SCOTUS - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

[LFC]

May 24, 2023 18:04:20 GMT pnwguy said:

At least Gorsuch was savvy enough to say "peacetime".  Rationing, blackouts, manufacturing takeovers, and compulsory male draft service doesn't count in his eyes either.

It's all cool when soldiers are being torn apart by bullets and bombs. Over a million regular folks being wiped out by a pandemic? Meh, just let it run its course cuz' FREEDUMB!

[LFC]

Alabama managed to gerrymander the 25% of its population who are black out of political power. Roberts must have realized just how over the top awful this looked, even though he wrote the majority opinion defending the disenfranchisement of voters by gerrymandering. It appears that Roberts is desperately trying to repair the smoldering ashes of his legacy. Remember that this is a man who has been hostile to voting rights his entire career.

It could have real implications.

[LFC]

Sam Alito may not be as corrupt as Clarence Thomas (yet, but there's still time) but he sure is more butthurt about getting called out on clearly suspicious perks. He wrote a major rant over in the WSJ op-ed section, where major rants live and breed, and if this is the quality of his "judicial mind" he doesn't even qualify to be on traffic court.

The piece was unusual for a few reasons. For one, it is rare (and may in fact be unprecedented) for a sitting Court justice to attack a media outlet in print—or to engage in any kind of published advocacy at all. (The judicial branch of the federal government, at least in theory, operates independently of public opinion.)

For another, the “false charges” that the headline referred to as having been “leveled” hadn’t actually been put in print. According to a note preceding the piece, the Journal’s editorial board offered Alito space to preemptively respond to allegations that he believed ProPublica would be making against him on the basis of questions sent to him by two reporters from the outlet last Friday. Confusingly, the Journal piece was still written as if its readers had already read an accusatory exposé about Alito. “I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites,” Alito wrote, despite those cases not having been cited anywhere at all when his piece was published.

Ultimately, though, one could reverse-engineer the broad outline of the situation from Alito’s defense of his actions—and, at 11:49 p.m. ET, ProPublica did post its piece. What seems to be agreed on is that the justice flew to Alaska for a fishing trip in 2008 on a private jet belonging to billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer, but didn’t report the flight as a gift. He then failed to recuse himself—and ruled in Singer’s favor—in a 2014 Supreme Court case called Republic of Argentina vs. NML Capital that concerned an offshoot of Singer’s hedge fund, Elliott Management.

Alito writes in the Journal—not entirely convincingly, one might argue—that he had no obligation to disclose the flight and could not have been expected to recuse himself.

He states first that the disclosure instructions that he was subject to in 2008 didn’t require him to report any hospitality offered to him at a “facility” owned by an individual, then argues that “in ordinary and legal usage,” the word “facility” is understood to encompass “means of transportation.” To put that more directly, Alito is arguing that an airplane flight is a facility, a claim he supports by—among other things—quoting a dictionary entry that lists “transportation facilities” as a category of facility. (Which, in this context, would seem to mean airports, not airplane flights.)

Alito further implies that the flight he took did not have any value because he used “what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat”:

Once again we see a religious zealot whose mind has been utterly warped, or perhaps started that way, or perhaps a bit of both. No matter what it seems the boy is more than a few degrees off level.

[goldenvalley]

Jun 21, 2023 14:26:58 GMT LFC said:

Sam Alito may not be as corrupt as Clarence Thomas (yet, but there's still time) but he sure is more butthurt about getting called out on clearly suspicious perks. He wrote a major rant over in the WSJ op-ed section, where major rants live and breed, and if this is the quality of his "judicial mind" he doesn't even qualify to be on traffic court.

The piece was unusual for a few reasons. For one, it is rare (and may in fact be unprecedented) for a sitting Court justice to attack a media outlet in print—or to engage in any kind of published advocacy at all. (The judicial branch of the federal government, at least in theory, operates independently of public opinion.)

For another, the “false charges” that the headline referred to as having been “leveled” hadn’t actually been put in print. According to a note preceding the piece, the Journal’s editorial board offered Alito space to preemptively respond to allegations that he believed ProPublica would be making against him on the basis of questions sent to him by two reporters from the outlet last Friday. Confusingly, the Journal piece was still written as if its readers had already read an accusatory exposé about Alito. “I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites,” Alito wrote, despite those cases not having been cited anywhere at all when his piece was published.

