Comparing Monday's unexplained grant of emergency relief in the Department of Education downsizing case to how the justices handled President Biden's student loan program is ... telling.
They're just a gaggle of two-bit hacks who don't deserve the intellectual horsepower you are giving their pitiful mewlings. But thanks for drawing back the curtain for us.
I’m not weighing in on the merits of today’s SCOTUS decision—maybe the Executive and Judicial branches truly see eye to eye. But what breaks my heart is this: Congress wasn’t just ignored, it was steamrolled. Our Constitution was built on checks and balances, not backroom handshakes between two branches. When one branch is silenced and the other two cheer, that’s not government—it’s a warning flare.
Probably, but 2 things - had the statutory RIF framework been invoked, it would have at least delayed the immediate harm. And the speech and debate would be another [possibly futile] opportunity to alert the public
I keep coming back to this: the conservative justices ruled that Biden exceeded his authority by forgiving student loan debt. But they are fine with Trump axing spending and programs already approved by Congress, and in this case with dismantling an agency authorized by Congress.
What was that comment by Justice Amy Coney Barrett?..."My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks, ...".
I believe that Steve Vladeck elegantly proved the contrary, with receipts.
Justice Barrett also urged "all engaged and interested Americans to read the opinions", in her appearance at the Reagan Library in 2022. Of course, this is increasingly difficult to do when so many consequential decisions are being made on the emergency (shadow) docket, usually unsigned and unexplained, or with the barest of reasoning offered.
The Court is obligated to explain itself in each and every decision, so the American public can decide whether or not to be persuaded by its ruling, but especially (as Professor Vladeck stated) when there appear to be "alarming inconsistencies in the Court’s behavior that seem best-explained not by a legal principle, but by which party controlled the White House".
As a citizen who does follow the Court and reads many of its decisions (when available), this current Court has lost all legitimacy with me and has much to do before I start placing any kind of trust in it again.
>To avoid the appearance that the justices are just voting their partisan policy preferences
There's an implicit assumption that they care about appearances. At this point I find that hard to believe. It's just Calvinball.
Following precedent, ensuring laws be faithfully executed, basic statutory and Constitutional interpretation, etc., etc. are becoming distant memories.
Alito gets to decide whether his own appearance of impropriety is even an appearance or not. He's nothing but theatre now. Oh, and quoting 17th century witch-burners because that's how we establish sensible abortion law now. Wait, I already said theatre didn't I...
They don't explain it as the explanation is that they are political hacks in robes. The majority dislikes the idea of a federal Department of Education, thus the will of Congress is irrelevant.
Been thinking about the “Supreme” Court most of the morning. First let’s establish the fact that I have no faith whatsoever in 6 of the members to stand up and protect our Constitution. That being said I have a prediction.
Roberts is 70, Thomas is 77, Alito is 74, Sotomayor is 71, Kagan is 65, Gorsuch is 58, Kavanaugh is 60, Barret is 53 and Ketanji Brown Jackson is 55.
At the end of what we would traditionally call the executive term they will all be 3 years older. To preserve their ability to destroy this country as we know it, at the end of 2028 Thomas and Alito will retire so president Felon can appoint like minds to take their place. Maybe even Roberts.
Sotomayor will stay as long as she can even though she will be 74, but she will use Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a roll model. Kagan and Jackson will be secure as, unfortunately, will be Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret but president Felon and his acolytes will do exactly what they did with Kavanaugh and Barret.
Therefore our only hope for the future of the Court is a Democratic and Independent takeover of the House and Senate if possible.
As of this morning the polls show an average 51.9% disapproval rate nationally. Keep in mind that is only 5+ months in office and we still have roughly 16 months for it to crash and burn, so it is extremely reasonable to have hope.
I am in Delaware (as you all already know) so I have little concern that either Senator Coons or Representative McBride will not be re-elected but Delaware had always been seen as inconsequential because of our population size. Therefore, it goes without saying the work has got to be done in those “swing” states.
I read that 2 of our neighbors will be targeted, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and probably Maryland as well. I think Pennsylvania has already felt MAGA damage particularly in the western region where MAGA has had its greatest support. Being a former New Jerseyite I am confident that the majority, particularly the north and northeast will not tolerate any continued efforts to destroy their lives and the prospects for their children.
Perhaps the fact that they are not explaining themselves is in and of itself an explanation i.e. we think the lower courts' decisions were so obviously incorrect that we don't think it's necessary to explain why
The government offered three different arguments in support of a stay. If it's so obvious which one of them is correct, perhaps you can enlighten us as to which ground the justices relied upon?
What a friendly reply to a reader! Is this the sort of academic engagement I can expect going forward from a Georgetown Law professor?
As to your (smarmy) response, I don't claim to be as smart as the justices, so just because it is not obvious to me doesn't mean it is not obvious to them.
