New York Times: “In the 32 years since Justice Thomas came through the fire of his confirmation hearings and onto the Supreme Court, he has assembled an army of influential acolytes unlike any other — a network of like-minded former clerks who have not only rallied to his defense but carried his idiosyncratic brand of conservative legal thinking out into the nation’s law schools, top law firms, the judiciary and the highest reaches of government.”
Law Enforcement Probes Threats to Colorado Justices
“Local and federal law enforcement officials say they are investigating a surge in threats that justices on Colorado’s Supreme Court are facing after their decision this week to bar Donald Trump from running in the state’s presidential primary,” the Washington Post reports.
George Conway Refutes Trump’s Supreme Court’s Win’
“Conservative attorney George Conway challenged CNN’s Jake Tapper’s claim that it was a ‘big win’ for former President Trump when the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to take up his criminal immunity case Friday,” The Hill reports.
Said Conway: “I think it’s not a big deal because I don’t think it’s going to affect the schedule that much, and I think it actually shows the likely, I think it shows the weakness of Donald Trump’s immunity claim.”
Justices Won’t Hear Case on Trump’s Immunity
“The Supreme Court declined on Friday to decide for now whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. The case will move forward in an appeals court and most likely return to the Supreme Court in the coming months,” the New York Times reports.
“The decision to defer consideration of a central issue in the case was a major practical victory for Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have consistently sought to delay criminal cases against him around the country.”
“Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Mr. Trump, has asked the justices to move with extraordinary speed, bypassing a federal appeals court.”
The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind
George Conway: “Their points were strong. But much as I never want to see Trump near the White House again, I wasn’t quite buying them. The argument seemed somehow too good to be true. And frankly, from a political standpoint, it would be better for the country if Trump were thrashed at the polls, as I think he ultimately would be. There had to be a wrinkle. I just knew it.”
“But last night changed my mind. Not because of anything the Colorado Supreme Court majority said. The three dissents were what convinced me the majority was right.”
“The dissents were gobsmacking—for their weakness. They did not want for legal craftsmanship, but they did lack any semblance of a convincing argument.”
The Supreme Court Did This to Itself
Dahlia Lithwick: “The two stories—political corruption and political cases—are so inextricably connected that one almost wants to weep at the rate at which they have been force-multiplied as disasters in the making in a matter of weeks, and not because the press is out to discredit the high court, but because the court has been so hellbent on discrediting itself and then refusing to cop to it. It’s the political and financial dirty work of two decades, coming to light in the span of one year, that the court has brought on itself at the moment in which it should have been beyond reproach…”
“For years, some of the most vocal critics of the court’s ethical lapses, its lack of transparency, and its refusals to take seriously its own brokenness and errors, have warned that the day would come when an election would be decided by a body that has refused to clean house and has blamed the press and the academy for the stench of its own illegitimacy. The worry wasn’t that the court would decide the election; that seems almost inevitable. The worry was that the public, grown weary of the stench, would not abide by their decision.”
Trump’s Rocky Relationship With Supreme Court
Adam Liptak: “A fundamentally conservative court, with a six-justice majority of Republican appointees that includes three named by Mr. Trump himself, has not been particularly receptive to his arguments.”
“Indeed, the Trump administration had the worst Supreme Court record of any since at least the Roosevelt administration, according to data developed by Lee Epstein and Rebecca L. Brown, law professors at the University of Southern California, for an article in Presidential Studies Quarterly.”
No Upside for Supreme Court in Deciding Elections
Wall Street Journal: “Looking back to 2000, though, one element is much the same: Regardless of what the Supreme Court does, its own reputation is likely to suffer. With about half the population sure to be disappointed in a decision fundamental to the nation’s direction, it could hardly be otherwise.”
Supreme Court Showdown with Trump
“The Supreme Court is stuck with Donald Trump, whether the justices like it or not,” Axios reports.
“The court may not have any real way to avoid a starring role in the 2024 campaign, or to shield itself from the constant firestorm that swirls around Trump.”
“Almost no one in politics has managed to escape that maelstrom undamaged, and that’s bad news for the court at a time when its seams are more visible than they’ve been in decades — already under fire from the left, divided internally on the right and losing its luster with the public.”
