More Trump News
Steve Vladeck in his weekly SCOTUS Substack:
I wanted to use today’s “Long Read” to bring folks up to speed on the series of ongoing cases involving efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to revoke “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS) on a country-by-country basis for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, and elsewhere—two of which have reached the Supreme Court through the Trump administration’s 33rd and 34th emergency applications.
(He also references the racism involved.)
SCOTUS took the matter for review later in the day. The oral argument will be in late April.
Eugenio Suárez’s hit in the top of the ninth later in the week provided the deciding run to allow Venezuela to win the World Baseball Classic over the United States. He earlier spoke out about how immigrant baseball players worry about current policies. He noted a family member lost TPS status.
Another Execution
It also rejected a final appeal in a capital case.
Michael Lee King, 54, is scheduled to receive a three-drug injection starting at 6 p.m. at Florida State Prison near Starke. King was sentenced to death in 2009 after being convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and kidnapping.
(The death sentence is not patently outrageous. The system can be arbitrary and overall, not helpful to the public welfare, without each and every case being similarly bad.)
Florida apparently is moving on to executing one or more people who haven't been on death row for over twenty years. The final appeal basically addressed red flags regarding the state's lethal injection procedures.
Sotomayor recently referenced the matter. She didn't comment this time, but there is a comparable reason why a SCOTUS stay of execution is questionable without erasing the problems with the procedures.
Chief Justice Roberts Speaks Out
"The problem sometimes is that the criticism can move from a focus on legal analysis to personalities. And you see from all over, I mean, not just any one political perspective on it, that it's more directed in a personal way, and that, frankly, can be actually quite dangerous," Roberts said.
I saw people respond with an expletive. It's understandable. First, it sounds like he is upset about the justices being criticized. Second, the conservative justices were hoisted on their own petard by enabling Trump. And, yes, his criticism is specifically at issue.
Trump repeatedly, in personal ways, attacked judges for ruling against him. The problem also arose during his civil and criminal trials. Judges repeatedly criticized him or even sanctioned him for crossing the line. He is back to using such rhetoric to attack judges for the 2020 elections. We know how that went.
There has been a dangerous uptick in harassment of judges. People send pizzas to their homes in the name of a murdered son of a judge. Judges get harassing phone calls. A few judges in the past were physically attacked or even killed.
Strong criticism is part of the program. Some will be fair, some unfair. But, especially when people like Trump (or other members of the government) attack judges personally, sometimes targeting other people along the way (family members, prosecutors, etc.), a line begins to be crossed. The unjust delegitimizing of the court system alone is a problem. It can get worse.
A new article flagged some lower court judges addressing the problem. It notes that the pizza thing might have, in some sense, been a foreign job.
I didn't catch that aspect before. It should be carefully checked out. It surely would not be the only attempt at foreign interference with our institutions.
Another way to look at this is to examine a major reason lower court judges have received some strong criticism. Conservative justices have, at times, with little or no explanation, overturned their rulings.
This effectively is a big "fu" to lower court judges, who regularly are just doing their jobs, provided extended explanations when doing so. The judges come off as "judicial activists" who deserve strong criticism. As the article notes, "thanks a lot, John."
When you flag this, some people think you are just making it about Trump. He obviously has significant influence and has used it in unhinged ways.
But it isn't just him. So "what about Schumer" won't be much of a comeback. Put aside his comments and influence simply are not comparable. If you can find something bad liberals say, fine.
We need to protect our institutions. This should not be a partisan issue. Too often, it seems that it is.
Justice O'Connor
There was a special event on Thursday to honor Justice O'Connor. The Supreme Court website provided a rare livestream video link.
There were two parts. There was a bar event, and then they had a special court session. The livestream only covered the first part. A ceremonial occasion would be an ideal situation to provide SCOTUS video.
Some documentary materials were supplied, including an extended biographic statement. O'Connor was a moderate conservative from another age.
Her role in Bush v. Gore for some is disqualifying. But she's no Justice Alito. She was, as noted, a reasonable conservative who carefully and pragmatically (influenced by her legislative experience) applied the law. She also supported civics education, making it her focus after leaving the Court.
Opinions
The justices were back for opinions and a conference on Friday. There will be oral arguments next week.
They handed down a single opinion, by Kagan, which unanimously allowed someone to sue to protect his free speech rights. The person feared future prosecution. The case is not about damages.
Kagan handles things, tossing in some Kagan-esque colloquial "let's chat about this" phrasings (e.g., "For anyone who has followed along this far") quickly in a Roberts Court special. It's a good, limited opinion.
(Robert Court specials unite the justices, often with short opinions, by opinions of limited reach that avoid divisive questions. Sometimes, they clearly paper over certain disputes, the seams at times fairly blatant.)
Other Stuff
The Court also dropped a housekeeping order.
They will hear oral arguments next week after dropping an Order List on Monday.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!