Next SCOTUS Session

If it’s October then it is time for SCOTUS to set their session docket…..it will be an interesting session since the American people think the court is doing a lousy job…

A new Quinnipiac University poll indicates that just 37% of Americans approve of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job, the lowest rating registered by the polling firm since they began tracking in 2004.

49% of Americans disapproved, while 13% had no opinion. Predictably, views on the nation’s highest court vary based on party affiliation; 47% of Republicans said they approved of how the court was handling its job, while 40% said they disapproved. 

(business insider)

The court has been a hot bed of political action….it has become a cabal of political hacks….to that accusation Roberts fired back with the court only concerns are judicial not political….

This from a court that was picked by the slime of the Federalist Society…..the court has been remaking society for decades….the court that gave corporations personhood….but it is not political…..

That said here is the new docket (partial docket)…

The Supreme Court has begun a momentous new term, back in the courtroom after a nearly 19-month absence because of the coronavirus pandemic. Eight of the nine justices took the bench at 10am Monday for the first arguments of the new term. Justice Brett Kavanaugh is participating remotely from his home after testing positive for COVID-19 late last week. Mississippi and Tennessee’s dispute over an underground aquifer is among today’s cases, reports the AP, with the court on Monday affirming a lower court ruling that said District of Columbia residents aren’t entitled to voting representation in the House of Representatives. The AP separately looks at the notable cases that will top this term:

  • Abortion. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court’s major decisions over the last half-century that guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion nationwide. Lower courts blocked Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, but a more conservative Supreme Court has agreed to review those rulings. Arguments are Dec. 1.
  • Guns. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen is a case that could expand gun rights in the US and involves the right to carry a firearm in public. The case involves New York’s restrictive gun-permit law. New York state is among six states that limit who has the right to carry a weapon in public. Arguments are Nov. 3.
  • State secrets. United States v. Zubaydah and FBI v. Fazaga are two cases that involve what the government claims are “state secrets.” The first case the court will hear involves a Guantanamo Bay detainee who a lower court said was tortured in CIA custody. He’s seeking information from two former CIA contractors. Arguments are Oct. 6. The other state secrets case involves a group of Muslim residents of California who allege the FBI targeted them for surveillance because of their religion. Arguments are Nov. 8.
  • Boston Marathon bombing. United States v. Tsarnaev is the Biden administration’s effort to have the death sentence reinstated for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Arguments are Oct. 13.
  • Campaign finance. Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate is a challenge by Sen. Ted Cruz to rules about limits on repaying a candidate for federal office who loans his or her campaign money. Cruz made a loan to his campaign above the limit of $250,000 expressly to challenge the law. He won in a lower court. Arguments haven’t been scheduled.

Bold Justice: SCOTUS is back in session!

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/04/1041713663/the-supreme-courts-conservatives-cook-up-a-stew-of-abortion-guns-religion-and-mo

But look at the docket….abortions, gun rights, business, religious rights…..sounds political to me.

Whatcha think?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Scorecard

I have little positive to say about our Supreme Court…..personally I think it is too much an ideological hotbed of ideological stupid.

These ‘people’ are suppose to be the guardians of our republic but they cannot do an accurate job through the lens of party politics.

A recent scorecard of the Court was published of what the American people think of SCOTUS….

What do they think?

Just 49% of Americans approve of the performance of the Supreme Court, down from 58%—a 10-year high—a year ago. That’s according to a Gallup poll conducted from July 6 to 21 and released Wednesday. It brings the court’s first approval rating below 50% since 2017, per CNN. That year, Gallup cited “a wide gap in partisan views of the court,” per the Washington Post. This time, the approval rating was the same among Democrats and Republicans at 51%, but 46% among independents, per USA Today. In previous years, opinions have been more divided. For example, in 2015, when the court upheld the Affordable Care Act and legalized same-sex marriage, 76% of Democrats approved, compared to 18% of Republicans. In 2018, following President Trump’s Supreme Court nominations, 72% of Republicans approved, compared to 38% of Democrats.

