SCOTUS Watch

Trump Immunity Case 

Some people thought that the justices would split the difference. They would overturn the Colorado Supreme Court ruling removing Trump from the ballot while not taking the D.C. immunity case. As time passed from the D.C. handing down its ruling, this seemed more likely.

We saw what happened. I think this added to the anger of the liberals, even if some people were mad they did not simply dissent. I get that. Kagan and Jackson flagged they would not dissent. It was notable they went as far as they did. Jackson was curious about the asinine "not an officer" argument!

We still should not handwave their criticism because they could have gone further. It's unfair and gives the majority opinion more credit than it deserves. And, yes, I know I said I was done. I did say "maybe." And, I'm not. Sorry.

Anyway, as Democrats talk about an enforcement bill (which would have been useful two years ago), the Supreme Court continues to show walk the immunity case. It scheduled oral argument -- even with time available beforehand -- on the last argument day of the term. Get your seating now! 

The Supreme Court has asked for more security funding. And, I do not begrudge them the need, especially with some threats to federal judges. But, Democrats should ask for something in return. And, that includes binding ethics requirements, especially after Thomas' involvement here.

State of the Union 

President Biden overall had a very good State of the Union though he used "illegal" when responding to a heckler. He called out the overturning of Roe v. Wade and supported legislation returning it into law. We had a quick reaction shot:

Justices Alito and Thomas (expected) along with Barrett (somewhat less so) were not there. Justice Kennedy represented the retired crew. Souter avoids the spotlight. It is somewhat more surprising institutionalist Breyer wasn't there. 

Correction on Barrett. It might be the case that she is the person who did the Republican response. OTOH, I figure she has better acting ability. 

Order Watch

The motion of respondents Jayanta Bhattacharya, et al. for leave to file out of time, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument is denied. 

This order regards a case that some of the conservative justices flagged as a major First Amendment dispute. It is upon a closer look more of a nothingburger. To remind:

The Biden administration will be back before the court in March in another case involving its own relationship with social media. In Murthy v. Missouri, slated for argument on March 18, the justices will consider whether and to what extent government officials can communicate with social media companies about their content-moderation policies.

There is no Friday conference this week so no scheduled Order List on Monday. There is a conference / non-argument session next Friday. No arguments next week.