Ultimately, though, one could reverse-engineer the broad outline of the situation from Alito’s defense of his actions—and, at 11:49 p.m. ET, ProPublica did post its piece. What seems to be agreed on is that the justice flew to Alaska for a fishing trip in 2008 on a private jet belonging to billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer, but didn’t report the flight as a gift. He then failed to recuse himself—and ruled in Singer’s favor—in a 2014 Supreme Court case called Republic of Argentina vs. NML Capital that concerned an offshoot of Singer’s hedge fund, Elliott Management.

Alito writes in the Journal—not entirely convincingly, one might argue—that he had no obligation to disclose the flight and could not have been expected to recuse himself.

He states first that the disclosure instructions that he was subject to in 2008 didn’t require him to report any hospitality offered to him at a “facility” owned by an individual, then argues that “in ordinary and legal usage,” the word “facility” is understood to encompass “means of transportation.” To put that more directly, Alito is arguing that an airplane flight is a facility, a claim he supports by—among other things—quoting a dictionary entry that lists “transportation facilities” as a category of facility. (Which, in this context, would seem to mean airports, not airplane flights.)

Alito further implies that the flight he took did not have any value because he used “what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat”:

Once again we see a religious zealot whose mind has been utterly warped, or perhaps started that way, or perhaps a bit of both. No matter what it seems the boy is more than a few degrees off level.

Thomas, Roberts, now Alito. What a thin skinned jerks.  They are public officials, not gods, who should be scrutinized for appearances of impropriety and boy did the Alito situation appear to be inappropriate.  

[LFC]

Sham Alito is above it all. At least he recused himself but seriously, why even bother signing a document laying out ethics guidelines if you aren't even going to attempt to comply?

It Took Alito Barely a Month to Violate the Supreme Court’s New Ethics Rules

On April 25, Chief Justice John Roberts sent the Senate Judiciary Committee a “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” signed by all nine justices. Roberts forwarded along the “statement” in lieu of testifying before the committee, and obviously hoped it would quell growing congressional concern over the Supreme Court’s growing ethics scandals. The document identified various recusal and disclosure practices, claiming that “all of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe” to these suggested rules.

It took Justice Samuel Alito barely a month to violate them.

In the court’s orders list on Tuesday, Alito noted his recusal from BG Gulf Coast and Phillips 66 v. Sabine-Neches Navigation District—a case about two energy companies shirking their obligation to help fund improvement of a waterway that they use for shipping. (The court declined to take up the case, leaving in place a lower court decision against the companies.) But the justice did not explain his reason for recusing, one of Roberts’ promised “practices.” To obtain that information, you must dig through his financial disclosures, which reveal that he holds up to $50,000 of stock in Phillips 66, one of the parties. Alito is one of two sitting justices who still holds individual stocks (as opposed to conflict-free assets like mutual funds). The only other sitting justice who maintains investments in individual stock is Roberts himself.

For years, Alito has periodically recused from cases involving energy companies without explaining why. This spring, however, that practice was supposed to change. Roberts’ ethics “statement” explained that justices “may provide a summary explanation of a recusal decision” with a citation to the relevant provision of the Judicial Code of Conduct. (That code is binding on lower court judges but voluntary for the justices.) The “statement” offered this example: “Justice X took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. See Code of Conduct, Canon 3C(1)(c) (financial interest).”

In Philips 66, it appears that Alito should have cited his “financial interest” in a party to explain his “recusal decision.” (In other words, he should have been “Justice X.”) This could have been a textbook example of the new rule in action; indeed, it was literally the example that the court offered the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, Alito refused to adhere to this new procedure.

His decision is all the more brazen given that Justice Elena Kagan debuted the new rule just last week. In recusing from a case, Kagan cited her “prior government employment,” a shorter way of saying that she participated in the proceedings while serving as solicitor general. This move provided some basis to hope that the court really had begun to embrace a modicum of transparency (albeit by doing the bare minimum). As Leah Litman pointed out on the Strict Scrutiny podcast, though, Kagan was never the problem: She has long complied voluntarily with the Judicial Code of Conduct, so much so that she once turned away a gift of free bagels and lox from high school friends. The real question was whether any justices at the center of the ethics maelstrom would follow through on the promises of the court’s “statement.” It seems the answer is no.

That leads to a deeper problem: The justices who commit the most ethics violations are also the least likely to follow voluntary ethics guidelines.

[LFC]

Alito again. If you can't see the difference between a group where you simply speak and a group that has filings before your court where you speak, you have no business on any bench.

A new report from CNN reveals that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's trip to Rome last year was funded by a religious group that has filed briefs before the court in recent years.

According to CNN, Notre Dame’s Religious Liberty Initiative paid for Alito's trip to Rome shortly after he authored the opinion that overturned five decades of precedent on abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade.

