeur against the pandemic-era restrictions that the government imposed to slow the spread of COVID-19. Gorsuch has long railed against such policies, and his opinions have taken on an increasingly shrill tone, like the Fox News–poisoned uncle who hectors you about the plandemic in 3,000-word Facebook comments. The justice’s rant in Arizona v. Mayorkas, however, hits a new low, moving beyond the usual yada-yada grievance parade to issue a thesis statement of sorts: “Since March 2020,” Gorsuch declared, “we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”

As Vox’s Ian Millhiser quickly pointed out, this sweeping claim leaves out two “intrusions on civil liberties” that any person with a basic grasp of history and sanity would surely rank as worse than pandemic policies: slavery and Jim Crow. During slavery, which was not only condoned but also practiced by Supreme Court justices, people of color were held in bondage; beaten, kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered; denied all civil rights, including freedom of speech and religion; denied the right to vote, participate in democracy, even claim American citizenship; robbed of their children; and barred from marriage—in short, denied life, liberty, and property without due process of law from birth until death. During Jim Crow, Black Americans were still subject to brutal, often lethal violence, both state-sponsored and vigilante; still denied the right to vote; still robbed of fundamental freedoms like speech and religion; still subjected to ruthless, degrading segregation in all public spaces; and still subject to severe economic exploitation, the effects of which endure today. These could certainly be described as “intrusions on civil liberties.”

I see four ways one might try to square Gorsuch’s declaration on Thursday with this horrific history. First, the justice may have meant what he said, and truly believes that COVID policies were a greater burden on civil liberties than slavery or Jim Crow. He does, after all, really hate wearing masks. Second, Gorsuch may have simply forgotten about the centuries-long subjugation of Black Americans (which originalists prefer to ignore, anyway). Third, he may have not considered these constitutionally sanctified, Supreme Court–sanctioned crimes against humanity as “civil liberties” abuses in the tradition sense; per this view, they were just the constitutional system at work as the founding generation might have envisioned. Fourth, he may have been attempting to cordon off the experiences of Black people and other historically abused minority groups as not having been a “collective” civil liberties intrusion experienced by all Americans (read: white Americans); note his choice of words in writing that “we” suffered civil liberties violations. A charitable reading might suggest that Gorsuch is speaking for well-off, middle-aged white men, whose privilege insulated them from adversity until that dark day in March 2020 when their local Buffalo Wild Wings shut its doors indefinitely.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... cotus.html

[raison de arizona]

Harlan Crow announces that he owns the Supreme Court. He's not wrong.

h/t lawdork.com

[Greatgrey]

Who knew they had open mic comedy night on Tuesdays at SCOTUS?

[AndyinPA]

[pipistrelle]

It's good to hear that reassurance from someone who's been chief justice since 2005, during which time the spouse of one of the justices sought to overthrow the government with that justice's apparent full support. I dunno about you all but I'm going to sleep better knowing Roberts is on the case.

[RVInit]

Hasn't it already been established that the very issue of Thomas/Crow was already known (not nearly as widely as now) and there was even a Congressional hearing where two Associate Justices attended and it was discussed. Years ago. And yet nothing has changed.

Good to also see that the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is as good as any other Republican when it comes to logical fallacies, such as whataboutism. While we are on that subject of "the hardest decision he ever had to make", he demonstrates a disgusting level of not giving a shit about everyday citizens of the USA. Considering all the regressive decisions that have impacted the lives of millions of Americans it's telling that the one that impacts his fee fees more than any other was the one to distance the high and mighty SCOTUS from the people in an even more in your face way.

[raison de arizona]

Who knew they had open mic comedy night on Tuesdays at SCOTUS?

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter/stat ... 11363?s=20

Moar

Chief Justice Complains about the Heckling of Corrupt SCOTUS

When abuse of power corruption begins to surface among the very entitled and very protected, the first thing they do is whine and cry: ‘How dare the little people object.’ They do things like get anyone who might benefit from being near their own power to circle the wagons in the press, they get newer members to praise the niceness of individuals as if this erases the rights they’re stealing, and they wall off their place of work so no one can be heard or seen objecting.

