In cases over the Double Jeopardy Clause and review of deportation decisions, Georgia and DOJ are likely to lose. But also, a possibility of something more.
I don't trust the conservative justices at all. Not even a little. I really wish Biden would get on board to expand the court. 13 districts need 13 justices. The justices have to double and triple their work loads. Less time and attention are paid to each case. That's a disservice to all of us.
Actually, I think their ethics retreat somehow brought them together as human beings, like soldiers from different backgrounds bonding in basic training. I’m sure everyone can think of far better examples than that, but I think there was a psychological process involved that resulted from them having to work together to solve a common problem or a response to a common enemy. Arm chair psychology.
1) the Justices have always liked Colleen (and Rob) Sindzak. She drew a dog of a case, but if you review her oral arguments, you'll find a disarmed bench
2) the number of times a Justice replied "no no no" to Sindzak was remarkable.
There are certain argument days where the justices seem lighter than usual.
The justices overall in recent memory seem to be trying to behave themselves. Alito, for instance, seems to me at times to be trying to be civil. Multiple times they are overly polite to each other.
It helps if the case itself is not overly divisive. I would toss in that Jaime Santos (appellate advocate who is coming up to the bigs for the first time here) was an original co-host of Strict Scrutiny Podcast. She is like the "fourth Beatle" so to speak there.
Be very careful, Mr Geidner: this is how they lure you in, with jokes and seeming goodwill.
I don't trust the conservative justices at all. Not even a little. I really wish Biden would get on board to expand the court. 13 districts need 13 justices. The justices have to double and triple their work loads. Less time and attention are paid to each case. That's a disservice to all of us.
Maybe their wealthy “friends” gave them their bonuses early.
Well, let us see how much "bonhomie" lingers as the Justices hear Moore v United States...rubber meets the road, and all that.
Actually, I think their ethics retreat somehow brought them together as human beings, like soldiers from different backgrounds bonding in basic training. I’m sure everyone can think of far better examples than that, but I think there was a psychological process involved that resulted from them having to work together to solve a common problem or a response to a common enemy. Arm chair psychology.
Really good work as always! thank you.
Maybe they’re feeling unburdened since the advent of the ethics code (Laughter).
A few comments...
1) the Justices have always liked Colleen (and Rob) Sindzak. She drew a dog of a case, but if you review her oral arguments, you'll find a disarmed bench
2) the number of times a Justice replied "no no no" to Sindzak was remarkable.
Yes. Wait and see.
There are certain argument days where the justices seem lighter than usual.
The justices overall in recent memory seem to be trying to behave themselves. Alito, for instance, seems to me at times to be trying to be civil. Multiple times they are overly polite to each other.
It helps if the case itself is not overly divisive. I would toss in that Jaime Santos (appellate advocate who is coming up to the bigs for the first time here) was an original co-host of Strict Scrutiny Podcast. She is like the "fourth Beatle" so to speak there.
Signs of human give and take bespeak a less doctrinaire tone, and that may be an egregious improvement over past deliberations. Or not. We shall see.