Finding your newsletter allowed me to begin to understand the process of the judiciary even if some decisions are incomprehensible. Your effort is invaluable to the struggle to preserve democracy. Thank you!
Dear Mr. Vladeck: Thank you and your family and colleagues for your invaluable newsletter. I look forward to reading each new edition. It’s a beacon in an ocean of misinformation and superficiality. 🙏
Steve, I for one (and evidently I'm not the only one) find your analyses absolutely compelling. These days, you and Heather Cox Richardson (for the historical context of today's events) are "must read". Thank you!
I agree wholeheartedly. Having no legal training, early on I began accumulating my own glossary of terms (Latin and English) to keep track of all the things I've had to look up. Sometimes I must read the posts two or three times to be certain that I comprehend them fully. (Sadly, I suspect that my lips move while I'm doing this.) I simply hope that young people and particularly future lawyers have access and are also reading this!
Congrats to you both! Tell your daughter I, for one, read your updates from start to finish without fail. I deeply appreciate your concise, thoughtful interpretations w/historical background of the current court deluge and chaos. Reading it helps me stay convinced, as Joyce Vance says, " we're in this together, we can't give up." We will come through to the other side of of " DJT Season II " - be it battered and bruised, but stronger.
"'Why not start a Substack?' they said. How hard could it be? A couple of posts a week, a few big decisions per term, maybe a little trivia and arcana. Heck, it will practically write itself, most of the time anyway. Let's do it!"
November 6. 2024. "We're gonna need a bigger liquor cabinet."
Happy to be a subscriber, and I'll be even happier if the times get a little less ... interesting. And may we all have just a little of our sanity left if they do.
Professor Steve! As a recently retired trial attorney (40 years) I take considerable comfort from having found your Substack. Further, after enjoying several posts, your insight and clear writing moved me to become a paid subscriber. Take some pride in the work you are doing and the terrific public service you're providing. The politicized partial SCOTUS conservative majority, and its use of the "shadow docket," constitutes a frontal assault on precedent and the fair, consistent, and predictable application of the rule of law - the foundation of an impartial and independent judiciary.
You are my go to to explain SCOTUS. I read others such as Litman, Phang and Kuo but yours really drill down on what is happening with the Court. You make it somewhat easy for a non lawyer to understand and with some humor. A immense thanks.
Dear Steve, You're truly amazing -- I've long known that. And yet, you continue to amaze me with all you've accomplished. You come from a family of amazing Vladecks, and you honor their legacy and their commitment to INFORMED legal justice. May the arc of your amazing work be a long one and may you find comfort in all the good work you do for the rest of us. I so hope our paths cross again sometime, if only to personally express my sincere gratitude.
How wonderful, congrats! I think a Tik Tok, perhaps an Instagram would be great. Educating on SCOTUS (civics needs a boost too) is important for "youth"; your daughters could certainly suggest how best to do that.
Steve, yours is a unique and powerful voice. As a retired attorney, I love wading into the deep legal weeds with you! I appreciate your zeal, your integrity, your unbelievable trove of legal knowledge, and your passion for educating us all. You were born to teach and explain. Keep it up!
Today, July 10, 2024, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) introduced articles of impeachment against United States Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“The unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court has now spiraled into a Constitutional crisis threatening American democracy writ large. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law, the integrity of our democracy, and one of the clearest cases for which the tool of impeachment was designed.
The Constitution of the United States explicitly outlines a higher standard of conduct for the judiciary to meet, far surpassing its existing bars on treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors for all civil officers: the standard of Good Behavior. Judicial ethics and rules, to which even the lowest level judges are held, make those standards clear. The lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices make enforcement of these standards a solemn responsibility for the protection of our democracy,” said the Congresswoman.
In addition, the Constitution gives Congress the ability to control the cases the Court can decide. Article 3, Section 2, specifies the cases over which the Court has jurisdiction, and then articulates some cases (for example involving Ambassadors, or to which a State is a party) over which the Court has "original jurisdiction", i.e., the case goes directly to the Supreme Court. For the rest, Section 2 says the Court can decide them "both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Thus, for example, I believe Congress can declare that the Court cannot hear any challenges to same sex marriage. Not sure this has happened, but the power is there.
