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.

NEW at SCOTUS: Court rules 7-2 that ghost guns can be regulated by the ATF as firearms. Alito and Thomas dissent

lol those two are cool with people making guns in their basement

Other justices made comparisons to cooking. Justice Alito appeared to push back on the idea that the gun kits could count as firearms. He made an analogy to cooking an omelet in his questions to the government’s lawyer.

As in, when do the components of a gun actually become a firearm?

“If I show you — I put out on a counter some eggs, some chopped-up ham, some chopped-up pepper and onions, is that a Western omelet?” Justice Alito asked.

You can't make a Western omelet without breaking some skulls.

Submit a script called "Ghost Gun" involving Sam Alito- but make it really funny.

Is it even really a gun before you kill someone with it?

it's political correctness gone mad is what it is

i am not shinzo abe

https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3llzb5ba6u22j

In its unsigned order, the Supreme Court says the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to order the payout of money under the APA. That is a VERY ominous holding, because many successful lawsuits against Trump have involved states and organizations demanding payments they were lawfully owed

By a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court HALTS a district court order requiring the Education Department to pay out more than 100 grants to public schools and universities that the Trump administration canceled.

Roberts and the three liberals dissent.

Justice Robert’s most recent decisions read like he’s an assistant US attorney trying to help the Trump Justice department

Pretty accurate description of his role

Why they fuck are they even hearing arguments on both right citizenship? This is fucked

Birth*

Because they want to end it?

Service equals citizenship

they're technically not hearing arguments on birthright citizenship, because that's unambiguous, and Roberts/Coney Barrett would join the liberals in affirming that based on their histories. Trump admin has actually challenged the ability for circuit court/district judges to be able to issue nationwide restraining orders/injunctions. SCOTUS has had the ability to issue rulings on this in the past, and has punted multiple times without resolving the issue.

because they know that's a non-starter, the White House is trying to backdoor their way in by saying "hey, the judge who issued a nationwide injunction against my birthright citizenship executive order should only be allowed to give directives for the parties in the case and not the entire country", hoping that SCOTUS *would* be more amenable to that, and laying groundwork for them to do their illegal deeds and have judges only able to block them in their own districts/states, which would force plaintiffs to file lawsuits in 50 separate states to block something nationwide.

i'm done predicting things anymore, but one lawyer on Bluesky pointed out this would have effects such as having someone's citizenship status change from state to state - this specific context makes the most valid argument for judges being able to issue nationwide injunctions! hoping the fact that no temporary stay was offered is at least a sign that they're not taking it seriously, but...really there is no actual reason to have a hearing over this in the context that it is in, rather than just not taking it up.

just exhausting.

The Justice Department argues that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.

The administration instead wants the justices to allow Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration says that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.

As a further fallback, the administration asked “at a minimum” to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.

However, while the emergency appeal is not directly focused on the validity of the order, the justices probably will find it hard to avoid that underlying issue.

If the court is inclined to agree with the administration, it risks creating a confusing patchwork of rules in which the state in which a child is born could determine whether citizenship is granted automatically.

Several justices have raised concerns in the past about nationwide, or universal, injunctions, but the court has never ruled on the matter.

The administration made a similar argument in Trump’s first term, including in the Supreme Court fight over his ban on travel to the U.S. from several Muslim majority countries.

The court eventually upheld Trump’s policy, but did not take up the issue of nationwide injunctions.

What this case really boils down to is Injunctions TS: They’re Bad / They’re Nationwide

And with all due respect to SCOTUS I think we should let ZZ Top decide

That rhymed

Letting Federal lower court judges issue nationwide injunctions makes far more rational sense than restricting their effect to a single district. After all, the judges are ruling on issues of federal law which apply nationwide. Injunctions can always be appealed to the next level for a stay. When there are competing and incompatible injunctions, issued from multiple judges in multiple Circuits, it's a problem, but those can be sorted out case-by-case as they arise.

the idea of federal injunctions being local to the district court is absurd given the 200+ years of usa jurisprudence imo, but in vibes based jurisprudence law is what is expedient to your goals

The issue of lower court judged issuing nationwide injunctions/TROs is a valid concern given what it almost did to mifepristone in 2023.

But that operates under the presumption that the Executive Branch isn't intentionally breaking the law 750 times a week and then half-complying at best.

Obv destabilization is their goal. But requiring everything to go to SCOTUS to have a ruling apply broadly would take away the last remaining protective arm against this nonsense which is of course why they're doing it.

I suspect based on last night's rebuke, nationwide injunctions will be allowed in the birthright citizenship case even at lower court's, but they'll either punt again on future use decisions or narrow how they can be used.

Perhaps saying when something is enshrined verbatim in the Constitution with case law judges can do what they're doing , but novel rulings on whether a new law is unconstitutional must be localized decisions. Which I don't like but I feel like they're gonna make shit complicated

The District Court nationwide injunction is a double-edge sword. During the Biden Administration, there were numerous nationwide injunctions by District Court judges in the 5th Circuit that wrecked havoc. Having them now does help gum up the works a little, but getting rid of them might be better long term (if there is one).

Better to get rid of the District Court judges in the 5th Circuit.

Thread:

https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3ln7pujkzhs2o

Alito believes Govt. citing Ensign's 6:25 pm Fri representation before the break during which Ensign spoke to his client and then came back and said at 7:25 pm they would NOT COMMIT to no flights on Saturday and would be within their rights to send them -- which Alito omits.

