SCOTUS Watch

Trump Ballroom 

I wrote about Monday's order allowing Trump to continue to break the law. I apologize; that is much too vague. It is about the ballroom. 

Roberts and the liberals dissented. Yes. He has done a lot wrong. A few moments don't take him off the hook. But credit where credit is due, and all that.

Court Expansion

House Republicans, who plan to mostly hide out until November, had a message vote against court expansion. More specifically, on an amendment setting the number of justices at nine. 

Two people voted differently than their party, and one is an asterisk. The Republican recently labeled himself an "independent" while still voting with Republicans. 

This sounds like another token way to pretend he is not a Trump bootlicker or something. I don't know why the Democrat voted that way. I won't check. I assume he represents a reddish district. 

It's stupid either way. If you don't like court expansion, which is far from being a thing (one key Democrat said in an interview he is now open to it; okay), don't vote for it. 

The number of justices has changed over time, between 5 and 10 justices. Federalists added a court of appeals, which would have ended circuit riding. The next vacancy would not be filled, resulting in five justices. The law was changed before that happened. 

It is a bad idea to set minutiae in stone in the Constitution. We should allow flexibility. 

I am wary of the 25th Amendment. The concern there is that it was so sensitive; the process for removing a president should be clearly in place. Again, I question if even that was a good idea. It is just too specific. 

Court expansion talk is itself partially a message. If court expansion is even open to the realm of possibility, a lot of other things should be possible. 

The link flags that a key Democrat has now made supportive noises. That's notable. But this seems more a reaction to DSA support of the idea. 

Republicans want to tar Democrats as akin to the most doctrinaire DSA type while the House Speaker pretends not to know most of what Trump is doing. 

Order List

The last scheduled summer order list had the usual housekeeping measures, involving pending cases, rehearings denied, and attorney discipline. Barrett didn't take part (without saying why) in one case. 

The most notable thing, apparently, is what they did not decide. There is a pending case involving New York health workers who were not satisfied with the vaccine exemption process. 

Justices Gorsuch (who wrote one or more opinions on it), Alito, and Thomas have been concerned about this issue. The other conservatives avoided it. 

Election Case

The Supreme Court, with only Jackson briefly dissenting (with no heat), granted a stay in an election case. Rick Hasen briefly summarizes. 

Steve Vladeck on Bluesky notes Jackson has the better argument, but that the case isn't too important. That would help explain why Sotomayor and Kagan didn't join. Since Republicans are involved, some knee-jerk replies figured the fix was in.

It is good that the justices deigned to explain themselves. They are doing that more lately.

Five Years Later ...

Five years ago, Dobbs was foreshadowed when the Supreme Court (short unsigned opinion) left in place a six-week abortion ban. Roberts and the liberals, in varying degrees, dissented. 

Florida Executes/Euthanizes Harold Gene Lucas

Fifty years ago. Lucas, then 24, murdered his former girlfriend, then 16, and wounded two of her friends.

Florida has gotten around to executing him for the crime, much too late (see, Breyer, dissenting). He had no final appeal, old and tired. 

The whole thing was extended because of multiple appeals, flagging procedural concerns. It was a crime of passion. Not a "worst of the worst" case. It warranted a long prison sentence. 

Sheena

 

Sheena has been on film and television in various forms. 

There was a 1950s series and a 1980s film (both silly, and the film is a tad bit sexist). MeTV+ airs one series early Sunday. Nice on the eyes (Baywatch babe). Not bad as somewhat silly entertainment. 

Tubi has all three. These days, such white Tarzan figures are a bit outdated. The 2000 version could get pretty violent. 

Lost Child

 

After rereading The Sunflower Forest, I checked out this much more recent true account. The author has many books about the very troubled children she counseled over the years. 

It is well written. I did find it basically falling into a holding pattern. Suddenly, in the last quarter or so of the book, a "really? didn't expect that" key turning point (her sister abused her). 

The girl, around 10, caused a lot of trouble. But she was still only a girl. And in a lot of pain. The events took place some time ago (you can tell because the author is old and here she has a young child), so we know things (appeared to) worked out okay for her. 

SCOTUS Reform

Lyle Denniston, the 95-year-old former SCOTUSBlog reporter, conveniently lists possible Supreme Court reforms. They are not comprehensive. 

(He frames it as "changing" the Court.) 

For instance, they can reform qualified immunity or address national injunctions. If you wish to count them as court reforms. But he does generally cover the gambit.

The No King's Act or an amendment doing that also can be tossed in. Ditto something about abortion or some other major "mistake" of the current Supreme Court. These are basically Court reforms. 

We can expand the Court and/or (the first shouldn't foreclose the second) have term limits. Term limits, realistically, require a constitutional amendment. They probably do constitutionally. Also, realistically, it will be hard to pass legislatively since many moderates will think so. 

I have talked about expansion. I respect the demand, though I'm wary about it. I doubt it will happen. If it does happen, we should also have the ability to do many other things. 

Term limits should have broad support. Enough? 

Well, push other reforms; maybe there will be more support for it to be a compromise. It's time for some amendments.

Take away some of the Court’s power to decide specific categories of cases.  The Constitution says that Congress has some power to impose such limits, but how much may depend upon whether the Court would strike down any such measure as an unconstitutional interference with its independence, which the Court vigorously defends.

They can also require the Supreme Court to take more cases. That might not be ideal, though some people do want them to do that. Another approach is to channel certain cases to a particular circuit (D.C. leans liberal) or reduce the power of single judges somehow. 

He also notes Congress can require a supermajority before a law can be declared unconstitutional. I'm not honestly sure about the constitutionality of that approach. Ohio used to have that (see the opinion below in Mapp v. Ohio). 

The Court can be required to explain itself in the shadow docket. That can include providing the votes on certain orders or other actions. I think that might be gamed somehow, such as having one go around and the final on the record vote will largely be unanimous.  

The last three are the most likely. They can "fast track" responses to Court rulings. They can (and very well should) have binding ethics legislation. And they can (the current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee supports this) require video. 

If the Democrats do win control of one or both houses, they should significantly focus on the Supreme Court, including investigations and fact-finding. That includes hearings about specific cases and issues.

Prof. Melissa Murray, a co-host of the Strict Scrutiny Podcast, took part in a pre-Dobbs hearing about abortion access. This is the sort of thing we need. 

Some people are PASSIONATE that we need court expansion. Well, I doubt it will happen. But okay.

But there is other stuff to do. 

Esther's Army

 

I write about a book concerning conservative women here.