24 Comments
User's avatar
Lance Khrome's avatar

Kavanaugh really screwed the pooch with his opinion in *Perdomo*, he knows he bollixed it, and he knows that the DHS masked hoodlums took that opinion and are abusing the fuck out of it. Now what's he going to do about it? When will the case reach Scotus on the merits?

zach's avatar

If Kavanaugh is who I think he is, he's indignant at the notion that anyone would attempt to hold him accountable for anything he's said or done. The man reeks of privilege.

Larry Erickson's avatar

If I read him right, he's indignant at the thought that anyone would think he got something wrong.

Heidi in Real Time's avatar

If (not holding my breath) this bill makes it thru congress, how would it change how SCOTUS has been ruling? It does not appear that the majority has much respect for legal precedent when weighed against conservative goals. Will some measure of transparency make them think twice before issuing dubious rulings? I don't think they care. At all. They need a code of ethics with teeth that can be enforced, preferably by an independent panel of legal/constitutional scholars/professionals. Again, not holding my breath.

ASBermant's avatar

It will not happen under the current Congress, and it probably won’t happen under the next Congress because they won’t have a veto proof majority but if we can flip Congress and the White House in 2026 in 2028, this legislation will most certainly pass. But, then, of course, the matter will be litigated by the right with the specious claim that Congress is overstepping its constitutional authority. The result? The constitutionality of the legislation will no doubt come before the 6 seditionist jurors for a Shadow docket decision😵‍💫

Larry Erickson's avatar

I would argue that a law saying that SCOTUS must explain the basis for its decisions, including those on the shadow docket, is well within the authority of Congress.

The Constitution gives Congress a fair degree of latitude to regulate the courts, including SCOTUS. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

A law that doesn't in any way impact the powers of the Court but only requires that it explain the reasoning for its actions cannot by any rational argument be said to be outside the limits of "Regulations as the Congress shall make."

ASBermant's avatar

It will not happen under the current Congress, and it probably won’t happen under the next Congress because they won’t have a veto proof majority but if we can flip Congress and the White House in 2026 in 2028, this legislation will most certainly pass. Only wish they could make it retroactive so that the six seditionists on the Court would be

obligated to explain themselves to the American electorate.

Michael's avatar

It's a shame it has come to this and kudos to Chris for getting a scoop on the Act. The sponsors are an all-star line up.

Shelley Powers's avatar

Yes. This right here.

'Although the bill will almost certainly not be passing this Congress, it is important for members of Congress to be showing what they can — or could — do to confront an increasingly out-of-control Supreme Court.'

Jon Aronson's avatar

I’m sure he celebrates each and every one of those stops by having a few drinks and “boofing”

Susan Linehan's avatar

Ask godlings to explain themselves? When they are rubber stamping the God in Chief? Heresy. Not the way a Christian Nation works 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

zach's avatar

How have I not ever heard the term 'godling' before

David J. Sharp's avatar

And it’s obvious that if they don’t look like (fishbelly white) you, they don’t deserve equal treatment under the law.

Uncloseted Media's avatar

It should be common sense that Americans should get some basic transparency on consequential decisions by one of our most important governing bodies. Thank you for your coverage.

Kenneth E Schaefer's avatar

Do you suppose that the purpose of all these removal of stays is so they can allow Trump to do what he wants, but that by the time they are fully adjudicated, a Democrate president will be in power to receive the news that he/she can NOT do these things?

David J. Sharp's avatar

First of all let’s celebrate Justice Kavanaugh and his deep respect for fellow Justice Sotomayor by placing a potential target on her back.

Nancy Hines's avatar

People are not being allowed to get documents that may be in lockers at their workplace.

Why are bounties being paid?

The only thing we really know about Kavanaugh that is truthful is that he “likes beer”.

Janet Carter's avatar

Damn Roberts and Kavanaugh.

ray nord's avatar

I still do not understand why we need an ethics code for the Supremes. All but Elena Kagan have been judges in the federal system for many years before being "promoted" to a higher level job in the judiciary. They all (including Kagan) swore oaths in their prior capacity so why are those terms not still in force and applicable to them as Justices??

Ken M's avatar

The drunken Frat Boy either has no idea how these stops actually go down in the streets, or more likely, doesn't give a shit. At some time in the future, Americans will come to the realization that SCOTUS has no way to enforce its rulings, if the People decide they've had enough. I hope that time is soon.

Robert R. Putnam's avatar

The Grand Wizard of the KKK surely approves of KKKavanaugh Stops.