Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

This really is a full service blog.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Come on, man.

I really should read my own blog.

In after Baud. Damn.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

The willow is too close to the house.

Thanks for reminding me that Van Jones needs to be slapped.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Glad to see john eastman going through some things.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Supreme Court Releasing At Least One Opinion This Morning

Supreme Court Releasing At Least One Opinion This Morning

by | 104 Comments

This post is in: 

The Supreme Court will be releasing at least one opinion in just a few minutes.

Texas?  We don’t know.  I will be watching with great anticipation and will add more information to the post as it becomes available.

h/t Omnes Omnibus

SCOTUSblog will be live-blogging.

I see several of our Balloon Juice attorneys in the morning thread.  Yay!

Open thread.

Reader Interactions

104Comments

  1. 1.

    WaterGirl

    I am always hopeful that the courts won’t sink to the depths of what I know they are capable of, and today is no different.  Nervous, but hopeful.

    Maybe today will be the day that they don’t completely destroy that hope

    edit: I predict that today will not be a slow news day.

  2. 2.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @WaterGirl: If it is the TX decision, I think they will kill it on the fact that it is basically a shitty, unenforceable law.  They can to do that without touching on the underlying Roe issue.

  3. 3.

    JML

    I have trouble seeing any good decision coming down from this court. With Alito, Comey Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Thomas on the bench you have 4 Justices that are absolute disasters who will fry the average person without a second thought. They are brutal ideologues. (While I don’t like Gorsuch, he’s a different cut, and Roberts is at least an institutionalist)

    I warned people time and time again that the fate of the court was up in the 2016 election and people laughed at me.

  4. 4.

    WaterGirl

    @Omnes Omnibus: Or they will kill it because they are smart enough to draw the dotted line to guns and all manner of other vigilante laws that would hurt the things they care about.

    They seem not to care at all about the rule of law, democracy, and rights of humans over rights of corporations.

  6. 6.

    James E Powell

    @JML:

    I warned people in 2000; in 2016 I begged them. Both times I was buked & scorned.

    At times, Democratic leaning voters can be very hard to love.

  7. 7.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @WaterGirl: Or they will kill it because they are smart enough to draw the dotted line to guns and all manner of other vigilante laws that would hurt the things they care about.

    That’s what I just said.  //  Seriously, it’s an easy decision.

  8. 8.

    Anonymous at Work

    @WaterGirl: no, they’ll kill it because a Texas state court judge found it unconstitutional in practice and ripped it to shreds using “facts.”  In order to preserve a pro-Dobbs ruling, the Republicans on the Court need to avoid these “facts.”

  10. 10.

    L85NJGT

    A Texas state judge ruled against the enforcement mechanism yesterday. Did an overplayed hand get forced?

  12. 12.

    WaterGirl

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I think we are in agreement on this.

    You said they would kill it on the fact that it is basically a shitty, unenforceable law.  I think they would be perfectly fine with a shitty, unenforceable law that could be used against liberals.

    If they were to kill this, it would look to me like a defensive stance, not because they have a problem with shitty laws that suit their collective ideology.

  13. 13.

    Eunicecycle

    Wow, what a nothingburger. SCOTUSblog says law can still be enforced but abortion clinics can sue

    ETA: I am not a lawyer.

  15. 15.

    laura

    If it is the Texas law, I expect they’ll overturn it to then uphold the the 15 week ban later in 2022 to appear “reasonable” (it will not be a reasonable compromise). In doing so, I expect at least one of the terrible horrible awfuls will write seperately opining about upholding the bounty aspect of SB 8.

  17. 17.

    lowtechcyclist

    @schrodingers_cat: Blue check Berners are still dunking on Hillary from their media perches.

    Anyone who’s still obsessed with Hillary can be written off AFAIAC, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.  She’s been a private citizen for >5 years, and a shitload has happened in the meantime.  If Hillary’s still living rent-free in their heads, then they should really seek psychiatric help.

  19. 19.

    eclare

    @Eunicecycle:   So the law is still tied up in courts.  And in the real world, low income women in TX who can’t afford to travel out of state still cannot get an abortion.

    Gotcha.

  20. 20.

    Omnes Omnibus

    This whole thing was a nothingburger.  They dismissed the case against certain defendants and kept the stay in place.  FWIW even the liberal justices agreed with the dismissal of certain defendants.  The case is where it was before for all practical purposes.

  22. 22.

    WaterGirl

    From SCOTUSblog:
    From Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting part of her opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part:
    While the Court properly holds that this suit may proceed against the licensing officials, it errs gravely in foreclosing relief against state-court officials and the state attorney general. By so doing, the Court leaves all manner of constitutional rights more vulnerable than ever before, to the great detriment of our Constitution and our Republic.
  25. 25.

