That's not why Law Dork is going to keep doing it, but it would honestly be a good enough of a reason. Also: GOP AGs are yelling at Target. And: Law Dork is all over.
I'm thrilled to see you gaining the national exposure that you so richly deserve.
Your sharp and contextualized SCOTUS coverage is essential reading, and your analysis of lower court cases is invaluable in separating signal from noise.
McConnell used gaslighting, norm-breaking, and dark money to manipulate SCOTUS into a Federalist Society vision. He supported Trump for judges,tax cuts, and deregulation. Now he's left with an illiberal Court that over half the country views with contempt, a party of extremists and anarchists, and a fraction of the relevance he once commanded.
Yeah, I agree with McConnell, I think characterizing members of the court as extreme because you have a different view is polarizing, and I wonder whether the "scrutiny" you favor (a euphemism for political pressure) , if it has any effect at all, is to lead the members of the court you are "scrutinizing" to simply do what they think is right without worrying about your "scrutiny."
They’re extreme because their positions are extreme, not because I disagree with them. Several members of the court on the right ignore precedent and misrepresent history to reach conclusions that were soundly outside of the mainstream even five years ago. I’ve been covering it, as have others.
Additionally, I don’t care how many scare quotes you use around “scrutiny.” It should stand outside of — and regardless of — the outcomes in cases, but if the court was taking less extreme actions, as I’ve also written previously, you’re almost certainly right that some people would be less concerned about scrutinizing the court. When the court makes governing difficult and people’s lives unstable, it shouldn’t come as a shock that more people scrutinize the court.
Perhaps if you cited examples of extreme views, we could debate them on a per case basis. Was Bostock extreme? Conservatives thought so. Was Dodd extreme? Liberals thought so. And that's kind of what McConnell is saying.
I don't find 303 Creative extreme; the CO policy pushing the boundaries of accommodations cases went too far. I don't find West Va vs EPA (or the development of the major questions doctrine generally) extreme; administrative agencies legislating without Congressional authorization went too far. I don't find striking down affirmative action in college admissions to be extreme; I studied the limits of those policies in SCOTUS jurisprudence 30 years ago in Con Law. You probably disagree; that's fine. Let's not cast aspersions at one another, as that's polarizing, which is my point.
I'm not using scare quotes, I'm using quotes to indicate that you are using "scrutiny" in a manner that I view to mean political pressure. We used to respect the Court's independence; it used to be inappopriate to apply political pressure to the Court. Now Democrats threaten to pack the Court when they don't like the Court's decisions and apply "scrutiny" (as you term it) in an effort to affect their decisions. You justify that behavior because you label the GOP-appointed members of the Court as extreme. But your "scrutiny" is clearly contrary to historical norms as relates to the Court, which many may feel is an extreme position.
I think we do a disservice when we focus on the Court in stark political terms, Democrat vs Republican. We overlook nuance, we misinterpret judicial philosophies at work, we minimize the importance of process and separation of powers, and those things are much more at play than Democrat vs Republican in the Court's work.
That's not what McConnell is saying, and that's never been what McConnell is saying. Mitch McConnell's words are aimed to advance his ideological ends and support his hold on power.
As for the cases, I've literally been writing about them for the past month — in great depth — so I really have no clue why you start this off how you do. I'm also not sure why you're referring to cases from terms ago. For those reasons, I'm not going to get into your analysis of all of the cases, but, suffice it to say, you starting off with a "both-sides" analysis of the court's rulings is no different than McConnell and I've already explained why he is wrong — and it's something I've been explaining here and elsewhere before I launched Law Dork.
These are, however, extremist rulings. Bostock, since you mention it, was not; it was in alignment with most courts to look at these issues, and had been the position of the EEOC for nearly a decade before Bostock was decided. Court decisions even earlier suggested a similar path, and Justice Scalia's ruling for the court in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services strongly suggested this result.
I see. A Republican writing about this matter is advancing ideological ends and supporting his hold on power. So in contrast, is a Democrat advocating for packing the Court and imposing ethics obligations on the Supreme Court for the first time in history appropriately holding extremists to account?
I'm not arguing Bostock is extreme; I'm saying GOP critics think it's extreme. Just as they did with Obergefell. But of course both cases were celebrated by Democrats and viewed as grounded in precedent and both constitutional and statutory interpretation. Limiting myself to the latest term at your request, so were 303 Creative, the Harvard/UNC cases, Groff and the case striking down Biden's student loan forgiveness order (all favored by the GOP), as were Moore, the case ruling TX and LA don't have standing to challenge Biden's immigration policy and Merrill ruling AL's redistricting likely violated the VRA (all favored by Democrats).
You've chosen to call the GOP-favored cases extreme, while Democrat-favored cases are mainstream positions. This isn't both-sideism; both McConnell and I are pointing out that the Court's decisions don't align with one political party or the other.
