#Judicial appointments and nominations

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Against all odds, the Democrats have held onto the Senate! My one and only concern at this point is judges. Push em through as fast as vacancies open up, that's all that matters anymore. We've only got 2 years before trump comes back with a vengeance supported by a senate map that's MUCH more favorable for the republicans; I'm talking like 9 blue tossups, maybe 10 or 11 (not that all 11 would definitely flip red, just that it's not outside the realm of possibility; Dems won 60 seats in 2008 afterall)

Maybe someone on SCOTUS will have a stroke and we can narrow their majority from 6-3 to 5-4 before then, but I'm not holding out hope, so lower courts will have to do for now.

Keep em coming, Chuck.

[reportwire]

Nobel season is here: 5 things to know about the prizes

Nobel season is here: 5 things to know about the prizes

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — The beginning of October means Nobel Prize season. Six days, six prizes, new faces from around the globe added to the world’s most elite roster of scientists, writers, economists and human rights leaders. This year’s Nobel season kicks off Monday with the medicine award, followed by daily announcements: physics on Tuesday, chemistry on Wednesday and literature on Thursday.…

[batboyblog]

Things the Biden-Harris Administration Did This Week #30

August 2-9 2024

The Department of Interior announced the largest investment since 1979 in outdoor recreation and conservation projects. The $325 million will go to support State, territorial, DC, and tribal governments in buying new land for parks and outdoor recreation sites. It also supports expansion and refurbishment of existing sites.

The EPA announced that Birmingham Alabama will get $171 million to update and replace its water system. The city of Birmingham is 70% black and like many black majority cities as struggled with aging water systems and lead pipes causing dangerous drinking water conditions. This investment is part of the Biden-Harris administrations plan to replace all of the nation's lead pipes.

The Department of Energy announced $2.2 billion in investments in the national power grid to help boost resiliency in the face of extreme weather. The projects will add 13 gigawatts of capacity, support 5,000 new jobs and upgrade 1,000 miles of transmission. Major projects will cut power outages in the west, drive down energy prices in New England, add off shore wind, and enable the development of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s wind resources.

The Justice Department won its massive anti-trust case against Google. A federal judge ruled that Google was an illegal monopoly. The DOJ has an ongoing antitrust suit against Apple, while the Federal Trade Commission is suing Facebook and Amazon for their monopolist practices

The US Government announced $3.9 billion in direct aid to Ukraine. The money will help the Government of Ukraine make up for massive budget short falls caused by the war with Russia. It'll help pay the salaries of teachers, emergency workers, and other public employees, as well helping displaced persons, low-income families and people with disabilities.

The Department of Energy announced $190 million to improve air quality and energy upgrades in K-12 schools. The grants to 320 schools across 25 states will impact 123,000 students, 94% of these schools service student bodies where over half the students qualify for free and reduced lunch. In the face of climate change more schools have been forced to close for extreme heat. These grants will help schools with everything from air filtration, to AC, to more robust energy systems, to replacing lighting.

USAID announced $424 million in additional humanitarian aid to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Due to ongoing conflict and food insecurity, 25 million Congolese are in need of humanitarian aid. This year alone the US has sent close to a billion dollars in aid to the DRC, making it the single largest donor to the crisis.

The Senate approved President Biden's appointment of Stacey Neumann of Maine, Meredith Vacca of New York, and Joseph Saporito Jr. of Pennsylvania to life time federal Judgeships. This brings the total of judges appointed by President Biden to 205. President Biden is the first President who's judicial nominations have not been majority white men, Judge Vacca is the first Asian American to serve in her district court. President Biden has also focused on former public defenders, like Judge Saporito, and former labor lawyers like Judge Neumann, as well as civil rights lawyers.

[choerypetal]

Distraction / Coriolanus Snow

Summary : Coriolanus and You are both selected as mentors, and let just say that he whenever you feel a little too 'sociable' he gets distracted and would make sure to who you belong to.

Enjoy! (English isn't my first language, so I apologize for any mistake)

To ascend to the role of mentor demanded a blend of finesse, charisma, and an unblemished demeanor, qualities reserved for the privileged echelons of Panem's chosen. The revelation of one's inclusion wasn't a mere announcement but a unstable pause, a stillness punctuated by the resounding utterance of names until, unmistakably, yours found its place on the coveted list. 

Now, endowed not only with the prestigious title but also the requisite capability, you navigated the ensuing challenges with a sense of latent assurance. Throughout the process, an uncanny awareness gripped you, a conviction that Coriolanus’ watchful gaze bore into your very essence. An enigmatic conflict brewed within him, an unspoken desire for your exclusion even as he showered relentless accolades upon you. 

In the covert depths of nocturnal meetings within his private sanctuary, his expressions wove a tapestry of profound admiration and genuine regard. Strikingly absent was any semblance of feigned surprise at your nomination, suggesting an anticipation of fate's alignment. "Y/N, step forward." Your name resonated with a meticulous pride in the legacy of your family, prompting you to descend gracefully along with your peers. One by one, individuals were chosen to assume the pivotal role of mentor, all for what ultimate purpose? The perilous pursuit of victory in the Hunger Games.

Coriolanus, in stark contrast, observed each nuance of your demeanor. Whether it was your poised rise from the chair, the exuberant cheers of your friends celebrating your selection, or the unmistakable pleasure tinged with a touch of envy directed toward the other male. You consistently confided in Coriolanus about the depth of your friendship with this individual. However, despite your forewarnings and the reassurances delivered in your angelic voice, it appeared that these declarations did little to prevent Coriolanus from appreciating in disgust, the subtlest of gestures exchanged between you and your friend in that crucial moment—a simple yet profound hug.

As the ceremony drew to a close, Coriolanus lingered at the entrance, anticipating your emergence. A fervent desire to claim your attention exclusively simmered within him, yet he judiciously postponed exploring those emotions, allowing you the space to break free from the throng. The spotlight gravitated toward the newly appointed mentors, Coriolanus included, but he deliberately sought the sanctuary of distance and its attendant consequences. 

In the midst of joyous embraces shared between you and your chosen classmate, the vibrant hues of your smiles illuminated the tableau. When your eyes inevitably locked with Coriolanus's, a fleeting yet authentic smile on your lips wove a narrative of a carefully crafted excuse, suggesting an impending meeting with an urgency that, beneath its surface, concealed the true intention of drawing near to Coriolanus himself. "And I pondered, how in the world could I ever be chosen." You remarked with a momentary pause, a self-assured smirk gracing your features as you finally drew close to Snow. To this, Snow responded with a mirrored smirk, acknowledging. "Told you that you'd be selected. Can't say I was mistaken this time."

