Breyer and the others were not put on the Court to be friends. They’re supposed to make the laws work for the benefit of all Americans. I don’t recall anyone at any Justice’s confirmation asking if the candidate was good at schmoozing. If being an agreeable coworker was a job requirement, Thomas wouldn’t be there working his grifts.
It's obvious that the liberals have known FOR DECADES that Alito and Thomas were taking millions of dollars in bribes and said nothing. If $CROTUS was shot into the sun today the world would be a better place.
The Dobbs case on abortion didn't surprise me: that's what the justices were appointed to do, after all. More distressing to me are the cases decided on misrepresented facts--straight lies, in the case of Gorsuch, wussing around in the wedding website case, making it SEEM like they were allowing a website owner to discriminate against gays.
In 303 Creative the actual HOLDING was that no one can be forced to CREATE content that violates their religious beliefs. That comes under the heading of DUH. A rosary company cannot be forced to sell hijabs, and never has been. "Creativity" has nothing to do with it. Discrimination laws don't cover that. The court left the IMPRESSION that the court says that one can refuse to SELL to someone whose beliefs they abhor--it buries the fact that it isn't holding that in Footnote 6. A rosary company cannot refuse to SELL to a Muslim, nor can 303 Creative refuse to sell its designs to a gay couple who are perfectly willing to accept all the Christian Imprecations of whatever is on the site. Not many would, of course, but I can see someone doing it in satirical mode. I can easily see lower courts--and the agencies dealing with discrimination complaints applying 303 Creative to refusal to sell cases, putting people being discriminated against to a whole lot of expense at the very least.
303 Creative also shows the more insidious undermining of basic legal concepts like standing. I truly hope the the abortion pill case gets some actual useful law set out while rejecting the standing of plaintiffs. Cases with truly "speculative injuries" are more and more being brought, and some are going to be "upheld" simply because the Extremes deny cert for some 5th Circuit decision. (Side Note, Dante's 5th circle of Hell punished the wrathful).
Along with that, there seems no Extremes pushback at all over the 5th Circuit's overt refusal to follow the new guidelines on judge shopping. And there is a 5th Circuit case mentioned by Law Dork, Space X v NLRB, where the Texas District court granted transfer of the case from Texas "because neither any party lives in the Southern District of Texas nor had a “substantial part” of the reason for the lawsuit happened there." The 5th Circuit then told the Texas District Court that it couldn't transfer the case. As far as I can remember from basic Civ Pro, that destroys the whole concept of proper jurisdiction and venue. What will happen when THAT hits the Extremes?
Of course, Dobbs itself gets to where it is by adopting a definition of human life that is the belief of only one segment of one religion. And following Dobbs, the red states are going whole hog on that idea. I have heard that there are some cases challenging those laws because of their religious grounds, though I don't know how far along they are. The idea of sending the abortion issue back to the states isn't necessarily a disaster if the laws enacted in those states are themselves constitutional. But after the reasoning in Dobbs I doubt challenges to the laws on First Amendment grounds will have much success.
I don't care how "collegial" the court is if it keeps undermining not just "precedent" but the actual legal system.
Too bad the REST of us are being flayed alive and roasted on a spit—so long as THEY get to be collegial and all, I guess.
I'm reminded of something Jack McCoy said on LAW & ORDER about a defense attorney friend of his he was opposing, "Our judicial system is inherently adversarial—that's why it works." While there are rules that keep one attorney from calling another attorney, or a judge, "a lying sack of shit", say, the whole point isn't that they all get along—the point is that they don't, and one of those sides is supposed to be looking out for us who aren't lawyers, or judges, or law clerks....
Breyer and the others were not put on the Court to be friends. They’re supposed to make the laws work for the benefit of all Americans. I don’t recall anyone at any Justice’s confirmation asking if the candidate was good at schmoozing. If being an agreeable coworker was a job requirement, Thomas wouldn’t be there working his grifts.
Excellent Piece !
More please on this systemic, overpowering by institutions of individuals weak and strong.
It is rare to find such articulate insight into this crucial intersection.
More please.
It's obvious that the liberals have known FOR DECADES that Alito and Thomas were taking millions of dollars in bribes and said nothing. If $CROTUS was shot into the sun today the world would be a better place.
The Dobbs case on abortion didn't surprise me: that's what the justices were appointed to do, after all. More distressing to me are the cases decided on misrepresented facts--straight lies, in the case of Gorsuch, wussing around in the wedding website case, making it SEEM like they were allowing a website owner to discriminate against gays.
In 303 Creative the actual HOLDING was that no one can be forced to CREATE content that violates their religious beliefs. That comes under the heading of DUH. A rosary company cannot be forced to sell hijabs, and never has been. "Creativity" has nothing to do with it. Discrimination laws don't cover that. The court left the IMPRESSION that the court says that one can refuse to SELL to someone whose beliefs they abhor--it buries the fact that it isn't holding that in Footnote 6. A rosary company cannot refuse to SELL to a Muslim, nor can 303 Creative refuse to sell its designs to a gay couple who are perfectly willing to accept all the Christian Imprecations of whatever is on the site. Not many would, of course, but I can see someone doing it in satirical mode. I can easily see lower courts--and the agencies dealing with discrimination complaints applying 303 Creative to refusal to sell cases, putting people being discriminated against to a whole lot of expense at the very least.
303 Creative also shows the more insidious undermining of basic legal concepts like standing. I truly hope the the abortion pill case gets some actual useful law set out while rejecting the standing of plaintiffs. Cases with truly "speculative injuries" are more and more being brought, and some are going to be "upheld" simply because the Extremes deny cert for some 5th Circuit decision. (Side Note, Dante's 5th circle of Hell punished the wrathful).
Along with that, there seems no Extremes pushback at all over the 5th Circuit's overt refusal to follow the new guidelines on judge shopping. And there is a 5th Circuit case mentioned by Law Dork, Space X v NLRB, where the Texas District court granted transfer of the case from Texas "because neither any party lives in the Southern District of Texas nor had a “substantial part” of the reason for the lawsuit happened there." The 5th Circuit then told the Texas District Court that it couldn't transfer the case. As far as I can remember from basic Civ Pro, that destroys the whole concept of proper jurisdiction and venue. What will happen when THAT hits the Extremes?
Of course, Dobbs itself gets to where it is by adopting a definition of human life that is the belief of only one segment of one religion. And following Dobbs, the red states are going whole hog on that idea. I have heard that there are some cases challenging those laws because of their religious grounds, though I don't know how far along they are. The idea of sending the abortion issue back to the states isn't necessarily a disaster if the laws enacted in those states are themselves constitutional. But after the reasoning in Dobbs I doubt challenges to the laws on First Amendment grounds will have much success.
I don't care how "collegial" the court is if it keeps undermining not just "precedent" but the actual legal system.
Well, I'm glad THEY'RE all chummy!
Too bad the REST of us are being flayed alive and roasted on a spit—so long as THEY get to be collegial and all, I guess.
I'm reminded of something Jack McCoy said on LAW & ORDER about a defense attorney friend of his he was opposing, "Our judicial system is inherently adversarial—that's why it works." While there are rules that keep one attorney from calling another attorney, or a judge, "a lying sack of shit", say, the whole point isn't that they all get along—the point is that they don't, and one of those sides is supposed to be looking out for us who aren't lawyers, or judges, or law clerks....
It's a big part of why trump has not been held responsible for his criminality. Respect for "the presidency"!??!