As you advocate for the application of political pressure on the Court, and push for a Democratic-majority Senate to impose ethics rules on the Court, you accuse McConnell of being a political actor while you rationalize away your own political advocacy by characterizing the GOP-appointed members as extremists that need to be supervised.
Perhaps you really do see yourself as above politics and only seeking to restore the legitimacy of the Court. That's not how I see your analysis, however. Instead I find it polarizing and damaging to the institution.
You continuing to utilize others’ criticism of rulings (or your imagined criticism) to stand-in for my position, when I’ve written in-depth pieces on several of those rulings, tells me that you’re arguing with criticism of the court in general — not with me or with the actual criticism I’ve leveled.
“I'm not arguing Bostock is extreme; I'm saying GOP critics think it's extreme.”
Either you’re making that argument or you think it’s right, or you think someone making a wrong argument is equivalent to someone making a correct argument.
Yes, I'm arguing with criticism of the Court. Not all criticism, of course, but rather your particular type of criticism, mischaracterizing GOP-appointed members as extreme in order to justify political maneuvers you hope will affect their decisions. You are using legal analysis (all fair) to rationalize naked political advocacy, couching your view as the mainstream view and GOP-appointed members of the Court as extreme. Doing so is polarizing and not helpful to foster a proper understanding of the Court and its traditional (and unique) role in our governmental system.
Alito wrote an Op Ed for WSJ and now McConnell in WAPO.......Least we forget Twitter was the official correspondence for 45.......for the White House.......SCOTUS is merely an extension of the GOP......We the people object.......At least this person does......Thank you for covering,writing and sharing......
I signed up for the ACS National Supreme Court review today but messed up the time and missed it due to a prior commitment. Was very excited to know about it (I love Law Dork and just finished reading The Shadow Docket). and VERY disappointed to miss it. Any chance of accessing a recording of the ACS panel?
Mitch McConnell and his Republican senate broke the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer, but I can read and think. The quality of the reasoning in Dobbs is so poor it rivals Heller for sheer imposition of arbitrary opinion.
1) Senator McConnell, I have no doubt, had trouble controlling his smirking as he trolled the entire country with that execrable piece of mendacity.
2) Love Judd Legum's Substack. I've been a subscriber for years.
I'm thrilled to see you gaining the national exposure that you so richly deserve.
Your sharp and contextualized SCOTUS coverage is essential reading, and your analysis of lower court cases is invaluable in separating signal from noise.
McConnell used gaslighting, norm-breaking, and dark money to manipulate SCOTUS into a Federalist Society vision. He supported Trump for judges,tax cuts, and deregulation. Now he's left with an illiberal Court that over half the country views with contempt, a party of extremists and anarchists, and a fraction of the relevance he once commanded.
Thanks much!
What's #MoscowMitch afraid of? Are his skeletons bones rattling at bit too loudly?
Yeah, I agree with McConnell, I think characterizing members of the court as extreme because you have a different view is polarizing, and I wonder whether the "scrutiny" you favor (a euphemism for political pressure) , if it has any effect at all, is to lead the members of the court you are "scrutinizing" to simply do what they think is right without worrying about your "scrutiny."
They’re extreme because their positions are extreme, not because I disagree with them. Several members of the court on the right ignore precedent and misrepresent history to reach conclusions that were soundly outside of the mainstream even five years ago. I’ve been covering it, as have others.
Additionally, I don’t care how many scare quotes you use around “scrutiny.” It should stand outside of — and regardless of — the outcomes in cases, but if the court was taking less extreme actions, as I’ve also written previously, you’re almost certainly right that some people would be less concerned about scrutinizing the court. When the court makes governing difficult and people’s lives unstable, it shouldn’t come as a shock that more people scrutinize the court.
Perhaps if you cited examples of extreme views, we could debate them on a per case basis. Was Bostock extreme? Conservatives thought so. Was Dodd extreme? Liberals thought so. And that's kind of what McConnell is saying.
I don't find 303 Creative extreme; the CO policy pushing the boundaries of accommodations cases went too far. I don't find West Va vs EPA (or the development of the major questions doctrine generally) extreme; administrative agencies legislating without Congressional authorization went too far. I don't find striking down affirmative action in college admissions to be extreme; I studied the limits of those policies in SCOTUS jurisprudence 30 years ago in Con Law. You probably disagree; that's fine. Let's not cast aspersions at one another, as that's polarizing, which is my point.