Flashing a subtle eye roll in response to his confidently asserted demands, you couldn't help but be amused by the way he carried himself. Not to mention, he felt the need to remind you of your privileged status as one of the select few chosen to be a mentor. Although you managed to conceal any traces of pride on your face, there was something intriguing about Coriolanus's sudden actions. The casual brush of his fingers against your waist, coupled with the assertive manner in which he approached you, conveyed a sense of control that he seemed to have gained from observing the ceremony. Despite the unexpected nature of his behavior, you didn't appear irritated; instead, you willingly let him take charge. 

Breaking the silence, you interjected with a pause, shifting your gaze momentarily from Coriolanus to your friend, who had earlier hinted at a noticeable intimidation for Coriolanus. Returning your gaze to Coriolanus, you added. "You know," With a slight emphasis. "If you continue with this overly protective demeanor, you might end up making the poor thing even more uncomfortable." The emphasis on the 'poor thing' became more pronounced as your full attention returned to Coriolanus.

"When do I ever come across as too cocky?" He inquired, arching a brow in a way that seemed designed to make you feel diminutive compared to his self-assured demeanor. As you observed him, you could have sworn his smirk subtly grew in response to the effect he was having on you. Moreover, he didn't shy away from expressing his desire, doing so with a degree of sophistication that bordered on subtle affection. If the dynamics of your relationship were as apparent as he made them seem, you might have suspected he was merely engaging in this for amusement. Consequently, he left you with no choice but to respond to his probing question. "I am genuinely surprised that I can endure such teasing." You replied, somewhat taken aback by the unexpected turn of the conversation.

As the room gradually emptied, you sensed Coriolanus' breath drawing nearer to your skin. His warm presence had a dual effect, both intimidating and strangely comforting, especially when his arm casually encircled your waist, indicating no intention of letting go. His gaze softened as he noticed the subtle glimmer in your eyes in response to his proximity, even though you hadn't consciously tried to make it obvious. "You know, you look oddly beautiful today." He remarked. Stepping back slightly offended from his comment, you decided to play along in this familiar game that invariably concluded with a well-timed kiss between the two of you. “You don’t look bad yourself.” 

In that moment, you experienced the gentle touch of his lips effortlessly gliding across your skin. Starting from your neck, his plush lips skillfully caressed and sucked at your soft flesh, leaving marks that would need to be concealed for the coming week, if not a few months, should he persist. Instead of dissuading him, you found yourself suggesting he continue, and he did. His free hand roamed down your entire body, drawing you closer to him. "You are mine," He asserted relentlessly, repeating the declaration without warning, as his lips now yearned for the connection with yours. "Mine until the end." He proclaimed with a conviction that left no room for doubt. 

"I am yours." Your voice whispered softly, almost like suppressed whimpers escaping your lips as you endeavored to keep any audible sounds at bay. The awareness of being in a public space heightened the need for discretion, as the uncertainty of potential intruders loomed. "Yours until eternity, Coriolanus Snow." You added. His smile widened, and amid the kisses, you felt his teeth gently sinking into your bottom lip, eliciting more of those restrained whimpers and a silent plea for him to continue. "We should be careful not to get caught." You reminded him, although his affections only intensified, fueling a growing desire for more. "Who cares if someone sees us, sweetheart," he dismissed, his words brushing aside any concern for discretion.

"I do." A voice, familiar yet elusive in its identification, caused both of you to freeze in place. Coriolanus' grip on your arm tightened, the intensity more pronounced this time. He refused to release it, his brows furrowing in anger. It was evident that the intrusion had upset him more than either of you could have anticipated.

Volumnia Gaul fixed her gaze on both of you, her eyes piercing and unwavering. A pause lingered, seemingly devoted to contemplating the fate she had in mind for the two of you, not to mention devising a fitting punishment. Her reluctance to do so was palpable, considering your shared reputation as the Academy's top students and mentor. "Dr. Volumnia Gaul..." Coriolanus broke the silence with his response. In his defense, given the way he had left you in a state of supplication and submission, you found yourself rendered in silent, unable to offer any immediate rebuttal. “I can explain.” 

"No need for it." She remarked, despite being well aware of the relationship dynamics between you and Coriolanus. While part of you yearned to inquire about the how of her knowledge, the weight of Gaul's reputation, coupled with her own legacy, left you feeling restless and apprehensive. The fear of inviting punishment held you back from probing further. However, to your surprise, Gaul chose not to impose any retribution. "Just be careful next time, especially you, Snow." She cautioned, emphasizing the importance of discretion in your interactions. 

As her figure faded from view, you raised a skeptical brow in response to her remark, a shared laughter ensuing from the peculiar conclusion it left. "What did she mean by 'be careful'?" An undercurrent of concern swept through you, but Coriolanus reassured you with a gentle caress on your face, assuring you that everything would be okay. "Nothing, I suppose. My distraction just makes me a little too vulnerable at times." He confessed. Observing him closely, you tilted your head with a smirk playing on your lips. "And..." You paused for a moment, carefully choosing your words. "Am I the distraction?"

“You are.” 

[tomorrowusa]

Don't risk a rerun of the 2000 election.

In the first presidential election of the 21st century many deluded progressives voted for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.

Their foolishness gave us eight years of George W. Bush who plagued the country with two recessions (including the Great Recession) and two wars (one totally unnecessary and one which could have been avoided if he heeded an intelligence brief 5 weeks before 9/11).

Oh yeah, Dubya also appointed one conservative and one batshit crazy reactionary to the US Supreme Court. Roberts and Alito are still there.

Paul Waldman of the Washington Post offers some thoughts.

Why leftists should work their hearts out for Biden in 2024

Ask a Democrat with a long memory what the numbers 97,488 and 537 represent, and their face will twist into a grimace. The first is the number of votes Ralph Nader received in Florida in 2000 as the nominee of the Green Party; the second is the margin by which George W. Bush was eventually certified the winner of the state, handing him the White House. Now, with President Biden gearing up for reelection, talk of a spoiler candidate from the left is again in the air. That’s unfortunate, because here’s the truth: The past 2½ years under Biden have been a triumph for progressivism, even if it’s not in most people’s interest to admit it. This was not what most people expected from Biden, who ran as a relative moderate in the 2020 Democratic primary. His nomination was a victory for pragmatism with its eyes directed toward the center. But today, no one can honestly deny that Biden is the most progressive president since at least Lyndon B. Johnson. His judicial appointments are more diverse than those of any of his predecessors. He has directed more resources to combating climate change than any other president. Notwithstanding the opposition from the Supreme Court, his administration has moved aggressively to forgive and restructure student loans.

Three years ago the economy was in horrible shape because of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic. Now unemployment is steadily below 4%, job creation continues to exceed expectations, and wages are rising as unions gain strength. The post-pandemic, post-Afghan War inflation rate has receded to near normal levels; people in the 1970s would have sold their souls for a 3.2% (and dropping) inflation rate. And many of the effects of "Bidenomics" have yet to kick in.

