28 Comments
User's avatar
MLJ's avatar

The Roberts Court is a blight on this country. If our democracy survives this administration intact it will be remembered as the stain that it is.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Enormous “if”.

Expand full comment
Roger Loeb's avatar

The Roberts Court has destroyed any credibility it had! This is a stupid, obnoxious ruling, on a par with Kavanaugh's bizarre ruling that abandoned the Fourth Amendment. Many of these Venezuelans have been pursuing citizenship and will be forced to return to a terrifying country before they can complete the citizenship process. This is yet another blight on the USA.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

A blight on the USA … but are we united anymore? This stinks of North Korea, or Stalin era USSR.

Expand full comment
Susan T's avatar

Truth.

Expand full comment
Janet Carter's avatar

Roberts and his Pro-Project 2025 justices no longer support decency or our Constitution.

Expand full comment
Laura Belin's avatar

Here's an example of the irreparable harm that can follow when immigrants lose their temporary protected status.

After Cubans lost protected status this summer, a man in Denison, Iowa lost his job at one of the local meatpacking plants. Within a few weeks he had lost his apartment and was sleeping in a park. Before long he was in some kind of altercation and was fatally shot by police.

If he hadn't lost his protected status he probably would have been asleep at home that Friday night after a long work week.

https://theiowamercury.substack.com/p/shot-by-police-in-a-park-homeless?utm_source=publication-search

Campos had earned a reputation as a hard worker, friends said.

"I saw him every day at work," said a former coworker at Smithfield. "He never missed work. He never came late to work. His work mates always spoke very well of him."

The coworker added, "He didn't fight with anyone. He was very respectful. He always helped out. He always had a smile for everyone. He was person who was educated in Cuba. He came here for a better life."

A Smithfield Foods spokesman, reached by The Denison Free Press, said he could not comment on internal personnel matters.

Friends said Campos lost his employment because of the Trump administration's elimination of the humanitarian work program for certain Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan nationals in the United States. More than 500,000 people have to come to United States through the policy, known as CHNV, since 2022. They were required to have financial sponsors.

"The problem wasn't that he necessarily stopped working or left work," a co-worker said. "It was because of the immigration problems right now. They revoked the work authorizations."

"He had lost his job through no fault of his own," that coworker said.

Expand full comment
Susan T's avatar

So sickening. Our nation will be destroyed if the Congress doesn’t develop a spine…

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Again. Why is this Court so afraid of judicating? Shame? Fear of being ignored by daddy? The unstated precedence seems to be that America is reserved for Whites Only. And lower courts … ignorable. Lex talionis predominates.

Expand full comment
Roger Loeb's avatar

I suspect that they are unable to devise a legal explanation for these shadow docket rulings but want to deliver on the Project 2025 objectives. They were clearly chosen because of that commitment.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Truth, brother.

Expand full comment
SophieM's avatar

Thank you for making it crystal clear how rancid the SCOTUS six have become. Not sure the U.S. will survive their egregious, inhumane decisions.

Expand full comment
Susan T's avatar

Same.

Expand full comment
john peterson's avatar

Thank you for your work Chris.

It seems to mee that the conservative radicals are viewing these shadow docket cases through the lens of Trump v US. Anything within the outer limits of presidential power is AOK and unreviewable. This reasoning was a re-write of the constitution, an upending of the separation of powers, and a de facto overruling of much SC precedent. Does the executive branch write checks? If this is within the outer limits of the president's power then he can write a check for $0 and the impoundment control act is no longer the law. Does the president fire people? If yes, then mass layoffs are OK and the administrative procedures act as well as humphrey's executor is no longer the law. Does the president/executive branch grant and deny visas? If yes, then any denial or revocation is OK and our immigration laws are no longer valid.

In addition, the pissy statements that the justices have made whining about the lower courts ruling against the trump regime sound to me like they are saying 'Haven't you people read trump v US? The rules are different now. Get with the program.'

It's a completely unworkable. absurd, and scary system they have created.

Bastards every one!!

