This may be the dumbest post title that I've ever allowed of myself.
There wasn't a circuit split and the 90 days are over, why would Roberts want to get involved? Seems really weird.
Sarah Jeong, who's putting out an email newsletter about these cases, said "it would be absurd for SCOTUS not to take a case of such major import, but it would also be absurd for SCOTUS to take a case about a provision that has since expired". We live in absurd times.
Breyer and Kennedy look like skeletons in this term's picture (top of NYT article.) Ginsberg just looks like her usual badass self but she's not getting younger either.
As the Court recites, the President may have saved the mootness, for now, by his revision of the EO effective date.
I haven't really studied this, but at first glance it looks like the Court preserved the injunction for the actual plaintiffs, and those genuinely similarly situated, and lifted as to people as to whom there's no standing. It's not really surprising that this sort of thing would get the votes of Roberts and Kennedy. It's disappointing that the moderates would sign on to this, because it'll be used to argue about standing to complain about what are sure to be unconstitutional aspects of whatever final rule(s) DHS/DOS adopt.
I'm really not clear how this case won't be moot by October 1. Will it only be about the President's authority to exclude people who *do* have a bona fide relationship with a US person or entity?
Useful contrast between Breyer and Sotomayor in the Lutheran playground case.
Political naivete & haven't read the brief, but aren't we very clearly breaking refugee treaties with the ban? Why the fuck does the Supreme Court think the executive has more obvious authority to bar refugees if they have no connection with other people here? Wasn't about a quarter of the purpose of the Constitution to make treaties binding law once entered into?
11-member Supreme Court as core plank of the Dem 2020 platform.
not that there was one fucking bit of doubt about Gorusch being a total ideologue, but if there were his using 'Democrat" as an adjective several times during his confirmation hearing was a huge tell. I saw Lemieux and several others like him note it but did it come up in any mainstream commentary? A wingnut verbal tic.
10 That's an interesting question, and one I don't know the answer to. I do know that it wasn't the basis for eiher of the Circuit decisions, and don't think it was part of the district court decisions either. I'd be happy to be corrected on that.
Lederman: https://www.justsecurity.org/42550/stay-or-lack-thereof/
Breyer's dissent in Hernandez is interesting --we all think of borders as existing in only one dimension (do I have the math on that right?) but it's more complicated than that. Too bad the recent evisceration of Bivens will control the result on remand.
We think of borders as being a one-dimensional embedding in a two-dimensional plane.
I think I heard it was a sphere, not a plane.
It's embeddings all the way down.
Which will we see first, a 7-justice court or an 11-justice one? I think it's well over 50% that we'll see one or the other in our lifetimes.
11-justices needs one party to control president and both houses of congress but not SC and for that party to be willing to do it. 7 requires president and senate controlled by opposite parties and two SC justices to die, but doesn't require anyone to do anything unusual. Would need to do some complicated actuarial calculations to be sure, but the latter seems more likely to me. I don't think we'll ever again see hearings for a nominee when the other party controls the senate.
The switch in time that saved the "nein".
not that there was one fucking bit of doubt about Gorusch being a total ideologue, but if there were his using 'Democrat" as an adjective several times during his confirmation hearing was a huge tell.
Oh God, yeah. Such an obvious expression of contempt, and an unmistakable way of burnishing one's wingnut credentials.
I'm so sick of horrible people being influential figures for thirty or forty years. It's like no one, at least on the right, can be discredited and then live in shame and obscurity anymore.
It's like no one, at least on the right, can be discredited and then live in shame and obscurity anymore.
It's like no one, at least on the right, even has a sense of shame anymore (if they ever did). See, for example, the role of that faction in the election of Trump. Utterly shameless; and without any guiding principles whatsoever, beyond the sheer, rough, brute acquisition and maintenance of power. Which means they cannot be discredited by any appeals to anything higher, or nobler, in its aims, I'm afraid.
22: or even just die. I mean, Henry Kissinger is still alive.
or even just die
They become pickled in their own bile. A strong preservative.
11 - just go straight to a 19-member court to be on the safe side. (By 2040, there will be more Supreme Court justices than Representatives.)
27 We'll end up with Supreme Court decisions decided by popular referenda. And we all know how that will end.