And in a story that is criminally underappreciated, his administration’s policy reaction to the covid-induced recession of 2020 was revolutionary in precisely the ways any good leftist should favor. It embraced massive government intervention to stave off the worst economic impacts, including handing millions of families monthly checks (by expanding the child tax credit), giving all kids in public schools free meals, boosting unemployment insurance and extending health coverage to millions.

It worked. While inflation rose (as it did worldwide), the economy’s recovery has been blisteringly fast. It took more than six years for employment rates to return to what they were before the Great Recession hit in 2008, but we surpassed January 2020 jobs levels by the spring of 2022 — and have kept adding jobs ever since. To the idealistic leftist, that might feel like both old news and a partial victory at best. What about everything supporters of Bernie Sanders have found so thrilling about the Vermont senator’s vision of the future, from universal health care to free college? It’s true Biden was never going to deliver that, but to be honest, neither would Sanders had he been elected president. And that brings me to the heart of how people on the left ought to think about Biden and his reelection.

Biden has gotten things done. The US economy is doing better than those of almost every other advanced industrialized country.

Our rivals China and Russia are both worse off than they were three years ago. And NATO is not just united, it's growing.

Sadly, we still need to deal with a far right MAGA cult at home who would wreck the country just to get its own way.

Biden may be elderly and unexciting, but that is one of the reasons he won in 2020. Many people just wanted an end to the daily drama of Trump's capricious and incompetent rule by tweet. And a good portion of those people live in places that count greatly in elections – suburbs and exurbs.

Superhero films seem to be slipping in popularity. Hopefully that's a sign that voters are less likely to embrace self-appointed political messiahs to save them from themselves.

Good governance is a steady process – not a collection of magic tricks. Experienced and competent individuals who are not too far removed from the lives of the people they represent are the best people to have in government.

Paul Waldman concludes his column speaking from the heart as a liberal...

I’ve been in and around politics for many years, and even among liberals, I’ve almost always been one of the most liberal people in the room. Yet only since Biden’s election have I realized that I will probably never see a president as liberal as I’d like. It’s not an easy idea to make peace with. But it suggests a different way of thinking about elections — as one necessary step in a long, difficult process. The further you are to the left, the more important Biden’s reelection ought to be to you. It might require emotional (and policy) compromise, but for now, it’s also the most important tool you have to achieve progressive ends.

Exactly. Rightwingers take the long view. It took them 49 years but they eventually got Roe v. Wade overturned. To succeed, we need to look upon politics as an extended marathon rather as one short sprint.

Republicans may currently be bickering, but they will most likely unite behind whichever anti-abortion extremist they nominate.

It's necessary to get the word out now that the only way to defeat climate-denying, abortion-restricting, assault weapon-loving, race-baiting, homophobic Republicans is to vote Democratic.

[contemplatingoutlander]

An Australian lawyer's view of Trump being the front runner for the GOP presidential nomination

As an Australian living in a constitutional democracy and a defence lawyer I’m finding the whole Trump saga extremely disturbing. Disturbing that an individual who has attacked democratic norms and values, sneered at the jurisdiction of the courts and justice system and attempted to destroy any or all of the tenets of democracy, freedom for minorities and common decency is the front runner for the Republican nomination for president and if successful could have all federal convictions and charges brought against him expunged or otherwise dismissed. Had Trump been subject to Australian law he wouldn’t be a contender for any political position, he’d have challenges being appointed a dog catcher because no political party in Australia would have either defended or sanctioned his behaviour and he would have most certainly been expelled from every political party, no matter how conservative or left leaning. The Republican parties blind support of Trump that could land him back in the White House is a real and present danger not just to America but to the free world and risks American alliances carefully developed and nurtured over decades since the Second World War. Careful consideration should be taken when appointing a person to such power over national security, nuclear arms and a judicial system and diplomatic network which he has already demonstrated a willingness to weaponise in his own interest.* --Richard Busuttil, Australia, commenting on a NY Times opinion column

Seen through the eyes of this Australian lawyer, the Republican Party's decision to keep backing the traitorous Trump seems not only incredibly corrupt, but foolhardy and frightening.

Trump's comeback would not be possible if a majority of prominent Republicans had denounced him--and preferably impeached him after his attempted coup.

Clearly, Trump's behavior would not have been tolerated by many people in Australia or by many people in other affluent constitutional democracies. (Even Brazil has moved faster to prosecute Bolsonaro for spreading false information about the Brazilian election system.)

The character of the American people who vote for Trump must also be in question by the people in many constitutional democracies around the world.

If the U.S. reelects Trump, America will no longer be considered a beacon for freedom and democracy, nor the leader (or even a leader) of "the free world."

We as a nation will be in freefall, moving rapidly towards autocracy and neofascism.

And the world outside the U.S. will know it, years before it finally dawns on many Americans that by voting for Trump, they helped to destroy our democratic republic.

______________ *This quote was divided into paragraphs to increase readability.

[odinsblog]

And right on schedule, Mitch McConnell has returned to block the now-deadlocked Judicial committee from selecting a replacement for the ailing Feinstein. So Democrats are now successfully blocked from appointing any of Biden’s judicial nominees to the bench. Feinstein stepping down and allowing California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, to name her replacement is one easy way to end this Republican farce, but she won’t do what’s best for her constituents. (source)

Feinstein has been missing in action for months now. Her absence is materially harming the nomination and appointment of judges—judges who could counter the radical zealots that Trump seated. If she cannot do the job any longer (and there is a lot more to be said on that front), then she needs to make room for someone else who can.

I understand that a lot of Blue MAGA sycophants do not like to read, see or hear anything even slightly negative about RBG, but the truth is that she had cancer and knew that her health was failing.

Despite two previous bouts with metastatic pancreatic cancer and public pleas from Democratic law scholars, she decided not to retire in 2013 or 2014 when Obama and a Democratic-controlled Senate could have appointed and confirmed her successor. Waiting until Hillary could replace her was a selfish and incredibly risky gambit, and in the end, she lost. Now everyone else is paying the price for her hubris.

Had to be said. Sorry.

I’m not necessarily his biggest fan, but at least Stephen Breyer understood that when a Supreme Court Justice decides to retire, and who will pick their replacement, is an important part of post-electoral politics.

Look, I’m a BIG believer in going hard and doing all the good you can, while you can. This goes doubly for people in positions of power, like politicians. Because guess what? Tomorrow is not promised to anyone.

This is another reason why I have such a problem with “pragmatism”… we won’t always win, but we must always fight for what is right. Settling for what you can get is one thing, but deliberately aiming low so as not to make waves or upset the conservative base is entirely different.

So IF you can get more good things™ done today, then you should go for it while the getting is still good. Time is a luxury and incrementalism favors the wealthy and powerful. Republican strategist Lee Atwater understood that stalling and delaying on a political outcome was just as good as winning the battle. Because stalling and delaying, with only minor cosmetic changes, maintains the status quo.

