U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

Have at it.

I nominate AOC

i nominate tom cotton, a good guy with a gun

get in here, goons

Can Trump nominate himself?

and continuing the SCOTUS term limit discussion, reposting the explainer
https://fixthecourt.com/2019/11/myth-facts-scotus-term-limits/

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/09/ted-cruz-supreme-court-donald-trump/

No idea if these proposed changes are ideal or if they could ever plausibly come to pass, but I like that they are being put out there. It's a good step to start getting people used to the idea of major changes to the court.

Bryant Johnson, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s personal trainer, does push-ups as Justice Ginsburg lies in state in the U.S. Capitol.

Full video: https://t.co/vri1sJcUV6 pic.twitter.com/C11uVFeQlQ

— CSPAN (@cspan) September 25, 2020

He isn’t stupid so wtf is he thinking https://t.co/uyEcGDZRIy

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) September 25, 2020

I'm very sorry but if the pushup video is real it's extremely funny

CNN reporting that it's Barrett:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/politics/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html

South Bend is really knocking it out of the park this year.

Whoever Trump was going to pick was going to be a horror story, so I expect soon to be reading about the many horrors of Ms. Barrett, which no doubt will be many and hair-raising. Lindsey Graham will love her.

democrats will have grave concerns and strongly worded appeals to decency

democratic fundraising will go through the roof, blood will boil, the election will be won (eventually) by democrats. and at the end, it'll be a 6-3 conservative court for the forseeable future, and possible a 5-4 majority for another 20-30 years, unless the golden boy or gorsuch unexpectedly croak, which would be a tragedy

those are impressive lifespans you're projecting for thomas and alito imo

They get magic life drugs injected in their butts

haha, well it also builds in known unknowns, like republicans preserving a seat in a future GOP presidency. let's role play it

2020 (the present. you are in hell)
barrett is confirmed before election. fuck you liberals
6-3 conservative majority

roberts is 65
thomas is 72
alito is 70
gorsuch is 53
the golden boy is 55
barrett is 48

breyer is 82
sotomayor is 66
kagan is 60

2021 (biden is elected. you are in tartarus)
biden wins. breyer tags out for a younger replacement. i will create SC justice names using this thread Fighting Baseball for Super Famicom: A League of Fake Americans POLL
6-3 conservative majority

roberts is 66
thomas is 73
alito is 71
gorsuch is 54
the golden boy is 56
barrett is 49

sotomayor is 67
kagan is 61
willie dustice is 50

EVENT
2024 election. The democrat has a 70% chance of victory (same as clinton v trump), due to me running this simulation. RNG: no joke, i rolled a random number from 1 to 10, with 1-7 being democratic victory and 8-10 being republican, and i rolled an 8. REPUBLICANS WIN

2025 (tom cotton is the president of the united states. you have killed 2 people now and haven't talked in weeks.)
tom cotton casts Executive Righteousness on thomas, 77 years old, who is replaced by Sleve McDichael
6-3 conservative majority

roberts is 70
alito is 75
the golden boy is 60
barrett is 53
sleve mcdichael is 50

sotomayor is 71
kagan is 65
gorsuch is 58
willie dustice is 54

EVENT
World War III, totally started by tom cotton. 2028 election. The democrat has a 80% chance of victory, due to me running this simulation. RNG: 3, democratic victory

2029 (first influencers on mars)
AOC is the president of the united states of america, fuck yeah. sotomayor, the second oldest justice at 75, taps out. bobsun dugnutt is the new junior united states supreme court justice.
6-3 conservative majority

roberts is 74
alito is 79
gorsuch is 62
the golden boy is 64
barrett is 57
sleve mcdichael is 54

kagan is 69
willie dustice is 58
bobsun dognutt is 50

EVENT
in 2031, the golden boy brett kavanaugh, just 66 years old, FUCKING DIES OUT OF NOWHERE and it's REALLY EMBARRASSING FOR HIM

2031 (VR sex surpasses videogames in revenue generation)
brett kavanaugh fucking dies out of nowhere, best thing that's happened in a generation. president AOC appoints a justice so left-leaning that she's impeached by sergeant ivanka trump, leader of the paramilitary republican subcommittee known as Gold Team. Onson Sweemey, the first justice with a normal name in 11 years, takes the golden boy's spot and shifts the balance toward a near-balance.

