Finally (!) finished reading the 170-page (!!) IEEPA/Trump tariffs case, Learning Resources v. Trump.
-
Kagan in her concurrence quickly agrees with Roberts’ opinion’s “conclusion, as [she does] with the bulk of the principal opinion’s reasoning.” But having been told by Gorsuch what she thinks, Kagan writes at some length to tell him no, she does not. This does yield some of the best writing in the case by anyone, though the passage is fleeting and buried in a footnote:… 10/
“JUSTICE GORSUCH claims not to understand this statement, insisting that I now must be applying the major-questions doctrine, and his own version of it to boot. See ante, at 17 (concurring opinion) ("My concurring colleagues all but endorse it today"); ante, at 2, 7, 18 (similar). Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, see ante, at 2-26, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one. But that is the fact of the matter.” Kagan, footnote 1. 11/
-
“JUSTICE GORSUCH claims not to understand this statement, insisting that I now must be applying the major-questions doctrine, and his own version of it to boot. See ante, at 17 (concurring opinion) ("My concurring colleagues all but endorse it today"); ante, at 2, 7, 18 (similar). Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, see ante, at 2-26, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one. But that is the fact of the matter.” Kagan, footnote 1. 11/
@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social you can be a Supreme Court justice and still, apparently, have to deal with Reply Guys as your peers.
-
“JUSTICE GORSUCH claims not to understand this statement, insisting that I now must be applying the major-questions doctrine, and his own version of it to boot. See ante, at 17 (concurring opinion) ("My concurring colleagues all but endorse it today"); ante, at 2, 7, 18 (similar). Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, see ante, at 2-26, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one. But that is the fact of the matter.” Kagan, footnote 1. 11/
Thomas has his own dissent, which I am not dignifying with comment. /12
-
Thomas has his own dissent, which I am not dignifying with comment. /12
I saw "Thomas dissents" and thought, well that can only be good news, then. LOL
-
Thomas has his own dissent, which I am not dignifying with comment. /12
The United States is under attack by an anti-constitutional, authoritarian President. The current Supreme Court cannot manage a crisp 6-3 decision about one small component of the regime’s disregard for the Constitution and for Congress. What we got instead
️ 13/13
-
Thomas has his own dissent, which I am not dignifying with comment. /12
there is no possible way to dignify thomas. he showed he was slime at his confirmation hearing and nothing he has ever done in the SCOTUS has ever contradicted that.
-
The United States is under attack by an anti-constitutional, authoritarian President. The current Supreme Court cannot manage a crisp 6-3 decision about one small component of the regime’s disregard for the Constitution and for Congress. What we got instead
️ 13/13@heidilifeldman Thanks for the thread! So I guess the conservative doctrine of strict constructionism and adherence to original intent is dead, eh? (Of course, they drove a stake through that quaint concept with the immunity ruling in '24.)
-
Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh are in an ongoing war to be the next Scalia: the Conservative Justices’ Statutory Construction Guru (the CJSCG
️
️). This position enables the holder to write as if values, including political and ethical ones, are not driving her decisions, nay do not even her mind unconsciously as they makes them. Only words and value-free application of value-free tools of statutory construction determine the positions the CJSCG, to be then decreed by the Court. 5/I would like to remind the readers that in 2000 Scalia (and every other justice then seated) lit their entire jurisprudence career - which turned out to be written on nitrocellulose.
Scalia outlived his reputation considerably, imo.
-
The United States is under attack by an anti-constitutional, authoritarian President. The current Supreme Court cannot manage a crisp 6-3 decision about one small component of the regime’s disregard for the Constitution and for Congress. What we got instead
️ 13/13@heidilifeldman Thank you for proving I got today's daily Roberts curse right. https://c.im/@msbellows/116115096883612516
-
Finally (!) finished reading the 170-page (!!) IEEPA/Trump tariffs case, Learning Resources v. Trump. Yes, I’m glad that the immediate result was the Supreme Court clearly invalidating a Trump effort to assert dictatorial power. But the opinions in the case as a group showcase the mediocrity of the Roberts Court as a whole. #LawFedi 1/
The Federalist Society will be very disappointed with that assessment.
Koch Network was aiming for complete incompetence & corruption.
-
Kavanaugh’s dissent’s bottom line: there is no problem with the President dictatorially usurping Congress’ tariff power, because, as it turns out Congress has being building up for decades to give Trump whatever dictatorial powers he wants. Alito and Thomas are with this program so they join the dissent. But bc he’s fighting to be CJSCG, Kavanaugh has to write MANY pages on his uniquely correct and distinctive statutory construction method which leads him to say Trump can do what he pleases. 9/
@heidilifeldman who was it that paid kavanaughs couple hundred k debt??
-
The United States is under attack by an anti-constitutional, authoritarian President. The current Supreme Court cannot manage a crisp 6-3 decision about one small component of the regime’s disregard for the Constitution and for Congress. What we got instead
️ 13/13@heidilifeldman I'm still trying to figure out why some held such high opinions of the SCOTUS. My training over the past 20 years revolved around reasoning and I just can't find coherent reasoning behind these SCOTUS opinions.
-
@heidilifeldman Thanks for the thread! So I guess the conservative doctrine of strict constructionism and adherence to original intent is dead, eh? (Of course, they drove a stake through that quaint concept with the immunity ruling in '24.)
@elaterite there are no adjudicatory principles, just infighting and a disdain for women, people of color, and anybody who isn’t ultra-wealthy.
-
@heidilifeldman Thank you for proving I got today's daily Roberts curse right. https://c.im/@msbellows/116115096883612516
@msbellows indeed you did.
-
@heidilifeldman I'm still trying to figure out why some held such high opinions of the SCOTUS. My training over the past 20 years revolved around reasoning and I just can't find coherent reasoning behind these SCOTUS opinions.
@P__X The Supreme Court very rarely has very good reasoners as justices. There are many reasons why it is often in my opinion one of the least well staffed courts in the federal judiciary. The Robert score is particularly egregious because the majority not even aspiring to the craft of adjudication in a constitutional democracy.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