Democrats need to understand that “triangulating” and “pragmatically” waiting for a better time is precisely what Republicans want. It’s acquiescing.

I believe in what MLKjr called the fierce urgency of now, not the fierce urgency of pragmatically waiting for conservatives to decide on when would be a better time for progress.

It’s super easy to be “pragmatic” and wait just a bit longer when it’s not YOUR rights that are being denied and trampled on.

Anyway, Dianne Feinstein needs to retire. Now.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Supreme Court poised to appoint federal judges to run the US economy.

January 18, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JAN 17, 2024

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases that provide the Court with the opportunity to overturn the “Chevron deference doctrine.” Based on comments from the Justices, it seems likely that the justices will overturn judicial precedent that has been settled for forty years. If they do, their decision will reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government by appointing federal judges as regulators of the world’s largest economy, supplanting the expertise of federal agencies (a.k.a. the “administrative state”).

Although the Chevron doctrine seems like an arcane area of the law, it strikes at the heart of the US economy. If the Court were to invalidate the doctrine, it would do so in service of the conservative billionaires who have bought and paid for four of the justices on the Court. The losers would be the American people, who rely on the expertise of federal regulators to protect their water, food, working conditions, financial systems, public markets, transportation, product safety, health care services, and more.

The potential overruling of the Chevron doctrine is a proxy for a broader effort by the reactionary majority to pare the power of the executive branch and Congress while empowering the courts. Let’s take a moment to examine the context of that effort.

But I will not bury the lead (or the lede): The reactionary majority on the Court is out of control. In disregarding precedent that conflicts with the conservative legal agenda of its Federalist Society overlords, the Court is acting in a lawless manner. It is squandering hard-earned legitimacy. It is time to expand the Court—the only solution that requires a simple majority in two chambers of Congress and the signature of the president.

The “administrative state” sounds bad. Is it?

No. The administrative state is good. It refers to the collective body of federal employees, regulators, and experts who help maintain an orderly US economy. Conservatives use the term “administrative state” to denigrate federal regulation and expertise. They want corporations to operate free of all federal restraint—free to pollute, free to defraud, free to impose dangerous and unfair working conditions, free to release dangerous products into the marketplace, and free to engage in deceptive practices in public markets.

The US economy is the largest, most robust economy in the world because federal regulators impose standards for safety, honesty, transparency, and accountability. Not only is the US economy the largest in the world (as measured by nominal GDP), but its GDP per capita ($76,398) overshadows that of the second largest economy, China ($12,270). The US dollar is the reserve currency for the world and its markets are a haven for foreign investment and capital formation. See The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)

US consumers, banks, investment firms, and foreign investors are attracted to the US economy because it is regulated. US corporations want all the benefits of regulations—until regulations get in the way of making more money. It is at that point that the “administrative state” is seen as “the enemy” by conservatives who value profit maximization above human health, safety, and solvency.

It is difficult to comprehend how big the US economy is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams’s quote about space, “It’s big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is.” Suffice to say, the US economy is so big it cannot be regulated by several hundred federal judges with dockets filled with criminal cases and major business disputes.

Nor can Congress pass enough legislation to keep pace with ever changing technological and financial developments. Congress can’t pass a budget on time; the notion that it would be able to keep up with regulations necessary to regulate Bitcoin trading in public markets is risible.

What is the Chevron deference doctrine?

Managing the US economy requires hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts—a.k.a. “regulators”—who bring order, transparency, and honesty to the US economy. Those experts must make millions of judgments each year in creating, implementing and applying federal regulations.

And this is where the “Chevron deference doctrine” comes in. When federal experts and regulators interpret federal regulations in esoteric areas such as maintaining healthy fisheries, their decisions should be entitled to a certain amount of deference. And they have received such deference since 1984, when the US Supreme Court created a rule of judicial deference to decisions by federal regulators in the case of Chevron v. NRDC.

What happened at oral argument?

In a pair of cases, the US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday as to whether the Chevron deference doctrine should continue—or whether the Court should overturn the doctrine and effectively throw out 17,000 federal court decisions applying the doctrine. According to Court observers, including Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, the answer is “Yes, the Court is poised to appoint federal judges as regulators of the US economy.” See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court is seizing more power from Democratic presidents. (slate.com)

I recommend Stern’s article for a description of the grim atmosphere at the oral argument—kind of “pre-demise” wake for the Chevron deference doctrine. Stern does a superb job of explaining the effects of overruling Chevron:

Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.

The Kochs and the Federalist Society have bought and paid for this sad outcome. The chaos that will follow will hurt consumers, travelers, investors, patients and—ultimately—American businesses, who will no longer be able to rely on federal regulators for guidance as to the meaning of federal regulations. Instead, businesses will get an answer to their questions after lengthy, expensive litigation before overworked and ill-prepared judges implement a political agenda.

Expand the Court. Disband the reactionary majority by relegating it to an irrelevant minority. If we win control of both chambers of Congress in 2024 and reelect Joe Biden, expanding the Court should be the first order of business.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Kyle Cheney at Politico:

Donald Trump is on the cusp of emerging unscathed from his four criminal prosecutions — thanks almost entirely to the decisions of four judges he appointed. Trump’s three Supreme Court picks formed a decisive bloc to declare presidents immune from prosecution for official conduct — freezing the charges he faces in multiple jurisdictions for trying to subvert the 2020 election and putting his New York conviction in doubt. Then his nominee to the federal court in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon, handed him another victory by dismissing the charges he faces for hoarding classified documents and concealing them from investigators.

Her decision earned a shout-out from Trump as he accepted the Republican nomination on Thursday. “A major ruling was handed down from a highly respected federal judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon,” he said. Trump’s string of victories reflects what experts say is extraordinary luck and timing. He’s the first president since Ronald Reagan to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court, and the first to ever face criminal charges that, soon thereafter, landed in front of the very judges he put on the bench. “This is a perfect example of serendipity, how the occurrence of events and trials and tribulations of the judicial process have all combined to work in favor of Donald Trump,” said Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor and civil litigator.

But it’s also a function, those experts say, of the fact that Trump rose to power in an era when conservatives — who had been burned in the past by judicial picks that later broke ranks — had begun perfecting a strategy of appointing judges who would more reliably rule in their favor. President Joe Biden, too, has appointed judges whose backgrounds appear more reliably liberal, though it’s not yet clear whether he will have the same impact on the judiciary as his predecessor. “Today, given that politics are so important in securing a judicial appointment, I can see how that sort of concern can spread,” said David Zaring, professor of legal studies from the Wharton School of Business. “[Trump] got so lucky — people don’t usually get a chance to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court in one term. Trump got it and then the Supreme Court gave him a very favorable ruling after that.”

