After the last decision day (with addenda), a minor shadow docket matter with possibly wider implications was addressed. I could add this to next week's entry, but who knows how big Monday will be. So, let's just get the odds and ends out of the way.
The High Federalist trio would have taken it (a selective application of a perhaps sensible sentiment to deal with the matter before the election) and flagged alleged issues with the lower court decisions. That part is much less defensible. As a preview noted:
It involves a fight over whether 257 ballots cast in a low-level state judicial race should be tossed out because of a very minor paperwork error. It also involves a fairly obvious violation of a federal law providing that voters should not be disenfranchised due to such errors.
Alito (CYA-ing saying that with full briefing, he might change his mind) in effect said in part that since an "error" was involved, it was not really disenfranchisement. Anyway, looks to be a sensible move by the rest to avoid deciding a minor ruling that should be left to the lower courts.
===
There was also a conference and afterwards the website told us that Monday and Wednesday would be decision days. With 29 cases and three weeks left in June (the usual end of the active term until September; they in recent years also have three scheduled order days during the summer that basically dispose of run of the mill stuff and are yawners), that is far from surprising.
We had four cases (only one sorta important) disposed of in two order days last week. There probably will at least be one THREE day decision day.
==
And, to toss it in, though it's separate, we got some financial disclosures. One lawyer said he would increase the pay of the justices and block outside income. But, these people are not writing books, guest lecturing, and the like because of money. They like doing such things.
And, I don't really begrudge them (if done openly, which in various cases involving speeches, it is not) on principle. Justices lectured in the 19th Century. Maybe, large book contracts are somewhat distasteful or if you were a lecturer at some strongly ideological university or something.But, I'm not really concerned in general though again Fix the Court or something can show how it should be more aboveboard in various cases.
===
NPR adds to current articles furthering the "Supreme Court in crisis" theme. It is written by Nina Totenburg, who is usually worthwhile, but I am somewhat on the same page as this account that is not impressed by the article. There is a vague character to the whole thing, including suggesting the possibility of a justice (who? a conservative like Thomas or a liberal like Sotomayor?) not taking part in some witch hunt type investigation.
I guess there is some general flavor to the article that is helpful. Nonetheless, again, it seems so vague and doesn't really add much. It again is striking to me that we have heard a lot from leaks and some comments basically all from the conservative side. This article adds to the general silence (except again in some vague and very general way) from the liberal camp. I wonder if we will learn much more in future accounts.