Summer SCOTUS Watch

I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that.

As noted, earlier this month, there was news that RBG was in the hospital. There was some noises that her condition was particularly troubling (she's 87, what isn't?), but who is to know? Then, there was a new report (RBG is open about her condition, but again, who is to know if she is completely so) that actually she (again) is getting cancer treatments. Be well. 

Me personally, whatever her statement here, at this point, if she actually resigns before the new Congress is in session [even the the Dems don't gain control, which would be bad, it is still likely it will be even a nearer miss], it better be by default [to be blunt -- her being dead].  The only thing to do here is to just wait and not have anything horrible happen. The goal here is to get Biden in there so he can replace her with a black woman nominee.  As to noises by Republicans that if a vacancy did arise, surely they would confirm, yeah assholes. And, that would warrant at least one (maybe more) additions to SCOTUS.  Some think "packing" the court is just mandatory. I'm far from convinced.  If that happened?  Yes. 

This brought back the usual talk that she should have resigned during the Obama Administration (with less time than others, with Stevens going until 90 and just making her the head of the liberal wing) with the "and Breyer" too added enough that it wasn't just some sexist thing.  I won't cover that ground again, but will note that at this point fixed terms make sense to me. And, for those who do not serve the whole term, I would have a default person from their circuit fill in the rest. This will help avoid gaming the system or unfair advantage.  Anyway, just recall there is a bill pending that would further ethics and openness. 

===

The week did seem to be one where we would finally have a break from the drama, after the final cases and the "death watch" week.  And, I said so on Twitter late afternoon or early evening (as an aside, the Mets started their season with an afternoon win in normal fashion -- DeGrom and the pen pitched a gem & Cespedes came back to hit a solo homer, if as a DH).  Silly boy.  The Supremes had one more thing for us -- another 5-4 rejection of a request to stop religious restrictions, in time for weekend services.

Thus, the felt need to have a late Friday order with twenty-four pages of dissents this time.  The majority (Roberts + liberals) said nothing.  This was wrong even if there was a felt belief the previous opinion by Roberts (again, only for himself, so what of the other four?) in a comparable case settled it.  We are left with the lower court opinion, in part arguing that casinos actually are not being treated better here.  I am inclined to think that especially with the higher requirement that needs to be met to overrule the district court now that the Supreme Court was correct here. Roberts is consistent in his hands off Big V decisions. The other conservatives suddenly (Alito upset, Gorsuch thinks it is obvious, Kavanaugh "respectfully" adds his .02) are concerned here.

There is some belief here that the special interests in Nevada won out here, but the early case didn't have that.  It just might be that church services are different, not only because of singing and interpersonal behavior but because churches are less regulated in the first place. So, the government is less able to intrusively check on them.  And, there was at least one case where a religious service was the source of a major outbreak.  Anyway, for Roberts at least, it seems that the ever changing nature of dealing with the Big V is the determining factor here.  He's religious liberty friendly in other cases and if this was a basic rule, he might act differently.

[ETA: Roberts' consistency here is respectable though has problems when applied to certain things.  Again, I think with such a strong split, the majority -- not just one justice -- should explain themselves.  The liberals didn't sign on to Roberts' previous concurrence.  The dissent here according to one liberal commentator -- don't recall him ever praising Alito -- has bite.  I'm open to argument there though lifting an injunction in the heat of a pandemic should be a tough test.  So, I'm inclined to think SCOTUS was correct.]

===

The one order that did drop earlier this week was a refused to issue the judgment immediately in the congressional Trump financials case immediately. This was done for the New York case, but there Trump did not challenge it (there was also some reference to statute of limitations matters).  That wasn't the case here and only Sotomayor dissented from the denial.*

So, the running out the clock continues, the judgment due to drop sometime in August.  Lower courts don't do much business in the summer and with further delays.  This is time sensitive and the upcoming election makes it of special concern. The Supreme Court should have sped things up in the front end.  Just using normal practice here, with COVID-19 even longer, is again b.s.  The House, yet again, pointed out how things are time sensitive.  Let's have fully credible government in January, please.

---

*  The Bronx with the represent again with an assist later on from AOC, with a great speech on the House floor after some asshole colleague called her a "fucking bitch" [as an aside, but able to be heard, so not doing it directly to her face is only of limited value] after accosting her outside and then giving a non-apology on the House floor. Thank you very much -- time for AOC and others to own the assholes, representation matters.