Before they leave on summer holiday, the Supreme Court typically sets up their docket for the coming term, which will begin in October of this year and conclude in June, or thereabouts, of 2025.
So much to think about!!! As an uneducated in the law plain citizen, I so appreciate each installment of the explanations you provide. While I’m not ready to argue a federal case, I feel so much more prepared to understand all that is happening. Thank you Joyce!!!
I'm absolutely amazed the court would even hear Steve Bannon's petition. I hope the fact that he was convicted in the border wall fraud case can be considered as a factor against him.
They aren't hearing it in the sense of holding a hearing. They are reading a petition that probably not going anywhere because the precedents are so clear. In a similar way, inmates scheduled for execution almost always file last-minute petitions to the Supreme Court that are almost never accepted. They are read, but not heard.
Once an opportunist and con man. always an opportunist and con man. I[m so tired of all the Trump acolytes who are only supporters as long as they can make money off the association and wacky conspiracy theories.
Ogee, together we will despair that Michael Flynn has reportedly started to monetize himself, reportedly with his family. Whatcha wanna bet he continues to dishonor our nation's military uniform that he wore, in his monetization process?
Joyce, question: what would the impact be on Judge Cannon if the Supreme Court rules Trump can be tried? Would it preempt any of her shenanigans? Also, why are the higher circuit judges not taking her off the case?
Thanks for making this circus at least have some important educational value.
First, the immunity case won’t impact the document case because Trump’s alleged actions took place after he left the presidency. Second, the judges on the Eleventh Circuit are not Judge Cannon’s superiors and they have no power to remove her from the case.
So frustrated regarding courts and non-medically trained individuals/groups (e.g any given insurance formulary or PBM) deciding how physicians should practice medicine.
Jayne, as a retired physician I couldn't agree more.
Furthermore, I was trained, and believe to the bottom of my heart, that my responsibility is and was solely to the well-being of my patient, not some medical society, not the state, and not the federal government. I am astounded and appalled by the awful stories I've heard of gutless physicians turning away desperately ill patients because of their fear of the potential consequences from some extremist right-wing state legislature. It enrages me that there is now a situation of legally mandated malpractice in my home state (Missouri). Well, fuck 'em: I couldn't live with myself if I thought I had to practice that way.
@While I'm on my high horse, let me mention an organization of which I'm a member: It's called "Elevated Access" (elevatedaccess.org) which provides free general aviation transportation for people in need of abortion or gender care from states like Missouri to places where they can access the health care they need. You might check them out and spread the word.
John, Thank you for sharing your thoughts, your frustration, and for links to resources for patients in need. I too took an oath and it is astonishing to me the invasive policies of hospital management, 3rd parties/insurance, and laws that violate the oaths we made. The increasing influence of private equity management on my profession - to increase billing, see more patients in less time - has made care unaffordable for many and has greatly diminished public opinion of the profession.
“ Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.”
I got the following response from my new imaginary Friend ChatGPT: "this occurred in January 2021, when Bannon was facing federal fraud charges related to a fundraising campaign for a private border wall initiative. Bannon made the comment during an episode of his podcast, "War Room: Pandemic," where he said, "I am not going to back down. This is the f**king truth. You're going to have to kill me." This statement generated considerable controversy and media attention at the time."
(My recollection was hearing him say something similar as he was walking down a courtroom hallway after one of his hearings)
Charles, the one thing you can be sure of is that Bannon is a coward! He has the deathly words in hallways and other spots, but he will not do anything that would let anyone kill him. No one wants to go to trial for killing such scum!
I'd be happy to have Bannon held in suspended animation in a crypt somewhere. If future civilizations want to hear from him, they can revive him at the appropriate time. I would assume they will pass on the opportunity.
Kathleen, I appreciate your educational information, but do have a question: since when did precedent still mean anything to this court???? I guess I'm cynic these days. I'm hoping the petition does not go anywhere.
I have learned since I wrote my comment that Bannon is petitioning for a delay in serving a sentence rather than a dismissal of the sentence. There is a price to be paid for totally throwing out all precedent— if the Supreme Court grants Bannon a delay in serving his sentence, any convicted person with a similar situation can appeal to any federal court on the same grounds. The Supremes don't want to increase their workload exponentially. That's why they would try to find something very unusual about Bannon's case so that it would provoke very few copy-cat petitions.
A good source on the Supreme Court is George Conway, but you probably need some background to understand what he's talking about.
The American public is simply not used to the Supreme Court changing direction. There was a very conservative court from 1900 through 1940, a liberal court from 1954 through 2010, and now we're back to a conservative court. So there have been other times in the past when precedents have been overturned.
Yes, but "changing direction"? The "conserevatives" serve on a court that has been captured by the Federalist Society and Republicans opposed to justice, period.. They are not merely "changing direction." They are eviscerating past precedents to impose new rulings based not on the Constitution, past jurisprudence, or judicial principles, but on their collective prejudice and experience.
Well. for one thing which may cause Bannon submitting to prison, is the apparel is different in whatever level of prison he will inhabit.
