SCOTUS Watch (and Other Legal News)

Order List

Another yawner of an Order List.  Alito didn't take part in a couple cases without explaining why. Only liberals deign to do that. We will have another Order List on Monday, after today's conference.

Various Actions 

On Friday, another order was announced, and the court denied a request for a stay. From the brief: 

The Warden seeks recall and stay of the Sixth Circuit’s mandate because the judgment of that court orders an imminent new trial in an attempted-murder case.

Separately, the Court took two cases to examine the contours of congressional power to delegate while adding a question to possibly avoid the question on procedural grounds. Thus, it handled two of the relists covered here. 

SCOTUS also scheduled some oral arguments for February and March 2025. Time marches on. 

DIG 

The Supreme Court announced that there might be one or more opinions today. There was one:

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. 

That was the whole thing. In the past, at times, the Supreme Court (or specific justices) has explained why they thought a case was improvidently granted. The trend is not explained. The case:

Involves the 2015 Cambridge Analytica-Facebook data breach and considers whether Facebook’s disclosures to investors before the breach was public improperly downplayed the risks that data breaches posed to the company and its stock price.

The summary did not suggest that the case was apt to be tossed. We are left to guess why they in effect said, "Our bad, we shouldn't have taken this case."

The result is that the case can continue against Facebook/Meta. The lower court ruling remains the only precedent for the Ninth Circuit with the Supreme Court not settling the question for the nation. 

Lower Courts

The Senate had little to do in recent months other than confirm people. The Democrats still had numerous judges to confirm in the lame-duck session as we await the bad guys coming into power in January.  

Why leave any slots on the table for Trump to fill? President Biden did not even nominate nearly thirty district court judges, all in red states, leaving me to think the problem was blue slips. 

Blue slips allow home state senators to block district court nominees. This is not all on Biden since the blue slip policy is a Senate rule. Dick Durbin can keep on bragging about all the judges they confirmed but it still holds Trump had three justices. 

The link says thirteen judicial nominees are pending (Biden just nominated two), which is cutting it close -- they are due to close shop mid-December. Again, it is unclear why it should be. They had one real responsibility, and it wasn't confirming lower-level executive officials.  

Meanwhile, multiple appellate nominees are for some reason (you lost the Senate & the alternative is Trump picks, WTF is wrong with you?) opposed by enough people to be in trouble. 

Net result? A deal where four appellate slots go to Trump. Expletive deleted. Biden gets more district judges than Trump but not appellate judges and justices. Plus, the chance to provide a little light in conservative circuits is denied. 

A horrible result occurred. The Democrats decided to compromise in a key area of power they retained for a few more weeks. Rubs me the wrong way. 

ETA: Chris Geidner breaks down the numbers in a somewhat more positive fashion, granting he opposes the blue slips procedure that caused those district court vacancies. He says Chuck Grassley -- who btw is over 90! -- says he will keep blue slips for now. We shall see. Past experience makes me doubtful.  

What of the four appellate judges? He notes two can (will they?) revoke their plans for senior status. One was in a circuit where Democrats already have five appointees. And, the last one involved the horrible Muslim appointee being blocked. 

Do I feel better? Marginally. To toss it in, a well-known Fifth Circuit advocate cited his concern that the Democrats didn't fill all of those district slots.  

See also, Balls and Strikes, which takes a somewhat on the same page position though still says "bummer." I agree. Every appellate slot should be fought for.

Trump AG Pick 

Trump himself granted when asked that Matt Gaetz as attorney general was something of a longshot. And, sooner than expected, he's out. 

Still, I did not think he was going to be confirmed. I won't assume this is grand news. Take it as a victory. Trump can't do absolutely everything he says he wants. I guess that is useful to show now and then. 

But, be clear, it was not some grand victory. The ultimate choice very well deep down might have been the expected pick even inside the Trump camp. It also might help others be confirmed, the senators having the luxury now of having some limits.

Trump went with Pam Bondi, a more serious pick, who has actual experience (and is also from Florida). She is a Trump loyalist (took part in the first impeachment), checks off the MAGA points (including election denial), and has various skeletons but not on the level of being a sexual predator. 

Asking for an execution to be delayed for political reasons or not giving a couple their dog back or an apparent quid quo pro involving investigating Trump come off as not great, but you know, it's Trump's pick. 

She did a lot of news commentary, so she checks off Trump's need for people he sees on television. 

She also continues the trend of Trump stocking the Justice Department with loyalists, particularly former defense lawyers. Sessions and Barr were not great but were not former defense lawyers for their new boss.   

Bondi is basically the best you can hope for. How much she will politicize the office remains to be seen though she might be marginally better than some alternatives. She was Florida's attorney general, so has some official credibility.  

Senator Graham slavishly praised Trump for the pick, reminding people what a weasel he is. Lindsey Graham, that is, since Trump is best cited as some other sort of animal. Like Marco Rubio, she is a reasonable pick in context. Expect some Dem votes. 

Yes, you pick your battles. As a senator, I probably would vote against her. OTOH, I can understand a few Democrats deciding she meets a bare minimum following the principle presidents have the right to pick their own people within limits.  

Also, people, either way, can flag problems and ask questions during her confirmation hearing while using more effort and stronger language against others who are less fit and more dangerous overall.  

Of course, Matt Gaetz aside, dissenters have a limited amount of power. This underlines why the Democrats are so wrong in not using their power now, while in control, and leaving so many judges for Trump.