28 Comments
User's avatar
Shelley Powers's avatar

Excellent coverage of a pretzel writing.

Gorsuch is a petty little bitch. And Kavanaugh really isn't a great legal mind...he only plays one after a few beers. And Barrett...I've given up understanding her.

Best thing Biden did? Appoint Justice Jackson.

Expand full comment
Shalom Fisher's avatar

The bottom line is that the six MAGgots on the "Supreme" court are nothing more than a cacophony of yes people to our dear leader (see George Orwell for more details).

The convolution of the different arguments are difficult to untangle for a lay person like myself.

Thanks for writing all of that, however.

Expand full comment
Roger Loeb's avatar

Gorsuch's nonsense adds to a growing belief that the Supreme Court is seriously biased and has abandoned the rule of law and the Constitution. Expecting lower court justices to read between the lines isn't just stupid; it's insulting to every judge! Future historians will identify the Roberts court as a primary contributor to the decline and fall of the United States.

Expand full comment
Nevin Oliphant's avatar

This is judicial legislating, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as Article VI and Article I of the Constitution. The Court uses precedent, unmentioned in the Constitution because it's the rule of man, rather than the rule of law, making them guilty of aiding Trump's insurrection.

Expand full comment
Bonnie Fuller's avatar

It seems that we can we make that identification right here & now . And with every court ruling in Trump’s favor, they see to get more comfortable with being willing pretzels.

Expand full comment
ASBermant's avatar

To be blunt, these three Trump appointees along with Justices Alito and Thomas are simply political hacks dressed in robes.

It seems to me that, except for a few, judges that rise through the Federalist Society are political hacks - they have been groomed throughout their careers to disguise political radicalism as critical jurisprudence. But now, as they assert their power, they demonstrate just how nefarious and seditious they are.

Thank goodness for Justice Jackson.

Note: I was going to write that I hope Justice Jackson does not own more than one home given that one of Trump's "go to's" right now is claimed mortgage fraud. Just so happens this is the topic of Josh Marshall's post today. In short, Bill Pulte, son of William John Pulte, founder of Pulte Homes, is now Trump’s Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and head of Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae and a "MAGA warrior." Trump is now targeting his political enemies using the extraordinary power of the federal government.

Expand full comment
Bonnie Fuller's avatar

The thing I keep wondering is what does the vast majority of federal judges - no matter who appointed them - think of the complete abandonment of precedent, normal legal reasoning & brazen partisanship that this Supreme Court keeps displaying. Do they feel abandoned by John Roberts & this court? Are they furious with them?

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

An excellent review of a terrible … and seemingly endless … situation.

Expand full comment
Ray Zielinski's avatar

Justice KBJ is such a breath of fresh air. Calvin ball covers a lot of the decisions handed down from SCOTUS.

Expand full comment
Fuzz's avatar

I think of all the justices on the court, Gorsuch is the one so outclassed by his peers, that he legitimately does not belong there. Some of his opinions read as if written by Billy Madison, but unlike Adam Sandler's character, there is nothing endearing or redeeming about Gorsuch.

Expand full comment
dita mccarthy's avatar

That’s what you get when you appoint ideologues who are C students to the highest court in the land. Scalia was a Right Wing idealogue too, but at least he knew how to avoid looking like a dumbass.

Expand full comment
Free Radical's avatar

None of them were anything close to "C" students. They all did incredibly well in school and beyond, despite how repugnant some have become.

A fair number of his Cabinet and top-level appointees were also fine students, judging by their academic pedigrees. They just went evil, craven, rapacious or Fox (not mutually exclusive).

But for sure he's got plenty of high-level "C" students. And the next SC nomination? Congress has allowed his every deranged, outrage-stoking move. After Emil Bove, anything goes.

Expand full comment
Sam.'s avatar

Scalia looked like a dumbass so often that Richard Posner wrote a whole article about it

Expand full comment
Susan V's avatar

Thank you for this breakdown. It's much appreciated!

Expand full comment
Alex Lindvall's avatar

Gorsuch’s concurrence is so self-evidently ridiculous. If I wrote something that dumb, I’d lay awake at night, cringing.

Expand full comment
Tom's avatar

With great respect, I find the statements about this case — trying to separate the substance of them from the narrated logic stream — unfathomable. Yes, it is a major part of the problem with these decisions, that they need to be unpacked even more simply. And Yes, there is NO excuse for shadow-docketing such significant actions. And no rationale arising from or around them that deserves to be considered any kind of precedent.

Expand full comment
Dean Morehous's avatar

This kind of densely "thicketed" legal writing is frustrating even for skilled lawyers trained in the details of federal jurisdiction and Supreme Court practice. The Trumpist Court is deliberately obfuscating it's legal reasoning and complete refusal to restrain the Executive branch.

Expand full comment
Alan & Jan Erickson's avatar

Shadow docket decisions and this one in particular evoke the very anarchy that Justice Suchgore pretends to dread. This is more about losing faith in the Supremes than it is a search for justice.

Expand full comment
Joeff's avatar

Of course in Kav’s view they only “have to” decide applications from their lord and master. And they’re tired of being whipped like dogs so they want the lower courts to take bit (mixed animal metaphor).

Expand full comment
Richard Pretorius's avatar

Write more concisely.

Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

I generally do. Look at my posts. This is longer because (1) it is confusing, and (2) it merits it.

But, I always appreciate random people who — to my knowledge — I have never previously interacted with at all, in any forum, criticizing me on the internet!

Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

[Also: I was a copy editor before law school, so I do know that it's in your blood.]

Expand full comment
Richard Pretorius's avatar

Thank you for the thoughtful and professional reaction. I was just tweaking you a little. Legal topics are often the most challenging to convey to readers who are not well versed in lawerly nuances and case law. You know your audience. Your large following says you are succeeding. Please carry on!

Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

I truly got frustrated writing this report — because I both wanted to write a much shorter piece and also saw a law review-length article in these issues — so your timing as the first comment probably did not hit me well! All good.

Expand full comment