Colorado Justices Face Threats
“In the 24 hours since the Colorado Supreme Court kicked former President Donald Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot, social media outlets have been flooded with threats against the justices who ruled in the case,” NBC News reports.
Supreme Court Could Upend the 2024 Election
Harry Litman: “We are in for a wild and woolly constitutional ride over the next 16 days and perhaps beyond, and it’s difficult to know where or how it will end. The two most prominent proponents of the theory that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is ‘self-executing,’ Laurence Tribe and J. Michael Luttig, have been vindicated by the Colorado decision, but they have also said that once the case arrives at the U.S. Supreme Court, all bets are off.”
“Indeed they are — except for one. We can safely wager that the court’s opinion will be a landmark in constitutional law and for the country’s future.”
Aaron Blake: 4 takeaways from the Colorado Supreme Court’s disqualifying Trump.
Disqualifying Trump Is a Step Too Far
Jonathan Chait: “To deny the voters the chance to elect the candidate of their choice is a Rubicon-crossing event for the judiciary. It would be seen forever by tens of millions of Americans as a negation of democracy. It is not enough that their belief is plausibly wrong or likely wrong. It must be incontrovertibly wrong to support such a momentous step.”
“I suspect the Supreme Court – which is more a political body than a legal body in major issues like this – will blanche at taking such a step, and I think that judgment would be correct.”
The Supreme Court’s 2024 Agenda
The Supreme Court faces imminent questions on Donald Trump’s political immunity and eligibility to run for president in 2024, Axios reports.
“Special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court earlier this month to weigh whether Trump is ‘absolutely immune’ from prosecution for crimes he committed in office.”
“Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to review a charge — ‘obstruction of an official proceeding’ — that has been used to prosecute over 300 Jan. 6 defendants.”
“The Colorado decision marks the first time a court has found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which bans insurrectionists who once swore to uphold the Constitution from holding office — applies to Trump.”
Why the Supreme Court Must Decide Trump’s Eligibility
Rick Hasen: “It is far from clear that the U.S. Supreme Court will reach the merits—there are many legal doctrines like ripeness and mootness that would give the Court a way to avoid deciding the issues in the case. But it is imperative for the political stability of the U.S. to get a definitive judicial resolution of these questions as soon as possible. Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for President is eligible. And if we don’t get a final judicial resolution before January 6, 2025 a Democratic-majority Congress could decide Trump is disqualified even if he appears to win the electoral college vote. That would be tremendously destabilizing.”
“In the end the legal issues are close but the political ramifications of disqualification would be enormous. Once again the Supreme Court is being thrust into the center of a U.S. presidential election. But unlike in 2000 the general political instability in the United States makes the situation now much more precarious.”
Paying Honors to the First Woman on the Supreme Court
The late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will lie in repose at the Supreme Court today, the Washington Post reports.
Clarence Thomas Sparked Fears He Would Resign
ProPublica: “At the resort, Thomas gave a speech at an off-the-record conservative conference. He found himself seated next to a Republican member of Congress on the flight home. The two men talked, and the lawmaker left the conversation worried that Thomas might resign.”
“Congress should give Supreme Court justices a pay raise, Thomas told him. If lawmakers didn’t act, ‘one or more justices will leave soon’ — maybe in the next year.”
“At the time, Thomas’ salary was $173,600, equivalent to over $300,000 today. But he was one of the least wealthy members of the court, and on multiple occasions in that period, he pushed for ways to make more money. In other private conversations, Thomas repeatedly talked about removing a ban on justices giving paid speeches.”
Billionaires Bankroll Judges’ Luxury Travel
The Lever: “Two deep-pocketed conservative organizations paid to send federal judges on 251 trips in 2021 and 2022 — far more than any other source.”
Trump’s Supreme Court Wildcards for 2024
“Two historic cases related to Jan. 6 arrived on the Supreme Court’s doorstep this week, each carrying profound implications for former President Trump’s prosecution and political future,” Axios reports.
“Trump’s indictments are deeply intertwined with his 2024 campaign. Favorable Supreme Court rulings that delay — or dismantle — his federal election interference case would embolden a candidacy that critics already warn poses an existential threat to democracy.”
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- …
- 95
- Next Page »