Stephanie Barclay, the Religious Liberty Initiative’s director, told CNN that there was nothing improper about funding Alito's trip to speak at one of its galas in the Italian capital city.

“Like the other speakers and panelists at the summit, Justice Alito’s transportation and lodging were covered and of course, he had meals provided like all attendees,” she said. “Unlike other speakers, no honorarium was given.”

However, CNN notes that Alito "joined the majority in ruling in favor of the Religious Liberty Initiative’s position in several of the cases for which it submitted briefs, including the one that reversed Roe, which he authored, and a 2022 decision that said a high school football coach had the right to pray on the 50-yard line after games."

Clarence Thomas: “I’m the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice of all time!”

Sam Alito: “Hold my beer.”

Brett Kavanaugh: “Can I get one of those?”

[goldenvalley]

Despite the fact that the US Supreme Court didn't buy the Independent State Legislature doctrine that was part of Trump's planned coup, Trump should be thanking it this week.  The brouhaha over other Supreme Court decisions took some media attention off Trump's current and probably future indictments so that even news that Giuliani made a proffer and has been before a grand jury got quickly wiped off the front pages fairly quickly.

[jackd]

They're doing their best to keep us distracted. Today they reinforced religious discrimination by businesses and continued to dismantle the administrative state by voiding Biden's debt forgiveness order via the Secretary of Education pursuant to a clear Congressional delegation of authority.

[goldenvalley]

Jun 30, 2023 18:43:06 GMT jackd said:

They're doing their best to keep us distracted. Today they reinforced religious discrimination by businesses and continued to dismantle the administrative state by voiding Biden's debt forgiveness order via the Secretary of Education pursuant to a clear Congressional delegation of authority.

Yeah I saw that.  Not sure why Harvard can't discriminate on the basis of race but private businesses can discriminate based on the sexual preferences of potential customers.  But consistency is not the point, is it?

Everything but the ISL decision was expected.  I don't know why anyone was surprised if they were.  After Dobbs, I knew that the grievances against the modern era would be redressed by this Court.  

ISL was a crap shoot and really just a pet theory that persisted from the 2000 decision that led Bush the Younger to the White House.  It did not fall into the social war grievance category.

ETA The 1st Amendment case involving some sick person stalking a woman on social media for two year suggests that we need to rethink what threats are, what intent to threaten someone is in the social media age.

[LFC]

Jun 30, 2023 20:17:12 GMT goldenvalley said:

Yeah I saw that.  Not sure why Harvard can't discriminate on the basis of race but private businesses can discriminate based on the sexual preferences of potential customers.  But consistency is not the point, is it?

And Roberts freely granted the states a clear path to gerrymandering, which can be based on race, political party, wealth, or any number of criteria. I guess some forms of discrimination are good and others are bad.

[indy]

The dissents were scathing.

[goldenvalley]

Jun 30, 2023 21:23:05 GMT indy said:

The dissents were scathing.

And personal.   I don't think I've ever read one in which a Justice is referred to by name as Thomas did to Brown Jackson.  Usually it's "my esteemed colleague is mistaken" or just refer to the "dissent". Tempers are raw there.  Alito has never struck me as a nice person.  At least Scalia could be jovial and relaxed but Alito is always looking for trouble.  Thomas' silence was never benign in feel.  Glowering but silent was his way for years.

[indy]

Jun 30, 2023 23:25:30 GMT goldenvalley said:

Jun 30, 2023 21:23:05 GMT indy said:

The dissents were scathing.

And personal.   I don't think I've ever read one in which a Justice is referred to by name as Thomas did to Brown Jackson.  Usually it's "my esteemed colleague is mistaken" or just refer to the "dissent". Tempers are raw there.  Alito has never struck me as a nice person.  At least Scalia could be jovial and relaxed but Alito is always looking for trouble.  Thomas' silence was never benign in feel.  Glowering but silent was his way for years.

And Brown Jackson gave better than she got while also relegating Thomas to a footnote, which speaks volumes by itself. I thought it was pretty hilarious.

[LFC]

[LFC]

Clarence Thomas, yet again.

The list of gifts and perks Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is accused of accepting just keeps getting longer. Anthony Welters, a close friend and longtime executive in the health-care industry, funded—at least in part—Thomas’ cherished $267,230 R.V., according to title history records obtained by The New York Times. “Here is what I can share. Twenty-five years ago, I loaned a friend money, as I have other friends and family. We’ve all been on one side or the other of that equation. He used it to buy a recreational vehicle, which is a passion of his,” Welters told the Times in a statement. While Welters said “the loan was satisfied,” he declined to reveal how much he had loaned or provide a copy of a loan agreement (if one existed). Welters and Thomas have been friends since before the justice took the federal bench, and Welters even reportedly named Thomas the godfather of one of his sons. Thomas did not respond to requests for comment about the R.V. loan from the Times. Earlier this year, a bombshell report from ProPublica revealed real estate magnate Harlan Crow paid for Thomas’ lavish vacations and his grandnephew’s private boarding school tuition.