5-4 conservative majority

roberts is 76
alito is 81
gorsuch is 64
barrett is 59
sleve mcdichael is 56

kagan is 71
willie dustice is 60
bobsun dognutt is 52
onson sweemey is 50

EVENT
2032 Election. there's no more random numbers, it's just me making it up. the democrats win again. AOC is on the wheaties box.

then, near the end of her second term, the unspeakable happens. Samuel Alito, at the age of 85, just fucking dies out of nowhere.
2035
some observers expect the krang-like brain of mitch mcconnell to somehow delay a democratic confirmation in his spot, but AOC casts total victory and again appoints an extremely-left greatest of time justice named Todd Bonzalez.
5-4 liberal majority

roberts is 80
gorsuch is 68
barrett is 63
sleve mcdichael is 60

kagan is 75
willie dustice is 64
bobsun dognutt is 56
onson sweemey is 54
todd bonzalez is 50

EVENT
2036 Election. it's been 8 years of supreme relaxation and greatness. even gum is genuinely _better_. everything's great. something has to change, so somehow it's time for PRESIDENT CHARLIE KIRK

2037
under PRESIDENT CHARLIE KIRK, roberts immediately resigns. the new chief justice of the united states is SCOTT DOURQUE, 50 years old, catholic conservative
5-4 liberal majority

chief justice scott dourque, 50
gorsuch is 70
barrett is 65
sleve mcdichael is 62

kagan is 77
willie dustice is 66
bobsun dognutt is 58
onson sweemey is 56
todd bonzalez is 52

I actually think that’s not a terrible way of gaming things out. The arc of the moral universe is long. We fight the fights that we have today, and we train our young folks. Good post KM.

DOGNUTT

https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--QTcxwhPT--/t_Preview/b_rgb:ffffff,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1495739359/production/designs/1624926_1.jpg

in 2031, the golden boy brett kavanaugh, just 66 years old, FUCKING DIES OUT OF NOWHERE and it's REALLY EMBARRASSING FOR HIM

whoa how did he die?!

Shot by one of Dick Cheney's grandkids

Karl, that was perfect (ly horrifying).

Shot by one of Dick Cheney's grandkids

― LaRusso Auto (Neanderthal), Friday, September 25, 2020 6:49 PM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

At a UB40 reunion concert

in 2031, the golden boy brett kavanaugh, just 66 years old, FUCKING DIES OUT OF NOWHERE and it's REALLY EMBARRASSING FOR HIM

whoa how did he die?!

he dies of doing a kegstand in the kitchen of amy klobuchar's wake

karl this is some excellent scenario running and first rate use of the Fighting Baseball thread and i applaud it

i have a rejoinder percolating but it may take a while to get around to crunching the hard numbers so i just wanted to say that for now

_in 2031, the golden boy brett kavanaugh, just 66 years old, FUCKING DIES OUT OF NOWHERE and it's REALLY EMBARRASSING FOR HIM_

whoa how did he die?!

xp thanks doctor c! your questioning of that was really valid, and i don't think my answer is any sort of proof of anything. i got lazy and didn't project it out to 2045 (my original goal), but even though i ended with a slim 5-4 liberal majority by 2037, i don't think it takes much to keep it at a 5-4 conservative majority either. then again, maybe the republicans will truly never win again (lol) and it will be 6-3 liberal by 2040, who knows

So we get 40 some years of this...from an article Barrett co-wrote as quoted by SCOTUS blog