Cannon’s ruling in the documents case had nothing to do with the substance of the charges — widely considered to be the most clear-cut case Trump faces. Cannon found that Attorney General Merrick Garland overstepped his authority when he named Smith special counsel, invalidating the entire prosecution. But the decision — which legal experts suggested would likely be reversed on appeal — nevertheless put Trump’s already-slim odds of facing trial this year effectively out of reach. [...] Cannon, in particular, represents a stark example. She was confirmed to the bench in November 2020, days after Trump lost reelection to Joe Biden. And she drew widespread criticism two years later after she slowed the investigation by granting a longshot push by the defense to require that an independent monitor review materials the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago.

[...] Not all of Trump’s appointees have ruled uniformly in his favor throughout his yearslong odyssey through the criminal justice system. In 2022, the Supreme Court rebuffed his effort to shield his White House papers from the Jan. 6 select committee, and it declined to consider his Cannon-backed effort to keep the documents investigation frozen.

This Politico article details the influence that the judges Donald Trump appointed are helping him evade legal trouble.

[thebreakfastgenie]

Some man on twitter took the opportunity of someone literally celebrating Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 90th birthday to push the "Ginsburg should have retired and this is her/Democrats' fault" line and unfortunately I have some time on my hands so you're getting this rant from me again.

First and foremost, putting the blame on a dead woman when there is a living man who is more directly responsible for losing control of the Supreme Court is profoundly stupid and while I doubt it's consciously misogynistic it does reflect a society that holds women responsible for everything.

I don't know how many times I can say this, but we didn't lose the court in 2020, we lost it in 2018 when Anthony Kennedy retired and Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed. A 6-3 conservative majority is certainly worse, but the Dobbs decision, for example, would have been the same.

You don't get to blame Democrats or Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the fact that you dismissed the importance of the Supreme Court in 2016. Whatever you think should have been done in 2014, you knew what the reality was in 2016. There was already an open seat on the Supreme Court during that election.

If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, Antonin Scalia would have been replaced by a liberal justice, likely Merrick Garland, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have been replaced by another liberal justice. Anthony Kennedy would either have remained in his seat or been replaced by a moderate or liberal justice. The tentative 5-4 liberal majority we had prior to 2016 would have become a tentative 6-3 majority with a solid 5 liberal votes. This Supreme Court would not have overturned Roe and would not be threatening policies like student loan forgiveness and affirmative action. That is the court we would have if 50,000 people in three states had voted for Hillary Clinton.

Instead, Donald Trump appointed three Supreme Court Justices and there is a solid 6-3 conservative majority that will continue handing down horrible decisions that are nakedly political and barely even bother with constitutional justification. At the moment we're basically waiting for a couple of them to die and hoping there is a Democratic president and senate when it happens.

I think the position that Ginsburg should have retired in 2014 is heavily influenced by hindsight, but even accepting that it was a good idea, it's not as simple as people who began believing it in 2020 make it sound. First of all, I cite 2014 because Democrats lost control of the senate that year. This argument relies on Democrats seeing that loss coming. Even if they could do that, Democrats did not have filibuster-proof majority in the senate in 2014. At the time, senate rules required such a majority for supreme court confirmations. Harry Reid had only recently changed the rules to allow all other federal judicial nominations to be confirmed with a simple majority.

It's easy to forget now, but the level of Republican obstructionism during the Obama administration was unexpected. The rule change came about because there were so many judicial vacancies. Unfortunately, not all of them were filled even after the rule change, which allowed a number of Republican appointments during the Trump administration. I didn't have a position on senate rules in 2012-14 because I was in high school, but my position now is that I support ending the filibuster.

I think it's very clear that Republicans will simply change the rules to benefit themselves anyway the second they have power, so Democrats are not gaining anything by preserving the filibuster. However, I reached this position with the benefit of having observed Mitch McConnell's actions as Majority Leader between 2015 and 2019. Democrats in 2012-14 did not have that benefit. I don't know how predictable this Republican behavior was, but it's certainly not the same as having observed something that already happened. If Mitch McConnell had not already changed the rule for Supreme Court confirmations in 2017 in order to confirm Neil Gorsuch, I would have urged Democrats to do it in order to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. But I don't know if it's fair to expect Democrats to have done so in 2014.

It's also worth remembering that the open politicization of the Supreme Court is fairly recent. It's been obviously political at least since the 1980s, but for quite a long time both parties kept up a pretense that it wasn't. It's easy to see why Democrats might not have expected Republicans to keep a seat open for an entire year rather than even give a Democratic nominee a hearing.

I think "in hindsight, things would be better if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired in 2014 and Harry Reid had changed the senate rules so Democrats could confirm a replacement" is a reasonable take. But it's academic. There's no point in assigning blame. And Democrats clearly did learn from this, because Stephen Breyer retired and was replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson.

And, once again, whatever you think should have happened in 2014, we all went into 2016 knowing exactly what did and did not happen. Few people were saying Ginsburg should have retired at that time, and even those who were would not have been justified in not voting for Hillary Clinton, or discouraging others from supporting her, or downplaying the importance of the Supreme Court.

[tanadrin]

Five to Four goes on to make the point that the reason movement conservatives felt the Federalist Society was necessary was that even conservative SCOTUS appointees under Republican presidents were turning out not to be all that conservative--or at least, not as conservative as movement conservatives wanted. You might understand the fact that even Nixon appointees didn't subscribe to fringe arch-conservative legal theories as evidence that these theories weren't on sound footing and weren't all that popular, but not the FedSoc--no, the problem as they saw it is that Congress relied too much on the nonpartisan (but obviously part of the omnipotent and omnipresent liberal conspiracy) qualification ratings of the ABA to vet nominees, so one of the goals of the FedSoc was to produce their alternative rating system. This system wasn't based so much on "does this person have lots of high-quality legal experience and do they approach the law with careful deliberation" but "is this person going to conform to a particular ideology, and can they coherently bullshit their way through a nomination hearing." Harriet Miers' nomination wasn't withdrawn just because she was underqualified--it was withdrawn because it outraged FedSoc members who saw in her another unreliable conservative who might buckle to liberal pressure and couldn't be counted on to vote in a doctrinaire way. And one reason the Republican party was eventually willing to take Trump on board was because he vowed to use the FedSoc to select all his judicial appointments--he might be terrible optics for the Republican party, but he gives the movement conservatives everything they want, and in exchange he has their loyalty.

[mariacallous]

By the end of his presidency, President Biden—might—outrank all but one president in the number of lower-court judicial appointments over four years.

Supreme Court appointments get the attention, but circuit and district judges do the heavy lifting. And quantitative studies of thousands of their judicial decisions show variations in outcomes—for civil rights claims, for example, or against environmental regulations—based on party-of-appointing president. Aggregate analysis (at 187) of the decisions of district judges show that the Trump cohort’s decisions are more conservative than those of any president, Republican or Democrat, since Lyndon Johnson in civil rights and civil liberties cases and in labor and economic regulation cases. The Trump judges were more supportive of criminal defendants than appointees of other Republican presidents, perhaps reflecting Trump’s suspicions of law enforcement.

