The US Supreme Court Thread

The podcast "In The Dark" played the tape of Justice Thomas' question. It's pretty great. As arguments are finishing, there'a a rustling, and then Thomas opens his maw for the first time in years and the entire courtroom bolts to attention. Then he asks a stupid question that would have been obvious if he'd only just read the briefs. Justice Kagan, not the lawyer to whom he'd directed the question, answers his dumb question. You can almost just about hear Thomas blinking slowly. Then they move on.

 

Womder how his golf game is

 

That quote is definitely unsuitable for this Forum!

 

Meanwhile Bart et al, just came to a very very horrible decision:

This is your occasional public service reminder: Merrick Garland.

In an appalling death penalty opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch just overturned 60 years of precedent. https://t.co/zrbEQQoBmU via @slate

— Diana Butler Bass (@dianabutlerbass) April 1, 2019

 

FY Mitch...

Merrick Garland! pic.twitter.com/ARAg9vHuth

— Lisa (Navy Mom) (@KissMyLWA) April 1, 2019

 

Just get bussed in like they do in New Hampshire

 

The Republican wing of the USSC is saying they’re inclined to let Ross include the citizenship question in order to help enforcement of the VRA.

That’s a Mitch-level bad faith argument.

and yet another indicator that if the Dems focus on restoring norms rather than Total War, it’s a mistake. More and more I’m coming around to that idea.

 

Hey tribes win a ruling.

Trigger warning, it involves guns and hunting.

Yesterday, Justice Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices in a 5-4 decision vindicating Native American rights. My report https://t.co/IvFv4dC0FP

— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) May 21, 2019

 

OK which one of you is Laurence Tribe?

Hypocrisy is McTurtle’s middle name. And his first and last name too. What a flagrant dickhead! https://t.co/17vKziC2eJ

— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) May 30, 2019

 

Stanger says that Democrats are equally guilty. Consider that.

 

Last year, Tiger Mom wrote an op-ed defending Kavanaugh and saying what a great guy he is. Now he has hired her daughter as a clerk.

Guillotines FTW.

 

This guy called it

So that time I pointed out that @amychua's op-ed in defense of Kavanaugh should be read with an understanding that her daughter was going to get a clerkship with Kavanaugh and all the Chua defenders said that her daughter wasn't applying and I said WAIT A YEAR... I was right? https://t.co/SO1KOVlRZm

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) June 10, 2019

 

Here's the other Kavy clerk, Trenton Van Oss

Van Oss found a community at school through his membership in the HLS Federalist Society, the organization for conservative and libertarian law students. He acknowledged sometimes feeling a sense of isolation in class because his beliefs differed from most students, and the organization helped alleviate that (though, he noted, student members of the Federalists often disagreed on political issues too – particularly during the most recent presidential election). He particularly appreciated that the organization — which he led this past year — brought speakers to campus to present perspectives not often heard in the classroom.

https://today.law.harvard.edu/trent...nd-views-self-reflect-believe-things-believe/

 

Don't look now but Thomas ruled against racial discrimination.

SCOTUS has sunk a Republican race-based gerrymander in Virginia — and Justices Gorsuch & Thomas were on board. Here's how it happened and what it means https://t.co/bYAdVyvimw

— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) June 18, 2019

https://amp.economist.com/democracy...ymander-in-virginia?__twitter_impression=true

 

No he didn't. He signed onto an opinion that said the Virginia State House didn't have standing to appeal the lower court's ruling. Nothing in Ginsburg's majority opinion had anything to do with racial discrimination, just that the House had no standing to appeal on behalf of the state after the AG decided to not appeal. While the end result is that a lower court's opinion that the gerrymander was racially motivated remains, the SC's opinion only covered whether the state House had standing. Had the AG appealed, Thomas's decision may have landed differently.

 

True, it was about standing not racial discrimination.

 

That being said, the House could pass a law giving them the ability to appeal on behalf of the state. If they can get the Senate to also pass the bill and the Governor signs it into law, then they could appeal.

 

In time for 2020? Would the Court even consider it by then?

 

Actually, VA's state elections are this year. It's also highly unlikely that the Democratic governor would sign such a bill into law and they don't have a veto proof majority in either house.

 

Well Virginia was 2 black faces and a sexual assault away from having a Republican governor.

Good thing that story died down, ¡que si no!