"Physically, I feel slightly inhibited; but spiritually, I feel oddly secure. This is due to the many shirts I’m wearing as I type — three (3) shirts to be precise — a tank top, a dress shirt, another dress shirt, and on top of that, a blazer."
I suspect it will be standard prison garb. A loose shirt in orange (or whatever the prison color) and maybe a T-shirt. A feeling of being vulnerable with fewer shirts and a population around him who could careless who he is.
One could only hope he is off to prison soon. He needs to learn some humility and the crowd there will teach him such.
Maureen, can you think of one of the current Supreme Court cons who is actually worthy of sitting on our highest court? I thought Gorsuch, at first, but he has participated in a shady transaction and he goes right along with the other 5 most of the time no matter who is hurt. It is truly discouraging!
We are far from the relatively benign days when Tricky Dicky nominated G Harold Carswell in 1969 to the Supremes. Carswell was a career Supremacist. There was a groundswell of objections; Sen George McGovern (S.Dak.) objected specifically that he was racist and mediocre.
I was only 21 at the time. It was all a revelation. Then a "third-rate burglary" at Watergate. Then later one of the Bushes named Thomas to the Court and shamefully, he led the way to Kavanaugh. By the time of Anita Hill, my wife and I were close to Dems like Barbara Boxer (who led the 7 House women to knock on the Senate door), Norm Mineta, and future Speaker Pelosi. (sez California: USA, you're welcome.)
Sen Roman Hruska (Neb.) defended his fellow-Republican, ultimately telling the press:
"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."
For some reason, the brilliant judges Hruska cited were all Jewish which didn't help the GOP's fight. With much further ado, the Senate finally rejected Carswell with 13 GOP senators joining 38 Dems.
Now, we'd all be much happier -- and much more Constitutional -- with mere GOP mediocrity on The Court...in The Congress...running for President.
Excellent question. I think we really should be asking our congress people to impeach at least Thomas and probably Alito. As I understand it, that’s the only “check and balance” the American People have on SCOTUS. At least get a chance to vote for a president every 4 years, and Presidents can only serve 2 terms. This bunch of yahoos (exceptions for the 3 female justices who have sense, vs cents, and civility in their heads and decision making skills), get to serve for life. Right now I’m so fed up with them the only “life term” I think they deserve is in Siberian exile with Trump, Putin, Orban, Kim Jong-Un, and a few others).
The more people who accuse the "conservative" majority of malpractice, the sooner they will dial back their agenda of overturning precedent to provide succor to industrial billionaires.
As a former member of the NY Dist Atty’s Appeals Bureau, I can only imagine the knots in the stomachs of the various appellate advocates at DOJ/US ATTYs Offices awaiting the critical Trump related/adjacent cases. If the immunity decision results in Judge Chutkan having to hold hearings, it will be a disgrace, but she should schedule the hearing in the manner most likely to inconvenience and harm Donald Trump. A bigger POS has never walked the planet and, even were there some rationale for some sort of very limited immunity, or at least a discussion thereof, a person less deserving of any accommodation or assistance from the court I cannot imagine.
We can only hope if the case is remanded to her court for further fact-finding, she is able to get in one or two evidentiary hearings before the election.
She promised 90 days to prep for trial. How about 2 weeks for the hearings…or…..(my evil self is prompting this): hold the hearings 4 weeks before the elections and demand that he be present.
If the SCROTUS does not remand the case back to her for "evidentiary hearings", she could begin the trial at the end of September and thus demand that Trump attend all the sessions. She could also structure the "evidentiary hearings" so that only the prosecutors could present evidence, since it would not be an actual trial.....
Along the same lines as SCROTUS, if (and I pray and will vote that he doesn’t) DJT wins (i.e. steals) this election, I will only be able to refer to him in that office as GHOTUS. Gangrenous Hemorrhoid ….. a serious pain in the a**, that if not removed could kill you!
Bruce, you are alas a dreamer. NOT gonna happen. If they were just crafting a standard for POTUS immunity, it likely would have happened sooner. I would love it if you were correct, but I think it very unlikely.
William, the problem for me is that there really is no case for the Supreme Court. There hasn't even been a trial yet and anything to appeal to the SC. Trump broke the law, inciting insurrection. He mentioned the election having been stolen often and told his Klan they should show up on January 6th, why, to stop the count. He told them to go after Mike Pence and implied they should get Nancy Pelosi too. That is insurrection, treason. If anyone else in authority had done those things, they would be in jail, also for having stolen secret documents and taking them home with him to do something, I am guessing, to sell them to the highest bidder. So, what is it the SC has to consider? They need to realize that if Trump has immunity, Biden does too and could do things to undermine Trump and cannot be stopped because he will have immunity, right? Or, does it mean only Trump gets special immunity because three of the justices are Trumpers and a Trumpette and the other 3 just love their Donnie?
Love your idea, William. I know tfg was required to be in court for his criminal trial in New York. Are you saying that the federal system does not require the accused to attend his criminal trial?
