“Contrary to the impression that may be held by many, "

The impression that's held by me is please grow up, Justice Alito

Expand full comment

Shockingly good news!

Not so shocking was that Alito and Thomas dissented. 🙄🤯

Expand full comment

Justice Alito dissented and wrote, in part, that denying the relief " ... would simply restore the circumstances that existed (and that theGovernment defended) from 2000 to 2016 under three Presidential administrations."

History and tradition is a marvelous doctrine. Abortion wasn't ok according to Sir Edward Coke in the 17th century and Sir Matthew Hale in the 18th century. Restricting the use of mifepristone to the regulatory regime of six years ago is similarly fine. By parity of reasoning, the Commerce Clause can be rolled back to any congenial regime in our timeline of history and tradition. Or the securities law. Under his test, the Court would enjoy feasting on a buffet of the collected U.S. Code of Federal Regulations could be decomposed into component provisions and reassembled to suit. The Least Dangerous branch has played a long game and becoming our own Politburo appears within reach.

Expand full comment
Apr 22, 2023·edited Apr 22, 2023

Alito went out of his way to express butthurt about previous shadow docket rulings. But I'm genuinely confused as to wether today's stay handed down even IS a so called shadow docket decision. To my layperson's eye, it isn't. But, yeah, I'm quite unsure.

Expand full comment

Will we now await another 15th or 16th century theory from Alito? That has nothing to do with the many letters exchanged between the Father's of our Constitution,

that framed the very Constitution he's supposed to

know so much about. Alito gripes me.

Expand full comment