SCOTUS Watch: Calm Before Storm?

There will be confirmation hearings and oral arguments next week, but the recent trend continues. There is never truly a quiet moment for that long in regards to the Supreme Court.

C-SPAN asked a consulting firm to guage the public's opinion on the Supreme Court. I'm unsure how accurate it is when over 40% say they have heard at least one oral argument while they are greatly unaware of nearly any actual Supreme Court opinion. I get the idea some at least heard in a vague way some of those things, even if they don't know names.

Anyway, as a whole, they want diversity and like audio/video. As one article noted:

While continuing a practice that has been in place for nearly two years is still an unknown, the majority of Americans are asking the court for even more access. A new C-SPAN/Pierrepont poll found the majority — 65% — of likely voters surveyed want live TV coverage at the high court. Further 70% of voters surveyed say allowing cameras in the courtroom would build public trust.

The problem appears to be the older members of the Court (minus Breyer, perhaps):

“Eventually, TV will be there because, as we know, generations will grow up and they just won't understand why it isn't there, alright,” Justice Stephen Breyer said in 2019. “But the judges who are there now are not in that generation, and so it will be a while.”

Meanwhile, we have more news out about Ginni Thomas though this is sort of like the stuff about Trump or whatever -- the basics aren't new, it riles up passion and clicks, but if nothing happens, you know, so fucking what?   OTOH, that's how stuff works -- it builds up and some things do not truly go away, even if the changing news cycle pushes it away somewhat.   

And, this does not seem to be going away -- there has been multiple articles, one or more quite long, about Ginni Thomas' political activities, including now that she was at a "Stop the Steal" Rally, but claims she left early because it was cold.  So, she wasn't there on 1/6 when they marched to the Capitol?  

Meanwhile, though Sotomayor recused in one of the faithless electors cases since she is a friend of one of the litigants, Thomas did not recuse from 1/6 related cases.   The appropriate ethical line here is clouded in the coverage with a lot of detail about Ginni Thomas' long conservative partisan activities.  That sort of thing is interesting and stuff, but she is allowed to do that (if worthy of criticism).  

Still, mixed in is some Clarence Thomas involvement (she, e.g., references his contacting the Florida governor, who now is a possible leading presidential option in 2024).  Thomas has repeatedly defended his wife, of course, and it does not appear like they live separate lives or anything.  And, with Thomas clerks serving an important role, some of whom later became federal judges,  there is a lot to unpack.

Thomas meanwhile is concerned about "cancel culture" and the lack of civil debate.  While his wife is involved with racist groups and efforts to overturn elections.  Guy is trying to gaslight us for sure.  People are right to be upset, thinking he and Kavanaugh et. al. are getting away with it.  

A House hearing addressing sexual harassment and abuse in the federal courts only emphasizes this fact. We have two sex offenders on the Supreme Court.  I was around when both were confirmed.  Thomas was problematic to me as unready for the Supreme Court.  He did not seem to have the experience worthy of the job.  The harassment thing was a "seal the deal" moment for me.  He has a lot more to answer for now.

Thomas is reportedly very popular, including making efforts to get to know the support staff.  He does have a social side though his hatred is still in there as well.  Not likely a "moving on" sort of person regarding certain forces out there.  I, however, never read about him having sexual harassment issues once on the Supreme Court. 

Again, with all this talk of an ethical code for the Supreme Court, how will that work?  If we actually had a "binding" ethics code, how would it bind?  I wonder about "natural" rights and how they are supposed to be enforced.  We can have human institutions to do so, even if God or nature doesn't step in.  How would it work here?  Reporting to Congress?  Self-restraint?  

===

Okay, so what is happening regarding actual cases and stuff?

The April, argument schedule has been posted. There are a few notables.  Friday (aka St. JP Day, the day for Irish/Italian mutts between days for each half of that mix) was a conference day.   

There will be an Order List on Monday.   Order fans should be happy since there has been a lag since March 7th with no orders, even some trivial one. 

An order was dropped Friday (3/18) as well.   The solicitor general was granted oral argument time in two cases, set for argument for the last week of March, so figure can could have tossed it into the Monday Order List.  I'm not really sure if the timing and placement (sometimes something involving a single justice is just kept on the docket page of the case, not put on the separate Order List page)  has a totally logical aspect. 

An opinion day was also set up for next Thursday.