Alas, if it were only hearings there would be no requirement that the defendant attend. And honestly, I doubt that Judge Chutkan can I would force him to attend. But wouldn’t it be lovely, as the song goes…..
It could happen. She could order it depending on the circumstances. Judges have discretion in a lot of areas depending on the defendant’s cooperation, their respect for the proceedings, and adherence to their pretrial conditions…
Too bad there would be no required attendance at hearings, and Judge Chutkan would do things right. She's a smart one. BTW, the song, from My Fair Lady, is "wouldn't it be loverly".
There should be NO immunity beyond the limited immunity of any other public servant. I thought I heard, surprisingly, that there is an inference of no immunity in the Constitution taken from Congressional requirements? Something convoluted.
As someone who is a non-aficionado of poetry, who struggles with deciphering the meanings of many poets' writings without help, it is so refreshing to read yours. Thank you, Gloria!
So, may I share your writings (with attribution, of course)!
I wrote this particular poem when Bannon was convicted. She (the poem) has been waiting for the most favorable moment to debut. She (and I) thank Mr. Fred Gardner.
Thank you Joyce for your tireless work helping all of us gain a greater understanding of how the justice system works (or doesn’t in some cases). I was wondering a couple of things. First, how does the Supreme Court decide whether to expedite a ruling or not? Secondly, are you aware of any private law suits against the former President from people who were harmed during the failed insurrection? Thank you again for your insights and work on behalf of the people.
Hasn't Eric Swallwell (Dem CA-14) suing Trump for Insurrection activities? Don't know whether that counts as private.
Oh just found, "In Swalwell v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for allegedly inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol."
Thomas being in a position to rule on Trump and the insurrection related issues really is appalling. His wife was in the room!!! Can’t decency and propriety triumph once in a while in this tarnished age?
Every case the Supreme Court takes is (theoretically) one which will resolve a legal question of vital importance. Sometimes, just to the litigants of the case, but more commonly to the country as a whole. If a case was heard early on in the term what justification is there for not announcing the court ruling until the end of June? More concisely, why aren’t decisions routinely announced as soon as they have been decided and the opinion is written?
The question you pose is answered not with constitutional rulings but the mark of men so flawed as to leave all shame behind to deny justice to the people while protecting their wives. We watch and await the verdicts offered up by men sullied by $$$$$ and spiritual vanity not anchored in truth or credible Christian integrity. As with the “myth of religion” we are subject to the whims of MEN who author “ the word of their moneyed gods, enriched but lacking conscience or shame.
Joyce, since you brought it up at the end of this newsletter, I’ve been wanting a briefing on how and when cases can be appealed. We’re (mostly?) not lawyers, even though you have made us law geeks, and we just don’t understand the appeals process and the details of when a party can appeal and when they can’t. Thanks so much for all your efforts to educate us.
Starting seven years ago I took a LLL course with a man who had been a college president and a constitutional scholar. For four of those seven years he kept trying to show us the that court wasn’t as extreme as some of us felt it was. He pointed out how many 7-2, 8-1 and 9-0 decisions there were. Starting three years ago he gave up. He became horrified at how their rulings began to stray from precedent, the modern culture, and then from the Constitution. Sadly, he died two years ago, at 87. I have many lawyer friends, and know a couple of judges who are saddened and embarrassed by what is going on at the Supreme Court, and with some of the lower courts, especially Judge Cannon, and some of the Red State courts. Nothing to do with the law. They are openly religious, racist, and corrupted by the local industrial mob, such as oil, guns, or just the good ‘ol white boys.
If the court gets 7000-8000 petitions per term, and they choose 80 to hear, why would they jump on the Bannon petition at the end of a term? Is he more important than the thousands of cases who are waiting?
I think the answer to all questions goes to how terribly the S.Ct. has corkscrewed itself into an ideological hell, and doesn't resemble the ideals of the Court we used to look to for clarity and reason.
I don't understand why Steve Bannon even gets the Court's attention. Who is he that he thinks he's so important that he can cut through thousands of petitions? If they hear his case they will have sealed their reputation as the most biased and corrupt Court in history.
Haw can Justices who recently argued that Congress has impeachment and investigative powers and beyond that crimes should be prosecuted in the courts turn around and find Trump had immunity or Bannon should not be held accountable for obstructing Congress as it sought to investigate?
Did you see she had been strongly advised by two Fed Judges not to take the Trump case? I think it's been said no one's going to go over her head- really just isn't done at any level I've ever heard, from lower state courts on.
Joyce, Why don’t liberal justices (besides their dissenting opinions) publicly comment on the process ?- if they feel it was biased or the majority contrived it so as to cause unnecessary delay as it may be in the immunity case.
I can understand justices may be bound by the certain decorum in normal times - but these are not normal times.
You must have missed Justice Sotomayor's recent comments in May at Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute where she was given an award. "There are days that I've come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried," Sotomayor said. "There have been those days. And there are likely to be more."
That's oblique. Nothing specific, nothing referring to anyone in particular. Tasteful. Ethical, which is what Margaret Smith Marston, above was referring to, I believe.
