The only theme uniting Monday night's twin grants of emergency relief is the Republican appointees' willingness to upend long-settled limits on the Court's power when, but only when, they *want* to.
Took a long time for you to stop trying to defend what has been obvious for a long time. Wait for cases that may, or might on an "emergency" basis, come before it, that could dictate electoral results. It's just about winning and not even trying to back into a justifiable rationale.
I'm not a colleague, so I do not "respectfully" dissent to either one of these travesties.
The California law is complicated, as Kagan notes, and people can be concerned about the policy. But there are various complexities. I was upset, checking SCOTUSblog, all the amicus briefs listed seem to be against the policy. An amicus supporting it would have been helpful.
Also, notable Roberts joined Barrett's concurrence, including its comments about Dobbs.
And are you still against a (hope, hope, hope) Democratic Congress packing the S. C. bench with an enlarged rainbow of American judicial opinion instead of continuing its current CathCon lock-up?
They've stopped even pretending to be justices, or to justify anything. They're apparatchiks spewing lies and misdirections like the rest of the administration.
The impatience of which you and Justice Kagan speak could also be called "fast thinking" which prominent social scientists find related to biased decision making. The "slow thinking" of the tariff cases seems nowhere to be found in these two cases. It's so much easier to make snap judgment that is outside the usual deliberation of cases on the merits dockets. Your summary last week of the differences between the outcomes of cases on the emergency docket and the merits docket likewise shows the same bias related to fast and slow thinking.
So the Court is impatient to act in situations affecting the drawing of electoral districts that may influence the outcome of elections, but patient in allowing federal abuses or rejections of due process to continue, that are causing immediate harm to people suffering from them. Is justice for the goose different from justice for the gander ? “One nation divisible with liberty and justice for some.”
As a 1L in 1971, I observed that I had learned that judges often decided first, according to their biases or their whims, what decisions they preferred, and then looked for precedents to (supposedly) justify their judgments. Some other law students agreed with me; no professors did. I practiced law for many years. From what I encountered in law practice, my early insight was often confirmed.
The word that comes to my mind with the conservative justices is less “impatient” and more “complicit.”
"Don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is." -- Roy Cohn
Apparently, Amy Coney Barrett is no longer concerned about the court being perceived as “partisan hacks.” Her words…
Took a long time for you to stop trying to defend what has been obvious for a long time. Wait for cases that may, or might on an "emergency" basis, come before it, that could dictate electoral results. It's just about winning and not even trying to back into a justifiable rationale.
I'm not a colleague, so I do not "respectfully" dissent to either one of these travesties.
The California law is complicated, as Kagan notes, and people can be concerned about the policy. But there are various complexities. I was upset, checking SCOTUSblog, all the amicus briefs listed seem to be against the policy. An amicus supporting it would have been helpful.
Also, notable Roberts joined Barrett's concurrence, including its comments about Dobbs.
And are you still against a (hope, hope, hope) Democratic Congress packing the S. C. bench with an enlarged rainbow of American judicial opinion instead of continuing its current CathCon lock-up?
Prof. Vladeck's next book should be interesting.
They've stopped even pretending to be justices, or to justify anything. They're apparatchiks spewing lies and misdirections like the rest of the administration.
The impatience of which you and Justice Kagan speak could also be called "fast thinking" which prominent social scientists find related to biased decision making. The "slow thinking" of the tariff cases seems nowhere to be found in these two cases. It's so much easier to make snap judgment that is outside the usual deliberation of cases on the merits dockets. Your summary last week of the differences between the outcomes of cases on the emergency docket and the merits docket likewise shows the same bias related to fast and slow thinking.
So the Court is impatient to act in situations affecting the drawing of electoral districts that may influence the outcome of elections, but patient in allowing federal abuses or rejections of due process to continue, that are causing immediate harm to people suffering from them. Is justice for the goose different from justice for the gander ? “One nation divisible with liberty and justice for some.”
This is the most corrupt Supreme Court. They have done so much and have no shame.
As a 1L in 1971, I observed that I had learned that judges often decided first, according to their biases or their whims, what decisions they preferred, and then looked for precedents to (supposedly) justify their judgments. Some other law students agreed with me; no professors did. I practiced law for many years. From what I encountered in law practice, my early insight was often confirmed.
The Court's procedural looseness is a Vice
I hope you touch on these cases in your lecture in ABQ on Wed. I'll be there.