66 Comments
User's avatar
Shervyn Von Hoerl's avatar

The Supreme Court is finished as a legitimate institution. The Republican “justices” are aiding and abetting a coup. They should be treated as the traitors and cowards that they are.

Expand full comment
Joe From the Bronx's avatar

Kavanaugh at times cares about racism. Not today.

[See, e.g., his concurring opinion in Ramos v. Louisiana.]

Kavanaugh's concurrence sounds like ill-advised mansplaining.

Expand full comment
Robert Israel's avatar

What a complete joke the SC has become-supposed to make rulings based on the constitution, truth , and rule of law -nothing could be further from the truth-

Expand full comment
Leonard Grossman's avatar

I really have no words, just tears for my country and all that I once believed it stood for.

Another nail in an already sealed coffin.

Expand full comment
Melinda strauss's avatar

I grew with a subtle fear of this happening here. My mom was a young survivor in Budapest. I always wondered how the non-Jewish Hungarians stood aside. Now I see. It’s happening and I feel powerless. Any suggestions?

Expand full comment
Leonard Grossman's avatar

If only I did. In 1933 my mother wrote in her diary, "There is no future for Jewish youth in Germany, I think I shall go to Palestine." Instead, at 21, she came to Chicago. Her family thought she was crazy.

Here is a blog of the letters she wrote home to Frankfurt over the next 3 years.

https://www.lgrossman.com/trudel/

Expand full comment
Melinda strauss's avatar

Hi Leonard. Thank you for sharing your mother’s inspirational story with me. She was sweet, smart and resilient. I wonder what she would say about what’s happening here. My mom would be devastated. My mom eventually moved to Chicago, too.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

The wise Jew always keeps one bag packed … figuratively morphs into literally.

Expand full comment
Melinda strauss's avatar

But where to go?

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Canada. My stepmother came from Canada (Nova Scotia) and I visited as a child (we lived in Minnesota then) … nothing but pleasant memories.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

The Six don’t care … don’t even bother looking down from their tall castle spires.

Expand full comment
Leonard Grossman's avatar

Well put. They say words that mean nothing. They act as though their stays preserve rights until litigation is concluded. From the turrets of their high castles they cannot see what is really happening on the ground, where real damage is being done.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

And that smarmy demeanor—It’s for your own good, you poor dumb peons.

Expand full comment
Susan V's avatar

Oh, they can see it. They are just turning a blind eye because they don't care even a whit.

Expand full comment
SCA's avatar

Thank you for the careful explanation of this shameful action by the fascist majority who now run our highest court. This particular decision will go into the US Supreme Court Hall of Shame, along with Dred Scott and Korematsu v US. As President Lincoln said, “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” And of course the irony of his modesty once again highlights how wrong and shameful is this Supreme Court ruling.

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

You are exactly right. This ruling is one of the worst thr Court has made in its long history. A dramatic and fell enhancement of the State's police power.

Expand full comment
Joeff's avatar

Dred Scott and Korematsu are the exact analogues.

Expand full comment
Bad Bunny's avatar

It's true that these are procedural decisions rather than merits rulings, and those future rulings -- not these temporary stays -- may not yield the same outcomes. And those are the rulings that will be precedential.

The problem is that many of these shadow docket decisions indicate an alarming lack of concern about obvious irremediable harms that plaintiffs are suffering in the meantime.

Even without a word of explanation, the Court's government skew is unmistakable.

Expand full comment
ASBermant's avatar

Next up: Jews who are accountants and lawyers.

As for Justice's Kavanaugh's "brief investigative stops to check the immigration status", tell that to the Latino-American who is physically assaulted by AR14 carrying ICE or DHS agents wearing mask and no identification. According to him, that's an argument for another day!

Justice Sotomayor's final words are stinging:

"The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be “free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 878. After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent."

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Brown skin and a Spanish accent. Next, a Jewish name and a big nose. Then, white skin but wrong politics. Then, wrong genitalia. Then, femaleness. Then …

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

I presume Justice Kavanaugh needed to explain away the Court's apparent approval of racist violations of the 4th Amendment in order to temper criticism of the shadow docket's usual lack of reasoning and transparency in issuing stay after stay after stay of meticulously prepared lower-court injunctions of tRump regime actions. Well, he should have kept his mouth shut, because his so-called concurrence even cast the Court majority in even a worse light...what was he thinking already?

Expand full comment
Leonard Grossman's avatar

Or was he thinking at all?

Expand full comment
Susan V's avatar

It was the beer talking.

Expand full comment
John Warne's avatar

More shadow docket shenanigans from these creeps. Shows just how unserious they are, and unserious their ”originalism” and “textualism” bs is.

