Justice Kagan, dissenting for the Democratic appointees, noted the majority's "preliminary" order means $4 billion in aid allotted by Congress will be blocked "for all time.“
I practiced law in Florida for over forty years. I only filed one Amicus Brief in the United States Supreme Court. Just preparing thar brief I believed I was breathing the rarefied air of the highest federal court in the greatest judicial system in the world. Now reading these recent decisions, especially this order from the “dark docket” where the alleged justices lack the judicial fortitude to sign this preliminary order simply makes me sick. The Supreme Court of the United States continues to open the door to autocracy and fascism ever wider. In complete opposition to the fundamental constitutional principles of separation of powers. And the abject failure to recognize that it is only the Congress of the United States that has the power of the purse. When the President of the United States (“POTUS”)disagrees with an appropriation bill that has been signed into law, the POTUS has no Constitutional authority to affect a secondary veto that is an unconstitutional exercise of executive power. Such an action by the POTUS is not to be supported by the SCOTUS. Instead, the SCOTUS must unanimously rule such attempted exercise of executive privilege is clearly unconstitutional. This action by the SCOTUS presents grounds for impeachment for the justices in the majority and grounds for impeachment against the POTUS. In order to preserve the Constitutional concept of SEPARATION OF POWERS that is the fundamental principle of American Constitutional Law.
It is bad enough where they lift a stay or injunction, where harm will be done, to allow the "normal" process to get, a case back to them to request Cert, so they can decide on the merits. Not in the Humphrey's case though. They granted themselves Cert.
This is definitely far more than that. They leave 4 days or the money just goes to Vought.
They are not only defying the separation of powers, Congress' law passed and Congress not acting to relieve the $4B, so they intentionally, like immunity, waited until the last minute, and one business day, to say the law doesn't matter and the Constitution doesn't either.
They can't, but interpret, correct?
What is this they are doing? Rewriting law Congress passed? Amending the Constitution?
The narrative needs to somehow get to what they are doing.
When Trump is threatening PAIN and HARM if the government is shut down we must remind the public (how I haven't figured out) that he got a free $4B thanks to the SCOTUS.
It is more than sickening.
I know this for certain....no one understands the implications when they allow Trump to fire Cook.
Someone flagged the comment by Kagan that the "emergency docket" decision-making here (on Steve Vladeck's birthday, I think she should have said "shadow docket," putting aside that it is also accurate) was made without time for them to deliberate. ("We have done so with scant briefing, no oral argument, and no opportunity to deliberate in conference.") You can feel how each liberal must be distraught about what is happening. And angry.
The Court here deigned to write something, but much of it is boilerplate. The "preliminary" posture stuff is b.s. given the actual effect of the order. Bunch of hacks.
Chris, thanks for your reporting. A tad off topic, but do you have any thoughts on Kagan's "respectfully" dissenting? Kagan pretty consistently uses it, even as her liberal colleagues occasionally abandon it in these controversial cases. I've grown fairly tired of the use of "respectfully," but do you think there's some importance to this collegiality?
I think she is wrong, and that you are right to be annoyed. However, she is indeed entitled to do it her way. I take great comfort in KBJ and Sotomayor's no-nonsense dissents, as I'm sure Kagan does as well. What the majority is doing is fundamentally wrong and is not guided by any governing principle beyond domination.
So predictable! As noted, the court signaled its dissatisfaction by “administrative stay” … and, by typical (over-)use of the shadow docket, dissatisfaction with the way things are. Democracy, for example, and a desire for no one being above the law—silliness.
Thank you for the clarity you provide to us for the Supreme Farce's repug appointees' decisions. They are complicit in Traitor's madness and the attempted destruction of OUR democracy. We The People are sick of it.
I've never written a comment before. But the notion that the only judges with integrity are the Democratic minority on the court, that the Republican majority votes as a bloc (when the reality is that there are three distinct factions in that majority), and that the judicial interference in executive actions is not unprecedented, grates after a while.
Yes. God knows, the politics of the United States has been riven with controversy and thousand decibel conversations since its inception. But the parties managed to muddle ahead without involving judicial interference.
