SCOTUS/Voting News

While various new Trump news dropped (including him telling Bob Woodward in February that Covid is serious and then lying to people about it), he released another list of possible SCOTUS justices. Some think it won't move the needle any more, people already locked in unlike the last time when it was a more potential thing.  Who knows.  As others note, the Dems should pay more attention to the courts.  Why exactly it is avoided so much, even low key things like tweaking ethical rules, is unclear.

There was an order list on 9/11, the last summer order, delayed because of the events.  Same nothing much, this time with a list of attorney disbarments.  This is from some time back, so don't know why it took this long to have her disbarred on the Supreme Court level (was it just a token bar membership for the prestige?), but here is a bit of one's problems:

James Moses, a St. Tammany Parish resident, died in 1977.   Shortly thereafter, the decedent's brother, Joseph Moses, who lived in Ohio, retained respondent to handle the decedent's succession and represent his four minor children.   Joseph Moses was appointed administrator of the decedent's estate and tutor of the four minor children.   Through the following years, respondent handled numerous legal matters connected with this succession and tutorship.   However, between April 6 and June 12, 1984, respondent, without authorization, removed from the succession and/or tutorship accounts a total of $97,000 by writing eight separate checks and depositing them into her personal account.

The lower courts also had two key voting rights opinions. First, a 2-1 ruling (SCOTUS refused to get involved earlier though Sotomayor put forth a wish that the matter would be addressed before the election) held that letting those over 65 vote by mail with reason during COVID is not a violation of the 26th Amendment. To remind:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The two judges decided that the rule here was a special additional benefit, not a denial of a right.  The special situation alone suggests the confused matter here.  It is like if a gate somehow is put up blocking people's ability to vote, but only those of a certain age is given the key.  The net result here is "on account of age" one's right to vote is abridged.  It is a form of hairsplitting to avoid this.  Guess it's nice to have a bit of 26A law though.

Ditto the due process and other problems with the perversion of a ballot measure to enfranchise released felons.  I still remember 2000 in Florida.  More of the fucking same.  We even have Judge William Pryor, who I recall the battle over, writing with Jill Pryor among the dissenters.  It is even more symbolic -- besides Pryor, the whole majority is made up of Trump appointees.  Deprivation of voting rights help elect Republicans (problems with the felony disenfranchisement law was a key factor in 2000 -- over time, history gets repetitive to observers) who put judges on the bench to uphold such efforts even when the people vote to temper the rules.  It is a sort of feedback loop.

There is also problems in Wisconsin, the state supreme court there again by an ideological vote fucking things up.  Is it 2021 yet? Someone, quite validly, on the anniversary of 9/11 noted that COVID is the most compelling moment of history in her lifetime.  In both cases, who runs the show is very important.

Let's never forget that.