Thus, it matters not only whom presidents appoint, but how many. Table 1 shows the number and percent that presidents’ appointees constitute of all active-status (full-time) federal circuit and district judges, as of late July, 2024. Democratic appointees are a majority of the 643 active-status district judges and of the 821 judges overall. Republican appointees have a very slight edge among the 178 active-status circuit judges (compared to a 96 Republican-80 Democratic appointee breakdown among the 176 circuit judges when Biden took office).

Where does Biden stand and what are his four-year prospects?

A July 8 confirmation marked Biden’s 43rd court of appeals appointee—more, as Table 2 shows, than the full four-year total of all predecessors except Donald Trump and Jimmy Carter. A Senate Judiciary Committee vote later in that week, however, rejecting a district court nominee, with a Democratic senator joining all Republicans, hints at the challenge of matching Trump’s total appointment numbers.

Biden’s combined total of 201 district and circuit judges at this mid-July point is basically even with George W. Bush’s four-year total (203) and second only to Trump’s and Carter’s. The contest for second-most appointments over four years is thus between Biden and Trump. (Carter’s number, boosted by Congress’s 1978 creation of 141 new judgeships, is beyond reach for now.)

Table 3 shows the number of confirmations that occurred between mid-July 2020 and the end of Trump’s four years and the number that will be necessary for Biden to match those figures. Biden needs 11 more circuit confirmations to match Trump’s 54, and 19 more district confirmations to match Trump’s 177. Irrespective of court type, some combination of 30 more Biden appointees would match Trump’s 231.

My assessment from January holds: “[I]t appears likely that the [Biden]administration can’t match Trump’s circuit confirmation numbers but might match his district numbers.” Depending on those district numbers, his overall appointments might match or top Trump’s. To do so, Biden needs fewer confirmations in July-December than Trump got in July-December 2020, but he faces stiffer headwinds than did Trump.

Courts of appeals

Trump had no circuit vacancies to fill from June 2020 to late October, when the first of three vacancies occurred; he filled one of them in December—the successor to Circuit Judge Amy Barrett upon her late October elevation to the Supreme Court.

The 11 circuit confirmations that Biden needs starts with the six pending nominations and a future nominee in advance of a vacancy that will open January 15, 2025; the incumbent (a Republican appointee occupying a Delaware seat) announced his plans in May.

Of the six pending nominations, however, one appears unsalvageable, and several others have encountered stiff opposition from Republican senators, including home state senators. Confirmation of all seven seems highly unlikely. The Senate is split evenly (or 51-50 when Vice President Harris can break a tie), but Democratic turned-Independent Senator Manchin now refuses to vote for nominees who have no Republican support (33 of the 43 confirmations so far received 40 or more “nay” votes); and now-convicted Democratic Senator Menendez, who had been attending his criminal trial, may resign, leaving a vacancy until the Democratic New Jersey governor appoints an interim replacement. And the tie-breaking vice-presidential vote may be elusive as she is out of Washington campaigning for the presidency.

But even were Biden to fill all seven vacancies, he would still need four more vacancies to materialize, and soon enough to allow time for nominations and confirmations. Active-status judges usually retire and thus create vacancies when they become eligible to leave while retaining their judicial salaries. Today (apart from the already announced future vacancies reflected in Table 4), 14 active status Democratic (and 27 Republican) circuit appointees are eligible to leave on salary, but none has publicly announced an intention to do so.

Barring something unforeseen—the resurrection of the apparently unconfirmable nomination, unexpected retirements, deaths, or resignations (leaving before eligible for continued salary), and perhaps reduced opposition to confirmations in a lame-duck session—Biden at most can hope to finish four years with somethings between 43 and 49 court of appeals appointments.

District courts and overall count 

Biden needs 19 more district appointments to match Trump’s 177 district judge total. Table 5 shows potential appointments.

But to match Trump’s total appointments of 231 regardless of court level, Biden will need more than 19 district judge appointments, given the near impossibility of Biden’s matching Trump’s 54 circuit judges. Assume three circuit confirmations for purpose of analysis: he would need 27 district appointments to match Trump’s 231 total ([43+3] + [158 + 27] = 231.)

It might seem, on first impression, that if the Senate could confirm 33 Trump district nominees from mid-July, 2020, to the end of the year, it should be able to confirm 27 Biden nominees in the same time frame. The Senate has been confirming nominees fairly quickly—141 median days from nomination to confirmation for Biden’s district judges (versus 233 for Trump’s). It confirmed 32 so far in 2024 (in 97 median days)—a six-month high (although none since May 22).

The Democratic majority, though, faces more daunting challenges than did the Republican majority in 2020:

Republicans had a 53-47 Senate majority. Today, as explained above, the Democrat-independent 51-50 majority is a near-illusion, given the potential loss of Manchin and possible (temporary) New Jersey vacancy. Also, at last three and possibly five, Democrats face tough reelection bids that could make their votes for controversial nominee problematic. During the tussle referenced earlier that led to the July 11 rejection of a Biden district nominee, a Republican Judiciary Committee member made clear his intention to highlight (at 10:03) the votes of those vulnerable senators in upcoming confirmation battles. Controversial nominees include two who have been waiting for over, or for almost, 300 days since nomination. Republicans claim that one (a Muslim as is the controversial circuit nominee) is a radical; they say the other has extreme views on criminal justice.

Trump’s nominees benefitted not only from a stronger Senate majority but also relatively modest Democratic opposition—median “nay” votes of 18. Republicans have been more united in opposing Biden’s district nominees—median nay votes of 43, leaving the majority less room for Democratic absences or defections.

Of Trump’s 33 confirmations, 22 were nominees in states with at least one Democratic senator, who likely had signed off on the nominees under the prevailing “blue-slip” practice, thus making them palatable to other Democrats. By contrast, of Biden’s 26 pending nominees, only four are in states with a Republican senator.

Trump entered 2020’s final six months with 45 pending nominations. Biden starts with 26, a number one shy of the 27 confirmations he needs under the working scenario, and not all 26 are sure-bet confirmations. Thirty of today’s 39 nominee-less vacancies are in states with a Republican senator (with over 500 median days since vacancy announcement). The administration will probably need to exhaust the vacancies in blue states and seek some red-state nominees whom home-state senators won’t veto under the prevailing “blue-slip” arrangements.  

Finally, will Republicans honor the lame-duck confirmation precedent they set in 2020? The 2020 Senate faced essentially the same shortened schedule in place in 2024—out most of August and all of October through election day. It managed to confirm 33 district judges by breaking a long-standing practice of not confirming presidential election-year nominees after the president’s party lost the election.