    WaterGirl

    Also from SCOTUSblog:

    The three liberals have their own concurring in part/dissenting in part opinion, written by Sotomayor. “I dissent, however, from the Court’s dangerous departure from its precedents, which establish that federal courts can and should issue relief when a state enacts a law that chills the exercise of a constitutional right and aims to evade judicial review. By foreclosing suit against state-court officials and the state attorney general, the Court effectively invites other States to refine S.B. 8’s model for nullifying federal rights.”

    That doesn’t sound like nothing to me.  Translations, please. :-)

  27. 27.

    WaterGirl

    @Omnes Omnibus: Still confused.  I know what a stay is, but I thought the courts had declined to put a stay in place while this heads through the courts?

    If there were a stay, I would think the law would NOT be in effect while it heads through the courts?

  28. 28.

    Anonymous At Work

    @WaterGirl: Stay on the federal district court opinion ruling the law unconstitutional.  Since his opinion is STAYED, it won’t go into effect.  Upshot: The law is still in effect and the district court judge is now required to start over using US v TEXAS as guidance.
    Practical effect: Law is in effect until SCOTUS rules on Dobbs et alia, giving Texas a chance to outlaw abortion after 6 weeks without a weird enforcement mechanism.

  30. 30.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @WaterGirl: There can be stays on orders staying other orders.  End result of this decision is that the lawsuit can go forward, but the law remains in effect while the suit goes through the system.  Women in TX are in almost exactly the same legal position as they were before this decision.

  31. 31.

    Almost Retired

    @Anonymous At Work: yup, I agree.  Non-surprising line-up as preview of Dobbs: five hard core conservatives sticking together, three reliable liberal votes, and a squish Roberts pretending he has any influence over the conservative bloc.

  32. 32.

    Omnes Omnibus

    From SCOTUSblog:  There’s a summary on page 17. “The Court unanimously rejects the petitioners’ theory for relief against state-court judges and agrees Judge Jackson should be dismissed from this suit. (2) A majority reaches the same conclusion with respect to the petitioners’ parallel theory for relief against state-court clerks. (3) With respect to the back-up theory of relief the petitioners present against Attorney General Paxton, a majority concludes that he must be dismissed. (4) At the same time, eight Justices hold this case may proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against . . . defendants with specific disciplinary authority over medical licensees, including the petitioners. (5) Every member of the Court accepts that the only named private-individual defendant, Mr. Dickson, should be dismissed.”

  34. 34.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @James E Powell:

    I warned people in 2000; in 2016 I begged them. Both times I was buked & scorned.

    Yup. We forgot 2000 and repeated it in 2016.

    @schrodingers_cat: If you and I went into the metaphorical AI lab to create a bot that was a caricature of a Berner, it would generate content that sounds a lot like Sarah Jones. She unironically refers to Obama as President Drones, and is so warped she was shit-tweeting about Neera Tanden on her own wedding day. So naturally New York magazine gives her a platform

  35. 35.

    sab

    So they upheld a stay on the district court’s stay on the law? So constitutional rights can be ignored until the S Ct gets around to ruling whether they do or do not still exist?

  37. 37.

    Another Scott

    Horse’s mouth – US v Texas:

    PER CURIAM.
    The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently
    granted.

    The application to vacate stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied.
    It is so ordered.

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR would grant the application to vacate stay in No. 21A85 and dissents from the dismissal of No. 21–588 as improvidently granted.

    That’s it.

    So, no easy federal solution to the SB8 issue, as I read it. IANAL.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  41. 41.

    Joe Falco

    From SCOTUSBlog

    “The irony of this case is that SB 8 has generated more litigation against those who oppose abortion than those who perform it.” Justice Thomas.

    Just a repulsive, odious man.

  43. 43.

    Nelle

    @JML:I can still remember the angle of the sun on a woman’s face as she laughed when I brought up the Supreme Court on an October day in 2016.  She would, she said, grudgingly and regrettfully vote for Clinton, but no way the men in her family would.  They were Bernie all the way.  I have the urge, from time to time, to drive down to that town and say “How do you like your blue-eyed boy, Mister Death” (apologies to Bernie’s brown eyes, e e cummings, and “Buffalo Bill’s”) .

  44. 44.

    Steve in the ATL

    I see several of our Balloon Juice attorneys in the morning thread. Yay!

    Alternative response: [vomit emoji]

  45. 45.

    sab

    @JPL: My sister says this law reminds her more of life in China in the 1980s than in anything American. Neighbors spying on neighbors secretly reporting to others.