Meet the United States Supreme Court, and in particular, Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts complained Tuesday night in Washington at the American Law Institute’s annual dinner about judges being heckled at law schools and retorted like someone who definitely needs oversight that the court doesn’t need Congress to patrol its ethics (even though they aren’t doing it themselves and aren’t even promising to do so). He suggested the court was considering ways for justices to “adhere to the highest standards of conduct.”

“Judges heckled and shouted down at law school. Protesters outside the homes of Justices to the extent that martial protection is needed 24/7,” Roberts said. He then said the hardest decision he had ever made was whether or not to erect fences around the court.

Roberts did erect fences and barricades around the Supreme Court, which is the perfect symbol for a court so out of touch with the populace and so high on its own corrupt power that it feels entitled to not even hear from people who disagree. While the justices are entitled to safety, the First Amendment rights of the The People shouldn’t be so easily suppressed. It’s also important to note that the people whose lives are threatened daily by this court’s decisions prohibiting common sense gun control measures and revoking life-saving rights for women don’t get to erect barriers from this court.

Whiny assed video here: https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1661181384210391040

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[raison de arizona]

Full Harlan Crow I Own This Town And Everything In It Letter. Here, let me explain how it works...

For completeness.

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer ... 1700d6.pdf

"We do not believe the Committee has the authority to investigate Mr. Crow’s personal friendship with Justice Clarence Thomas,” says Crow’s lawyer, Michael Bopp of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

“Most importantly, Congress does not have the constitutional power to impose ethics rules and standards on the Supreme Court,” says Crow's lawyer.

"Doing so would exceed Congress’s Article I authority and violate basic separation of powers principles."

About that...

Some legal experts say this claim is total nonsense.

“Read the Constitution, folks,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a distinguished visiting professor at Georgetown Law and a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Republicans Fine With Supreme Court Justices Having No Formal Code Of Ethics
Their response to Clarence Thomas' ethics scandal continues to be silence or scoffing at the idea that Congress should do anything.

In a statement today, Durbin mocked Crow's claim that he doesn’t need to provide info to the Senate Judiciary Committee because of the separation of powers.

“Mr. Crow does not work, and has never worked, for the Supreme Court."

Durbin signals Dems aren't letting Harlan Crow off the hook this easily. No details on what's next tho.

"The Committee will respond more fully to this letter in short order."

[raison de arizona]

BINGO! These left wing activist judges! Oh wait...
https://twitter.com/lindyli/status/1661 ... 73092?s=20

For those keeping track at home:

The Supreme Court has destroyed our environment and clean drinking water

Destroyed our reproductive rights

Destroyed the separation of church and state

Destroyed our voting rights

Courtesy of the Federalist Society & right-wing billionaires

Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and Big Oil spent massive amounts of dark money to install partisan hacks like Barrett & Gorsuch on SCOTUS

Today their investment paid off big time

The entire world will suffer as a result of their titanic greed and insatiable lust for power

Polluters paid for this Court. This is part of their reward.

https://politico.com/news/2023/05/25/su ... h-00098781

[Phoenix520]

I will laugh and laugh if Harlan Crowe figures that’s all he can get out of Thomas now and dumps him. No more yacht vacations, no more payments to Ginni or his family.

[RTH10260]

States Are Not Entitled to Windfalls in Tax Disputes, Supreme Court Rules
In a unanimous decision, the justices sided with a 94-year-old woman who got nothing when a Minnesota county sold her condominium to recoup unpaid taxes.

Adam Liptak
May 25, 2023

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that states that seize and sell private property to recoup unpaid taxes violate the Constitution’s takings clause if they retain more than what the taxpayer owed.

The case concerned a 94-year-old woman in Minnesota who had stopped paying property taxes on her condominium after moving into an assisted-living center.