The article also noted that, when the late Justice William Brennan was asked about potential conflict between his Catholic faith and his duties as a justice, he responded that he would be governed by “the oath I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States”; Barrett and Garvey observed that they did not “defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/

Can't wait for her book, "Jesus is the Speaker of MY House"

@ Karl - okay! you've already gotten there, but yeah basically my rejoinder would be that you didn't actually end up showing "a 6-3 conservative court for the forseeable future, and possible a 5-4 majority for another 20-30 years." but the scenario was worth it anyway. a quibble: you don't game out the Senate, which i respect because that would be even more absurd fanfic work, but it's worth allowing at least dice-roll possibilities that the Dems control the Senate during your Republican admins, AND that they stand firm against prematurely ghoulish ideologues like Sleve McDichael, whose pasty-faced appearance and hot-mic comments during the nominations process turn the public against him. i would not put money on that chance myself, but it's at least possible.

also though, a fair bit hinges on that first d10 roll and some choices about the EVENTS - suppose Biden rolls a 6 in 2024, and is re-elected to a foggy but popular second term, his "Reagan in the late 80s" zone, AND ALSO that during that term, Thomas has a health scare and decides to retire. i don't know that the odds are so heavily stacked against something like that.

obviously in that event, Biden's replacement pick would be the mushy, not-all-that liberal Rey McSriff (48), a former bank-industry lobbyist, seen as a move back in the direction of racial and gender diversity on the court who will at least be a reliable liberal vote in civil-rights and abortion cases.

so in january 2029, we've got:

roberts is 74
alito is 79
gorsuch is 62
the golden boy is 64
barrett is 57

kagan is 69
willie dustice is 58
bobsun dognutt is 50
rey mcsriff is 50

eight years of the biden administration have left many festering wounds unaddressed, but thankfully the republican "gold team" have been mostly braying in the margins without control of either congress or the executive to formally empower them. on the other hand, in the absence of the Cotton presidency, World War III has not happened, but let's say AOC wins in 2028 anyway. why not?!

thus, following B.K.'s horrible death in 2031, AOC's super left-wing appointee is able to remain in office. you didn't name them but it's pretty obvious you had Shown Furcotte in mind. maybe kagan is worried enough about the next election, and spooked by what is by then a Sunday-morning-show conventional wisdom about "the Tragedy of Ginsburg," that she retires too. by this point AOC is not fucking around at all and appoints millennial twitter SJW Raul Chamgerlain, 44. if AOC goes on to win a second term and also grabs the Alito seat, then in 2035 we have:

roberts is 80
gorsuch is 68
barrett is 63

raul chamgerlain is 49
willie dustice is 64
bobsun dognutt is 56
rey mcscriff is 56
shown furcotte is 53
todd bonzalez is 50

... and our biggest problem is that sometimes McSriff aligns with the conservatives to dissent in 5-4 corporate-law decisions, and we see a lot of online left grousing about how Biden wasted a pick on her.

now yes, i admit........... this depends on the democrats winning four straight national elections. IMPOSSIBLE you say? or merely... improbable???! depends how much faith you put in changing demographics etc. but if none of the Dem-appointed justices die in office, they can also afford to lose one of those elections! because it might be that the Republicans can only replace Thomas or Alito with McDichael or Dorque, giving them an edge in age but not a leg up in the balance of the court.

todd bonzalez makes history as the first male latino justice

is there a relevant quote linking Barrett's sect to The Handmaid's Tale?

there must be. ominous lord, truth is stranger than fiction

xp

doc casino, first of all, obviously i had Shown Furcotte in mind. but secondly, the rest of your scenario seems plausible!