The latest rating follows a busy term which saw the court reject a third challenge to the Affordable Care Act, considered a win for Democrats, and uphold Arizona election laws that a lower court had ruled as discriminatory, seen as a victory for Republicans. “The mix of rulings may have helped keep Republicans from viewing the court as a conservative ally, or Democrats from perceiving it as too ideologically extreme,” which would be notable “given that the court now has six justices nominated by Republican presidents compared with three nominated by Democratic presidents,” Gallup said. Some 57% of moderates and 52% of conservatives said they approved of the court, compared to a third of liberals, per the Post. More than 60% of liberals said they disapproved—well above the national disapproval rate of 44%. The margin of error rate is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The Court is there to interpret the Constitution as it pertains to our rights as citizens….not to make policy.

When we allow organizations like the Federalist Society to pick our judges we get a crappy court…a court that makes ruling according to political ideology…the Constitution is only secondary.

If this continues then we will not need the Congress (I have mixed emotions about that thought)

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Mississippi Sets The Stage

My state of Mississippi has the distinction of many things…..we lead the nation on child poverty, one of the most unhealthy of states, most littered state,….on and on…..

Now Mississippi trying to be known as the state that brought down Roe v Wade…..

The Mississippi attorney general on Thursday asked the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, a challenge to the 1973 law that’s been expected since May, when the high court agreed to hear a case involving a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks. Lower courts blocked the law, known as the Gestational Age Act, and the state is appealing, NBC News reports. Attorney General Lynn Fitch said the Roe v. Wade ruling, as well as the other major ruling legalizing abortion in the US, 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were “egregiously wrong.” She said there is an “overwhelming” case to be made for overruling them, CNN reports.

“The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition,” Fitch said in a new brief to the justices. The request is notable, because when Mississippi asked SCOTUS to hear the case, it said doing so did not “require the court to overturn either Roe or Casey.” Politico says this brief “raises the stakes,” but notes that court watchers tend to think the justices are more likely to stop short of overruling Roe, while continuing to allow states to place an increasing number of restrictions on abortions. Axios points out the possibility that President Biden will protect abortion rights via an executive action if Roe is overturned. Oral arguments are expected in late fall or early winter, with a decision possible by June.

With a conservative ideologues on the Court this could well be the death throes of Roe v Wade….

And Mississippi will be the final nail in the coffin of reproductive rights.

I am so proud….(that is sarcasm in case you missed it)

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS–This Is What We Get

One of the more recent opinion offered by the Supreme Court was one that upheld the attempts to suppress the vote (at least in Arizona)……and as usual since I am an opinionated SOB I had something to say on this ruling……

 
Like I stated…this is what we get when we allow an agenda group like the Federalist Society pick our judges.
 
To explain the damage that this situation can implement….

In many ways, the recently completed Supreme Court term was our first comprehensive look at one of the most consequential legacies of the Trump presidency: his imprint on the court. 

Understanding the full impact of former President Donald Trump’s 6-3 conservative supermajority is challenging at this point, though. On the one hand, this term saw the highest share of unanimous rulings in the last three years. On the other hand, the court’s last two major rulings broke down along 6-3 ideological lines. But that seeming inconsistency may have more to do with divisions among the court’s conservatives over how fast to move — not in what direction. Make no mistake, the court is moving in a conservative direction, and the conservative justices are in the driver’s seat.

The Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Is Just Beginning To Flex Its Muscles

The damage that these conservative ideologues can do is almost incalculable….

“The harmful rulings coming out of this court make it critical that Congress pass legislation to protect voting rights and shore up our democracy,” Jealous added. “We also have to build a strategy to reinforce the importance of fair courts and fair-minded judges, so we can counter the decadeslong efforts by the far right to pack our courts, including our Supreme Court, with ultraconservative judges.”

PFAW’s analysis came just a day after a pair of 6-3 SCOTUS rulings on Arizona’s voting restrictions and California’s dark money disclosure rules that led Senate Majority Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to dub Thursday “one of the darkest days in all of the Supreme Court’s history.”

https://www.rawstory.com/gop-supreme-court/

Since the Supreme Court is suppose to be the highest authority in the land for the interpretation of the Constitution and law….what could be next in the fight against this voter suppression attempts?

