I remember seeing this movie with my mom at her urging because, at the time, she thought I could make a good lawyer someday (because I was an argumentative child) and hoped I’d be inspired by it. She was wrong about my vocational aptitude, but I do remember finding the film vaguely inspiring.
I haven’t seen it again in the intervening decades and have no idea how it holds up. I do recall the real-world version of the Supreme Court being a more widely respected institution back then than it is today.
The words “First Monday in October” have a different connotation with the Fed Soc Six supermajority in place. Now I hear them with a feeling of dread, wondering which fundamental rights they will rip away or how they’ll degrade life by empowering polluters, gun merchants, corporate parasites, etc.
Public Notice highlighted four cases to watch this term. Here’s a quick summary of what’s at issue in each:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America: Payday lenders, which exist to fleece the poor, are arguing that the way the CFPB is funded is unconstitutional. (JFC, for real?) Conservatives’ ceaseless efforts to undermine and/or destroy the CFPB are an unintentional tribute to the clarity of its creator’s vision. Thanks, Senator Warren!
United States v. Rahimi: This case will decide if violent domestic abusers retain their right to a firearm. That this is even a fucking question is further proof that the modern conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment is a murder-suicide pact.
Moore v. US: The article says this case is about “tax law applying to ‘unrealized’ income.” It’s exactly the type of case the Fed Soc was founded to ensure is adjudicated in favor of its mega-rich donors. But as the article notes, this particular case is also a Sam Alito flex. Alito granted a softball interview to the conservative attorney and legal writer who originally requested that the court take up the case. Alito then declined to recuse, carefully reasoning “because shut up, that’s why.”
Moody v. NetChoice/NetChoice v. Paxton: These matters should have been laughed out of a lower court because Moody (hack AG to DeSantis) and Paxton (indicted crook who recently beat an impeachment to retain his seat as TX AG — for now) are defending laws that were passed to address a phantom harm: that conservatives are “silenced” on social media platforms like ex-Twitter. As fucking if!
It’ll be interesting to see what fuckery the court gets up to this term, in the same sense that it would be “interesting” to watch helplessly on a Ring app while six thieves kick in your door and steal your shit. But at least we’ll have the consolation of eloquent dissents to read.
We have a lot of lawyer types around here — please chime in with what you’re focusing on in this SCOTUS term, if you care to. Otherwise, open thread!
