SCOTUS Watch: Final Orders

The Supreme Court had its "clean-up conference" and released some final orders, grants, and statements/dissents.

The first link (relist watch) is a helpful way to cross-check the four grants. We have e-cigarette regulations, the standard to use when testing an Internet age requirement, First Step sentencing issue (two cases), and this fascinating issue:

When a noncitizen’s voluntary departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart? 

The final order list before summer break also allows the justices to say some stuff about cases they did not take. Sotomayor and Thomas are the most vocal with Jackson (Sotomayor going along) having one. Kagan joined one involving life without parole for teens. 

Alito dissented without an opinion regarding taking a case involving "assault weapons." Alito has less than an average amount of opinions this term. It is quite possible that he lost two cases in the writing. 

Among the issues, Sotomayor has a statement regarding the dangers of faulty science being used to prosecute cases. A statement allows a justice to voice concerns or explain their stance while not dissenting from the Court not taking a case for full review.  

(Texas recently scheduled an execution arising out of a conviction that might be based on faulty science.)

So, the Supreme Court goes on vacation, the only official thing scheduled being three summer order lists to deal with stuff:

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 22; Monday, August 19; and Friday, September 6, 2024. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

Responses

AOC announced that when the House returns from its own recess she will have an impeachment resolution for the justices. I do not know the exact form this will take. Nonetheless, it is a helpful way to keep the issues alive. 

The Supreme Court should be an election issue. Such "theater" (as one response handwaved) is politics. 

President Biden also had a brief statement, which he made himself to the press, in response to the Trump immunity case. He reminded people of what happened on 1/6. He said that there should be a trial before the election but the Supreme Court (wrongly) made that very unlikely.  

Biden reaffirmed the principle (7/2/1776 is the day independence was declared) that we do not have a king. He agreed with Sotomayor's dissent, including the importance of dissenting from the majority opinion. 

The bottom line is that it is up to us:

Perhaps most importantly, the American people must decide if they want to entrust the president — once again, the presidency to Donald Trump, now knowing he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.

President Biden looked energetic though when he walked away he looked a bit more frail. I think it was a good statement. A few were annoyed that he voiced restraint after the Supreme Court allegedly gave the president carte blanche. They didn't do that. Would they just let Biden do whatevs? 

We don't want a "good dictator." The people in 2020 showed that they wanted a person of character. Biden was correct to contrast himself with Trump on that issue. And, contra some comments I saw, it was not the time to bring up other things such as Hunter Biden or the debate. The statement is fine. 

The ruling was bad. It stripped Jack Smith of the ability to bring certain charges and made it harder to bring others:

It ruled that Trump is absolutely immune, and thus cannot be prosecuted, for any attempts he made to get his Justice Department to do sham investigations in order to show that the 2020 election was conducted illegally – the “big lie” that Trump and his allies have pressed since that election and that got him in legal trouble. Those dealings with the Justice Department were the only ones ruled by the Court to be totally protected from prosecution.

It decided that Trump has a tentative form of “presumed” immunity (which prosecutors can try to overcome) by attempting in January 2021 to persuade his Vice President, Mike Pence, to stop the counting of Electoral College votes that made Joe Biden the winner of the Presidency.

Again, certain types of evidence are also withheld from the prosecutor's toolkit. And, just what this will wrought is unclear. We are assured, for instance, that the Georgia case will largely be unaffected. To be determined! 

President Biden's statement is a relatively rare direct statement about the Supreme Court itself. This election is among other things about the federal courts. 

We are not just talking about nominations and confirmations. We are talking about oversight, reforms, and passing legislation to address decisions. For instance, yesterday's agency decision allowing more challenges can be addressed via legislation. 

Heather Cox Richardson in her Facebook chat about the Trump immunity opinion (Substack here) suggests everyone do their part depending on their strengths. One of mine is to provide analysis and details. An informed public is essential. One person complimented a comment of mine as "lapidary." I like that.  

Amee Vanderpool:

We need to reform the US Supreme Court by adding more judges to the bench and rotating the docket. This is a simple idea for a not so simple fix that will require a Constitutional Amendment at a time when we will be lucky to have a slim majority. This means we will have to elect Democrats, in mighty numbers, who are willing to pursue court reform, to do the job. Sadly, based on the political history of our country and the basic nature of human behavior, it will likely take even more to push the dial back to center. Buckle up, this is just the beginning of a very long road to reform.

I do not agree with defeatist people, including talking about the "end of democracy." There is a certain degree of privilege in such comments. How did African Americans think about that issue a hundred years ago?  

AV thinks yesterday's decision will help voters choose correctly in November. As we get ready to celebrate the Fourth of July (sit down, John!), let us remember our nation's values, and how people gave blood, sweat, and tears (not necessarily in that order) to fight and defend them.  

ETA: The latest news is that the sentencing in the NY case is now delayed until September to examine how the immunity case applies. Total bullshit but again don't tell me how the Georgia trial won't be affected. At least for Trump, very well will be. Ditto for any Trump officials involved.