By the time Hennepin County seized the property, the woman, Geraldine Tyler, owed about $2,000 in taxes and another $13,000 in penalties and interest. The county sold the condo at auction for $40,000, and it kept not only the $15,000 that all agreed it was due but also the remaining $25,000.

Retaining the entire value of a confiscated property, even when the debts owed amounted to a small portion of it, is authorized by Minnesota law.

The county argued that the Minnesota law was rooted in historical practice and encouraged homeowners to take steps to protect their property.



https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/s ... taxes.html

[RTH10260]

Harvard affirmative action challenge partly based on Holocaust denier’s work
Complaint draws heavily from 2012 article by Ron Unz, who publishes antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ+ and neo-Nazi screeds

Ed Pilkington
Tue 6 Jun 2023 11.00 BST

Backers of the legal challenge to Harvard University’s affirmative action program currently pending in the US supreme court have based their case in part on evidence drawn from the flawed analysis of a Holocaust denier who publishes virulent antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ+ and neo-Nazi screeds.

The challenge to Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy is the most hotly awaited decision from the court as it enters the critical final month of its judicial term.

The six rightwing justices commanding the super-majority are widely expected to side with the petitioners and eviscerate the use of race as a factor in evaluating students – a practice that has been commonplace in American higher education for more than 40 years.

Their ruling could come as early as this week.




https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/ju ... rt-ron-unz

[RTH10260]

Opinion piece

Americans want to join unions. The supreme court doesn’t like that
Court’s new ruling makes it harder for workers to join a union, easier to break one and riskier to try to force concessions

Moira Donegan
Tue 6 Jun 2023 11.12 BST

Their contract had expired, so the local teamsters, drivers of concrete-mixing barrel trucks for a firm called Glacier Northwest, in Washington state, decided to walk off the job. Like all strikes, the point of the work stoppage was to inflict financial consequences on a recalcitrant management side: to show the bosses that their employees were united in shared interest and mutual protection and that it would cost them less money to negotiate in good faith and agree to the workers’ demands than to continue to fight the union for less favorable, more exploitative conditions. When the teamsters began their strike, 16 of the barrel mixing trucks were full. They drove them back to the Glacier Northwest lot and left them there.

But if you don’t mix concrete, it hardens, and becomes useless. If this happens in a barrel truck, sometimes that can cause damage to the truck, too. When Glacier Northwest realized that their teamster employees had gone on strike, non-union workers were able to remove the concrete over the course of five hours, averting damage to the trucks. But they lost the use of all the concrete that had been mixed in those 16 barrel trucks that day.

This injury – the loss of 16 trucks’ worth of concrete to a regional construction supplier in the north-west – is the pretext that the US supreme court used this week to weaken the National Labor Relations Board and deal a blow to the right to strike.

In the case, Glacier Northwest v International Brotherhood of Teamsters, eight of the court’s nine justices found that management could sue the union for the damage caused to their property during the strike. Only Justice Jackson dissented. In addition to encouraging companies to sue their workers over strikes and ensuring that unions will preemptively avoid strikes or adopt less effective tactics to protect themselves from liability, the ruling also opens a wide new avenue for union-busting litigators to evade the authority of the National Labor Relations Board – the federal body that was created by Congress specifically to handle such conflicts and enforce workers’ rights.

The decision, then, furthers two of the supreme court’s major long-term projects: the erosion of labor protections, and the weakening of administrative agencies, whose expertise the court routinely ignores and whose authority the justices seem determined to usurp for themselves.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... reme-court

[Mrich]

On today's "Fresh Air" on NPR - an interview with Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law. His new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, reflects on the transformational changes wrought by the conservative supermajority, which now dominates the U.S. Supreme Court

[RTH10260]

Mega-donor faces new Senate subpoena threat over gifts to Clarence Thomas
Senator Ron Wyden, chair of finance panel, warns of ‘next steps’ to compel testimony of Harlan Crow about supreme court justice

Martin Pengelly in New York
Wed 7 Jun 2023 08.00 BST

The Democratic chair of the Senate finance committee has reiterated his threat to subpoena Harlan Crow, the Republican mega-donor whose gifts to the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas are the source of scandal.