Social engagement. Truth be told, I don’t know. To do real justice to the issue, which is very large, you’d have to take an exhaustive look at the language and history of the statute, and maybe compare it to other statutes of similar import. You’d have to look at the history of other Presidential refusals to expend moneys authorized by Congress, or otherwise not take mandated action. There’s a whole line of authority addressing the point as to when or whether Congressional silence means approval, and they also have to be considered. They will almost certainly be briefed. (It has been eight months now since this spate of executive orders began, and I don’t believe a resolution has even been considered. Mind you, it almost certainly wouldn’t pass, but it still means something.)
So I don’t know.
What I do know for sure is that it’s not the sort of issue that should be decided by one lonely ideologically driven or superannuated District Court judge. Nor is it the sort on which partisan leanings govern. I’m not at all sure that Trump wins this after full briefing - the six Republican judges have very different views of the limits of executive power, the nature of judicial restraint, and so on. Only three of them are Trump appointees, and all three of them have broken with the Administration on various issues, particularly Barret.
Where they do agree is that these matters are not properly decided by District Courts. (This is Supreme Court stuff all the way, and then only after full briefing.) The partisans are the Democratic justices, because as a matter of good civics these orders should be vacated or stayed. These should be 9-0
The author could educate his audience on these points, but prefers to write us-against-them propaganda instead.
It always starts with a district court and no one is saying it should stop there. That is the rhetoric of southern democrats before Brown. If is as complicated as you say it shouldn’t be decided on the shadow docket. The SC just thwarted the will of Congress. .
The ultimate questions aren't decided on the shadow docket, only the validity of the first order. The ultimate remedy is appeal to the Supreme Court, or application for cert. That's how you reach the substance of the issue, if it is substantial.
I can only assume that you think this embarrassing display of bootlicking will somehow drive traffic to your own dimwitted musings? If so, let me disabuse you of any such notions; all it's doing is making clear that you have no value to any civilized society.
One of the most striking phenomena of the orwellian sheep that populate blogs of this time, is they can't make two replies without going ad hominem. Thanks for keeping to the schedule. I have no personal dog in this race, and as for boot looking, you might look to the author of this post, slavish non-critical admiration of the three judge minority goes on and on and on. But in fact they're in the wrong. Judges at the district court level should not be interfering with these decisions. It is this to which the Supreme Court is reacting. This is extremely complex litigation, so much so that I can imagine the administration losing when the matters are fully briefed. (As noted, there is no Republican monolithic majority, as much as the author might insist it is so.) That does not mean that these interim orders setting aside the continual lower court overreach are badly founded. Quite the contrary.
You missed the point. The Supreme Court’s ruling is determinative because by the time they rule the money can no longer be spent. It is fully and finally impounded even if done illegally. And it appears their reasoning is wrong. You can call that whining if you want. Look, if you don’t see it that’s fine. But don’t blame the author. And btw, there is not a big difference between calling someone’s writing contemptible and calling him contemptible.
And the opposite ruling would also be determinative with the opposite result.
There is no reasoning to discuss in an order of this sort. That actually is the whole point. The vast majority of commenters on this post are under the impression that these are final orders.
Sorry to disagree, but day-in, day-out discussion of the Supreme Court in terms of partisan, MAGA politics, by persons who have the position and presumably expertise to do a much better job on educating readership, is rather contemptible in my view.
The corrupt political hacks that make up the GQP6 on the Roberts’ Kangaroo Court continue to wrap themselves in shame. No just the cowardly shadow docket that responds to any whim of a criminal administration, but their complete abandonment of logic, reason, or even a semblance of respect for the oath they took.
This decision along with the prior Shadow Docket decisions brings to mind an old song by Doc Watson titled The Wreck of 1262, a freight train with an unfortunate destiny. Take a listen and share your thoughts...
Just to be clear, I think this song describes the Roberts' court. It is my hope and expectation that this tumultuous period will lead to long-needed reforms that will improve our Democracy. For example, Sen. Adam's Schiff just reintroduced his Protect our Democracy Act. Read more about it here:
I practiced law in Florida for over forty years. I only filed one Amicus Brief in the United States Supreme Court. Just preparing thar brief I believed I was breathing the rarefied air of the highest federal court in the greatest judicial system in the world. Now reading these recent decisions, especially this order from the “dark docket” where the alleged justices lack the judicial fortitude to sign this preliminary order simply makes me sick. The Supreme Court of the United States continues to open the door to autocracy and fascism ever wider. In complete opposition to the fundamental constitutional principles of separation of powers. And the abject failure to recognize that it is only the Congress of the United States that has the power of the purse. When the President of the United States (“POTUS”)disagrees with an appropriation bill that has been signed into law, the POTUS has no Constitutional authority to affect a secondary veto that is an unconstitutional exercise of executive power. Such an action by the POTUS is not to be supported by the SCOTUS. Instead, the SCOTUS must unanimously rule such attempted exercise of executive privilege is clearly unconstitutional. This action by the SCOTUS presents grounds for impeachment for the justices in the majority and grounds for impeachment against the POTUS. In order to preserve the Constitutional concept of SEPARATION OF POWERS that is the fundamental principle of American Constitutional Law.