But fortunately the justices who honor the system as it's been will maintain the decorum of the Court and we can all hope it will recover that decorum sooner than later.
They do. Off the record. But because of AI/the dark web, etc. 1 has to be extra careful. Things are manipulated too much. Look carefully when the justices release books/are on tv shows and see what they say.
When I was coming along as a lawyer, it was considered improper for a justice to express publicly an opinion on any matter that might come to the court in the foreseeable future.
This a layman's question in rebuttal to the Super Emphases placed on 2nd Amendment Guns Ownership Rights. Why don't [Democratic] Senators and Representatives begin touting and supporting 'The Peoples' inherent rights to Public Safety?' That is, the right to hold responsible Local-Regional-State-National governments -- that they keep us safe from irresponsible gun use by irresponsible gun owners? After all, there are more of us who do NOT own guns, making gun owners a minority. Why not start talking about the People's right to feel safe from guns' terrible effects of gun shot death, the huge medical bills from gun shots and recuperation, the gut-wrenching effects of a loved one's inexplicable suicide, that guns make certain neighborhoods unlivably unsafe and insecure?
Why not start the Legal Claim that Public Safety Rights supercede the 2nd Amendment Rights?
Joyce Vance -- what do YOU think, as a thoughtful lawyer?
Bruce, I believe you are onto something. It might take a bit of time, but loud consistent messaging similar to what you propose would certainly be helpful in turning the tide. With almost all the rights found in the Bill of Rights courts use a balancing test of some sort to measure how a statute effects the various interests, values, or purposes of the state, or the litigants, or the people/community. The post-Heller SCOTUS never seems to give any consideration to societal values in its 2nd Am jurisprudence. It just votes for more guns and more death and injury. Its so called "originalism" is just bs--intellectual fraud designed to reach preconceived outcomes based on their radical (not hardly conservative) ideologies.
I believe it was retired Justice Breyer who has suggested that interpreting the Constitution ought to be done through the lens of the overall purposes of the document, its preamble, and the Declaration of Independence: creation of a representative democracy by and for the People, preserve the rule of law (rather than the rule of kings by devine right), the right to live in peace and tranquility, and to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Apologies Justice Breyer if I have mangled your constitutional vision.
So much to think about!!! As an uneducated in the law plain citizen, I so appreciate each installment of the explanations you provide. While I’m not ready to argue a federal case, I feel so much more prepared to understand all that is happening. Thank you Joyce!!!
I'm absolutely amazed the court would even hear Steve Bannon's petition. I hope the fact that he was convicted in the border wall fraud case can be considered as a factor against him.
They aren't hearing it in the sense of holding a hearing. They are reading a petition that probably not going anywhere because the precedents are so clear. In a similar way, inmates scheduled for execution almost always file last-minute petitions to the Supreme Court that are almost never accepted. They are read, but not heard.
And didn’t Bannon proclaim he’d not be taken alive!
We can dream, can't we?
Once an opportunist and con man. always an opportunist and con man. I[m so tired of all the Trump acolytes who are only supporters as long as they can make money off the association and wacky conspiracy theories.
Ogee, together we will despair that Michael Flynn has reportedly started to monetize himself, reportedly with his family. Whatcha wanna bet he continues to dishonor our nation's military uniform that he wore, in his monetization process?
Joyce, question: what would the impact be on Judge Cannon if the Supreme Court rules Trump can be tried? Would it preempt any of her shenanigans? Also, why are the higher circuit judges not taking her off the case?
Thanks for making this circus at least have some important educational value.
First, the immunity case won’t impact the document case because Trump’s alleged actions took place after he left the presidency. Second, the judges on the Eleventh Circuit are not Judge Cannon’s superiors and they have no power to remove her from the case.
So frustrated regarding courts and non-medically trained individuals/groups (e.g any given insurance formulary or PBM) deciding how physicians should practice medicine.
Jayne, as a retired physician I couldn't agree more.
Furthermore, I was trained, and believe to the bottom of my heart, that my responsibility is and was solely to the well-being of my patient, not some medical society, not the state, and not the federal government. I am astounded and appalled by the awful stories I've heard of gutless physicians turning away desperately ill patients because of their fear of the potential consequences from some extremist right-wing state legislature. It enrages me that there is now a situation of legally mandated malpractice in my home state (Missouri). Well, fuck 'em: I couldn't live with myself if I thought I had to practice that way.
@While I'm on my high horse, let me mention an organization of which I'm a member: It's called "Elevated Access" (elevatedaccess.org) which provides free general aviation transportation for people in need of abortion or gender care from states like Missouri to places where they can access the health care they need. You might check them out and spread the word.
John, Thank you for sharing your thoughts, your frustration, and for links to resources for patients in need. I too took an oath and it is astonishing to me the invasive policies of hospital management, 3rd parties/insurance, and laws that violate the oaths we made. The increasing influence of private equity management on my profession - to increase billing, see more patients in less time - has made care unaffordable for many and has greatly diminished public opinion of the profession.
“ Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.”
He did proclaim that. Bannon is just so full of himself.
