But, these things rarely are totally not noteworthy. Things happen that provide insights to legal practices that maybe are more worthwhile of attention. For instance, the Supreme Court disposed of a lawsuit against Trump's misuse of power in such and such a case and in effect erases the lower court opinion. The principle involved involves cases that are moot. The principle is named after a 1950 case, United States v. Munsingwear.
Trump is no longer in power, so he cannot be required to stop the alleged illegal actions. But, it is an example of him in effect running out the clock with no consequences for what was alleged to be illegal acts. It also takes the lower court case off the books, which means the legal judgment is no longer precedent for further action. There are technical reasons for that, though maybe it is being overused (per one account I saw), but again there is a sense that something is wrong.
Oral Arguments: We had a few oral arguments, including in a lesser abortion case and the Boston Bomber dispute (the actual marathon this year was Monday). The live audio seems to be going well with Justice Thomas continuing to ask questions. Roberts' old boss, Chief Justice Rehnquist might be upset about the laxness regarding extending argument times to deal with any further questions the judges desire. But, though it's a bit messy (if seemingly somewhat more sedate of late), it's fine.
PCSCOTUS: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court has not really obtained much love. The Supreme Court itself is getting attention, with justices ("justices") speaking out and getting pushback. Breyer continues to make me want to scream "shut up! retire you asshole!"
But, the ongoing commission in place there to examine various issues involving the institution itself rarely gets notice. This is unfortunate. Even if people are cynical about the purpose of the whole thing, the Commission provides a platform for discussion of important matters.
The whole point after all is to provide guidance to the Biden Administration, the political branches in general, of the issues. If we have a need to address them, why not use this -- including some witnesses with strong criticisms -- as an educational platform to address the issues?
The Commission had another public meeting today. The purpose was to discuss what was labeled by press reports as "a preliminary report," though are labeled as "discussion materials." A few accounts have highlighted comments opposed to court expansion. A section on court expansion does have some bothersome phrasing. I'm inclined, however, to wait until the final report comes out. After all, during the discussions today, multiple members questioned some of the report. Changes are likely.
Friday's (this is being written then) session ended with a notice of the next public meeting to be in about a month's time. They will release a "draft report" beforehand and the meeting will likely discuss things. I reaffirm my support of this effort and hopefully the final report will in some fashion (cf. a civil rights report in the Truman Administration) provide some value in public debate and action on this general subject.
[It depresses me that I saw repeated cynical "oh so this is all bs" references to what isn't even the final report -- the commissioners (I actually listened in some; one critic is from Dorf On Law, which had not a single post on the proceedings though the preliminary report did cite him) themselves pushed for changes of the text. Latching on to a few references, which very well might be open to criticism. Saying the report says all is fine. etc.
This is cheap shot mixed with ignorance. I want to underline here the point here is to air out things, not make specific recommendations as such. Those who want to reform or radically change the system can take a bit of time to understand or even engage some with the commission's work, including it hearing some witnesses that some critics agree with on various matters.]
Coming Attractions: There was a conference today, so there should be another Order List next week. No conference or oral arguments are scheduled next week. No other orders were handed down this week.
One execution was held up by Texas to further examine religious claims akin to a case the Supreme Court are due to address soon. One is still scheduled in Alabama for next week, after being delayed because SCOTUS via a shadow docket case said the state needed to allow the person a minister at the execution. One more execution is still scheduled in Oklahoma at the end of the month.
Books: I am involved in an ongoing book review blog (creation pending), handling largely historical themed books. I am re-reading The Enigma of Clarence Thomas (2019) to write a review entry. The author, who wrote a book on conservatives, notes that ideologically he opposes what Thomas stands for. But, the book tries to determine where Thomas is coming from.
I agree with the summary in the review: "The result is rigorous yet readable, frequently startling yet eminently persuasive." To fully be secure here, you have to "deep dive" all his opinions and other writings. I did not do that, so have to rely on his analysis. From experience, one should be a bit careful, since sometimes analysis is somewhat selective. But, that is some level probably by necessity.
The book comes off as basically fair -- it spends much of its time spelling out Thomas' point of view while only having a limited degree of criticism of him being selective or cherry picking. Also, his thesis is that Thomas and the left overlap more than we might think, including their pessimistic take on the current situation. The author has a lot of material to work with though as with any such attempts, you should take certain interpretations from a distance with a grain of salt. But, again, it seems convincing.
(Finishing the book, I basically hold to this, but think the 225 page [lots of end notes], can't be considered fully comprehensive.
He argues Thomas promotes the Privileges or Immunities Clause, e.g., mostly to promote gun rights. But, he does reference a right to marry and raise children in one of his decisions (cited in an end note, so he is aware of it to some extent) -- though the book might argue it was a passing reference. Since there are various P&I opinions out there, it might have been useful to get more of a sense of how he handled them.
One thing that really stands out for me is that his two wives and son are barely referenced. Given the tough black father archetype the book says he promotes, this seems a tad weird. If his grandfather is his role model, what of his own son? The black mother / white stepmother dynamic there would be interesting. The book does flag criticism of how he doesn't respect the problems his mother and sister went through. So, this would further clarify his position. I would say in fact this is a glaring absence.
The book even talks about him being wary of some black student going to an Ivy league school -- like Sotomayor, he talks to school children. Okay. What about his own son? A son that in fact went to a military school, which is why he was recused from U.S. v. Virginia!
It is not like at least his [white] wife plays little role in his life. The book's focus on Thomas as a pessimistic black existentialist --- I'm not sure if I'm using that right -- without talking about a white wife (his professional life in a white world itself is not really dwelt on that much really) seems a tad curious. But, there are two brief references to both wives and about the same to his son. I don't expect a complete biography here, but even for the purposes of the book, this all seems a bit weird. Didn't a reader flag it?
Finally, for those who wish to get a sense of what conservatives think of the book, the National Review gave it guarded praise.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!