But, the special accelerated (some are calling it the "rocket" docket) oral arguments for the Texas abortion cases pushed things back there. It also is the 30th anniversary of Thomas' investiture ceremony and the introduction of the new solicitor general (and previous Miss Idaho), who everyone agreed did a great job. Well, this isn't her first rodeo.
Texas received less kudos and the other two did as well, though the most conservative advocate (for the private plaintiffs) did not really get much attention from the Court. Live audio allowed for live tweeting, which was fun. Along with lower courts, the latest High School SCOTUS interview gave some love for Twitter here
And then I think also with readers, I find Twitter to be a good platform — not all the time, but a lot of the time — for covering the law, because it’s a way to easily make documents available, and to take screenshots of the paragraph in the opinion that says, “Here is why I, judge or panel of judges, am doing X.” And people really respond to that, I think they want to trust what you, the journalist, are saying, and they can say, “Okay, Zoe said, ‘Judge did X.’ I see that the judges did, in fact, say X,” and that builds trust. You’re not trying to be the voice of God here. It’s all public information that should be public, and whatever we can do to get it out there, we should do it. There’s no reason not to. So I think it’s not just how you write it, but how you present the information to people.
Live tweeting is probably the best reason to like live audio -- I'm not really sure that there is much other use for it, if SCOTUS will release an audio link as soon as later in the day (early afternoon for morning arguments). My continual push for video -- and it need not be immediate -- continues.
I won't go much into the tea leaves here except to say that it isn't really surprising that the justices (or whatever the Trump trio are) showed some openness to opposing the breadth of SB8. It's open-ended and very well can also be used to hurt rights they support more. Plus, they are judges, and blocking judicial review power makes them feel bad.
It is a problem if people as a whole think the case is pretty easy to allow for some lower court relief (a stay as the case is being heard) and they leave the law in force for months while so many people need abortions restricted by the law. See, Justice Sotomayor's dissent when they took the case.
Likewise, it is not somehow notable that conservative judges can ask good questions. Barrett, e.g., got some love there from people who don't like her as a whole. Fine enough, but it really isn't too surprising. She's a former academic and all; she has some ability to pose hypos. Plus, along with Kavanaugh, her "thing" will be to seem more reasonable than Alito.
====
The two oral arguments and to a lesser extent the new SG is what most people came to see, so to speak (many can't come to see, especially the public ... a local video feed for a few minutes would be an interesting idea there, comparable to the ability of some tourists to traditionally see a few minutes of the argument without waiting on long lines).
But, yes, today was Order List day. The length is in significant part because Sotomayor with the liberals dissenting from not granting the federal government's request to "GVR" (grant/vacate/remand) an intellectual disability capital case. Since the defense also requested it, this refusal is a notable part of the conservative "going the extra mile" campaign to speed along executions. The case still can be dealt with below in some other fashion, but rejection of the request still is notable.
Sotomayor (with Kagan alone now) has a shorter "statement" -- which is her wont occasionally -- to flag a concern she has about a lower court criminal procedure case. Going for the sweep, Sotomayor joined Gorsuch's "see he's right sometimes" dissent arguing the Court should take a case involving media access to secret national security courts.
The "High Federalists" disagree with merely sending back to apply Fulton (the "gay adoption case") a case out of New York which rejected a lawsuit regarding not discriminating against certain types of health care. The trio also would have take a case involving a transgender man denied gender-affirming surgery (one tweet I saw noted it was on procedural grounds a bad case to take).
There are various procedural orders as usual. I will note two. There is one that accepts the government's admission of error. That would be this case and the U.S. government's brief "now acknowledges that a veterinarian who personally injects a drug into an animal under her direct care in the course of her professional practice, without first issuing a written or oral order, has not engaged in misbranding under the FDCA."
The motion of "Hannah S." to take part as an amicus during the oral argument in the Mississippi abortion case was denied. It is not too uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse time (except if the U.S. asks) in such cases -- they basically just want the parties themselves to be involved. But, why is the full name not used here? Sort of a curiosity.
Turns out Hannah S. was conceived through in vitro fertilization and the attempt is to show that life begins at conception. She's an adult now, seeking a master's degree. Good luck, Hannah, but a frozen human embryo is not a constitutional person, and even if it was, it would be of limited relevance to an abortion case of this nature. Finally, the in vitro process involves the destruction of many embryos.
==
Okay. So, there will be more interesting cases this week, including the oral argument in a big gun rights case. You can listen in via the live audio link at the SCOTUS website or at C-SPAN. SCOTUS will later in the day provide a transcript. No video yet, though C-SPAN airs some of the oral arguments with photos to help you along.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!