Expand full comment
Kerry Gough's avatar

It has been customary to address the Justices as “The Honorable Justice ….” That is no longer the case for Roberts, Alito, Thomas , Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. They are dishonorable persons and have brought dishonor upon the court.

Expand full comment
Barnation Station's avatar

Robert's is a lifelong failure, to the study, the education, the appointments, the Oath, and his belief on which he took that fiduciary Oath, to what he "opines" is his right to be a partisan, yet seemingly clueless to the facts, cog in a wheel, that must have started in his younger years of poor parenting.

Not understanding reality from dystopia, in upbringing and guidance, is hence why some people should not declare themselves PRO anything until they get right with their own shortcomings.

That failure, of the Christian immoral right wing majority, is nothing less than their demonic interpretation of an entire life spent in lieu of what their intent was to have been and needed to be.

They are no better, further along, educated, worldly or otherwise than the homeless addict they see as illegal and menacing.

To think, this is OUR CHIEF JUSTICE, versus that of other, less "democratic", nations is stunning but not shocking. I should use authoritarian.

He is an utter moral failure and we already have to deal with Thomas and Alito who have lost their way, and like Trump will light the match on their way to their own mortality, and Kavanaugh and Gorsuch who have lost their ability to control their impulses, emotions, and behavior, both past and present.

ACB is a weird combination of simpleton and powerful who needs a man's control to find her way.

How is that going for her?

For the Oath, the constitution, the rule of law, and the nation it is a slap in the fkn face they are obtuse and should look to people like Jackson to, perhaps, once again, if ever they had it, a way to see themselves straight in mind on the job they have an OATH to do and to do with honor not some cloaked version of sick piety and morality.

Interpretations are every day occurrences. Theirs are to the death and detriment of irreparable harm to those they are beholden to. Lest they have forgotten that or forsaken it for their own personal gains.

Expand full comment
James Cassidy's avatar

No surprise here folks.

Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

I think the piece repeatedly makes that pretty clear, but, given that this is a legal newsletter, I am going to report on major legal developments — that have significant consequences for literal hundreds of thousands of people — even where they are not a "surprise."

Expand full comment
James Cassidy's avatar

Please understand, I wasn’t commenting on your reporting which is always concise and informative. It was a comment on a deeply compromised court. Please accept my apology if there was any misunderstanding.

Expand full comment
Susan Linehan's avatar

one has to wonder what we are paying the justices for doing. They clearly aren't doing any visible thinking. Sometimes one wonders whether they are in the Epstein files.

Somehow, Venezuela a country that we are on the one hand threatening to go to WAR with as drug dealing international baddies has become a safe place for those who have already fled to be shipped back to.

I hope that during at least 6 family dinners this fall, some grandchildren or great grandchildren are going to ask "gramps, why did you decide that?"

Expand full comment
Shelley Powers's avatar

Well said.

Of course the SCOTUS cons won't write anything: it's hard to put your desire to destroy the country into words that won't reflect poorly on you. Especially when your desire is compounded by racism and bigotry.

Expand full comment
christopher o'loughlin's avatar

Chris,

Chen is correct. Robert's court, within shadow docket ruling's , is moving fast and usurping all lower court's proceedings to aggrandize a felonious executive. Webster would be hard put to find a better meaning for corruption.

Expand full comment
Susan T's avatar

Too true to be good…

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Paragraph nine — spot on.

Expand full comment
Jacobs-Meadway Roberta's avatar

Roberts once upon a time claimed to be concerned to maintain the Court’s reputation. That is evidently no longer a concern. The Court has apparently determined that it needs no complete record, needs no thorough briefing, needs to hear from no amicus, and needs to pay no respect to the lower courts that have considered evidence, and authored opinions based on findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rulings by fiat replace rule of law.

Constitutional rights of due process and freedom of speech and assembly appear now to be dispensable.

Should the opportunity arise, we should look to “original intent” and have one Justice for each judicial circuit - thirteen.

Expand full comment
Joe From the Bronx's avatar

The new term will begin on Monday. Chief Roberts, in his down-to-earth Midwestern voice, will pleasantly announce the first case. We should remember his role in the poisoning of our country as they begin some law school hypotheticals.

Expand full comment