And that's a LOT to be full of.
I got the following response from my new imaginary Friend ChatGPT: "this occurred in January 2021, when Bannon was facing federal fraud charges related to a fundraising campaign for a private border wall initiative. Bannon made the comment during an episode of his podcast, "War Room: Pandemic," where he said, "I am not going to back down. This is the f**king truth. You're going to have to kill me." This statement generated considerable controversy and media attention at the time."
(My recollection was hearing him say something similar as he was walking down a courtroom hallway after one of his hearings)
Charles, the one thing you can be sure of is that Bannon is a coward! He has the deathly words in hallways and other spots, but he will not do anything that would let anyone kill him. No one wants to go to trial for killing such scum!
He needs to go into PC now due to his vow of possibly doing harm to himself!
I'd be happy to have Bannon held in suspended animation in a crypt somewhere. If future civilizations want to hear from him, they can revive him at the appropriate time. I would assume they will pass on the opportunity.
Don't think so. He did promise to fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
Rudi could take it to the Supreme Court...yard by Marriott.
I suppose that was just pandering to his pathetic audience😜
Just proves he always lies.....dammit
Kathleen, I appreciate your educational information, but do have a question: since when did precedent still mean anything to this court???? I guess I'm cynic these days. I'm hoping the petition does not go anywhere.
I have learned since I wrote my comment that Bannon is petitioning for a delay in serving a sentence rather than a dismissal of the sentence. There is a price to be paid for totally throwing out all precedent— if the Supreme Court grants Bannon a delay in serving his sentence, any convicted person with a similar situation can appeal to any federal court on the same grounds. The Supremes don't want to increase their workload exponentially. That's why they would try to find something very unusual about Bannon's case so that it would provoke very few copy-cat petitions.
A good source on the Supreme Court is George Conway, but you probably need some background to understand what he's talking about.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-will-act-like-an-unhinged-maniac
The American public is simply not used to the Supreme Court changing direction. There was a very conservative court from 1900 through 1940, a liberal court from 1954 through 2010, and now we're back to a conservative court. So there have been other times in the past when precedents have been overturned.
Yes, but "changing direction"? The "conserevatives" serve on a court that has been captured by the Federalist Society and Republicans opposed to justice, period.. They are not merely "changing direction." They are eviscerating past precedents to impose new rulings based not on the Constitution, past jurisprudence, or judicial principles, but on their collective prejudice and experience.
Thank you, Kathleen. And I hope they just deny Bannon's petition.
Me too. Four lousy months, for the love of God. One reason for delay would be ongoing medical treatment, but Bannon isn't claiming that.
Well. for one thing which may cause Bannon submitting to prison, is the apparel is different in whatever level of prison he will inhabit.
"Physically, I feel slightly inhibited; but spiritually, I feel oddly secure. This is due to the many shirts I’m wearing as I type — three (3) shirts to be precise — a tank top, a dress shirt, another dress shirt, and on top of that, a blazer."
I suspect it will be standard prison garb. A loose shirt in orange (or whatever the prison color) and maybe a T-shirt. A feeling of being vulnerable with fewer shirts and a population around him who could careless who he is.
One could only hope he is off to prison soon. He needs to learn some humility and the crowd there will teach him such.
Another reason for the layers is, they don’t have a closet. They wear what they have or carry their clothes.
Can a member of the Court be accused of malpractice? Just asking for a well-traveled black male Justice of the SCOTUS. Try malfeasance then.
Alito too? Maybe even kavanaugh, and acb?
My hero Earl Warren must be spinning in his grave!
Along with RGB.
I was also thinking about her, too. Even considering such a short amount of time, so much has changed since she left.
Maureen, can you think of one of the current Supreme Court cons who is actually worthy of sitting on our highest court? I thought Gorsuch, at first, but he has participated in a shady transaction and he goes right along with the other 5 most of the time no matter who is hurt. It is truly discouraging!
Yes. Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson. All excellent, all completely worthy of their position. There is hope!
Don't forget about Harry Blackmun!
Along with Thurgood Marshall.
Yup, some of the current justices are disrespecting their honorable predecessors. They are in total denial!
We are far from the relatively benign days when Tricky Dicky nominated G Harold Carswell in 1969 to the Supremes. Carswell was a career Supremacist. There was a groundswell of objections; Sen George McGovern (S.Dak.) objected specifically that he was racist and mediocre.
I was only 21 at the time. It was all a revelation. Then a "third-rate burglary" at Watergate. Then later one of the Bushes named Thomas to the Court and shamefully, he led the way to Kavanaugh. By the time of Anita Hill, my wife and I were close to Dems like Barbara Boxer (who led the 7 House women to knock on the Senate door), Norm Mineta, and future Speaker Pelosi. (sez California: USA, you're welcome.)
Sen Roman Hruska (Neb.) defended his fellow-Republican, ultimately telling the press:
"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."
For some reason, the brilliant judges Hruska cited were all Jewish which didn't help the GOP's fight. With much further ado, the Senate finally rejected Carswell with 13 GOP senators joining 38 Dems.