Chris, I'm sick.
It is bad enough where they lift a stay or injunction, where harm will be done, to allow the "normal" process to get, a case back to them to request Cert, so they can decide on the merits. Not in the Humphrey's case though. They granted themselves Cert.
This is definitely far more than that. They leave 4 days or the money just goes to Vought.
They are not only defying the separation of powers, Congress' law passed and Congress not acting to relieve the $4B, so they intentionally, like immunity, waited until the last minute, and one business day, to say the law doesn't matter and the Constitution doesn't either.
They can't, but interpret, correct?
What is this they are doing? Rewriting law Congress passed? Amending the Constitution?
The narrative needs to somehow get to what they are doing.
When Trump is threatening PAIN and HARM if the government is shut down we must remind the public (how I haven't figured out) that he got a free $4B thanks to the SCOTUS.
It is more than sickening.
I know this for certain....no one understands the implications when they allow Trump to fire Cook.
Thanks so much for your explanation!
Someone flagged the comment by Kagan that the "emergency docket" decision-making here (on Steve Vladeck's birthday, I think she should have said "shadow docket," putting aside that it is also accurate) was made without time for them to deliberate. ("We have done so with scant briefing, no oral argument, and no opportunity to deliberate in conference.") You can feel how each liberal must be distraught about what is happening. And angry.
The Court here deigned to write something, but much of it is boilerplate. The "preliminary" posture stuff is b.s. given the actual effect of the order. Bunch of hacks.
The referees have been captured. They are no longer referees but players on the president’s team. Shocking.
Chris, thanks for your reporting. A tad off topic, but do you have any thoughts on Kagan's "respectfully" dissenting? Kagan pretty consistently uses it, even as her liberal colleagues occasionally abandon it in these controversial cases. I've grown fairly tired of the use of "respectfully," but do you think there's some importance to this collegiality?
I think she is wrong, and that you are right to be annoyed. However, she is indeed entitled to do it her way. I take great comfort in KBJ and Sotomayor's no-nonsense dissents, as I'm sure Kagan does as well. What the majority is doing is fundamentally wrong and is not guided by any governing principle beyond domination.
Did you mean "aren't wrong to be annoyed"? I think we agree that Sotomayor and Jackson's approach is preferable.
oh - I'm sorry, I misread your note. glad you agree
No worries!
It just gets worse and worse
Cruel and dysfunctional court of sycophants. I’m disgusted. Thanks for the well thought out reporting on this.
So predictable! As noted, the court signaled its dissatisfaction by “administrative stay” … and, by typical (over-)use of the shadow docket, dissatisfaction with the way things are. Democracy, for example, and a desire for no one being above the law—silliness.
Thank you for the clarity you provide to us for the Supreme Farce's repug appointees' decisions. They are complicit in Traitor's madness and the attempted destruction of OUR democracy. We The People are sick of it.
well, a pocket recission upheld by judges in trump's pocket--sadly appropriate, that.
Do we know what the regime actually SAID in its request for a stay that somehow the plaintiff's can't use the APA that the court finds so "adequate?"
I've never written a comment before. But the notion that the only judges with integrity are the Democratic minority on the court, that the Republican majority votes as a bloc (when the reality is that there are three distinct factions in that majority), and that the judicial interference in executive actions is not unprecedented, grates after a while.
[Executive does something unprecedented and unconstitutional]
[Lower court notes that this is unprecedented and enjoins it]
[Supreme Court stays the injunction with no reasoning]
Frank: Wow, look at this unprecedented judicial interference with executive actions!
Ridiculous stuff.
Yes. God knows, the politics of the United States has been riven with controversy and thousand decibel conversations since its inception. But the parties managed to muddle ahead without involving judicial interference.
Hello?