obviously gaming it out like that is a goof, but i did actually learn a few things. or maybe not. i feel like just laying out their ages, combined with the fact that they have lifetime appointments, explains 99% of the game:

christmas near-future:

roberts is 65
thomas is 72
alito is 70
gorsuch is 53
the golden boy is 55
barrett is 48

breyer is 82
sotomayor is 66
kagan is 60

that there is a stacked deck, combined with republican weakness (in terms of what we might expect, possibly overoptimistically, from their presidential chances for the next few decades after elevating a white supremacist fascist to the presidency and then ripping the country to shreds in an attempt to keep him there). even with a couple 2-term democratic administrations in a row, through 2036, there is still a decent chance that at least 5 or even all 6 of the conservative majority stays right where they are, their ass-molds worn deep

in unrelated news, just before i fell asleep face down on the couch last night, i ran across a disturbing headline about increasing the maximum human lifespans beyond its current soft limit of 125. apparently the consensus is that it will soon (10 years?) be possible to extend human lifespans using genetic modifiers, physical devices, and secret codes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_extension jfc

agreed, it's a useful exercise to grasp exactly how much the age advantage of the GWB and DJT appointees presses on into the future. but also, focusing too much on that just takes us into a zone of gloom, so unless it's directly useful for motivating present-day action and the long-term fight, i think it's also useful to bear in mind all the ways that the scenario could suddenly break down. nobody saw Scalia's death coming, for example, even though he was 79. that ended up working out horribly for the cause of justice and freedom, but it could have gone differently. so long as our rights are subject to these bizarre matters of fate and circumstance, we may as well remind ourselves that there are ways the probabilistic parts could break our way.

and the stacked deck there does look better the moment Biden can replace Breyer, which i think we all do need to be praying for (or whatever equivalent practice).

and... all these scenarios also presume a successful barrett confirmation. tbh, i'm pretty doom-and-gloom about that, seems like there's no reason to think it won't happen. but it's still probably not good for my head to already accept her as a solid number until 2049 or w/e. like if i'm driving myself crazy with all the bad things that have already happened, and the ones that could probably happen, and the ones that are near-certainties, that's a lot to do to my head, if i'm not also considering the good equivalents of all of those things.

there's also some non-zero chance that, in the event that a Democrat wins the presidential race four times in a row and this permanent 5-4 Court keeps shutting down every exciting thing the people are turning out to vote for, then a mandate for court-packing develops much much more quickly than we might expect right now.

so long as our rights are subject to these bizarre matters of fate and circumstance, we may as well remind ourselves that there are ways the probabilistic parts could break our way.

otm

i know that's not a convincing or comforting thought for everyone, but to me that really is what gives me hope

NEW: Senate Democrats say they will press President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee to commit to recuse herself if the justices hear a case that could impact the outcome of the fall elections, @mkraju reports.

— Ana Cabrera (@AnaCabrera) September 25, 2020

That seems a little dumb

I mean it makes sense but they'd still have a 5-3 advantage anyway

"Will you commit to not doing the exact thing you were hired for" is a dumb question

and... all these scenarios also presume a successful barrett confirmation. tbh, i'm pretty doom-and-gloom about that, seems like there's no reason to think it won't happen

i will continue to return to my dumb "we simulate the future and then experience it in real time, somehow diminished, as something that was already familiar" theory, until someone or something convinces me that it's not accurate. in that line of thinking, you can already see the barrett confirmation and how it happens. i already saw a headline, last night, talking about how barrett was confirmed in October. i looked at the calendar and it was september 25th, then re-read the headline and it still said that she was confirmed in October, past tense. i can't remember where i saw it, and i had a socially distanced hangout with a friend last night and got way too drunk. but still, it was there all the same.

that was just a drunken horror, but i woke up today and it's still there. the republicans have the votes. 2 have been allowed to deviate (murkowski and collins), which just so happens to allow exactly enough remaining republicans to unilaterally install barrett. what a coincidence. this outcome has already been focus-grouped on a national scale - it turns out that most republicans think it's a great idea, most democrats think it's a bad idea, and the majority of "independents" think it's a bad idea. it sounds like most ideas these days. so they'll do it, because they can.

we're currently simulating the outraged response, right now. at least, i am. and then, when it happens, it won't be the first time.

