SCOTUS Watch

Sonia Sotomayor

We do not have video of the Supreme Court, including justice-only events such as opinion announcements and swearing in members of the Supreme Court Bar. Many lower courts (including federal courts of appeals) and foreign courts do have video. 

So, we are left mostly (limited SCOTUS events have been put on video) justice appearances. Fix the Court has provided a running list of audio and video available. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Barrett have had recent appearances. 

Sotomayor has received attention for noting how "frustrated" she has been lately regarding some conservative opinions. Balls and Strikes welcome such strong criticism. Perhaps, they should say more about term limits, ethics, and other issues. Justice Kagan supporting ethics rules, for instance, received some attention. 

She also suggests a "tough" caseload. Some lower courts might disagree, but she cites the emergency (shadow) docket. That may help explain why the Supreme Court had only handed down a single opinion. Some might suggest if it is so tiresome, she should retire to safeguard a liberal seat. Nonetheless, Sotomayor notes she feels she must not quit. She may be a bit sure she is irreplaceable. 

I welcome justices making appearances and answering questions. Only a limited audience is aware of these things though (not the channel has that much of an audience) when they are on C-SPAN, it helps. The Supreme Court should think about having more official efforts, including putting links on their website to appearances, to promoting public awareness. 

March Arguments

The March Argument calendar has dropped. Cases include government involvement in social media and alleged inference with NRA freedom of speech (which seems like an especially weak conservative conspiracy-type case). There are various other cases but the big one is the abortion pill controversy. 

There is another abortion case in April. 

Trump Case 

The next oral argument, of course, is the special 2/8 Thursday argument regarding Trump's removal from the Colorado primary ballot. The case has wider implications though there is a chance (many rather not this to be true) for a narrow ruling. 

The final briefing (reply) is due on Monday. There have been multiple excellent briefs in support of the state ruling from historians and others. The assumption is that Trump will win. I am not sure exactly how the Supreme Court will rule. They might find a means to punt in a limited way. 

The case involves a challenge from Republicans and Independents voters (though the implication is made that "Democrats" are trying to keep him off the ballot). Since the state has a clear interest, Colorado asked for some time during oral argument. They were granted ten minutes. 

The Court website calendar also now says that opinions might be announced on the oral argument day. There has been only one so far (a punt) and it is notable that no more followed yet.

West Point Affirmative Action 

The Supreme Court opinion restricting race-based affirmative action in colleges had a footnote making clear that it was not addressing military colleges. 

The group then tested the waters by challenging West Point's admissions program. The district court denied their request. Going for the gold, the group asked the Supreme Court to step in before the Court of Appeals ruled. Not yet.

The Supreme Court, showing how they can insert a bit of clarity when they want, dropped a comment: 

The record before this Court is underdeveloped, and this order should not be construed as expressing any view on the merits of the constitutional question.

Judicial Nominations

President Biden (175) and Senator Durbin (Chair of the Judiciary Committee) are proud of their record. 

They are right to be up to a point. Even a strong liberal critic of not enough being done in response to conservative onslaughts (his tone after a while is tiresome) agrees. 

We should respect what was accomplished. There are no "blue slips" used to allow home state (including Republican) senators to hold up nominations. The Senate had a 50-50 majority and then a 51-49 (often with one or more Democrats absent). Some movement is even being accomplished in red states. 

Nonetheless, the stakes are too high for the Democrats not to do everything possible in one of the areas that they have the power to do. As noted by the critic: "As of this writing, there are 59 open seats throughout the federal judiciary. Biden has made nominations for only 22 of those seats, and many of those 22 are withering on the vine in Durbin’s committee." 

Nearly all are red states. The Democrats might very well lose their majority in January. Federal judges are fundamentally important. They can not rest on their laurels. Trump had three justices to confirm. And, what about those subpoenas or a binding ethics bill? Why has it not been brought to the floor?

Mitch McConnell was very active in 2020. Barrett was confirmed as people voted for Biden. The judge slow-walking Trump's Florida-based federal national security papers prosecution was also a late confirmation. Republicans were trying (and failing) to retain the presidency and the Senate. He still got many confirmations through. He did not let up. He knew he had to speed up.

The Democrats have a duty to as well. The blue slips for district court judges are not just following tradition. Republicans rejected them from blue state senators when they had power. 

After their fit after the Democrats in the Judiciary Committee simply tried to subpoena two people in the face of clear ethical breaches, why should they be treated with kid gloves? Durbin is the leader and has received (rightfully) a lot of blame. He has leadership responsibilities and personally supports blue slips. But, Biden et. al. have played a role. 

Senator Lindsey Graham, the ranking chair, has repeatedly been unhinged. Are nominees going to be left on the table for the ridiculous assumption these people will provide comity if they regain power? Isn't that fucking asinine?