“The Supreme Court will review whether the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is constitutional, a case with ramifications for the president’s powers to control the direction of independent government agencies,” the Wall Street  Journal reports.

Washington Post: “The Supreme Court has a powerfully controversial docket for its term beginning Monday that will test Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s efforts to portray the institution as above the noisy and partisan battles of the moment.”

“Two unknowns — the health of the court’s oldest member, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and whether the court will be drawn into legal controversies arising from the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump — add to the uncertainty.”

“The Supreme Court will review a restrictive Louisiana law that gives the justices the chance to reconsider a recent ruling protecting abortion rights,” the Washington Post reports.

“The court said Friday it would consider whether the 2014 law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals unduly burdens women’s access to abortion. Clinic owners said the effect of the law would be to close most of the state’s abortion clinics and leave the state with only one doctor eligible to perform the procedure.”

Slate: This Supreme Court term will launch a conservative revolution.

“Now, she has so much less to push up I don’t think that’s fair.”

— Chief Justice John Roberts, quoted by CNN, when asked if he could do as many push ups as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“So many people seem to think that judges are just like politicians with robes. Rubbish.”

— Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, quoted by the Salt Lake Tribune.

“The Trump administration told the Supreme Court Tuesday that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional because Congress limited the president’s power to remove the agency’s director before his or her five-year term expires,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“Two federal appeals courts have upheld the CFPB’s structure, which is intended to insulate the director from political interference by allowing dismissal only for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’ They relied on a 1935 Supreme Court precedent, known as Humphrey’s Executor, which approved similar protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission, who like the CFPB director are presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate.”

Jonathan Bernstein: “Escalating the hardball isn’t the only way to go. One option would be to threaten to pack the court, but also offer a compromise. Several people have recommended a constitutional amendment that would fix the number of justices at nine, with each serving for a single 18-year term, staggered so that there’d be a vacancy every other year. That would have several virtues. One is that it would improve on the weirdly random nature of Supreme Court vacancies, which is difficult to defend as a matter of democracy. It would also reduce the hold that long-gone election results have on the future. And it would end the strong incentive to nominate very young justices. Some even argue that by regularizing vacancies, it might minimize the vast importance placed on every confirmation fight.”

“I’ve been ambivalent about this proposal, but it certainly has some advantages. And it’s a whole lot better than increasing the size of the court every time we get unified party government, which is where all of this is heading. If Democrats are going to play constitutional hardball, or threaten to, I’d much rather they try to reach a long-term compromise rather than continue to ratchet things up. It might even be in their interest to do so.”

Jamelle Bouie: “Democrats are left in an unenviable position. Should they win a federal ‘trifecta’ — the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives — they’ll still have to deal with a Trump-branded judiciary. It’s entirely possible that a future Democratic agenda would be circumscribed and unraveled by a Supreme Court whose slim conservative majority owes itself to minority government and constitutional hardball.”

“So what should Democrats do? They should play hardball back. Congress, according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, decides the number of judges. It’s been 150 years since it changed the size of the Supreme Court. I think it’s time to revisit the issue. Should Democrats win that trifecta, they should expand and yes, pack, the Supreme Court. Add two additional seats to account for the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations. Likewise, expand and pack the entire federal judiciary to neutralize Trump and McConnell’s attempt to cement Republican ideological preferences into the constitutional order.”

President Trump once again came to the defense of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Politico reports.

Said Trump: “Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for liable, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue.”

Approximately an hour after the original tweet, he sent out a new tweet with the correct spelling of the word “libel.”

“Well first this audience can see that I am alive… I am on my way to being very well,”

— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, quoted by Politico.

“If there is a Supreme Court vacancy next year and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell carries through on his extraordinary promise to fill it — despite his own previous precedent in blocking Merrick Garland — it will tear this country apart.”

— David Axelrod, on Twitter.

“The Trump administration took its hardest line yet to legalize anti-gay discrimination on Friday when it asked the Supreme Court to declare that federal law allows private companies to fire workers based only on their sexual orientation,” BuzzFeed News reports.

“An amicus brief filed by the Justice Department weighs in on two cases involving gay workers and what is meant by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination ‘because of sex.’ The administration argues courts nationwide should stop reading the civil rights law to protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers from bias because it was not originally intended to do so.”