---

^i think all of that is a very bad way to go about thinking about life, believe it or not. but that's what i see happening over and over, lately.

xpost they're not asking her to not be a justice, they're saying 'Hey, you were literally just nominated by one of the President candidates in this election 5 minutes before the election, maybe it's a conflict of interest for you ruling on a case challenging his results".

But this is the primary reason they are in such a rush. If she can't guarantee to hand over the election, it's pointless for Trump. Surely he already told her she needs to deliver that vote, or there would be a different pick.

lol of course it's not going to actually happen but would you rather the Democrats not try it first so that they can frame it as "Justice Coney Barrett refused to recuse, she and Trump win, while Americans lose!"

I mean, compared to other things they should be trying, this is VERY low on my list of importance and I wouldn't want it to take the place of promising to pack the fuck out of courts, but we're kinda fucked unless someone has a McCain surprise during the vote.

so medicaid exists but you can't have any?

interesting tidbit i read this morning:

Thanks to the Supreme Court, too, the Trump administration is very much having its way with court orders. Stanford University political scientist Adam Bonica compiled data on the administration’s win/loss record in federal courts from May 1 through June 23. He found that in cases brought against its sprawling excesses the Trump administration has lost 94% of the time at the district court level. That’s a truly terrible litigation record. But at the Supreme Court, Bonica found, DOJ won 94% of the time.

“We are witnessing something without precedent,” Bonica wrote. “[A] Supreme Court that appears to be at war with the federal judiciary’s core constitutional function.”

(https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-is-at-war-with)

one of the things highlighted in this really excellent harvard law review article from a few years ago:

https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supreme-court/

The practical effect of these changes has been that while the Court is taking power away from Congress and the executive branch, it isn’t vesting that power in the lower federal courts. To the contrary, it is hamstringing them by bypassing longstanding procedural and substantive rules and its own doctrine in order to reach out, take, and decide major legal questions that either are not presented at all or have not proceeded through the courts to establish a record.

Tomorrow we'll hear about the nationwide injunction thing, yeah? that's a big one... many presidents have hated them but this is the first time that SCOTUS has agreed to weigh in, which doesn't bode well

tomorrow we get several uh consequential decisions

On nationwide injunctions, I expect them to find a way to uphold the injunction on the birthright citizenship ban but also provide some kind of framework by which the administration can get a bunch of other injunctions lifted. (I may be overly optimistic on the first half of that, but that just seems like ... even if there are 5 votes on the court to dismantle birthright citizenship, which I kind of doubt, they aren't going to want it to take effect until they get a chance to fully weigh it.)

even Biden railed against nationwide injunctions re: student debt forgiveness

Ugh well yep I was overly optimistic that they wouldn’t let the birthright citizenship ban take effect. jfc.

what a fucking disgrace this court is

holy shit

https://bsky.app/profile/zo-e.xyz/post/3lsltmyeln22j

so what are the chances this stays in place if a democrat becomes president at some point?

So the nightmare scenario: child of undocumented residents of Illinois becomes a citizen, child of undoc residents of Florida isn't.

Stephen Miller will decide who's a citizen and who's not.

a completely illegitimate and corrupt institution which needs to be destroyed

holy shit

https://bsky.app/profile/zo-e.xyz/post/3lsltmyeln22j

― hungover beet poo (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, June 27, 2025 7:33 AM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Please tell us what it says, not all of us are on the socials

Woah. Fierce cut-down of the junior justice by the next-most-junior justice.

Barrett giving Jackson the back of her hand:

https://i.imgur.com/ZzwiKU5.jpg

Mark J Stern re today’s decision- I understand there is some debate about the scope of this ruling, but my view remains that the Supreme Court has just effectively abolished universal injunctions, at least as we know them. The question now is really whether lower courts can craft something to replace them that still sweeps widely.