I’ve written a fair number of posts that go into detail on why the Court ought to explain itself when it grants emergency relief, including the possibility that an explanation that is obvious to them isn’t obvious to us. You may find my response “smarmy,” but I meant the question seriously. If it’s so obvious why the government was entitled to relief, shouldn’t someone making that argument be able to tell us?
Perhaps… or, perhaps they have so abandoned their allegiance to the law and traditional notions of fair play—and the necessity of judicial consistency—that they are just legislating from the bench with arrogant impunity. Professor Vladeck is extremely tempered and circumspect in his discussion of these extremely important and serious issues. How, sir, do you reconcile the flagrant inconsistencies in these outcomes—on essentially identical facts and legal constructs—beyond the most obvious: they are making decisions based on ideology and policy preferences, not on adherence to the law?
Question in reference to the Supreme Court and its decisions: If a core concept of democracy is the principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people. How does the concept of the unitary president enhance popular sovereignty?
All of it (p2025) is reactionary. Reconstruction and every other progressive gain since, all under attack. Lincoln, Teddy, they'll even pretend Ike was held hostage to enforce the law at Ole Miss.
While the regime would much rather carry out its program under color of law, if it's stymied one way, it has others. It could relocate most of DoE to hanger space in Minot, ND, for example, which would probably effect huge RIFs voluntarily. It could also "upgrade" the IT systems, during which time any remaining functionality of the DoE would be, uh, impaired. With bad faith, there are so many ways to circumvent the rule of law.
The Supreme Court really wants make a point regarding extreme judicial restraint. The Executive does not have the power to eliminate an agency, but it hasn't done that. Until and unless the DOE fails to meet its Congressionally-mandated duties with its skeleton crew, there is no case yet as they have chosen to see it, assuming Congress did not set a minimum staffing level at the DOE. In theory, the Executive is entitled to try and complete the mandated functions with far fewer employees.
I don't want to sound crazy but......we think they have compromising naked photos of these justices, right? I mean, Clarence Thomas, obviously they do, but the other justices who are bending absurdly to the will of one party, throwing principle to the wind, not like intellectuals, but in ways that could only happen if they were being blackmailed, do we all agree on this? Is this a common opinion, or am I actually crazy?
We should call it the Federalist Knights of Malta Kourt at this point.
I think it is the fully predictable and wholly inconsistent response from the fascists who wear black robes.
Results are the most important thing to this court
They're just a gaggle of two-bit hacks who don't deserve the intellectual horsepower you are giving their pitiful mewlings. But thanks for drawing back the curtain for us.
I’m not weighing in on the merits of today’s SCOTUS decision—maybe the Executive and Judicial branches truly see eye to eye. But what breaks my heart is this: Congress wasn’t just ignored, it was steamrolled. Our Constitution was built on checks and balances, not backroom handshakes between two branches. When one branch is silenced and the other two cheer, that’s not government—it’s a warning flare.
But wasn't Congress willingly steamrolled ? At least the Republicans?
Probably, but 2 things - had the statutory RIF framework been invoked, it would have at least delayed the immediate harm. And the speech and debate would be another [possibly futile] opportunity to alert the public
Indeed - Republicans, who hold control of Congress are complicit. This is a three ring circus of Sedition against the last 160 years of progress.
I keep coming back to this: the conservative justices ruled that Biden exceeded his authority by forgiving student loan debt. But they are fine with Trump axing spending and programs already approved by Congress, and in this case with dismantling an agency authorized by Congress.
What was that comment by Justice Amy Coney Barrett?..."My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks, ...".
I believe that Steve Vladeck elegantly proved the contrary, with receipts.
Justice Barrett also urged "all engaged and interested Americans to read the opinions", in her appearance at the Reagan Library in 2022. Of course, this is increasingly difficult to do when so many consequential decisions are being made on the emergency (shadow) docket, usually unsigned and unexplained, or with the barest of reasoning offered.
The Court is obligated to explain itself in each and every decision, so the American public can decide whether or not to be persuaded by its ruling, but especially (as Professor Vladeck stated) when there appear to be "alarming inconsistencies in the Court’s behavior that seem best-explained not by a legal principle, but by which party controlled the White House".
As a citizen who does follow the Court and reads many of its decisions (when available), this current Court has lost all legitimacy with me and has much to do before I start placing any kind of trust in it again.
Just need to point out that there’s an error in the title to this post. “Inconsistent’ is spelled wrong. It should read:
The TrumpRoyalFlush Court Strikes Again.
>To avoid the appearance that the justices are just voting their partisan policy preferences
There's an implicit assumption that they care about appearances. At this point I find that hard to believe. It's just Calvinball.
Following precedent, ensuring laws be faithfully executed, basic statutory and Constitutional interpretation, etc., etc. are becoming distant memories.
Alito gets to decide whether his own appearance of impropriety is even an appearance or not. He's nothing but theatre now. Oh, and quoting 17th century witch-burners because that's how we establish sensible abortion law now. Wait, I already said theatre didn't I...
NO WONDER they don't even bother explaining themselves ...