It that's so, couldn't Congress also declare that the Court cannot hear any challenges to the president's powers, to gerrymandering, to states' regulation of voting rights, etc.?
This seems like the kind of thing we should all dread.
It could be that Congress has the power to limit the Court's ability to hear challenges to the Executive's powers, etc. And, this could be the best argument to eliminate the filibuster: if, while the Repubs have power, they enact any of the nightmares you suggest, they will have to face the electorate in the next election. (Of course, if the states have restricted voting rights, that could also be problematic.) The question comes down to whether a) we're really ok with majority rules; and b) it's time for a serious conversation about what kind of Constitution we want.
This has always been lurking in the background - and has occasionally been threatened - but so far at least that's all it's been. But like nuclear annihilation, the threat is always there.
The call for the impeachment of Justice Alito repeatedly refers to the Jan. 6 insurrection and insurrectionists. Given that no one was charged with insurrection (18 U.S.C. 2383) and Donald Trump was not convicted of inciting insurrection in his second impeachment, won't the use of those terms weaken their case against Alito?
Maybe not, but it seems to me (not a lawyer) that it would be better to hew closely to the legal facts.
Thanks Steve and Karen! Also want to heap praise on Alyssa Negvesky and Grace Kiple for what I know to be their hard work and diligence. Having long ago been and then later having my own research assistants (in science, not law), I know how hard they work and how little they get paid. Thanks to all!
Not only do I appreciate your enlightening commentary on the courts, but that they are delivered with humor is a big plus. Also enjoyed seeing you on CNN! (As an aside, we have known your in-laws since the ha’aretz days, and dig that the red hair gene has been passed down!)
Finding your newsletter allowed me to begin to understand the process of the judiciary even if some decisions are incomprehensible. Your effort is invaluable to the struggle to preserve democracy. Thank you!
Best legal analysis-bar none.
pun intended?
Dear Mr. Vladeck: Thank you and your family and colleagues for your invaluable newsletter. I look forward to reading each new edition. It’s a beacon in an ocean of misinformation and superficiality. 🙏
Steve, I for one (and evidently I'm not the only one) find your analyses absolutely compelling. These days, you and Heather Cox Richardson (for the historical context of today's events) are "must read". Thank you!
I agree wholeheartedly. Having no legal training, early on I began accumulating my own glossary of terms (Latin and English) to keep track of all the things I've had to look up. Sometimes I must read the posts two or three times to be certain that I comprehend them fully. (Sadly, I suspect that my lips move while I'm doing this.) I simply hope that young people and particularly future lawyers have access and are also reading this!
Congrats to you both! Tell your daughter I, for one, read your updates from start to finish without fail. I deeply appreciate your concise, thoughtful interpretations w/historical background of the current court deluge and chaos. Reading it helps me stay convinced, as Joyce Vance says, " we're in this together, we can't give up." We will come through to the other side of of " DJT Season II " - be it battered and bruised, but stronger.
"'Why not start a Substack?' they said. How hard could it be? A couple of posts a week, a few big decisions per term, maybe a little trivia and arcana. Heck, it will practically write itself, most of the time anyway. Let's do it!"
November 6. 2024. "We're gonna need a bigger liquor cabinet."
Happy to be a subscriber, and I'll be even happier if the times get a little less ... interesting. And may we all have just a little of our sanity left if they do.
Quickly went from “I’m not sure we will have enough content” to “OH MY GOD”
You really doubted y’all’s ability to yap about the legal system? Really?
Professor Steve! As a recently retired trial attorney (40 years) I take considerable comfort from having found your Substack. Further, after enjoying several posts, your insight and clear writing moved me to become a paid subscriber. Take some pride in the work you are doing and the terrific public service you're providing. The politicized partial SCOTUS conservative majority, and its use of the "shadow docket," constitutes a frontal assault on precedent and the fair, consistent, and predictable application of the rule of law - the foundation of an impartial and independent judiciary.
You are my go to to explain SCOTUS. I read others such as Litman, Phang and Kuo but yours really drill down on what is happening with the Court. You make it somewhat easy for a non lawyer to understand and with some humor. A immense thanks.