I want to reiterate that countless conservative judges issued universal injunctions against the Biden administration, and the Supreme Court never halted the practice. Now, barely five months into Trump's second term, the court puts an end to these injunctions. A brazen double standard

Mark Joseph Stern
The Supreme Court's third decision of the day UPHOLDS the Universal Service Fund—which provides phone and internet access to poor and rural areas—by a 6–3 vote, holding that it does NOT violate the non-delegation doctrine. This is very good news.

depressing part of this is when a Dem retakes the White House they have the potential to do a lot of good shit very quickly but they'll use some Chuck Schumer logic to talk themselves out of it

oh boy

🚨In its fourth decision, the Supreme Court holds that parents who object to LGBTQ books in the classroom have a First Amendment right to "opt out" their children from seeing those books. Alito writes for the 6-3 majority, with all three liberals dissent.

Vladeck believes the scope of the ruling still allows lower courts to block birthright citizenship but is more impactful to injunctions for other policies.

He's very much the guru on this but admittedly I have no idea what a lot of this entails.

https://i.ibb.co/gZ4YLbFB/Screenshot-20250627-104802-Gallery.jpg

The way Alito and/or his clerks outline in detail the plots of the LGBTQ books borders on the lascivious.

For example, the book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration. The young reader is guided to feel distressed at the prince’s failure to find a princess, and then to celebrate when the prince meets his male partner. See id., at 397a–401a, 419a–423a. The book relates that “on the two men’s wedding day, the air filled with cheer and laughter, for the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.” Id., at 424a. Those celebrating the same-sex wedding are not just family members and close friends, but the entire kingdom. For young children, to whom this and the other storybooks are targeted, such celebration is liable to be processed as having moral connotations. If this same-sex marriage makes everyone happy and
leads to joyous celebration by all, doesn’t that mean it is in every respect a good thing?

OOGIE BOOGIE

To start, we cannot accept the Board’s characterization of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” instruction as mere “exposure to objectionable ideas” or as lessons in “mutual respect.” As we have explained, the storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. And the Board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes far beyond mere “exposure.”

fucking deranged logic. can parents opt kids out of any book with a happy ending then, since this obviously implies that the author has some kind of worldview to which they might object?

SCOTUS engaging in literal viewpoint discrimination.

Tbh I’m not sure how devastating the effects of this particular ruling are, because lots of school systems (don’t know the percentage) already allow opt-out alternatives for parents who object to specific materials.

My biggest worry is Sotomayor's: rather than face potential lawsuits, schools may just yank LGBTQ books from libraries, period.

Abolish the Supreme Court

xxxpost advice, mostly for myself, in the coming weeks.

there's going to be a flurry of activity in courts following this ruling re: birthright citizenship, as the DOJ is going to file challenges to the injunctions and request they be narrowed. lower courts may or may not do this, and that will likely be challenged if they don't...

...very much recommend not refreshing your news source all day looking for updates on every little morsel is going to be a long, ugly confusing playout, and it will drive you mad. end of day summaries will suffice. staying on top does not prevent the bad from happening (I suffer from OCD so this is haaaard for me).

(i'm only laser focused on the birthright citizenship aspect rn because of the wave of deportations and worrying about citizenships being revoked, but not discounting just how many other important injunctions this is going to affect as well that are currently outstanding.)

again the door is wide open for blue states to abuse the shit outta this if they have the courage

Yeah there is certainly a push to remove LGTBQ materials from schools period in a lot of places — but that’s a red-state political reality regardless of the court decision. I doubt the decision will sway districts or states that are already committed to diversity, it just becomes one more form for parents to fill out.

