It's getting increasingly difficult to keep tabs on even the Supreme Court-related (and Court-adjacent) news. Today's issue looks at where things stand (and what to expect next) across six key topics.
It sounds like some aspects of The Brethren were inaccurate, which isn’t surprising since it’s a fairly old book at this point and no history like that is going to be perfect. Any books or articles out there that offer some corrections?
About Todd Blanche and Federalist meeting where he spoke? What was audience reaction? That is what I want to know to understand the state of that Society? How much more corrupt has it gotten from its Leonard Leo influence to now? Were there any brave souls who objected? Who walked out? Who booed? Or, was the applause overwhelmingly approving? As to Todd Blanch (the pedophile protector’s lawyer) himself, well there was no surprise there; he apparently left his ethics in the toilet long ago!
"there is no real emergency here; the tariffs are currently in effect, and there’s no impending deadline by which the Court must answer questions about their legality"
If the tariffs are found to be illegal will importers who have paid them have any way of recovering the overpayment?
I cannot bring myself into affinity with farmers. They voted for Trump. No doubt farmers would be a lot smarter had they gone to Trump University. Let farmers eat soybeans. Soybeans are a great source of protein.
“All of us who are dismayed by the present state of the union, this is no time to give up,” Biden declared. “It’s time to get up. Get up now, get up.”
If you have become overwhelmed, rely on my 2 buckets to sanity. 2 buckets says stay in the fight. We are winning with a year to midterms. If you stay in, we will shut them down.
The Monty Python skit, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" comes to mind, with a suitably modifed script
The door flies open and (Cardinal Ximinez of Spain) Chief Justice Robers enters, flanked by two (junior cardinals) Associate Justices. (Cardinal Biggles has goggles pushed over his forehead) Justice Alito has blinders limiting his field of vision. (Cardinal Fang is just Cardinal Fang )Justice Thomas is just checking his code of ethics
1. Nobody expects the (Spanish Inquisition) Supreme Court
2. Our chief weapon is (surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise)... the shadow docket and delay… delay and the shadow docket. Our two weapons are (fear and surprise)... delay and the shadow docket and ruthless (efficiency) inconsistency.... Our *three* weapons are (fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency) delay, the shadow docket and ruthless inconsistency….an almost fanatical devotion to the (Pope and nice red uniforms) President and his nice red cap. Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as (fear, surprise) delay, the Shadow Docket. I'll (come in again) invent another precedent.
"We may also get a flurry of amicus curiae (friend of the Court) briefs—which the Court’s briefing order also invited so long as they were filed by today."
You may have written about this elsewhere...how much weight do these briefs carry with the Justices? Can we tell...or guess?
It seems The Framers did not anticipate how increased life expectancy would intensify the non-democratic character of SCOTUS, to the extent that SCOTUS has qualitatively changed from being virtuously non-democratic to being perniciously anti-democratic.
Let me try to explain:
By providing for lifetime appointments, The Framers hoped to insulate the federal judiciary—somewhat—from the effects of political instability that is natural in a democratic form of government. However, The Framers certainly did not intend to untether the judiciary—completely—from the democratic influence of “We The People.” After all, the government—including even the judiciary—is supposed to be “by The People.”
The tethers of the democratic influence over the courts by The People—the reins of democratic rule that make the judiciary ultimately subject to and responsive to the rule of We The People—run from We The People through the hands of our only nationally elected official, the President, through his power to appoint judges.
Thus, The People’s proper influence over the judiciary was effectuated through—at the fairly short interval of every four years—the election of a president who would in turn be likely to have an opportunity to choose one or two new SCOTUS justices who would typically serve on the Court for an average of around 10 years in the era of the framing.
Contrast that with current situation when, with increased life expectancies, at the end of the 20th century the average time a justice served on SCOTUS had doubled to 20 years, And now it has become the expected norm for justices to remain on the Court for 30 or more years. The effect of the doubling and tripling of justices’ time on SCOTUS is that cord of The People’s democratic control over the Court has been so attenuated and so slackened that SCOTUS is now institutionally and structurally untethered from and unresponsive to the will of We The People.
We now have a SCOTUS that is so dangerously untethered from the proper democratic influence of We The People that a thirty-year-old woman’s fundamentally life-altering rights under Roe v. Wade were overturned by the decisive vote of a justice who was put on the high court before she was even born, who was put there by a president who was voted out before she was even born, and who was confirmed by a group of senators of which only two bumbling supra octogenarians remain in office.
This untethering of SCOTUS from the democratically necessary and politically salutary influence of We The People is, I believe, the root cause of SCOTUS’s dangerous loss of legitimacy.
Because I know several trans individuals who are simply trying to live their lives as productive and contributing citizens, e.g., one high-profile example being Sarah McBride, I am sad and sickened by the decision to deny them access to a passport that reflects their identity, even when they have medical paperwork to show support their status. I'm wondering if this issue will ever be revisited because it creates an unnecessary burden for so many!
Mazel tov on your anniversary!
When reading the penultimate sentence of Hot Topic 4, I was unable to read "factual" without mentally inserting quote marks around it.
Read my journal!
What an utterly delightful summary. Happy anniversary, Steve!
It sounds like some aspects of The Brethren were inaccurate, which isn’t surprising since it’s a fairly old book at this point and no history like that is going to be perfect. Any books or articles out there that offer some corrections?
