Mr. Ethics and SCOTUS Watch

First, Roberts showed up in front of the American Law Institute:

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan introduced Roberts at the event, during which he received an award, praising his ability to write compellingly on complex legal issues. But she added, in a references to divisions on the court, there are plenty of other issues “I tear my hair out about.”

He does write well.  He wrote the opinion in "here's a case where the government is so wrong that we all agree" in a workmanlike fashion that received a lot of praise.  Kagan then said this about a case that Roberts joined by Alito, which was tarred as total bullshit by as many:

The majority could use every letter of the alphabet, and graduate to quadratic equations, and still not solve its essential problem.

I understand she's stuck with them and all, but this compartmentalization after a while bothers me.  This includes Ginsburg's "he's such a nice boy"-ing Kavanaugh and Sotomayor assuring us Gorsuch is such a good friend and colleague.  These people continue to drive a lot more than those with life tenure (with good behavior, theoretically) to distraction.

Roberts said his hardest decision was to put up a fence around the Court after the abortion protests started.  He name-checked Kyle Duncan, the anti-GLBTQ judge as a target because some students (without life tenure) made him sweat a tad.  Depriving us of voting rights? Easy call. He also assured us the Court will uphold ethics.

Sure thing, John.  Why not start by posting your remarks on the page last used by Ginsburg in 2019 so everyone else can see them?  

Anyway, there were three opinions, and in a fashion they all were unanimous.  We had another Gorsuch/Jackson concurring opinion, this time in that Roberts case to point out that taking property worth much more than the taxes owed is also a sort of "fine" with Eighth Amendment implications. Fine (ha).  I saw what Gorsuch's "libertarianism" amounts to in that Title 42 case from last week.  

No, thank you.  He will say some good things at times, but even then, he will often say them too blithely, and in a bad fashion. Mr. Eighth Amendment! Check him out if it's the death penalty or a range of other punishments.  Is he concerned about excessive punishments or just property matters?  

The overall case also rubs me a bit the wrong way.  Too many people emphasize it's a little old lady (as if that is the reason the government lost) or that it is "stealing" (a matter of law that the lower court and historical practice in more than one state does not appear to accept).  I don't begrudge the loss.  Sometimes, "reasonable" turns out to be not so. 

Barrett started things off with a unanimous case no one cares about. The middle case is one of the first major decisions of the time with a real biting division (the pork case is a bit of a sport).  Some were coy and noted it was "unanimous." Bullshit. The real division was the reasoning. That was 5-4, this time with Kavanaugh joining the liberals.  President Biden:

The Supreme Court’s disappointing decision in Sackett v. EPA will take our country backwards. 

Today’s decision upends the legal framework that has protected America’s waters for decades. It also defies the science.

The liberals joined Kavanaugh's dissent on the reach while also joining Kagan's stronger "this is bad" concurrence. A taste:

The majority could use every letter of the alphabet, and graduate to quadratic equations, and still not solve its essential problem.

After seventeen years, Roberts and Alito were able to get that fifth vote to make it harder for the EPA to regulate wetlands. Both partial dissents explain how they did it in a way that twisted what Congress said.  

Next week will be more of the same: orders (after the holiday) and then opinions on Thursday. That would be the very beginning of the final June rush, and like this time, good chance a hot button will be decided.  

===

Along the way, President Biden again used his veto pen (starting to get some use) to reject another fast-track piece of legislation that got a bit of Democratic support in the Senate.  This time, a criminal reform bill from D.C. was allowed to stand.  Respect local home rule people.