Of the 33 post-June 2020 district confirmations, 13 came after the election—7 in November (including Southern District of Florida judge Aileen Cannon, now struggling with the Trump documents case) and six in December. Democrats resisted those nominees but couldn’t defeat them. (The median “no votes” on confirmations before November 2020 were 18, but 41 for the 13 post-election nominees; perhaps surprisingly given what we know now, Democrats went light on Cannon, with only 21 no votes).

If Democrats retain the White House, Republican senators will have no lame-duck basis to resist post-election confirmations. If Democrats lose the White House, will Republicans, with a stronger Senate minority than Democrats had in 2020, honor the 2020 precedent and allow lame-duck confirmation of at least some Biden nominees—confirmations that could push Biden’s total to 30 or more?

After Biden leaves office, there will be plenty of assessments of the totality of his judicial appointments. There’s much more to assess than numbers, but numbers make a difference. Biden’s four-year number of lower court judges will outrank all presidents but Carter—and possibly Trump. Whether he is second or third will depend on how often Senate leadership can assemble majority votes for confirmation in a tightly divided Senate.

[my-vanishing-777]

Women of the Day are Emily Murphy, Irene Parlby, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards of Canada, known collectively as the Famous Five, who took a pivotal question to Supreme Court of Canada OTD in 1927: “Is a woman legally a person?” It sounds like a rhetorical question, doesn’t it? One to which the answer is so obvious it shouldn’t even need to be asked, yet it was a fundamentally important question in Canadian law and governance. It came about because in 1922, Emily, Canada’s first woman judge, was nominated for a post in the Senate (the upper chamber of the Canadian Parliament) with widespread support from the press as well as the public. The government of the day wrung its hands and lamented that although it “would like nothing better than to have women in the Senate…the British North America Act made no provision for women.” The British North America Act of 1867 - known to Canadians as the Constitution Act 1867 as a major part of the Constitution of Canada - had used the terms ‘person’ or ‘persons’ when conferring constitutional rights on citizens including the right of appointment to the Senate. The question, therefore, was “is a woman legally a person?” It wasn’t the first time that Emily had been discounted as a “person.” In 1916 on her first day as a judge, a lawyer challenged her on the basis that she was not actually a “person” and therefore not qualified to be a judge. Section 60 of the Supreme Court Act required five people to petition the Canadian government to direct the Supreme Court to interpret a point of law in the BNA Act. Emily mustered four leading women’s activists and on 27 August 1927, they signed the letter and sent it to the Governor-General. Louise McKinney said, “The purpose of woman's life is...to make the best possible contribution to the generation in which she is living." Irene Parlby said, “If politics mean...the effort to secure through legislative action better conditions of life for the people, greater opportunities for our children and other people's children...then it most assuredly is a woman's job as much as it is a man's job.” Nellie McClung said, “Never explain, never retract, never apologise. Just get the thing done and let them howl…Women who set a low value of themselves make life hard for all women.” On 24 April 1928, the Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision: no, of course not, don’t be daft. Only men are persons. Women are not. They can’t sit in the Senate. Never cross a woman when she knows she has right on her side. The Famous Five promptly petitioned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the House of Lords acting in their capacity as Law Lords for the-then Commonwealth) and once again, the Law Lords came through on the side of justice and commonsense. They overruled the Supreme Court: a woman is indeed legally a person with the full rights of a person. In the words of Lord Sankey: “The exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours. Their Lordships do not think it right to apply rigidly to Canada of today the decisions and the reasonings therefor which commended themselves to those who had to apply the law in different circumstances, in different centuries, to countries in different stages of development”. Henrietta Muir Edward said, “This decision marks the abolition of sex in politics...Personally I do not care whether or not women ever sit in the Senate, but we fought for the privilege for them to do so. We sought to establish the personal individuality of women and this decision is the announcement of our victory. It has been an up-hill fight.” The last word goes to Emily Murphy herself: “Whenever I don't know whether to fight or not, I fight.”

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Corey Walker

One of the judges on the top United Nations court who voted on Friday to end Israel’s military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah was previously nominated by US President Joe Biden to serve as a senior State Department official.

In Aug. 2021, Biden announced his intent to nominate Sarah Cleveland, an American, to serve as the legal adviser for the State Department in his administration. The nomination was ultimately unsuccessful, as she was not voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Two years later in November 2023, Cleveland, a former member of the UN Human Rights Committee, won election to sit on the bench of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken responded to Cleveland’s election by showering her with fawning praise. He expressed approval of Cleveland’s “vision for an ICJ that is judicially independent, preserves the integrity and authority of the court, and ensures the dignity of all people.”

The ICJ fills five seats during each general election cycle. Judges are nominated by a group of international law experts appointed by their country’s government. The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council member countries vote separately and secretly to pick the judges who will sit on the bench. 

In an interview with Columbia Law School, Cleveland shared that her successful election could be attributed in part to her willingness to vote against American interests. 

“Fundamentally, what the rest of the world wanted to see was that the US candidate to the court was independent from the US government, was interested in their individual countries, and understood their perspective,” Cleveland said. “They did not want a judge from a permanent member of the Security Council who would predictably vote for her own country’s interests.”

To win support from countries in the United Nations, Cleveland touted her history of standing against the US government’s positions on controversial issues. 

“I have a long record of independence from the US government, since my very first case — as a student in a human rights clinic at Yale Law School — which was a lawsuit against the US government on behalf of Haitian refugees detained at Guantanamo,” she said. 

On Friday, the ICJ issued a ruling demanding that Israel halt its military operations against the Hamas terrorist group in Rafah and allow for significantly more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. Critics of the court have accused the ICJ, along with other major international organizations, of harboring substantial and unfair bias against Israel. 

The order was adopted by the panel of 15 judges from around the world in a 13-2 vote, opposed by judges from Uganda and Israel itself.

If carried out, the ICJ ruling would effectively end Israel’s campaign to dismantle Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the war in Gaza by invading southern Israel on Oct. 7, murdering 1,200 people, and kidnapping over 250 others as hostages.

However, Israeli officials have indicated the Jewish state will not comply with the ruling of the court, which has no enforcement powers.

[connectingconstellations]

Meanwhile, in 1803

James: Have you heard the latest news from the Supreme Court?

Sarah: The Supreme Court? Surely they shan't destroy the very fabric of democracy we have fought so hard to gain.

James: Alas, they have determined that it was illegal for Secretary of State James Madison to withhold the writ of mandamus from William Marbury.

Sarah: So Marbury shall commence his appointment in the federal government?

James: No, the Supreme Court also decided that they get to determine when laws are unconstitutional, and they decided that the law saying that the new administration is required to give Marbury his commission is unconstitutional.

Sarah: So, it's a judicial power grab.

James: But Sarah, what could possibly go wrong in a system where 9 unelected men with lifetime appointments get to determine which laws congress can or cannot write?