Happy Anniversary!
About Todd Blanche and Federalist meeting where he spoke? What was audience reaction? That is what I want to know to understand the state of that Society? How much more corrupt has it gotten from its Leonard Leo influence to now? Were there any brave souls who objected? Who walked out? Who booed? Or, was the applause overwhelmingly approving? As to Todd Blanch (the pedophile protector’s lawyer) himself, well there was no surprise there; he apparently left his ethics in the toilet long ago!
"there is no real emergency here; the tariffs are currently in effect, and there’s no impending deadline by which the Court must answer questions about their legality"
If the tariffs are found to be illegal will importers who have paid them have any way of recovering the overpayment?
“No real emergency.” I think he was in the emergency room mode deciding between squirting arterial blood and “a little” chest pain. 😏
I cannot bring myself into affinity with farmers. They voted for Trump. No doubt farmers would be a lot smarter had they gone to Trump University. Let farmers eat soybeans. Soybeans are a great source of protein.
“All of us who are dismayed by the present state of the union, this is no time to give up,” Biden declared. “It’s time to get up. Get up now, get up.”
If you have become overwhelmed, rely on my 2 buckets to sanity. 2 buckets says stay in the fight. We are winning with a year to midterms. If you stay in, we will shut them down.
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/too-much-two-buckets-to-sanity?r=3m1bs
The Monty Python skit, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" comes to mind, with a suitably modifed script
The door flies open and (Cardinal Ximinez of Spain) Chief Justice Robers enters, flanked by two (junior cardinals) Associate Justices. (Cardinal Biggles has goggles pushed over his forehead) Justice Alito has blinders limiting his field of vision. (Cardinal Fang is just Cardinal Fang )Justice Thomas is just checking his code of ethics
1. Nobody expects the (Spanish Inquisition) Supreme Court
2. Our chief weapon is (surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise)... the shadow docket and delay… delay and the shadow docket. Our two weapons are (fear and surprise)... delay and the shadow docket and ruthless (efficiency) inconsistency.... Our *three* weapons are (fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency) delay, the shadow docket and ruthless inconsistency….an almost fanatical devotion to the (Pope and nice red uniforms) President and his nice red cap. Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as (fear, surprise) delay, the Shadow Docket. I'll (come in again) invent another precedent.
I join with your other admirers in wishing you a Happy Anniversary and many, many more.
Thank you. Happy Anniversary. And to your wife— bless you.
Happy anniversaries!
This sentence got my attention...
"We may also get a flurry of amicus curiae (friend of the Court) briefs—which the Court’s briefing order also invited so long as they were filed by today."
You may have written about this elsewhere...how much weight do these briefs carry with the Justices? Can we tell...or guess?
It is far from "stunning" that the Trump Administration is attacking the courts. At least, to the degree that word suggests surprise.
Anyway, congrats on the anniversary. Try to take a few minutes off from writing to enjoy it.
It seems The Framers did not anticipate how increased life expectancy would intensify the non-democratic character of SCOTUS, to the extent that SCOTUS has qualitatively changed from being virtuously non-democratic to being perniciously anti-democratic.
Let me try to explain:
By providing for lifetime appointments, The Framers hoped to insulate the federal judiciary—somewhat—from the effects of political instability that is natural in a democratic form of government. However, The Framers certainly did not intend to untether the judiciary—completely—from the democratic influence of “We The People.” After all, the government—including even the judiciary—is supposed to be “by The People.”
The tethers of the democratic influence over the courts by The People—the reins of democratic rule that make the judiciary ultimately subject to and responsive to the rule of We The People—run from We The People through the hands of our only nationally elected official, the President, through his power to appoint judges.
Thus, The People’s proper influence over the judiciary was effectuated through—at the fairly short interval of every four years—the election of a president who would in turn be likely to have an opportunity to choose one or two new SCOTUS justices who would typically serve on the Court for an average of around 10 years in the era of the framing.
Contrast that with current situation when, with increased life expectancies, at the end of the 20th century the average time a justice served on SCOTUS had doubled to 20 years, And now it has become the expected norm for justices to remain on the Court for 30 or more years. The effect of the doubling and tripling of justices’ time on SCOTUS is that cord of The People’s democratic control over the Court has been so attenuated and so slackened that SCOTUS is now institutionally and structurally untethered from and unresponsive to the will of We The People.
We now have a SCOTUS that is so dangerously untethered from the proper democratic influence of We The People that a thirty-year-old woman’s fundamentally life-altering rights under Roe v. Wade were overturned by the decisive vote of a justice who was put on the high court before she was even born, who was put there by a president who was voted out before she was even born, and who was confirmed by a group of senators of which only two bumbling supra octogenarians remain in office.
This untethering of SCOTUS from the democratically necessary and politically salutary influence of We The People is, I believe, the root cause of SCOTUS’s dangerous loss of legitimacy.
Steve, Karen,
Congratulations!!!!
Because I know several trans individuals who are simply trying to live their lives as productive and contributing citizens, e.g., one high-profile example being Sarah McBride, I am sad and sickened by the decision to deny them access to a passport that reflects their identity, even when they have medical paperwork to show support their status. I'm wondering if this issue will ever be revisited because it creates an unnecessary burden for so many!