And, after being asked repeated, the judges confirmed they all were boosted. I still wonder about the rules for clerks, reports, court personnel, and so forth. Advocates do need to be tested and positive tests will require remote arguments. Meanwhile, Roberts' end of the year report was a tad selective about Chief Justice Taft's support of binding ethical rules applied to the Supreme Court. Not on a "trust us" level.
The article notes that there are various possible questions here:
In fact, the absence of a written code has left numerous unanswered ethics questions for the Supreme Court. Is it ethical for justices to provide reporters with anonymous leaks about their discussions in conference? Must they refrain from praising or criticizing political candidates or speaking at meetings of partisan legal organizations? May they accept travel stipends for educational seminars funded by trade or industry groups? Are there limits on raising funds for charities? May a justice vacation with a litigant whose case is pending or comment on legal issues in the lower courts?
The article also notes that "The recent Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court has also recommended the adoption of an “advisory code of conduct.” I admit not reading the three hundred report yet. I should be reading it in installments online. But, something that long, I feel like having a hard copy. Anyway, it seems the commission did support SOMETHING.
A law professor who has called out the Court on the "shadow docket" and other matters has written a useful op-ed supporting the old special three district court mechanism to limit the control of single judges and organize the overall process better. I can do without handwaving court expansion. Just do not bring it up. If you support term limits, lower court expansion, or anything else, you can just talk about that.
===
Before we even started the Big V cases, we got a notice that Sotomayor would take part remotely from her chambers (we had an audio problem at first, but then she came loud and clear) and two of advocates (not for the feds) would do by phone.
Soon we got a notice that the Ohio SG did have a positive test (his COVID still showed up, even though his outbreak reportedly happened somewhere around Christmas), requiring a phone argument by current SCOTUS policy. Sotomayor has been the only justice who wears a mask; she has diabetes and is in her 60s, so is more at risk. Reports are she is okay now.
Later, I saw the other lawyer said she is doing so remotely per protocols without bluntly saying why. Also, another Court reporter noted that 7/8 judges on the bench wore a mask, given the new dangers of the latest variant. Gorsuch, who Sotomayor sits next to on the bench, did not.
[This commentary is a good take. This deserves underlining.]
Here's the doctrine lineup:
— Edmond Guidry (@edmondguidry) January 7, 2022
Major questions: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Agency discretion and deference: Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor
Dems aren't allowed to govern: Alito and Thomas
It's really upsetting that all these agencies keep trying to solve problems: Roberts
This is a pretty good summary of the first argument, which went on for like two hours. New year, but I'm still ... angry ... that three of these people are even here. As they drone on, at times stupidly, I have this big urge just to scream. It is like someone stole my wallet and I have to say things like "well, that is a pretty good use of my money." No. It's my money. Give it the fuck back to me. Not that good use is in any way guaranteed here.
Just to remind, like Sotomayor did, this is not really a "vaccine mandate," since there is a testing and masking alternative. The second argument is about health care workers and Medicaid/Medicare spending, so should be more obvious. Both should be, but here we are.
The author of the op-ed cited above also noted much of the questions were merits related, even though allegedly the issue here is to determine if there are extraordinary needs to stop the regulations as litigation continues. This is not atypical and underlines the perversion of the "shadow docket" these days. I'm sure term limits will help this sort of thing.
===
First Order of New Year: SG is granted request to take part in two cases. If this is the notable result of the weekly conference, Monday's Order List might be boring.
===
Meanwhile ... As a sort of "B" game, of sorts, the Fifth Circuit also had live audio available arguments regarding if it is appropriate to send the SB8 case to the Texas courts to clarify the meaning of the law. The live tweeting suggests a 2-1 result with more delay, as expected looking at the membership of the panel.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!