SCOTUS Check-In

The Supreme Court's scheduled arguments are done for the term, but things continue to happen. 

The big thing of late is the continuing saga of Clarence Thomas (and his wife). The bottom line at this point is not just "Roberts has to do something" or even "Congress has to pass an ethics bill." 

It is that Thomas must retire. Roberts at this point should too. He has shown himself unfit to serve by letting this fester and not even being willing to show up in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We know that it is not likely either will listen.  The Senate has the power (given its consent is required for funding) to push for an ethics bill.  Sen. Durbin et. al. can also stop soft-soaping the situation.  

But, the fight here is long-term, and this includes (as Mark Tushnet argued in his book) the fight to weaken the conservative movement as a whole here.  The exact effects are unclear.  It is still worth the effort.  

==

The Trump Midwest has weakened in recent years but unfortunately, the situation in North Carolina has gone the other way.  A turncoat Democrat, who ran as a liberal, helped give Republicans the power to veto the Democratic governor.  And, the North Carolina Supreme Court is now 5-2 Republican as shown by a trio of cases against voting rights.  

One aspect of this is that there is even more of a chance that the Supreme Court will punt in an "independent state legislature" that was so weak on the facts that liberals have a reason to want it to be decided now.  The Supreme Court for a second time asked for additional briefing, this time to address the decision.  We might find out shortly what happens.

==

I referenced the ongoing saga of Richard Glossip, who even the Republican Attorney General admits is a victim of a miscarriage of justice.  For whatever reason, the courts and pardons board (split vote) refuses to see it. 

It's now up to the Supreme Court, who on Friday granted an administrative stay to consider the matter.  Gorsuch is not taking part so in theory Glossip can lose 4-4 (somewhat unlikely) since a tie goes to the state. Glossip's execution was scheduled on May 18th, making the stay somewhat curious.  It is not like his execution was so immediate that there is a risk it would happen before they have a chance to decide.  

What this all means, tea leaves fashion, is unclear.  The Supreme Court held up his execution (after letting someone else be executed before deciding the issue) before his case was lost 5-4.  The odds seem to suggest the case is so tainted, and not on some death penalty ground alone, that this might be one of those rare cases that the Roberts Court in a sort of one-off fashion finds the error is so bad that it can't be allowed.  

It is sort of a way to show that the death penalty can be allowed since the most blatant cases will be handled.  Well, not really, but allegedly.  

---

To tie things together, one critic flagged how the Supreme Court does not disclose why justices disclose.  Yes.  The Supreme Court regularly does not explain itself, in a variety of ways.  

This includes not using the press and press release section, at best sending messages to the press separately.  And, I have repeatedly voiced my dissent when they do not explain why final death penalty petitions are denied.  

There are ways the Supreme Court can show some humility to ease the pain so to speak but recent conflicts suggest a different approach.  This would be bad even if they were not a packed conservative institution that denied basic rights.  But, now, adds insult to injury.  Again, what will be done about it?