In a statement Ron Wyden of Oregon accused Crow of “doubling down on bogus legal theories as he continues to stonewall basic questions about his gifts to Clarence Thomas and his family.

“Vague, carefully-worded assurance that everything is on the level [are] simply not good enough … I’ve already begun productive discussions with the finance committee on next steps to compel answers to our questions from Mr Crow, including by subpoena, and those discussions will continue,” Wyden said.

Wyden was responding to a letter from Crow’s lawyer, Michael Bopp, sent late last week in answer to Wyden’s demand for a list of gifts.

ProPublica has detailed gifts from Crow to Thomas including luxury travel and resort stays, a property purchase and the paying of school fees.

Thomas did not declare most such gifts. He has said he was advised he did not have to but would do so in future.

Crow has claimed not to have discussed politics or business before the court with Thomas or with his wife, the far-right activist Ginni Thomas.

The Guardian has shown Crow has had business before the court during his friendship with Thomas.

Democrats and activists have called for Thomas to resign or be impeached – the former vastly unlikely, the latter a political non-starter.

In his letter to Wyden, Bopp said the Senate finance committee had “fail[ed] to establish a valid justification for [its] impermissible legislative tax audit of a private citizen”.

Wyden responded after news of another letter, in which Bopp said that though he had “concerns” about senators’ attempts to investigate his client, he was willing to have a “discussion” with staffers for the Senate judiciary committee.

The chair of that panel, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and his fellow Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, a committee member from Rhode Island, responded strongly.



https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/ju ... nce-thomas

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I wouldn't want Ron Wyden trying to get info from me. He gets receipts and gets the job done.

[Gregg]

Harvard affirmative action challenge partly based on Holocaust denier’s work
Complaint draws heavily from 2012 article by Ron Unz, who publishes antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ+ and neo-Nazi screeds

Ed Pilkington
Tue 6 Jun 2023 11.00 BST

Backers of the legal challenge to Harvard University’s affirmative action program currently pending in the US supreme court have based their case in part on evidence drawn from the flawed analysis of a Holocaust denier who publishes virulent antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ+ and neo-Nazi screeds.

The challenge to Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy is the most hotly awaited decision from the court as it enters the critical final month of its judicial term.

The six rightwing justices commanding the super-majority are widely expected to side with the petitioners and eviscerate the use of race as a factor in evaluating students – a practice that has been commonplace in American higher education for more than 40 years.

Their ruling could come as early as this week.




https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/ju ... rt-ron-unz

Because the first thing I wondered when I got to Harvard was "where are all the white people?".

[Ben-Prime]

Harvard affirmative action challenge partly based on Holocaust denier’s work
Complaint draws heavily from 2012 article by Ron Unz, who publishes antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ+ and neo-Nazi screeds

Ed Pilkington
Tue 6 Jun 2023 11.00 BST

Backers of the legal challenge to Harvard University’s affirmative action program currently pending in the US supreme court have based their case in part on evidence drawn from the flawed analysis of a Holocaust denier who publishes virulent antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ+ and neo-Nazi screeds.

The challenge to Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy is the most hotly awaited decision from the court as it enters the critical final month of its judicial term.

The six rightwing justices commanding the super-majority are widely expected to side with the petitioners and eviscerate the use of race as a factor in evaluating students – a practice that has been commonplace in American higher education for more than 40 years.

Their ruling could come as early as this week.




https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/ju ... rt-ron-unz

Because the first thing I wondered when I got to Harvard was "where are all the white people?".

Are you factoring in the ones my Joobish people replaced? Because we get accused of that an awful lot.

[Dr. Ken]

[Slim Cognito]

I did not see that coming.

[Maybenaut]

The cynic in me says that Roberts is trying to claw back some of the court’s credibility.

[MN-Skeptic]

[RVInit]

The cynic in me says that Roberts is trying to claw back some of the court’s credibility.

I was wondering the same thing. Unless I'm mistaken I think he voted in past cases to pretty much destroy the Voting Rights Act.