SCOTUS Watch: They Are Back

Books:  No late nite action on Friday, but it would be suitable to toss in a couple books with some SCOTUS content.

You are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers is a good overview for the general reader by a law professor expert in the field.  I carped at the summary around the edges, but a lot is covered and covered well, plus in an approachable way. Can't ask for more for such a volume.

Let the Lord Sort Them: The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty was also good, especially if you don't really take the title at face value. It is more a look at the death penalty in the modern era (1970s+) in Texas, providing some familiar material while adding additional information and vignettes.

On that front, at some point, it started to seem a bit padded. The "fall" part was covered some, but seemed a bit incomplete. Also, if you are going to highlight a prosecutor/judge and her two death penalty cases, don't drop one of them [one got off death row because he was a minor; the other from what I can tell is still there].  Overall, very readable, and worthwhile.

SCOTUS was back from their Winter Break with a conference on Friday, after a quiet week. They also have announced not only orders but one or more opinions next week.  But, we also have various odds and ends that touch upon them to talk about beforehand. No orders this week.

First off, we have coverage on how SCOTUS is slow-walking (still) the Trump tax financials, the author of a biography of more than one justice flagging it as notable how long it is going on now. One would be a book on Justice Sotomayor, who was according to an interview by a judge targeted by a violent unhinged litigant [her son was killed; the person killed himself], was a potential target of violence.  Be well Sonia!

On the continual attempt to get some relief on Trump abuses, we now have a civil suit signed on by at least the House Homeland Security chair. Interesting approach that uses the old KKK Act of 1871, which is particularly concerned with them trying to interfere with legitimate government. I had thought that the best litigant would be someone physically harmed (like a police officer), but that's good. I am pessimistic about the level of justice we will receive though at least in regards to financial crimes, the wrongdoers might be younger members of the family too.  Plus, it isn't just Trump as a whole.

I have been particularly concerned about what is more and more seen as excessive use of the shadow docket, particularly in substantive cases that divide the Court. The House had a hearing on the question, including one of the legal Twitter people that I keep track of these days. His remarks includes some possible ways to encourage less use of the docket. I am somewhat pessimistic there since I think it is largely by choice.  

The Biden Administration continues to examine past Trump submissions though on an upcoming voting rights matter is only somewhat in disagreement.  Garland on Monday!