I'm not using scare quotes, I'm using quotes to indicate that you are using "scrutiny" in a manner that I view to mean political pressure. We used to respect the Court's independence; it used to be inappopriate to apply political pressure to the Court. Now Democrats threaten to pack the Court when they don't like the Court's decisions and apply "scrutiny" (as you term it) in an effort to affect their decisions. You justify that behavior because you label the GOP-appointed members of the Court as extreme. But your "scrutiny" is clearly contrary to historical norms as relates to the Court, which many may feel is an extreme position.
I think we do a disservice when we focus on the Court in stark political terms, Democrat vs Republican. We overlook nuance, we misinterpret judicial philosophies at work, we minimize the importance of process and separation of powers, and those things are much more at play than Democrat vs Republican in the Court's work.
Which is what McConnell is saying.
That's not what McConnell is saying, and that's never been what McConnell is saying. Mitch McConnell's words are aimed to advance his ideological ends and support his hold on power.
As for the cases, I've literally been writing about them for the past month — in great depth — so I really have no clue why you start this off how you do. I'm also not sure why you're referring to cases from terms ago. For those reasons, I'm not going to get into your analysis of all of the cases, but, suffice it to say, you starting off with a "both-sides" analysis of the court's rulings is no different than McConnell and I've already explained why he is wrong — and it's something I've been explaining here and elsewhere before I launched Law Dork.
These are, however, extremist rulings. Bostock, since you mention it, was not; it was in alignment with most courts to look at these issues, and had been the position of the EEOC for nearly a decade before Bostock was decided. Court decisions even earlier suggested a similar path, and Justice Scalia's ruling for the court in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services strongly suggested this result.
I see. A Republican writing about this matter is advancing ideological ends and supporting his hold on power. So in contrast, is a Democrat advocating for packing the Court and imposing ethics obligations on the Supreme Court for the first time in history appropriately holding extremists to account?
I'm not arguing Bostock is extreme; I'm saying GOP critics think it's extreme. Just as they did with Obergefell. But of course both cases were celebrated by Democrats and viewed as grounded in precedent and both constitutional and statutory interpretation. Limiting myself to the latest term at your request, so were 303 Creative, the Harvard/UNC cases, Groff and the case striking down Biden's student loan forgiveness order (all favored by the GOP), as were Moore, the case ruling TX and LA don't have standing to challenge Biden's immigration policy and Merrill ruling AL's redistricting likely violated the VRA (all favored by Democrats).
You've chosen to call the GOP-favored cases extreme, while Democrat-favored cases are mainstream positions. This isn't both-sideism; both McConnell and I are pointing out that the Court's decisions don't align with one political party or the other.
As you advocate for the application of political pressure on the Court, and push for a Democratic-majority Senate to impose ethics rules on the Court, you accuse McConnell of being a political actor while you rationalize away your own political advocacy by characterizing the GOP-appointed members as extremists that need to be supervised.
Perhaps you really do see yourself as above politics and only seeking to restore the legitimacy of the Court. That's not how I see your analysis, however. Instead I find it polarizing and damaging to the institution.
You continuing to utilize others’ criticism of rulings (or your imagined criticism) to stand-in for my position, when I’ve written in-depth pieces on several of those rulings, tells me that you’re arguing with criticism of the court in general — not with me or with the actual criticism I’ve leveled.
“I'm not arguing Bostock is extreme; I'm saying GOP critics think it's extreme.”
Either you’re making that argument or you think it’s right, or you think someone making a wrong argument is equivalent to someone making a correct argument.
Either way, I’m done with this.
Have a good night.
Yes, I'm arguing with criticism of the Court. Not all criticism, of course, but rather your particular type of criticism, mischaracterizing GOP-appointed members as extreme in order to justify political maneuvers you hope will affect their decisions. You are using legal analysis (all fair) to rationalize naked political advocacy, couching your view as the mainstream view and GOP-appointed members of the Court as extreme. Doing so is polarizing and not helpful to foster a proper understanding of the Court and its traditional (and unique) role in our governmental system.
Alito wrote an Op Ed for WSJ and now McConnell in WAPO.......Least we forget Twitter was the official correspondence for 45.......for the White House.......SCOTUS is merely an extension of the GOP......We the people object.......At least this person does......Thank you for covering,writing and sharing......
I signed up for the ACS National Supreme Court review today but messed up the time and missed it due to a prior commitment. Was very excited to know about it (I love Law Dork and just finished reading The Shadow Docket). and VERY disappointed to miss it. Any chance of accessing a recording of the ACS panel?
It was recorded. I will check to see if it’s going to be posted and made available. (And, thanks!)
Good lord! Next they will be questioning Rainbow Bright and the Care Bears!
Would they prefer all wear more of a Handmaid’s Tale line? Under his eye. Up his nose and bonnets for everyone!
Mitch McConnell and his Republican senate broke the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer, but I can read and think. The quality of the reasoning in Dobbs is so poor it rivals Heller for sheer imposition of arbitrary opinion.