Now, we'd all be much happier -- and much more Constitutional -- with mere GOP mediocrity on The Court...in The Congress...running for President.
Excellent question. I think we really should be asking our congress people to impeach at least Thomas and probably Alito. As I understand it, that’s the only “check and balance” the American People have on SCOTUS. At least get a chance to vote for a president every 4 years, and Presidents can only serve 2 terms. This bunch of yahoos (exceptions for the 3 female justices who have sense, vs cents, and civility in their heads and decision making skills), get to serve for life. Right now I’m so fed up with them the only “life term” I think they deserve is in Siberian exile with Trump, Putin, Orban, Kim Jong-Un, and a few others).
I’m with you!
The more people who accuse the "conservative" majority of malpractice, the sooner they will dial back their agenda of overturning precedent to provide succor to industrial billionaires.
You can't teach a crab to walk straight.
-Aristophanes, 421 B.C.
A Justice can be impeached, and that's it, l believe. That is the only way a Justice can be disciplined - impeachment and removal from office.
No less amazing than SCOTUS taking up tRump's "immunity" claim after the DC Appeals 3-judge panel thoroughly rubbished his appeal.
That is a stunner!
Amazed by the idea but not by this court doing it, because they have established themselves as a sort of Kangaroo court.
Does getting a prison haircut violate the Eighth Amendment?
As a former member of the NY Dist Atty’s Appeals Bureau, I can only imagine the knots in the stomachs of the various appellate advocates at DOJ/US ATTYs Offices awaiting the critical Trump related/adjacent cases. If the immunity decision results in Judge Chutkan having to hold hearings, it will be a disgrace, but she should schedule the hearing in the manner most likely to inconvenience and harm Donald Trump. A bigger POS has never walked the planet and, even were there some rationale for some sort of very limited immunity, or at least a discussion thereof, a person less deserving of any accommodation or assistance from the court I cannot imagine.
We can only hope if the case is remanded to her court for further fact-finding, she is able to get in one or two evidentiary hearings before the election.
She promised 90 days to prep for trial. How about 2 weeks for the hearings…or…..(my evil self is prompting this): hold the hearings 4 weeks before the elections and demand that he be present.
If the SCROTUS does not remand the case back to her for "evidentiary hearings", she could begin the trial at the end of September and thus demand that Trump attend all the sessions. She could also structure the "evidentiary hearings" so that only the prosecutors could present evidence, since it would not be an actual trial.....
Bruce, love your new name for The Supremes! Very fitting, indeed. No offense to the NICE women among them.
Along the same lines as SCROTUS, if (and I pray and will vote that he doesn’t) DJT wins (i.e. steals) this election, I will only be able to refer to him in that office as GHOTUS. Gangrenous Hemorrhoid ….. a serious pain in the a**, that if not removed could kill you!
Bruce, you are alas a dreamer. NOT gonna happen. If they were just crafting a standard for POTUS immunity, it likely would have happened sooner. I would love it if you were correct, but I think it very unlikely.
Oh, I know all too well - you tell me your dreams and I'll tell you mine..... :-)
William, the problem for me is that there really is no case for the Supreme Court. There hasn't even been a trial yet and anything to appeal to the SC. Trump broke the law, inciting insurrection. He mentioned the election having been stolen often and told his Klan they should show up on January 6th, why, to stop the count. He told them to go after Mike Pence and implied they should get Nancy Pelosi too. That is insurrection, treason. If anyone else in authority had done those things, they would be in jail, also for having stolen secret documents and taking them home with him to do something, I am guessing, to sell them to the highest bidder. So, what is it the SC has to consider? They need to realize that if Trump has immunity, Biden does too and could do things to undermine Trump and cannot be stopped because he will have immunity, right? Or, does it mean only Trump gets special immunity because three of the justices are Trumpers and a Trumpette and the other 3 just love their Donnie?
Sold!
Impossible question: ??? what if SCOTUS just refuses to answer anything about trump immunity? I know never happen but with this court...sigh
Then why’d they take cert?
Love your idea, William. I know tfg was required to be in court for his criminal trial in New York. Are you saying that the federal system does not require the accused to attend his criminal trial?
Oh, he’d be screaming “election interference!” From the treetops and then appeal that order to the SC.
It would have to be a huge tree, and one that could hold his weight.
Oh, hell, yeah!
Too true, and a good point!
Alas, if it were only hearings there would be no requirement that the defendant attend. And honestly, I doubt that Judge Chutkan can I would force him to attend. But wouldn’t it be lovely, as the song goes…..
It could happen. She could order it depending on the circumstances. Judges have discretion in a lot of areas depending on the defendant’s cooperation, their respect for the proceedings, and adherence to their pretrial conditions…
Too bad there would be no required attendance at hearings, and Judge Chutkan would do things right. She's a smart one. BTW, the song, from My Fair Lady, is "wouldn't it be loverly".
I know, but I could not get the stupid auto-correct to let me type loverly until I figured out how to turn it off….
LOL
I'd like to see what Chutkan would do. As to Cannon, not so much.
