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!
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!
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.
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. 🙏
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'll admit that when I saw the caption my first thought was that this piece wouldn't say anything substantive, so I could skip it. But I was surprised by its substance. I appreciated your re-emphasizing your principles and your principled approach to analyzing SCOTUS opinions ("A common theme across all of these developments is the Court increasingly turning its back on the idea that it is—and ought to be—accountable" so "I’ve dedicated just about all of my professional life to the importance of stable institutions in preserving the rule of law—and, especially, an independent and accountable judiciary.").
Too many view federal judges--and especially SCOTUS justices--as essentially priests in a de facto establishment of religion speaking for "the Court" as if it were "the Church" dictating the truth about the word of God. James Madison (without whom our Constitution and nation likely would not exist and largely because of whom our Constitution expressly secures the freedom of thought and expression) was one of many who highlighted the vital importance of writing like yours to the survival and success of our republican form of government:
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
Alexander Hamilton emphasized the same principle with different words in The Federalist No. 70:
“The two greatest securities” that “the people” have “for the faithful exercise of any delegated power” (powers that We the People delegated to our public servants in federal government) are “the restraints” imposed by “public opinion” and the public’s “opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness [official] misconduct” to facilitate officials’ “removal from office” or “punishment.”
Our safety and security, our rights and privileges, depend on the people not foolishly presuming that we can trust any person who is sufficiently ambitious to seek or seize political power.
How lucky we are (says this recovering trail lawyer) to have you in our corner! Words can't adequately convey our immense and unending gratitude for what you (and Karen - and your family) do. When my non-lawyer pals turn to me with a WTF????, it's always one of your newsletters that I fling into their inbox. So thanks, too, for making me look smart.
Proud to be a new paid subscriber. I've followed you for a while outside of Substack, then as a free subscriber. I couldn't agree more with the reason you attribute to why you do what you do in the last paragraph - only hope more people learn what you're teaching and vote accordingly. Thank you.
I have to say, NO, THANK YOU BOTH (and you kiddos, too!) (Hey kids, keep your folks laughing...it will make up for so much of consternation you will undoubtedly and rightfully cause in later years!)
I have only just found your Substack. It was either during an interview with HCR or maybe Katie Couric.
I guess I am a " kind troll" or maybe a "lurker" because I'm surfing around trying to budget which of the many people I have come to depend on to help me understand the insanity we're living through.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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. 🙏
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.
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.
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).
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.
I'll admit that when I saw the caption my first thought was that this piece wouldn't say anything substantive, so I could skip it. But I was surprised by its substance. I appreciated your re-emphasizing your principles and your principled approach to analyzing SCOTUS opinions ("A common theme across all of these developments is the Court increasingly turning its back on the idea that it is—and ought to be—accountable" so "I’ve dedicated just about all of my professional life to the importance of stable institutions in preserving the rule of law—and, especially, an independent and accountable judiciary.").
Too many view federal judges--and especially SCOTUS justices--as essentially priests in a de facto establishment of religion speaking for "the Court" as if it were "the Church" dictating the truth about the word of God. James Madison (without whom our Constitution and nation likely would not exist and largely because of whom our Constitution expressly secures the freedom of thought and expression) was one of many who highlighted the vital importance of writing like yours to the survival and success of our republican form of government:
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
Alexander Hamilton emphasized the same principle with different words in The Federalist No. 70:
“The two greatest securities” that “the people” have “for the faithful exercise of any delegated power” (powers that We the People delegated to our public servants in federal government) are “the restraints” imposed by “public opinion” and the public’s “opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness [official] misconduct” to facilitate officials’ “removal from office” or “punishment.”
Our safety and security, our rights and privileges, depend on the people not foolishly presuming that we can trust any person who is sufficiently ambitious to seek or seize political power.
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!
How lucky we are (says this recovering trail lawyer) to have you in our corner! Words can't adequately convey our immense and unending gratitude for what you (and Karen - and your family) do. When my non-lawyer pals turn to me with a WTF????, it's always one of your newsletters that I fling into their inbox. So thanks, too, for making me look smart.
Proud to be a new paid subscriber. I've followed you for a while outside of Substack, then as a free subscriber. I couldn't agree more with the reason you attribute to why you do what you do in the last paragraph - only hope more people learn what you're teaching and vote accordingly. Thank you.
I have to say, NO, THANK YOU BOTH (and you kiddos, too!) (Hey kids, keep your folks laughing...it will make up for so much of consternation you will undoubtedly and rightfully cause in later years!)
I have only just found your Substack. It was either during an interview with HCR or maybe Katie Couric.
I guess I am a " kind troll" or maybe a "lurker" because I'm surfing around trying to budget which of the many people I have come to depend on to help me understand the insanity we're living through.
You may be hearing from again soon.
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!
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!)