Expand full comment
joe alter's avatar

IT IS NOT outside the lower court's power to end the deference - my appeal deals with this squarely, it is in the lower court's power under the declaratory judgment act, to label Trump an insurrectionist. It's not just empty rhetoric; even if it doesn't lead to his removal, it can serve as a shield to color every one of those emergency docket requests, preventing the Supreme Court from extending him deference by default. The Supreme Court is the party that is conducting a rebellion here on the shadow docket, and we must do more than call them out; we must actually procedurally IMPEDE their ability to continue unchecked. They are not going just magically to stop doing it, they are doing it on purpose.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

And they will stifle anyone who has the temerity to disagree.

Expand full comment
joe alter's avatar

Even the Supreme Court cannot stifle the Constitution's clear mandates in the 14th Amendment; they can play shell games about state versus federal court (as they did in Anderson), but they cannot avoid the question if it's re-asked in federal court. And the Supreme Court cannot erase a lower court declaration; only a 2/3 vote of Congress can.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Perhaps … but the court seems to have adopted Trump’s delay-delay-delay strategy, stubbornly resisting adjudication on substance. As to finally upholding the Constitution—well, crowning Trump the Immunity King hints at the Court’s (non-) reverence.

Expand full comment
joe alter's avatar

the lower courts do not need to wait for the supreme court to bless it. in the constitution the lower court has EVERY bit of authority the supreme court does, just the order of operations. If the supreme court is going to do shadow docket opinions instead of real ones, the lower courts CAN reject them. But WILL they?

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Good point! But then we have to worry about the hurt feelings. Both Kavanaugh and Barrett have already whined.

Expand full comment
joe alter's avatar

who cares about their feelings. own it

Expand full comment
Merrill Frank's avatar

Will ICE now raid neighborhoods in Los Angeles County where there are a lot of Eastern Europeans, Middle Easterns and Asians? Some of whom might be involved in white collar crimes which are more likely to occur behind closed doors. Or is just a pretext to deport only Latinos who tend to work in more blue collar jobs? Folks who tend to be in more public settings like farms and businesses.

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

I was thinking along the same lines. Trying not to make too many negative presumptions, but I would be unsurprised to see them ignore even the precept of a work site or other location and simply target based on racial or suspected racial identity as they scale up ICE capacity.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

And avoid work sites owned by GOP contributors.

Expand full comment
Cla Parker's avatar

Sure, they'll go after any group to make a big splash. They just did their biggest raid ever at a massive Hyundai facility under construction in Georgia. They pulled over 400 people out of there - mostly South Korean professionals. Probably didn't brutalize them (much), though. But overall, the darker the better.

This Hyundai facility is supposed to be Georgia's largest ever foreign manufacturing facility. They did this the day after some big US-Korea trade agreement was signed. Threaten and bully them to build manufacturing here. Then humiliate and punish them while they're setting everything up. To show you can. "Winning!"

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Asians and Middle Easterners, maybe; Eastern Europeans, probably not if they’re white (and donors).

Expand full comment
Merrill Frank's avatar

I’m a New Yorker. No sign of ICE going to neighborhoods like Brighton Beach and Coney Island where there a lot of Russian and Eastern Europeans. Nor do we hear fears from those in that community which is odd.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Precisely. Ex-Soviets are potential Trump Tower tenants (the laundromat is ALWAYS open) and GOP donors. Besides, they’re white.

Expand full comment
Katy Did's avatar

So as with the "crime of "driving while black", comes the same for "standing while brown."

Expand full comment
Icastico's avatar

As I am sure has been pointed out - these are the justices that won’t let race or ethnicity be used in university admissions. Absolutely forbidden as an indicator of potential merit - but common sense as as marker of legal status. Brett must have written this over a 12 pack of his most beloved beer.

Expand full comment
MMS's avatar

Today's Supreme Court decision confirms that the Court is a political enterprise, not a judicial body.

Expand full comment
GeorgeC's avatar

Question:

Has even a single employer of these so called “criminals” been charged with their clear violations of labor law??

As 60ish white male (Engineer), I have had to prove my legal ability to work (I think the form was an I-9) for EVERY ONE of the eleven jobs I’ve held over the last 40 years. I seem to remember official-sounding wording on the I-9 about the consequences of falsification.

Isn’t knowingly employing someone without proof of employability a crime? Or only if the employer is clearly not a Magat supporter?

Expand full comment
MMS's avatar

I have a great graphic/cartoon about this, but evidently, we can't attach images here. Oris there a way, but I don't know it?

Expand full comment
Susan V's avatar

There isn't, unfortunately.

Expand full comment
MMS's avatar

Ooooh. Thank you. I’m pretty new to Substack and read your response in the wrong place.

Expand full comment
MMS's avatar

Susan, I don’t understand what you wrote. There isn’t what? Any question that SCOTUS is a political entity?

Expand full comment
Susan V's avatar

Sorry! No, I was answering your question about attaching images. There is no way to do that.

Expand full comment