The decision, though, was a blow to those who believe voting access is more important than rooting out fraud — and that’s most Americans, the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found. Fifty-six percent said making sure that everyone who wants to vote can do so is a bigger concern than making sure that no one who is ineligible votes.

“It very much narrows the path of challenging these many, many voter obstacles that states are instituting across the country,” Debo Adegbile, an anti-discrimination attorney, told NPR’s Nina Totenberg.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/03/1012777226/whats-next-for-voting-rights-after-the-supreme-courts-decision

I say screw SCOTUS!

The fight must go on and using whatever legal tactic one can imagine.

Every American old enough to vote should have easy access to the machinations of voting…..this country should be doing everything possible to see that we all have the right and the easy access to the polls.

Stand for liberty or sit down and STFU!

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Brnovich v DNC

???

WTF, Professor?

If you are scratching your head then let me explain….this is the landmark SCOTUS decision to crap on voting rights……

From the majority opinion….

Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting center” in their county of residence. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16–411(B)(4). Arizonans also may cast an “early ballot” by mail up to 27 days before an election, §§16–541, 16–542(C), and they also may vote in person at an early voting location in each county, §§16–542(A), (E). These cases involve challenges under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to aspects of the State’s regulations governing precinct-based election-day voting and early mail-in voting. First, Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. See §16–122; see also §16–135. If a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted. Second, for Arizonans who vote early by mail, Arizona House Bill 2023 (HB 2023) makes it a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot—either before or after it has been completed. §§16–1005(H)–(I).

Justice Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion and in doing so gives the court a much needed civics lesson…..

If a single statute represents the best of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. It marries two great ideals: democracy and racial equality. And it dedicates our country to carrying them out. Section 2, the provision at issue here, guarantees that members of every racial group will have equal voting opportunities. Citizens of every race will have the same shot to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. They will all own our democracy together—no one more and no one less than any other.

Her opinion is lengthy but is much needed for the voter to know what just happened in SCOTUS…..

Slowly but slowly we are losing the battle of having a voice in this government…..and illustrates what we get when we let some outside ultra-conservative group pick our judges for us.

Time for a change in SCOTUS and in the country…..we can no longer depend on the Court to have our backs from assaults on our rights as Americans.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Change For SCOTUS?

The referee of this republic is the Supreme Court…..they interpret and set laws for the nation. As it is today it is where ideologues go to push a certain set of principles….no longer are these 9 judges an independent and impartial umpire for the laws of this country.

There has been a movement for the expansion of the court from 9 judges to 13. The Dems are offering up this bill…but will it ever see the light of day?

President Biden signed an executive order to set up a commission dedicated to studying possible reforms to the Supreme Court, including an increase in the number of justices on the bench. Congressional Democrats, however, aren’t waiting for the results of the panel’s report due out in six months, instead moving to introduce legislation Thursday on expansion of the court. The bill, led by Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Jerry Nadler, proposes upping the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13—a move that can only be carried out via an act of Congress. The legislation is a reaction to what NBC News calls “an undercurrent of progressive fury” after then-President Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March 2016 to fill Antonin Scalia’s spot after the latter had died, and Mitch McConnell, then the GOP Senate majority leader, denied a vote on Garland.

McConnell’s reasoning: It was an election year, and he felt the incoming president should be the one to fill Scalia’s slot, which Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch eventually took. Democrats’ anger was further stoked when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September and the GOP swept Amy Coney Barrett onto the bench just days before the 2020 election. “This bill marks a new era where Democrats finally stop conceding the Supreme Court to Republicans,” political activist Brian Fallon says, per NBC News. The Intercept notes that the number of seats on the court bounced around earlier on in US history, going up to 10 before falling back to nine in 1869, where it’s stayed since. NBC and Vox note the bill is unlikely to become law in the near future, with the GOP pushing back hard against it as a radical move. Biden himself has wavered on fully supporting such an expansion, though he hopes to receive some clarity from his newly formed commission.

