Senate The Supreme Court

So if we assume they keep to 2 a day, there are 4 more days. And if they opt not release any further opinions this week or keep it to 4 cases a week, this could drag out as far as the next two weeks.

 

I generally think it won't be 2/day, per se -- but I think at this point it's going into at least next week.

 

Any chance they punt it to the next term?

 

Based on what I read a bit ago, it would require reargument for that to happen, which is unlikely. So, no.

 

- SCOTUSBlog

 

Are they releasing opinions on Thursday or no? I couldn’t tell from SCOTUS blog.

 

Not so far -- only conference.

 

Also, as far as we know Alito hasn't tried to rape anyone.

 

No, he's just sexist and homophobic.

 

Not exactly the place for this, but worth noting given our extended discussion of how particularly terrible this Administration has been about rule-making: Courts strike down asylum ban

The reason? You're supposed to have a public comment period between announcing and implementing the rule. It's not like they shortened it. Or even made a gimmick one of one hour or something. They just. . .literally didn't both acknowledging that this step existed. At all.

 

I want opinions tomorrow, dammit!

Faithless Electors! Trump’s taxes!

Where’s the beef?

 

Monday!

 

Are we sure none tomorrow?

 

SCOTUSBlog says only Monday; Orders only (no Opinions) tomorrow in concept.

 

The stories about Thomas considering retireing while there's a Republican president and Senate to oversee his replacement have been floating around for a while now but ... Alito to? I'm not sure I buy that. Especially from Hugh Hewitt.

 

It wouldn't totally surprise me if Thomas decided to up and retire, since as you say @Bilbo Fett , the rumors have floated around of a Thomas retirement for years, maybe a decade, now (I'd love to see the Democrats filabuster any nominee that Trump would appoint to take his place on the grounds of "Well Sen. Majority Leader (McConnell) you said we can't put somebody on the Court in a Presidential Election Year), but yeah, no I'm not buying Alito either.

 

McConnell already killed the filibuster for SC nominations.

 

Ordinarily I wouldn't consider Thomas retiring, except feet first -- except the current POTUS is an absolute moron and went on record that he wants to confirm a woman SCOTUS Justice this week...

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/trump-wants-another-supreme-court-fight-before-november.html

Odds would be Neomi Rao, or Amy Corey Barrett -- both terrible and young.

 

Yeah, I forgot when I made that post.

 

But at least the balance wouldn’t change. While all those choices would be terrible, I’d much rather they replace Thomas or Alito with one of them than RBG or Breyer.

I don’t think Thomas wants to step down though—he’s been far more active in virtual oral arguments than at any previous time on the bench, and appears to be enjoying himself. This is probably more wishful thinking on Trump’s part. I’m sure he thinks it would boost conservative turnout the way the Kavanaugh confirmation did for the Republican Senate in the 2018 midterms.

That being said, I think there is an equal if not stronger chance that a vacancy benefits Democrats more than Republicans, as Democrats finally seem to be waking up to the importance of judicial nominations. An open seat, a one-sided confirmation fight and McConnell’s hypocrisy of ramming through a justice on a party line vote during an election year will likely blow back on him and juice Democratic turnout more than Republican.

Campaigning on the Court has been a powerful motivator for Republicans; I would urge Democrats to run against the Court should a vacancy appear. Make the issues healthcare, civil rights and voting rights, as all of them have been hanging by a thread with the current 5-4make up. Avoid abortion, as Republicans still seem more motivated by that than Democrats.

 

I would go more specific and focus in on the impact of the Election and potential Court vacancies on the ACA, especially since that will be up next term after the election.

 

Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.

This was the robocall case... looks like a nightmare of opinions, lol. Sounds like basically the exception for robocalling cellphones by the government to collect debts didn't survive, but the TPCA did (due to express severability)? I'll wait for more commentary...

EDIT: SCOTUSBlog: "Here's the gist of it, because (as a commenter notes) it's complicated: "Six Members of the Court today conclude that Congress has impermissibly favored debt-collection speech over political and other speech, in violation of the First Amendment."

EDIT2: Faithless electors are coming in (two cases) and that's it for the day.

 

States may bind electors. Thank G-d. And where the hell are the Trump tax cases?

 

Yes, and (essentially) 9-0 and 8-0 respectively.

 

Like I said, thank G-d. Profusely. Trump can't simply buy them off now.