It’s a bad decision, I just think its practical effects might be somewhat limited.

yeek. however, regret to inform you this has already happened. nothing new here.

school libraries are dwindling things anyways.

more concerning, to me, is that school leaders (conservative, hierarchical conflict-averse, chicken-littlin') now get to call the shots on what are presumed-to-be-controversial texts. and, fear-driven, they listen to the evangelical moralizing brigade that've infiltrated school committees because of the moral panic about kids reading.

teachers, reading specialists, and librarians continue to see their profession and judgment diminished.

exactly

For sure, the assault is much broader and more damaging than parent opt-out policies. And it’s happening at state and local levels, under their existing authorities. (100-plus books removed from the local school system here this year under a new state law, including Slaughterhouse Five, The Bluest Eye, Handmaid’s Tale, etc.)

okay, so what if i object to my children learning about heterosexual relationships and the corrupt heterosexual lifestyle?

holy shit

what does this say about

phone added “about”

okay, so what if i object to my children learning about heterosexual relationships and the corrupt heterosexual lifestyle?

lots of nodding, bobbing, and eventually a 'what an interesting viewpoint, however, we cannot ...' email from your local school board

I posted the text at table's request, sic.

Every case that used to seek a nationwide injunction will now have to pursue their lawsuit as a class action in order to address the horrific impact of this SCOTUS ruling this morning.

One thing to note is that class action lawsuits generally move slower due to things like class certification. This disgraceful ruling will allow more damage from the Trump regime's unconstitutional orders through delay of judicial intervention. Truly a dark day for democracy and the rule of law
From 2 lawyers on Bluesky

(Alfred - if it’s the “woah” post, that was entirely unclear, sorry)

all good!

If you wanna hear some cathartic venting about today's rulings, Elie Mystal delivers here.

https://www.wnyc.org/story/the-supreme-courts-final-opinions-of-2025

Maybe run against the anti-intellectual Christians who get elected to school boards? This is extreme local stuff and they can be beaten at that level.

Love Elie

Remember when they said, eliminating some college debt was like unconstitutional or something?

Don’t know about you guys but this has me really down today. Trump is already crowing on Truth Social about how his views on birthright citizenship are now vindicated and of course they’re now going to deport citizens.

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/162-what-does-the-birthright-citizenship

Xpost he can claim whatever he wants, but even SCOTUS themselves said that the EO can't go "into effect" for 30 days, and by that, they don't mean "it is legal to implement a policy that violates the 14th amendment and we won't stop it", but just to state that these three cases being sent back to lower courts to figure out doesn't mean that if one or more of them narrows the scope of their injunction, Trump can't immediately turn around and claim "these people are no longer citizens" and start deporting them before anybody can react. (Or, at least, if he tries to do that anyway, this ruling didn't give him that power).

Being that his own press secretary even indirectly stated the merits haven't been decided yet, though, anything they say publicly for now is bluster.

Vladeck seems to think in the end, states will still largely be able *in this case only* to protect birthright citizenship nationally, but that it will be a bumpy ride to do so. SCOTUS themselves have largely signaled this thing will be dead in the water when they decide the merits, but it's more about how to protect the affected in the interim.

For the moment, everyone is still protected as none of the injunctions have yet been narrowed in scope my the lower courts.

The issue though is that for other cases, this replaces an imperfect process that was at least trying to slow an advancing warship with a bunch of ill-defined mechanisms and a "trust me" from the Court.

That a guy as savvy on the workings of the federal and Supreme Courts like Vladeck is looking at this ruling and saying he has no idea how the hell courts and Plaintiffs can consistently seek national relief for flagrantly illegal actions by the White House is the scary part.

It's not that there aren't hypotheticals - he posits them. But the issue is that SCOTUS threw a grenade into a crowded building and said "figure it out", without giving any real hint as to what they themselves will support or oppose.

The chaos is obviously the point. People will give up filing suits entirely or won't succeed in getting class action certification so protection will go to those who can afford it. There's absolutely no way to replicate what the courts were currently doing to ebb the tide of Executuve lawlessness under the new pseudo-guidelines. That much is clear.

Or...at least...currently, it isn't really known how that would work.