Personally I do not see how the rise to 13 would change anything at all on the court.  And yes I have an idea on this as well and I let my thoughts be known here on IST……https://lobotero.com/2020/09/25/i-have-lots-to-say-about-scotus/

But none of these changes will occur,,,,the Senate will make sure that nothing is done to change the make-up of the Supreme Court.

While change needs to happen with SCOTUS but this bill will not change anything but the number of judges…..the partisan BS will continue.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–25Feb21

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the referee in our political system…..unbiased opinions based on the facts and the Constitution……so when a justice helps propagate a lie then the whole system is in danger.

What am I talking about?

Something that a long standing SCOTUS associate said recently…..

While it may not have been a complete surprise that Clarence Thomas dissented from his more liberal colleagues in a Supreme Court election case on Monday, what is causing some head whips is his apparently firm support for former President Trump’s debunked claims of election fraud. The case the high court declined to hear came out of Pennsylvania, where Republicans challenged an extension to the deadline for mail-in ballots due to the pandemic. Thomas, along with Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, disagreed with their colleagues’ decision to turn the case away, with Thomas arguing that even though the number of affected mail-in ballots wouldn’t have turned the election in Trump’s favor, the Supreme Court still should have addressed the underlying legal questions in case future votes see a narrower gap. His reasoning, however, as laid out in a 11-page dissent, relied partly on baseless fraud claims pushed by Trump and his allies, reports USA Today.

Thomas’ argument, which mentions “fraud” 10 times, per CNN: that even though rampant fraud wasn’t evident in the Pennsylvania case, mail-in ballots are especially vulnerable, and “an election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence.” He also quoted a New York Times article calling fraud risk “vastly more prevalent” for mail-in ballots than during in-person voting—the same article said “fraud in voting by mail is far less common than innocent errors”—and mentioned “the high degree of subjective judgment” in tallying ballots. Alito and Gorsuch’s dissent didn’t bring up fraud. Per Slate, voter fraud with mail-in ballots is “vanishingly rare.” CNN notes that Thomas’ wife, Virginia Thomas, has also pushed the fraud narrative. Prominent Democrats are pushing back, and a UC-Irvine election law expert suggests Thomas shouldn’t even have addressed it, telling USA Today it’s an issue “wholly divorced from the actual legal question in the case.”

There has been NO evidence of widespread voter fraud and yet Thomas helps spread a lie…..does not bode well for the independence of the Supreme Court.

The Court has become too partisan to be a true “referee’ in the working of the government and nation.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Could SCOTUS Screw The Poor?

The final word in this society, that is before Trump, was the Supreme Court….and it has before it now a case that they could screw the poor our of their health care…..

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear a pair of consolidated casesAzar v. Gresham and Arkansas v. Gresham — both of which concern whether the state of Arkansas may require Medicaid recipients to either work or take certain steps to find a job, or else lose their health benefits.

Arkansas, with the Trump administration’s approval, implemented a program called “Arkansas Works,” which requires Medicaid beneficiaries between the ages of 19 and 49 to “work or engage in specified educational, job training, or job search activities for at least 80 hours per month,” and to document that they’ve engaged in these activities.

The ostensible purpose of Arkansas Works is fairly straightforward. If Medicaid beneficiaries risk losing health care if they aren’t also employed, then they have additional incentive to find work. In approving Arkansas’s request to add a work requirement to its Medicaid program, the Trump administration claimed that this requirement would “encourage beneficiaries to obtain and maintain employment or undertake other community engagement activities that research has shown to be correlated with improved health and wellness.”

https://www.vox.com/2020/12/8/22158659/supreme-court-medicaid-work-requirements-azar-arkansas-gresham-obamacare-health

Forced to work during a pandemic where jobs are few and far between….really?  Is this what this country has become?

This might no interest most people but keep in mind that if this case is successful and the poor loses their access of health care….how long before they come for yours.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS: A Future Battle

All the noise around the newest attempt to pack the court with conservs to lead the fight on rights looks certain to move forward……(but the GOP is not packing the courts)…..