  46. 46.

    JPL

    From Balloon Juice Doug

    Opinion | Biden withdrew from Afghanistan because he saw the war against religious extremists there as unwinnable. Should he also withdraw from the United States?

  47. 47.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Nelle: BERNIE WASN’T ON THE BALLOT ANYMORE IN OCTOBER 2016!!!!!

    I know that you know that.   I just couldn’t help myself.

  49. 49.

    Anyway

    @lowtechcyclist:

    HRC fan here, voted for her in 2016 and still have PTSD from watching the results as they came in.

    I still don’t get the reasoning behind releasing the speech she’d have given had she won – as part of this MasterClass.

  51. 51.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @JPL: is there anyway for DougJ to make his shtick into an NFT? he’s become something of a twitter celebrity in the last few months

  53. 53.

    daveNYC

    @WaterGirl: They’ll kill it because they don’t need it.  They have enough votes to do whatever they want without having to deal with weird and messy rules lawyering.

  55. 55.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Anyway:

    I still don’t get the reasoning behind releasing the speech she’d have given had she won – as part of this MasterClass.

    Why do retired politicians write books? I imagine it makes sense in the context of the whole Master Class she’s doing, which I won’t watch. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s in her book, which I haven’t read but may some day. I think the better question is why a young writer with a prominent platform feel the need to sneer at HRC for doing a Master Class, and somehow tie it to the student debt she incurred pursuing a post-graduate degree at IIRC the University of London.

  58. 58.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    meanwhile, the coup had tentacles I’d never have dreamt of….

    ATLANTA, Dec 10 (Reuters) – Weeks after the 2020 election, a Chicago publicist for hip-hop artist Kanye West traveled to the suburban home of Ruby Freeman, a frightened Georgia election worker who was facing death threats after being falsely accused by former President Donald Trump of manipulating votes. The publicist knocked on the door and offered to help.
    The visitor, Trevian Kutti, gave her name but didn’t say she worked for West, a longtime billionaire friend of Trump. She said she was sent by a “high-profile individual,” whom she didn’t identify, to give Freeman an urgent message: confess to Trump’s voter-fraud allegations, or people would come to her home in 48 hours, and she’d go to jail. […]
    Kutti repeated that Freeman “was in danger” and had “48 hours” before “unknown subjects” turned up at her home, the report said. At the officer’s suggestion, the women agreed to meet at a police station. The officer’s report did not identify the man accompanying Kutti.

  59. 59.

    Edmund Dantes

    @WaterGirl: yes. The stay was denied. It’s early so omens got confused stil early in morning lack of coffee.
    No stay was granted. So law is in effect. Which is bullshit. As Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent.

     

    edit – there were multiple stays involved too. So no stay was granted for the ones trying to get it overturned.

  61. 61.

    lowtechcyclist

    @lowtechcyclist: Anyone who’s still obsessed with Hillary can be written off AFAIAC, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.  She’s been a private citizen for >5 years, and a shitload has happened in the meantime.  If Hillary’s still living rent-free in their heads, then they should really seek psychiatric help.

    Apparently this includes the Today show.

    TODAY on Twitter: “Hillary Clinton reads parts of the victory speech she hoped to deliver in 2016 https://t.co/E4oCGx8G89” / Twitter

  64. 64.

    lowtechcyclist

    @JPL:

    From Balloon Juice Doug

    Opinion | Biden withdrew from Afghanistan because he saw the war against religious extremists there as unwinnable. Should he also withdraw from the United States?

    Reminds me that, from back in the “U.S. out of Central America” days, I have a satirical “U.S. out of North America” button.

  65. 65.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Edmund Dantes: No, I was correct, but, given the  procedural posture of the case, it means the law remains in effect.  I may not have been clear about the meaning of the stay.

  67. 67.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:  I am so fucking pissed at all these people who feel it’s just fine to punch down on ordinary people doing ordinary but necessary jobs – local election officials, county health workers, school board members, teachers, nurses – and dox them and turn their lives into a living hell of threats of murder and violence.

    If the states won’t crack down on this shit, the Federal government needs to step in, big time.

  69. 69.

    brendancalling

    @schrodingers_cat: Now that I live in Vermont, I like to ask those folks why, if Bernie’s so great, his state is such a shambles. Broadband is hard to come by, cell service is spotty at best, there’s a housing crisis, massive income inequality, and despite all the protests in Burlington, it’s pretty fuckin’ racist up here.

  72. 72.

    hueyplong

    @lowtechcyclist: I’m very proud of these election workers who did not break under pressure that I’m not 100% sure I’d withstand.

    The word “patriot” has really been misapplied in our time.