I want to see Cannon removed from the case.
There's probably at least a million people who want the same thing. Too bad the people aren't allowed to vote for these judges.
There should be NO immunity beyond the limited immunity of any other public servant. I thought I heard, surprisingly, that there is an inference of no immunity in the Constitution taken from Congressional requirements? Something convoluted.
Squeamish, She Writes …
Justice Roberts, your robe frays at the seams,
Thursdays in the Capitol turn to fever dreams.
A black robe's chill, hiding behind gavels,
Afraid to dive into the political ravels.
.
Debate night’s circus, lions roar, clowns scream,
And you, Chief Justice, stifling a primal scream.
Squeamish, you hesitate, your gut recoils,
From the filthy grind, from the electoral toils.
.
Inject the Court? Oh, the horror, the gall,
Roberts, squeak out, "I’ll have no part in this brawl."
But justice waits not for the faint of heart,
Politics and law, a twisted form of art.
.
So tremble in your chambers, hide in the dark,
While democracy’s fire ignites a spark.
Squeamish you are, but history won't forget,
The moments you recoiled, the debts unpaid yet.
As someone who is a non-aficionado of poetry, who struggles with deciphering the meanings of many poets' writings without help, it is so refreshing to read yours. Thank you, Gloria!
So, may I share your writings (with attribution, of course)!
Please do share them! And, thank you for you lovely post.
Nothing rhymes with “Bannon” — if something does, fagget abadit!
*ahem*
In the shadow of the cannon, Bannon,
A talon, sharp and fierce, grips the nation,
Hungry as famine, his presence a dark chanson,
A cavern of conspiracies, a breeding ground for damnation.
From the banks of Shannon to the streets of Scranton,
His voice echoes, a twisted, haunted mantra,
Mannon-like, a phantom stirring panic,
In the heartland and the halls of Americana.
He struts with the swagger of a pirate captain,
Eyes gleaming with a dark, relentless passion,
Preaching chaos in a frothing, mad reaction,
A demon unchained, a force without ration.
In the whirlwind of his making, facts shatter,
Truth, a casualty in his power-hungry pattern,
The world watches as norms splinter and scatter,
Under the harsh, unforgiving light of Bannon’s lantern.
The cannon roars, the talon tears,
In the land of the free, he sows despair,
Famine of reason, chanson of fear,
Echoes of Bannon’s reign, painfully clear.
Yet in the cavern, a spark might remain,
A glimmer of hope to counter the pain,
For even in the darkest of storms, a refrain,
Whispers of truth, rising again and again.
Gloria, love your work. How about. . . .
There once was man named Bannon,
Who thought himself a loose cannon
Until a court of Law
Cut through his schmalz
And put his fat ass and balls in prison.
😂😂
Perfect!!!!
Words of art! 👍🏻
Thank you!
Thanks to all the wordsmiths! These poems are terrific!
Nicely done, Gloria!
Well done!
Thank you. 🙏
I love your poems.
.. cannon, tannin are the closest things... somehow tie Bannon to tannin relating to tea and tanning of hides, or dyeing fabric?
I'd go with Bannon, damn 'im.
👍🏻
Mammon is close enough and quite fitting I think
Actually after all this, Bannon rhymes with LOSER!
Haha. More synonymous than rhyming, but I hear you.
"Cannon," but we don't want to give her any unnecessary publicity. She and Steve would get along just fine, though.
Cannon
Gloria, I've missed your poetry! How do you do it, and so quickly?
I wrote this particular poem when Bannon was convicted. She (the poem) has been waiting for the most favorable moment to debut. She (and I) thank Mr. Fred Gardner.
Thank you Joyce for your tireless work helping all of us gain a greater understanding of how the justice system works (or doesn’t in some cases). I was wondering a couple of things. First, how does the Supreme Court decide whether to expedite a ruling or not? Secondly, are you aware of any private law suits against the former President from people who were harmed during the failed insurrection? Thank you again for your insights and work on behalf of the people.
Roger Safford
Mesquite NV
Hasn't Eric Swallwell (Dem CA-14) suing Trump for Insurrection activities? Don't know whether that counts as private.
Oh just found, "In Swalwell v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for allegedly inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol."
Thomas being in a position to rule on Trump and the insurrection related issues really is appalling. His wife was in the room!!! Can’t decency and propriety triumph once in a while in this tarnished age?
I just want to scream "Resign!" to him and Alito. Bold faced impropriety, nevermind appearance.
It shows how majesterial the Supreme Court actually is. Ethics? Yours don't apply to me. We're demi-gods in the kingdom.
Apparently they cannot triumph when $$$$ flows so freely and arrogance shines its light just prior to the dawn of justice.
Every case the Supreme Court takes is (theoretically) one which will resolve a legal question of vital importance. Sometimes, just to the litigants of the case, but more commonly to the country as a whole. If a case was heard early on in the term what justification is there for not announcing the court ruling until the end of June? More concisely, why aren’t decisions routinely announced as soon as they have been decided and the opinion is written?