As noted in bluesky thread Alito whines about procedure and gets facts wrong about both procedure and the facts of the case, and is always willing to only cut slack for Trump admin.

bad faith, irreparable harm, and why it is not a big thing by sammy shitforbrains

I've got to wonder what the other justices who have to work closely with alito and thomas think of their legal knowledge, reasoning ability, character, and personality.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Roberts, and Coney Barrett frequently if not always vote with Alito and Thomas despite whatever qualms they may have regarding those 2.

Slate law reporter Mark Joseph Stern just described 2 cases that are coming to the Supreme Court to be argued. Many are not optimistic that enough of the conservative justices will side with the 3 liberal ones on these 2 cases.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a major First Amendment case that could give religious parents a right to censor LGBTQ+ materials in public schools. Just eight days later, the court will hear Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, another massive religious freedom case that asks whether Oklahoma is constitutionally required to approve and fund a Catholic academy run by the church itself. Together, these two cases could give religious groups and individuals immense new powers of control over public education in America, bulldozing what remains of the separation of church and state in the process.

we always talk about freedom of religion, where's the freedom from religion

Summaries of yesterday's oral arguments suggest conservative justices will let religious parents opt out. I did read elsewhere that the MD County lets folks opt out of Halloween events and other things, so some are saying why not let them opt out of this too, although lesson involving lgtbq+ was meant to teach tolerance.

this was just issued also

The Supreme Court will NOT block a 6th Circuit decision ordering Ohio to place a measure on the ballot that would abolish qualified immunity for state officers. Ohio officials tried to kill it by falsely claiming its summary was misleading.

Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh note their dissents.

That's from Stern of Slate's Bluesky

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-future-of-scotusblog/?_ptid=%7Bkpdx%7DAAAAycFTh0PycwoKbGtjVUlwd3NwdRIQbTl1YmtpZnR5eWl1d2dpNhoMRVhDOFhXVFkxNUVGIiUxODA4c2dnMGMwLTAwMDAzNWo0MzM3NGY0bmcyNzNuaWYzb2QwKhlzaG93VGVtcGxhdGVIQUhFUkFVM0sxMzA2MAE6DE9UUFpZSUVLOU0wNVISdi10APAyZzA0ODNubDJna1omMjYwMToxNTI6NGM4NDozYjQwOmMwM2Q6YmE1ZjozOTRiOjc2ODJiA2R3Y2ilnqrABnACeAQ

New ownership for SCOTUS Blog

The Dispatch twitter bio says : Independent voices and reporting from the center - right

Ugh

Michael Rothman, the president of The Dispatch, has said that the company hopes to become “the definitive source for legal news and analysis in the United States.”

I'd much prefer accurate and insightful. Definitive just means that you set the terms of the discourse.

The Dispatch is our old friend Jonah Goldberg. It’s kind of the also-ran Never Trump outlet after the Bulwark.

The issue of lower court judged issuing nationwide injunctions/TROs is a valid concern given what it almost did to mifepristone in 2023.

absolutely not imo. if a law or order is unconstitutional it is thus everywhere. appeals courts can grant an immediate stay if the merits are there

Agree with that part. Unconstitutional laws require nationwide enforcement.

Was talking more about things like when the 5th circuit temporarily issued nationwide ruling making mifepristone illegal through a perverted court interpretation.

It never actually went into effect due to appeals and higher court rulings, but that is the usage that begs concern.

But definitely, illegal orders shouldn't require 50 different states/94 districts to each file their own challenges, which is of course what Trump wants.

(It technically didn't make mifepristone illegal, just stated the FDA approval process was improper, but that was no less fucked)

New ownership for SCOTUS Blog

― curmudgeon, Wednesday, April 23, 2025 3:22 PM (yesterday)

unfortunately their previous source of funding (degen gambler philandering husband) is probably going to jail for a long time

This popped up in an IG story from someone I follow-

JOIN THE NATIONAL LAW DAY OF ACTION IN WASHINGTON, DC

Thursday, May 1, 2025 at 12:00 PM
Supreme Court of the United States

As our nation's capital and home to the highest court in the land, Washington DC's demonstration carries special significance. Stand with fellow attorneys, judges, and concerned citizens on the steps of the Supreme Court in a powerful visual representation of our commitment to the rule of law.

Steve Vladeck, legal news commenter on bluesky:

In Wilcox (the Trump emergency application about whether he can fire without cause members of the NLRB and MSPB), Chief Justice Roberts's "administrative stay" (allowing Trump to fire them) has now been in place for *19 days.*

That's quite a long time for what's supposed to be a temporary order...

Mark Joseph Stern in part on Bluesky re Supreme Court arguments this morning--

Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh all sound furious that Oklahoma doesn't want to funnel taxpayer dollars away from secular schools toward a Catholic school. They deride the state's decision as anti-religious discrimination that violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause.

Another Bluesky account post

So the MAGA justices (5 of whom attended Catholic schools) are about to score a twofer: demolishing public education + further weakening the Establishment Clause (the foundation of our secular democracy) by continuing to reframe the separation of church and state as a threat to "religious freedom."

Note - Coney Barrett actually recused from the case due to her friendship with Catholic school folks involved

a recusal on a hot issue? damn that's genuinely refreshing. ofc, when there are six conservative justices, they can play tag team at acting ethically

A 4 to 4 tie here would preserve the status quo, but it looks like the 5 remaining conservative justices are going to toss out the establishment clause