Various Supreme Court Orders

The Supreme Court handed down some orders in some notable cases. I already referenced the ghost guns case, which granted a Biden Administration request to reinstate a "ghost gun" ban for now. The order noted specifically what they were addressing, but did not explain why they voted 5-4 to do so. We can guess why, including Barrett's first vote with the liberals (and Roberts) to make a majority in such a case. But, she didn't say.

A major "tester" case -- where people or groups "test" to see if someone is discriminating or the like (here on a mass level) -- still is on. The woman involved asked the Supreme Court to declare it moot.  But, the Supreme Court denied her request, noting the matter will be addressed during oral argument.  No discussion on why they ruled this way.

The Supreme Court granted the Biden administration’s application to prevent the Second Circuit’s approval of the Purdue Pharma/Sackler bankruptcy reorganization plan from going into effect.  There is some debate over if the plan would rightly or wrongly remove some liability from the opioid manufacturer's liability.  The Court will now hear the case.

We will see how next week goes. Summer order list later on in the month. No executions are scheduled for the rest of August.

==

Meanwhile, we have another ProPublica story (with prime facts and photographs; the stories about Thomas and Alito have great photos) about Thomas' billionaire friends and how his actions likely violated legal requirements.  A Slate article suggests:

What stands out above the increasingly numbing details of Thomas’ extravagant travel and recreational experiences are the efforts of his access-seekers to build a national cult around the justice. With each story it becomes plainer that his closest, richest friends appear eager to idolize the justice, creating a hagiography in which Thomas is not just a great and brilliant man, but an almost messianic leader for whom no earthly reward can be sufficient. It’s not just the travel and vacations they finance. It’s a set of shrines and temples, films, books, paintings, and myths.

Thomas should resign.  He no longer is serving in "good behavior" as set forth in Art. III.  The House of Representatives isn't going to impeach and the Republicans in the Senate won't convict.  But, Thomas swore to uphold the Constitution too.  The evidence is getting quite blatant:

At this point, Thomas’ covert acceptance of billionaires’ endless largesse—and his refusal to disclose it, which amounts to serial lawbreaking—is well known.

Some appellate lawyer said that he was very upset about all of this but would be "as" concerned if it was Kagan.  I would not.  Yes, there is a bit of "she isn't horrible" but it's not that I would think she was innocent. Thomas has more seniority and power.  More of his former clerks are state and federal judges and were major players in the Trump Administration. He has more power. But, Kagan would be quite guilty either way.

But, she isn't.  And, these stories aren't about all the conservatives either though there is this story about his wife's legal consulting work.  But, it's just that.  It's "one" thing.  Alito and Thomas keep on keeping on.  I think Roberts failed a basic leadership role and should resign too. Thomas and Alito still have gone the extra mile.  It isn't a "conservative" thing.  

==

Somewhat related, two conservatives argue (mixing in originalism) that Trump obviously is disqualified under the 14A, sec. 3 provision. I did not try to wade through the over 100 pages, but I appreciate the effort. 

The link provides a bit of commentary and links to an NYT article.  I have spoken about the blog author in the past; one of the articles of his own he links is much shorter, the other still shorter than this effort.  A person referenced in the news article also weighs in at a conservative/libertarian-leaning blog.  

The bottom line, this won't magically operate, and Trump would likely have the means to challenge any actions in court or answer in some other fashion, including if the matter came to the head in Congress.  Also, the provision is not just about Trump.  If you swore to uphold the Constitution, including as a member of the military, involvement in 1/6/21 can mean that the provision applies.  This means applied to state and federal offices.

I think the provision, like other matters (emoluments come to mind), has not received the attention it deserves.  A majority in both branches of Congress decided Trump should be impeached and convicted for insurrection.  Seven Republican senators agreed.  Others (including Mitch McConnell) did not take him off the hook, merely deciding that for some fashion he should not be convicted (e.g., the false idea it was constitutionally wrong to have a trial once he left office).   

The people ultimately will have to decide here as will Republican officeholders and other party leaders who still refuse to draw a line in the sand about Trump.  Paper barriers have a certain limited value but they still express important values.  And, again, they apply to possibly hundreds of people somehow involved who might now or in the future be blocked from office.  For these people, it would take a lot less to apply its commands.

Eric Segall said he will comment next week on the article at Dorf on Law, suggesting he doesn't like the style of argument.  This isn't surprising given his critique of originalism and a co-author in particular.  I also would not use the specific interpretive means they would use in various respects.  

But, I stick to my take that the provision should be put into use though we can debate the proper means to enforce it.