Reminds me of this scene in "The Producers." The great one, not the mere shadow of a remake.

[LFC]

Is there a right-wing billionaire who HASN'T purchased a piece of Clarence Thomas?

During his three decades on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has enjoyed steady access to a lifestyle most Americans can only imagine. A cadre of industry titans and ultrawealthy executives have treated him to far-flung vacations aboard their yachts, ushered him into the premium suites at sporting events and sent their private jets to fetch him — including, on more than one occasion, an entire 737. It’s a stream of luxury that is both more extensive and from a wider circle than has been previously understood.

Like clockwork, Thomas’ leisure activities have been underwritten by benefactors who share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence. Their gifts include:

At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.

This accounting of Thomas’ travel, revealed for the first time here from an array of previously unavailable information, is the fullest to date of the generosity that has regularly afforded Thomas a lifestyle far beyond what his income could provide. And it is almost certainly an undercount.

Meanwhile we have Sam Alito, who has displayed his own ethical flexibility, standing up for "principle."

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m going to say it,” Alito said. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”

[LFC]

Borowitz.

Citing “unfortunate economic realities,” Clarence Thomas is hiking the price of Supreme Court decisions to keep up with inflation.

The jurist disclosed his new rate card in a mass e-mail sent to more than a hundred super-donors.

“I have tried to keep my prices reasonable, but, as inflation proves more stubborn than predicted, I have no choice but to adjust my rates accordingly,” he wrote.

“Sadly, the days of shredding civil rights in exchange for ten private-jet flights are over,” he added.

It remains to be seen whether the billionaires who received Thomas’s e-mail will tolerate his steeper prices or whether they will explore a budget option such as Neil Gorsuch.

[Art Vandelay]

Aug 11, 2023 14:24:31 GMT LFC said:

Is there a right-wing billionaire who HASN'T purchased a piece of Clarence Thomas?

The Thomases have been treated to at least seven University of Nebraska-Lincoln games — five arranged by Sokol — in recent years. The Times first reported on Thomas’ appearances at some of them.

In fairness, tickets to University of Nebraska football games would generally be considered to be gifts that have little or no value.

[goldenvalley]

Thanks USSC.  The assistant football coach in a Bremerton WA high school who led prayers on the 50 yard line, quit after one football game this year.  He was only an assistant coach anyway.   

Kennedy, already back in Pensacola, Fla., where he and his wife have lived for three years, said he emailed his resignation at 4 a.m. Wednesday due to a family health situation and what he described as a deteriorating situation at the Bremerton School District.

“I’m done,” he said.

Kennedy’s resignation is pending School Board approval at a regularly scheduled meeting Thursday, according to a district spokesperson who declined further comment.

His decision was not exactly a surprise.

Kennedy strongly hinted before Friday’s game that he might not stick around for his part-time assistant coaching gig. He said the game, which Bremerton won, was a “fine bow” on top of the Supreme Court victory that cleared the way not only for his return after an eight-year absence but for him to pray on the field. He said he couldn’t think further ahead than that.

In a resignation letter obtained by The Seattle Times, Kennedy said, “It is apparent that the reinstatement ordered by the Supreme Court will not be fully followed after a series of actions meant to diminish my role and single me out in what I can only believe is retaliation by the school district.”

But Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the district, said Kennedy’s fleeting stay in Bremerton was predictable. The organization argued before the Supreme Court that his case was moot because Kennedy no longer lived in the city.

“For years, Kennedy and his lawyers have said all he wanted was his job back. We were skeptical. And now, here we are, right where we warned the Supreme Court we would be,” Laser said in a statement.

Gee what made that lawyer say that?

Kennedy quit his full-time job at the Bremerton shipyard before moving to Florida. With his newfound celebrity, he has a promotional website, a book coming out in October and a movie about his life in the works. He speaks to political and religious groups, and says politicians including Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, have courted him for his endorsement.

Kennedy said he’s weighing other options, prepared to jump in to support those fighting for religious liberty.

I'm sure doing this other stuff is a lot easier than being an assistant coach or whatever his shipping job was...more lucrative too.

Now I recognize that the ACLU put John Scopes up to teaching evolution in Dayton TN back in the day.  That one never got to the US Supreme Court and Scopes didn't make bank on it.