Alito: The latest Supreme Court controversy arose when it came out that a previously anti-abortion advocate claimed Alito leaked the news that he was writing the Hobby Lobby opinion. The specific details there aside, the bigger story was the influence special interests have on multiple conservative justices. This includes the individuals using the Supreme Court Historical Society (yuck) to further their causes.
[The person with his last name that was involved in a Supreme Court case appears to be his identical twin brother who also voted for President Biden. That guy's Wikipedia page notes the brother is concerned with how the anti-abortion cause was used, but not sure if HE is now supportive of letting abortion stay legal.]
This might actually be a possible tipping point in the fight for an official ethics code that applies to the justices. A key senator suggested that if the justices refuse, the budget might be used to pressure them. A related issue that arose is term limits and the problems with judges staying on too long.
Trump: In the last entry of "As Trump Turns," there were various developments. An oral argument at the 11CA regarding the latest of the stupid special master dispute suggests the judges there are sick of him and find the whole thing stupid. Sen. Graham testified to the grand jury in Georgia. And, without comment, the latest attempt to stop release of tax records to the House was rejected (after Roberts put a hold on it around three weeks back).
[The biggest news is probably the appointment by Garland of a special counsel now that Trump announced he is officially running for president. This might somehow be problematic but it is a very expected and standard move to make in this case. The "coward" talk is bullshit. One fairly positive account, including based on who is chosen, is here. I guess I concur with it.]
Death Penalty: Alabama, after their third botch (one execution) in a row, has for now put a moratorium to investigate. Meanwhile, Missouri is planning to execute Kevin Johnson next week. He raises serious racial discrimination (Chris Geidner also reports) and other claims. The Supreme Court (again without comment from anyone) today got ahead of the curve and denied cert. 0/6 for the executions, one 6-3.
[The standard line is to sneer at the pro-life Catholic justices. NONE of them look very good in my eyes. Even when three dissented, they did so without comment. Yes, that one was late, but come on. They knew what was coming. They had time to write a brief statement at least.]
Cecilia Marshall Dies: Thurgood Marshall's second wife was about twenty years younger than him. She has died and a nice press release was provided to the press that was posted on Twitter by multiple reporters. It is not on the press release page of the actual website. Why the heck not?
(I missed two media advisories from earlier this month about seating in two important cases that will get a lot of attention. The cases will be hear in the upcoming December arguments.)
Books: I read Washington's Heir, cited as the first full length biography of a fairly important justice (Bushrod Washington), especially since various other lesser ones already have a biography. The book is as usual for the author not a long one though it has more legal analysis and notes than usual. Overall, it is a worthwhile effort.
I finally (via a cheap Ebay purchase) got the what Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage) cases should have said book. The book has more than nine people involved with four dissents (one one letting the matter be dealt with by the democratic branches).
I did not find the whole effort too useful. I have found such efforts, including in the spirit of writing things with a feminist viewpoint (there is a new one with a critical race theory viewpoint) often disappointing. The previous Roe v. Wade book was probably somewhat better.
One of the majority opinions focuses on the children and another wants to do away with "marriage' altogether (not sure what that gets you) and Melissa Murray again reminds that marriage isn't all there is. Yeah. See, Lawrence v. Texas. I find her suggesting Justice Kennedy overdid the "yay marriage!" stuff asinine. Those fighting for same sex marriage recognition are the ones that did that. And, logically so, given what they were trying to do.
Yet again for some reason Turner v. Safley (which has a long summary of the benefits of marriage) is largely ignored. The opinions basically ignore the recognition issue and the majority side also does not really engage with the dissents. This has a sort of curious "talking past each other" flavor. One dissent focused on originalism doesn't (except for a brief footnote) cite any other sexual orientation opinion. The one that wants to leave it to the people doesn't explain why (or if) Lawrence et. al. was different.
Animus: A Short Introduction to Bias in the Law from five years back (should I note he is in a same sex marriage?) was more useful. It tied animus to the general idea against class legislation and a concern (going back to Madison) that legislation should be for the public interest, not special interests.
The book mainly discussed the main cases (hippies, mentally retarded, the GLBT ones) and then discussed how to best determine and apply animus. The book said nothing really profound, but it provided a good little summary (under 200 pages) and made some good points about the complexities involved. The book was written before the Masterpiece Cakeshop case though it foreshadowed religious liberties battles.
Another such battle is one of the cases the media advisory flagged ... on my birthday yet. Have a Happy Thanksgiving, including the "pardoned" Chocolate and Chip.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!