Dear Steve, You're truly amazing -- I've long known that. And yet, you continue to amaze me with all you've accomplished. You come from a family of amazing Vladecks, and you honor their legacy and their commitment to INFORMED legal justice. May the arc of your amazing work be a long one and may you find comfort in all the good work you do for the rest of us. I so hope our paths cross again sometime, if only to personally express my sincere gratitude.
How wonderful, congrats! I think a Tik Tok, perhaps an Instagram would be great. Educating on SCOTUS (civics needs a boost too) is important for "youth"; your daughters could certainly suggest how best to do that.
Maybe his daughters could participate in explaining in a way other youth would understand (if he was willing for them to be seen, of course).
Steve, yours is a unique and powerful voice. As a retired attorney, I love wading into the deep legal weeds with you! I appreciate your zeal, your integrity, your unbelievable trove of legal knowledge, and your passion for educating us all. You were born to teach and explain. Keep it up!
In fact Congress does have powers over Scotus:
Today, July 10, 2024, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) introduced articles of impeachment against United States Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“The unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court has now spiraled into a Constitutional crisis threatening American democracy writ large. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law, the integrity of our democracy, and one of the clearest cases for which the tool of impeachment was designed.
The Constitution of the United States explicitly outlines a higher standard of conduct for the judiciary to meet, far surpassing its existing bars on treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors for all civil officers: the standard of Good Behavior. Judicial ethics and rules, to which even the lowest level judges are held, make those standards clear. The lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices make enforcement of these standards a solemn responsibility for the protection of our democracy,” said the Congresswoman.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and
In addition, the Constitution gives Congress the ability to control the cases the Court can decide. Article 3, Section 2, specifies the cases over which the Court has jurisdiction, and then articulates some cases (for example involving Ambassadors, or to which a State is a party) over which the Court has "original jurisdiction", i.e., the case goes directly to the Supreme Court. For the rest, Section 2 says the Court can decide them "both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Thus, for example, I believe Congress can declare that the Court cannot hear any challenges to same sex marriage. Not sure this has happened, but the power is there.
It that's so, couldn't Congress also declare that the Court cannot hear any challenges to the president's powers, to gerrymandering, to states' regulation of voting rights, etc.?
This seems like the kind of thing we should all dread.
It could be that Congress has the power to limit the Court's ability to hear challenges to the Executive's powers, etc. And, this could be the best argument to eliminate the filibuster: if, while the Repubs have power, they enact any of the nightmares you suggest, they will have to face the electorate in the next election. (Of course, if the states have restricted voting rights, that could also be problematic.) The question comes down to whether a) we're really ok with majority rules; and b) it's time for a serious conversation about what kind of Constitution we want.
This has always been lurking in the background - and has occasionally been threatened - but so far at least that's all it's been. But like nuclear annihilation, the threat is always there.
The call for the impeachment of Justice Alito repeatedly refers to the Jan. 6 insurrection and insurrectionists. Given that no one was charged with insurrection (18 U.S.C. 2383) and Donald Trump was not convicted of inciting insurrection in his second impeachment, won't the use of those terms weaken their case against Alito?
Maybe not, but it seems to me (not a lawyer) that it would be better to hew closely to the legal facts.
Thanks Steve and Karen! Also want to heap praise on Alyssa Negvesky and Grace Kiple for what I know to be their hard work and diligence. Having long ago been and then later having my own research assistants (in science, not law), I know how hard they work and how little they get paid. Thanks to all!
Thanks Mark!
Thanks for writing so much! It's a gigantic job, but it sure needed doing
A small stylistic point: The blog is Karen's brainchild. Not the other way around.
She was the first customer clamoring for the product. Thank you, Karen!
Not only do I appreciate your enlightening commentary on the courts, but that they are delivered with humor is a big plus. Also enjoyed seeing you on CNN! (As an aside, we have known your in-laws since the ha’aretz days, and dig that the red hair gene has been passed down!)
The Federalist Society has a mere 70k members, but Steve's got 100k.
Why does Ross, the largest Friend, not simply eat the others?