They don't explain it as the explanation is that they are political hacks in robes. The majority dislikes the idea of a federal Department of Education, thus the will of Congress is irrelevant.
Been thinking about the “Supreme” Court most of the morning. First let’s establish the fact that I have no faith whatsoever in 6 of the members to stand up and protect our Constitution. That being said I have a prediction.
Roberts is 70, Thomas is 77, Alito is 74, Sotomayor is 71, Kagan is 65, Gorsuch is 58, Kavanaugh is 60, Barret is 53 and Ketanji Brown Jackson is 55.
At the end of what we would traditionally call the executive term they will all be 3 years older. To preserve their ability to destroy this country as we know it, at the end of 2028 Thomas and Alito will retire so president Felon can appoint like minds to take their place. Maybe even Roberts.
Sotomayor will stay as long as she can even though she will be 74, but she will use Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a roll model. Kagan and Jackson will be secure as, unfortunately, will be Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret but president Felon and his acolytes will do exactly what they did with Kavanaugh and Barret.
Therefore our only hope for the future of the Court is a Democratic and Independent takeover of the House and Senate if possible.
As of this morning the polls show an average 51.9% disapproval rate nationally. Keep in mind that is only 5+ months in office and we still have roughly 16 months for it to crash and burn, so it is extremely reasonable to have hope.
I am in Delaware (as you all already know) so I have little concern that either Senator Coons or Representative McBride will not be re-elected but Delaware had always been seen as inconsequential because of our population size. Therefore, it goes without saying the work has got to be done in those “swing” states.
I read that 2 of our neighbors will be targeted, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and probably Maryland as well. I think Pennsylvania has already felt MAGA damage particularly in the western region where MAGA has had its greatest support. Being a former New Jerseyite I am confident that the majority, particularly the north and northeast will not tolerate any continued efforts to destroy their lives and the prospects for their children.
Perhaps the fact that they are not explaining themselves is in and of itself an explanation i.e. we think the lower courts' decisions were so obviously incorrect that we don't think it's necessary to explain why
The government offered three different arguments in support of a stay. If it's so obvious which one of them is correct, perhaps you can enlighten us as to which ground the justices relied upon?
What a friendly reply to a reader! Is this the sort of academic engagement I can expect going forward from a Georgetown Law professor?
As to your (smarmy) response, I don't claim to be as smart as the justices, so just because it is not obvious to me doesn't mean it is not obvious to them.
I’ve written a fair number of posts that go into detail on why the Court ought to explain itself when it grants emergency relief, including the possibility that an explanation that is obvious to them isn’t obvious to us. You may find my response “smarmy,” but I meant the question seriously. If it’s so obvious why the government was entitled to relief, shouldn’t someone making that argument be able to tell us?
I was not making any argument, I was simply positing a possible reason for the high court's decision not to present an opinion.
Perhaps… or, perhaps they have so abandoned their allegiance to the law and traditional notions of fair play—and the necessity of judicial consistency—that they are just legislating from the bench with arrogant impunity. Professor Vladeck is extremely tempered and circumspect in his discussion of these extremely important and serious issues. How, sir, do you reconcile the flagrant inconsistencies in these outcomes—on essentially identical facts and legal constructs—beyond the most obvious: they are making decisions based on ideology and policy preferences, not on adherence to the law?
Question in reference to the Supreme Court and its decisions: If a core concept of democracy is the principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people. How does the concept of the unitary president enhance popular sovereignty?
Wait, you thought they were Lincoln fans?
Sorry, I shouldn't *just* be snarky about it...
All of it (p2025) is reactionary. Reconstruction and every other progressive gain since, all under attack. Lincoln, Teddy, they'll even pretend Ike was held hostage to enforce the law at Ole Miss.
While the regime would much rather carry out its program under color of law, if it's stymied one way, it has others. It could relocate most of DoE to hanger space in Minot, ND, for example, which would probably effect huge RIFs voluntarily. It could also "upgrade" the IT systems, during which time any remaining functionality of the DoE would be, uh, impaired. With bad faith, there are so many ways to circumvent the rule of law.
At what point do you conclude it's just that a majority of the court wants the admin to succeed on the merits and will find a way to get there?
At what point? Anywhere from about 6-9 years ago, at the latest . . .
The Supreme Court really wants make a point regarding extreme judicial restraint. The Executive does not have the power to eliminate an agency, but it hasn't done that. Until and unless the DOE fails to meet its Congressionally-mandated duties with its skeleton crew, there is no case yet as they have chosen to see it, assuming Congress did not set a minimum staffing level at the DOE. In theory, the Executive is entitled to try and complete the mandated functions with far fewer employees.
I don't want to sound crazy but......we think they have compromising naked photos of these justices, right? I mean, Clarence Thomas, obviously they do, but the other justices who are bending absurdly to the will of one party, throwing principle to the wind, not like intellectuals, but in ways that could only happen if they were being blackmailed, do we all agree on this? Is this a common opinion, or am I actually crazy?