Then there has been noise about a Biden attempt to make the Supreme Court more in-line with typical America (whatever that is)……

Biden has said what Dems always say…..he will appoint a commission to study reform…..that means that they will drag their feet and accomplish NOTHING….as usual.

In an interview airing Sunday on “60 Minutes,” Biden told O’Donnell that if elected he would put together a bipartisan group to provide recommendations within 180 days on how his administration should work to reform the U.S. court system.

“If elected, what I will do is I’ll put together a national commission of, a bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal, conservative. And I will … ask them to over 180 days come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack … the way in which it’s being handled,”

(thehill.com)

The House Dems have offered up a bill that I covered recently…..https://lobotero.com/2020/09/28/to-make-scotus-better/

Looks like law experts have jumped on the Dems bandwagon…..

Over two dozen constitutional law experts on Friday endorsed legislation recently introduced by a trio of House Democrats that would establish 18-year term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

The endorsement letter (pdf) signed by professors and scholars across the country, along with a former U.S. senator and a former chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court, comes as the Senate GOP is trying to confirm right-wing Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third nominee to the high court, before the November general election.

The ongoing political battle over the Supreme Court vacancy that resulted from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has elevated discussions and proposals to reform the high court. The term limits bill (pdf) was unveiled last month by Reps. Khanna (D-Calif.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), and Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.).

“We can’t face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court,” Khanna said while announcing the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act (H.R. 8424), which would allow presidents to nominate two new appointees per four-year term.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/23/constitutional-law-experts-endorse-democrats-bill-create-18-year-term-limits-supreme

I like this proposal.

I do not think that partisan agents like Federalist Society should be consulted on judge nominations……NO political partisan group should have anything to say on nominations other than op-eds in support or opposition.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read I Write You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Bullsh*t

Surprise this Barrett woman has been confirmed and once again the court has a full compliment of justices.

In what the AP calls the culmination of a decadeslong coordinated effort by a constellation of conservative groups, fueled by tens of millions of dollars from wealthy anonymous donors, to tilt the high court farther to the right, Amy Coney Barrett was on Monday night sworn onto the Supreme Court. Hours after the Senate confirmed her, Justice Clarence Thomas administered the Constitutional Oath to Barrett before a crowd of about 200 gathered for a celebratory event on the South Lawn of the White House, the AP reports. “This is a momentous day for America,” President Trump declared at the event. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had earlier told senators they should be proud, noting that those who opposed Barrett “won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

For her part, Barrett declared that “it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences” and promised to “do my job without any fear or favor.” She is expected to take the judicial oath administered by Chief Justice John Roberts in a private ceremony Tuesday at the court to begin participating in proceedings. Trump has made it a priority to appoint conservative judges who appeal to white Christian evangelicals. “We’ll appoint more conservative judges and justices,” he promised a month before Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. “We will protect religious liberty, defend the lives of the unborn, uphold free speech and safeguard the Second Amendment and your right to keep and bear arms. So important, right?” The AP has more on the mysterious millions behind the push to get Barrett on the court

Her disingenuous words were stunning….. Barrett declared that “it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences” and promised to “do my job without any fear or favor.” 

The four cases below will likely help us gain an understanding of whether Barrett is a right-wing outlier, even within an increasingly conservative federal judiciary. The votes she casts in these cases, and the specific legal arguments that she signs onto, may show us just how hostile the Court’s newest member is to democracy, and whether she’s willing to embrace deeply radical legal arguments that undermine progressive policy or punish interest groups aligned with the Democratic Party.

To be sure, Democrats should not necessarily heave a sigh of relief even if Barrett rejects the conservative position in each of these lawsuits. These four cases represent some of the most extreme arguments before the Court, and there are others that could well be revelatory. How Barrett rules on them should offer a window into just how radical the newest justice is likely to be.

https://www.vox.com/21525343/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-obamacare-pennsylvania-voting-rights-census-unions

If that lie were true then she would not be high on the list of judges for the Federalist Society….she will help bring about the much desired conservative agenda and kill as many policies as possible.

Just my thought on this attack on rights of ALL Americans…..

Time for reform within SCOTUS….we can only hope the reforms will come soon.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”