SCOTUS Watch

[Order Day Entry expanded.]

The Supreme Court dropped an order (and later had an oral argument about a water dispute) list as the Merrick Garland (AG) hearing started. Garland, with questioning from two of the new Dems including Sen. Ossoff from Georgia, aced his questioning. He's a great choice. Republicans trolled, but many of them probably will vote for Garland too.

The Order List closed the book on many Trump election disputes (I see Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; saw Arizona mentioned) though three conservatives would have taken the Pennsylvania case (a bit less stupid), which they might take eventually [beware] in a non-Trump case. Thomas' dissent is troubling. Various odds and ends, including Sotomayor being recused for some reason in a relist denial. We should get recusal clarity. They (for now, unless something new is used) disposed of the latest delay of Trump financials in New York.

SCOTUS also took a few cases though two involve federal polices (public charge and stronger limits on funding of reproductive health services) that the Biden White House might change. It also sent back a qualified immunity case, which might be a promising flag of at least limited concern about its overuse. Finally, among the denials was one by Stormy Daniels trying to get her libel suit back active, raising a technical dispute. 

===

The one opinion released during the week (another Opinion Day scheduled next week) was summarized by SCOTUSBlog thusly: "A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday issued a limited ruling on the Federal Tort Claims Act’s judgment bar."  Sotomayor added a concurrence of a few pages as she sometimes does to argue the opinion wasn't that broad. It ultimately comes off as a limited loss in regards to attempts to gain justice for governmental abuses.  Thus far, three justices have two opinions each, three members (including two of the Trumps) have no opinion.  And, we have multiple unsigned opinions.

One of the oral arguments held this week had some problems audio-wise, the Supreme Court refusing to join many other courts here and abroad that manage video. We will have more telephonic arguments next month. I'm starting to find them a bit tedious, the back/forth of the old system helping freshen it up some.  Meanwhile, after an earlier hearing on the "shadow docket," the House had one on expanding the lower courts. All were open to the idea though Republicans want to wait until 2025 (nah).  

ETA: Another late Friday (around 9PM) order dropped by the Supreme Court, splitting 6-3, applying recent (unexplained) similarly split order regarding California Big V regulation involving churches (and other stuff).  It is "clearly dictated" that relief not provided by the lower court be provided.  Not really, since the last ruling didn't actually provide a clear five justice (member) opinion, but whatvs.  Amy Howe summary here.  

Basic point here is that the government said it would change its policy NEXT WEEK, but the Supreme Court feels compelled to overrule the lower court late Friday ("throw out the trash day" clearly now applies to them too) and not actually say why.  I don't buy Prof. Eric Segall's (nice guy who engages with me on Twitter and on Dorf on Law) "not a court" line about the Supreme Court, especially since he doesn't actually fully show his work on how it is not one as compared to others. 

But, a "court" should have certain basic aspects and showing its work openly, especially when it is overturning past precedent, is part of it.  Courts, like legislatures (see confirmation of multiple "justices") and executives (Trump highlights this), can fail at their basic responsibilities. They can not really act "like a court" should.  All will to some degree and some argue (including in this context) the Supreme Court has done in broad strokes in various ways.  Sometimes, it's pretty blatant.