Sarah: ...

James: Okay, yeah, I heard that.

Sarah: Well, but surely there would be some mechanism for appointing these justices that did not involve them predicting ahead of time whether or not they are likely to die or want to retire during an administration that agrees or disagrees with their political views.

James: And surely even if a President appointed a nominee, congress would vote on that nominee and not blatantly commit a power grab to keep the seat open until a President with opposing views was elected so they could steal that Supreme Court seat.

Sarah: Yes, and surely if a nominee to the court were credibly accused of sexual harassment the Senate would not confirm them to avoid the specter of impropriety? And surely if a different nominee were accused of sexual assault and then threw a temper tantrum about it the Senate would not confirm them, either? I mean, this is giving these people a massive amount of power and surely the President could nominate someone who was not an alleged criminal?

James: And surely these would be men of great wisdom, whose lifetime appointments would prevent them from partisan sway? Surely they would not be beholden to bribery?

Sarah: Yes, and surely if there were to be the appearance of impropriety -- for example, if their wives had advocated for overturning the results of an election or flew flags demonstrating their support for said coup (or just had generally bizarre flag-related opinions) -- they would do the honorable thing and recuse themselves from cases involving the former President who had tried to overthrow the government, right?

James: Yes, and surely they would respect that this country was founded upon the principle that no man is above the law, and therefore Presidents do not have blanket immunity for using their official powers to commit crimes, right? Otherwise, a President could command the military to assassinate his political opponents or attempt a coup d'etat and not face any consequences, and every reasonable person understands that that's an absolutely bonkers way to interpret the constitution, right?

Sarah: Yes, and surely this Marbury v. Madison decision will not allow extremist Supreme Court justices to go about each June blatantly destroying hard-won civil rights and snatching more power for the federal judiciary, right?

James: Of course not. We have a system of checks and balances, so there must be some sort of check on the Supreme Court's power.

Sarah: ...

James: Oh, did they forget that part?

Sarah: It's alright. Surely, 221 years from now, the Supreme Court Justices will recognize that the men who wrote the constitution were just, like, regular people and not demigods.

James: Yes, surely they will not rely on some flimsy premise that we must always and only do things written in the Constitution, and that society and laws can never change.

Sarah: I mean, half of the framers think they can own other people. Surely no one would rely on them as the absolute arbiters of how our nation's laws should work.

James: ...

Sarah: Oh God, we're so totally fucked.

[simply-ivanka]

Hunter Biden’s Legal Collapse

Wall Street Journal April 5, 2024

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Here are two dates to add to those media timelines of upcoming courtroom drama: June 3 and 20. It won’t be Donald Trump in the dock on those days. It’ll be the other man whose legal woes are destined to feature in this election: Hunter Biden.

Those woes are serious, to read a federal judge’s ruling this week slapping down all eight of Hunter’s motions to dismiss the criminal tax charges against him. The ruling received minimal coverage, even though it began a countdown to two potential Hunter trials (the other for firearm offenses) as his father fights for re-election. Those trials will provide a counterpoint to Mr. Trump’s legal journey.

Joe Biden’s supporters will insist Hunter’s problems aren’t the president’s and are small potatoes next to allegations of conspiracy and obstruction against Mr. Trump. Yet voters like to equal out partisan scenarios, and Republicans have successfully nestled Hunter’s tax misbehavior in an unseemly tale of Joe’s influence peddling. Many Americans will simply view the coming judicial dramas as the Trump Trials on one hand, and the Biden Trials on the other.

If there is a notable difference, it’s that the Hunter cases contain no political upside, as the judge’s ruling clarified this week. Mr. Trump would surely prefer not to be under indictment, but he’s squeezing those lemons for all the lemonade he can make. Every courtroom appearance is a campaign event, every legal opinion a fundraising opportunity; every rally and social-media post contains dire warnings about witch hunts. Polls show a direct correlation between the intensity of the legal campaign against him and the support of his base. The left’s lawfare helped win him the nomination.

Where does Hunter stand, more than a year into his new, no-holds-barred legal approach? Until early 2023, the president’s son was pursuing a sober, below-the-radar legal defense. That changed with the hiring of the high-flying Abbe Lowell, who implemented a hyperpolitical strategy. The team fired off letters to law enforcement demanding investigations into Hunter’s critics, accused special counsel David Weiss of bringing a politically motivated prosecution, and embroiled Hunter in public standoffs with House committees investigating Biden family affairs. The clear goal was to present Hunter as victim of an unfair prosecution that was part of a GOP-inspired plot against the Bidens.

The media lapped it up, but there is no evidence that Hunter’s brassy PR campaign is changing any minds. Polls show little public sympathy for him, no doubt because the felony charges relate a story of a privileged political child who traded off his family name and blew loads of money on sports cars and adult entertainment. The evidence makes it difficult to suggest the prosecution is politically motivated. And a majority of Americans continue to believe Joe Biden was involved in Hunter’s affairs. Unlike Mr. Trump, Team Biden isn’t realizing any political benefit from the drama. If anything, the in-your-face strategy has backfired, serving mainly to elevate the Hunter story in a way that helps Republicans.

All the more so because it’s been a legal disaster. Hunter was on the verge of a wrist slap last summer, until his team questioned immunity provisions in a proposed plea deal and the agreement collapsed. He was subsequently charged with firearm offenses in Delaware and tax offenses in California.

Rather than plead guilty and negotiate, the Lowell legal team carried their flamboyant charges into a California courtroom, filing motions for dismissal on grounds of “selective and vindictive prosecution,” “appropriations clause” violations, “due process” and an argument that Mr. Weiss was unlawfully appointed.

Federal Judge Mark Scarsi this week used an 82-page opinion to remind the Hunter team that sound bites aren’t legal arguments. He efficiently dismantled and dismissed every motion. Yes, Mr. Weiss was duly appointed, and his office is lawfully funded. No, there is no evidence of animus against Hunter; the defense’s “motion is remarkable in that it fails to include a single declaration, exhibit, or request for judicial notice” that demonstrates vindictiveness, beyond media speculation. And there is certainly no reason to throw out the case on grounds that Republicans bragged about provoking the charges, since “politicians take credit for many things over which they have no power and have made no impact.” (Truer words were never written.)

The result: Barring surprises, Hunter begins his California trial on June 20. Judge Scarsi’s ruling could also serve as a template for Judge Maryellen Noreika, who will soon rule on a similar set of dismissal motions in her Delaware courtroom. Assuming she too throws them out, Hunter’s trial there begins June 3.

Mr. Trump’s trials could turn into a liability if he lands a felony conviction, which some of his supporters tell pollsters would be disqualifying. Meantime, Hunter’s indictments are cruising toward potentially messy ends come June—and with them a new GOP cudgel. Just one more reason Joe should have rethought that re-election bid.