Social engagement. Truth be told, I don’t know. To do real justice to the issue, which is very large, you’d have to take an exhaustive look at the language and history of the statute, and maybe compare it to other statutes of similar import. You’d have to look at the history of other Presidential refusals to expend moneys authorized by Congress, or otherwise not take mandated action. There’s a whole line of authority addressing the point as to when or whether Congressional silence means approval, and they also have to be considered. They will almost certainly be briefed. (It has been eight months now since this spate of executive orders began, and I don’t believe a resolution has even been considered. Mind you, it almost certainly wouldn’t pass, but it still means something.)
So I don’t know.
What I do know for sure is that it’s not the sort of issue that should be decided by one lonely ideologically driven or superannuated District Court judge. Nor is it the sort on which partisan leanings govern. I’m not at all sure that Trump wins this after full briefing - the six Republican judges have very different views of the limits of executive power, the nature of judicial restraint, and so on. Only three of them are Trump appointees, and all three of them have broken with the Administration on various issues, particularly Barret.
Where they do agree is that these matters are not properly decided by District Courts. (This is Supreme Court stuff all the way, and then only after full briefing.) The partisans are the Democratic justices, because as a matter of good civics these orders should be vacated or stayed. These should be 9-0
The author could educate his audience on these points, but prefers to write us-against-them propaganda instead.
It always starts with a district court and no one is saying it should stop there. That is the rhetoric of southern democrats before Brown. If is as complicated as you say it shouldn’t be decided on the shadow docket. The SC just thwarted the will of Congress. .
The ultimate questions aren't decided on the shadow docket, only the validity of the first order. The ultimate remedy is appeal to the Supreme Court, or application for cert. That's how you reach the substance of the issue, if it is substantial.
I can only assume that you think this embarrassing display of bootlicking will somehow drive traffic to your own dimwitted musings? If so, let me disabuse you of any such notions; all it's doing is making clear that you have no value to any civilized society.
One of the most striking phenomena of the orwellian sheep that populate blogs of this time, is they can't make two replies without going ad hominem. Thanks for keeping to the schedule. I have no personal dog in this race, and as for boot looking, you might look to the author of this post, slavish non-critical admiration of the three judge minority goes on and on and on. But in fact they're in the wrong. Judges at the district court level should not be interfering with these decisions. It is this to which the Supreme Court is reacting. This is extremely complex litigation, so much so that I can imagine the administration losing when the matters are fully briefed. (As noted, there is no Republican monolithic majority, as much as the author might insist it is so.) That does not mean that these interim orders setting aside the continual lower court overreach are badly founded. Quite the contrary.
You are correct on ad hominem but do you agree with impounding?
You missed the point. The Supreme Court’s ruling is determinative because by the time they rule the money can no longer be spent. It is fully and finally impounded even if done illegally. And it appears their reasoning is wrong. You can call that whining if you want. Look, if you don’t see it that’s fine. But don’t blame the author. And btw, there is not a big difference between calling someone’s writing contemptible and calling him contemptible.
And the opposite ruling would also be determinative with the opposite result.
There is no reasoning to discuss in an order of this sort. That actually is the whole point. The vast majority of commenters on this post are under the impression that these are final orders.
Sorry to disagree, but day-in, day-out discussion of the Supreme Court in terms of partisan, MAGA politics, by persons who have the position and presumably expertise to do a much better job on educating readership, is rather contemptible in my view.
Go in peace.
We all would have been better served if you had stayed your previous course.
The corrupt political hacks that make up the GQP6 on the Roberts’ Kangaroo Court continue to wrap themselves in shame. No just the cowardly shadow docket that responds to any whim of a criminal administration, but their complete abandonment of logic, reason, or even a semblance of respect for the oath they took.
Scumwads.
The budget showdown might be an opportune time to make a stink about this, including restoring the funding
ffs - they might as well insert a comma between "no" and "kings"
This decision along with the prior Shadow Docket decisions brings to mind an old song by Doc Watson titled The Wreck of 1262, a freight train with an unfortunate destiny. Take a listen and share your thoughts...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRbez1ZMhqc
Just to be clear, I think this song describes the Roberts' court. It is my hope and expectation that this tumultuous period will lead to long-needed reforms that will improve our Democracy. For example, Sen. Adam's Schiff just reintroduced his Protect our Democracy Act. Read more about it here:
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sen-schiff-reintroduces-his-landmark-proposal-to-protect-democracy-close-legal-loopholes-enabling-widespread-abuses-of-presidential-power/
Par for this tilted court.