  77. 77.

    schrodingers_cat

    @brendancalling: Bernie white flighted himself to Vermont when NYC started getting more diverse. Just saying black and brown 500 times per speech doesn’t absolve him of his shitty xenophobic anti-immigrant voting record of two decades and counting.

    He fits in well with the demographic.

  79. 79.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Betty: Oh ffs.  They signed on to her opinion.  That means they agreed with what she said and did not feel a need to say more.  It is actually less forceful if everyone feels they need to say their piece.

  80. 80.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    thinking back to the Eschaton comments threads in 2009 when it was an article of faith that the secretly pro-life Sotomayor’s nomination was part of crypto-Republican misogynist Obama’s plot to… something.

    along those lines, I’ll be taking Laurence Tribe’s occasional foray’s into the Do Something caucus with an even larger grain of salt in the future

    Stephanie Valencia @stephanievalenc

    Dear@tribelaw:
    In 2009 you sent a “private” memo to Obama actively opposing Sonia’s nom saying: “Bluntly put, she’s not as smart as she seems to think she is, and her reputation for being something of a bully could well make her liberal impulses backfire…” Takebacks?

  81. 81.

    Baud

    @JPL:

    On Jan. 5, the FBI called Freeman and warned her that she should leave her home, Freeman told Reuters. Sure enough, the following day — in that 48-hour window that Kutti had suggested — a mob of angry Trump supporters surrounded her house with bullhorns.

    That update didn’t get much attention in the press. After all, it was Jan. 6, and the media was instead focused on a much larger group of Trump supporters trying to keep the president in office using more aggressive tactics at the U.S. Capitol.

  87. 87.

    NotMax

    Open Thread?

    The Metropolitan Museum of Art is dropping the Sackler name from seven exhibition spaces amid growing outrage over the role the family may have played in the opioid crisis.

    The New York museum and the Sackler family jointly announced on Thursday that the institution and their once-deep-pocketed benefactors would part ways, removing the Sackler name from the iconic building, including the wing that houses the Temple of Dendur. The wing is named after brothers Arthur, Mortimer and Raymond Sackler, who donated $3.5 million for it in the 1970s.

    “Our families have always strongly supported The Met, and we believe this to be in the best interest of the Museum and the important mission that it serves,” Sackler descendants said in a statement. Source

  94. 94.

    NotMax

    FYI, Biden scheduled to appear (via remote hook-up) on the Tonight Show this evening.

    (Put this in the wrong thread earlier.)

  98. 98.

    cwmoss

    @lowtechcyclist: Virtually all the competent psychotherapists are booked solid in my city with 2 million in the metro area (PDX). Not a good time for people who don’t already have a therapist to have a mental health crisis.

  99. 99.

    MazeDancer

    @Anyway:

    1. Pay day

    MasterClass pays. Even if she gives it to charity, she gets paid.

    2. Comment free environment.

    Doesn’t have to get trolled.

    BTW, MasterClass is terrible. BoringBasicClass is more like it. Episodes are well shot, well lit, and very slow and boring.

    And giving Cornell West time in the spotlight is disgusting.

  100. 100.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Ksmiami: ​
     

    @lowtechcyclist: can’t we just do the same to them… if there’s no help from feds

    How, exactly? How do we, as private citizens, find out who they are? If someone phones a death threat to one of these minor officials, how can we trace where the call came from?

    Also, there’s the imbalance in numbers. For every such person being harassed and threatened, there are dozens or more doing the harassing and threatening. The people being harassed are public officials, so their identities are known. But they’re minor public officials, without resources to fight back, and they (and we) would find it difficult to impossible to identify their antagonists and retaliate.

    It takes a government to track down the members of the mob and bring them to justice.

  102. 102.

    sab

    @Ksmiami: We either have a legal legal system, or we have chaos and local warfare. You think Lebanon is better? My Lebannese refugee neighbors beg to differ. I don’t want to speak for them, but I bet the Congolese refugees also beg to differ.

    You are either a paid troll or a completley ignorant fucking idiot. Have you ever even talked to anyone who came from a violently torn apart country

    ETA The whole point of rule of law is to avoid chaotic partisan fighting. Jeezus fuck. Does no one read history anymore?

  103. 103.

    debbie

    Is there a list anywhere of the defendants who were dismissed? I’m wondering if the dismissed include the OH AG who seems to be horning in on a lot of cases (I think to increase his political visibility).

  104. 104.

    debbie

    @debbie:

    Found it here. I see Paxton is among the dismissed. Yay! Not only that, among the dismissed, he’s the only one who “must” be dismissed; the others name are all “should” be dismissed.

Comments are closed.