Good question. I have been wondering that, myself.
I second BlueCheese's question(s).
The question you pose is answered not with constitutional rulings but the mark of men so flawed as to leave all shame behind to deny justice to the people while protecting their wives. We watch and await the verdicts offered up by men sullied by $$$$$ and spiritual vanity not anchored in truth or credible Christian integrity. As with the “myth of religion” we are subject to the whims of MEN who author “ the word of their moneyed gods, enriched but lacking conscience or shame.
Joyce, since you brought it up at the end of this newsletter, I’ve been wanting a briefing on how and when cases can be appealed. We’re (mostly?) not lawyers, even though you have made us law geeks, and we just don’t understand the appeals process and the details of when a party can appeal and when they can’t. Thanks so much for all your efforts to educate us.
That's at least a half a semester of Law School Con Law! I have no doubt Joyce can summarize nicely, but it's not simple.
Starting seven years ago I took a LLL course with a man who had been a college president and a constitutional scholar. For four of those seven years he kept trying to show us the that court wasn’t as extreme as some of us felt it was. He pointed out how many 7-2, 8-1 and 9-0 decisions there were. Starting three years ago he gave up. He became horrified at how their rulings began to stray from precedent, the modern culture, and then from the Constitution. Sadly, he died two years ago, at 87. I have many lawyer friends, and know a couple of judges who are saddened and embarrassed by what is going on at the Supreme Court, and with some of the lower courts, especially Judge Cannon, and some of the Red State courts. Nothing to do with the law. They are openly religious, racist, and corrupted by the local industrial mob, such as oil, guns, or just the good ‘ol white boys.
If the court gets 7000-8000 petitions per term, and they choose 80 to hear, why would they jump on the Bannon petition at the end of a term? Is he more important than the thousands of cases who are waiting?
My hope is that they squash it like a bug in preparation for squashing T💩p’s ’immunity’ foofaraw.
I think the answer to all questions goes to how terribly the S.Ct. has corkscrewed itself into an ideological hell, and doesn't resemble the ideals of the Court we used to look to for clarity and reason.
I don't understand why Steve Bannon even gets the Court's attention. Who is he that he thinks he's so important that he can cut through thousands of petitions? If they hear his case they will have sealed their reputation as the most biased and corrupt Court in history.
Navarro did the same thing and he's in jail. Both of them
were found guilty of contempt of congress on the
supeonas.
Uh, I think they have already done that.
I know. Just when you think they can't sink any lower, they manage to find a way.
Haw can Justices who recently argued that Congress has impeachment and investigative powers and beyond that crimes should be prosecuted in the courts turn around and find Trump had immunity or Bannon should not be held accountable for obstructing Congress as it sought to investigate?
so appreciate all of your efforts, and glad we are indeed in this together
Is there anything appealable yet to go over the head of Aileen Cannon in the Florida documents case? And potentially remove her as the judge?
Did you see she had been strongly advised by two Fed Judges not to take the Trump case? I think it's been said no one's going to go over her head- really just isn't done at any level I've ever heard, from lower state courts on.
Joyce, Why don’t liberal justices (besides their dissenting opinions) publicly comment on the process ?- if they feel it was biased or the majority contrived it so as to cause unnecessary delay as it may be in the immunity case.
I can understand justices may be bound by the certain decorum in normal times - but these are not normal times.
You must have missed Justice Sotomayor's recent comments in May at Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute where she was given an award. "There are days that I've come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried," Sotomayor said. "There have been those days. And there are likely to be more."
That's oblique. Nothing specific, nothing referring to anyone in particular. Tasteful. Ethical, which is what Margaret Smith Marston, above was referring to, I believe.
But fortunately the justices who honor the system as it's been will maintain the decorum of the Court and we can all hope it will recover that decorum sooner than later.
Don't hold your breath as long as the trumplicans are on there, like acb, thomas, alito and kavanaugh.
They do. Off the record. But because of AI/the dark web, etc. 1 has to be extra careful. Things are manipulated too much. Look carefully when the justices release books/are on tv shows and see what they say.
When I was coming along as a lawyer, it was considered improper for a justice to express publicly an opinion on any matter that might come to the court in the foreseeable future.
This a layman's question in rebuttal to the Super Emphases placed on 2nd Amendment Guns Ownership Rights. Why don't [Democratic] Senators and Representatives begin touting and supporting 'The Peoples' inherent rights to Public Safety?' That is, the right to hold responsible Local-Regional-State-National governments -- that they keep us safe from irresponsible gun use by irresponsible gun owners? After all, there are more of us who do NOT own guns, making gun owners a minority. Why not start talking about the People's right to feel safe from guns' terrible effects of gun shot death, the huge medical bills from gun shots and recuperation, the gut-wrenching effects of a loved one's inexplicable suicide, that guns make certain neighborhoods unlivably unsafe and insecure?
Why not start the Legal Claim that Public Safety Rights supercede the 2nd Amendment Rights?
Joyce Vance -- what do YOU think, as a thoughtful lawyer?
Signed, A Generic 87-years old Democrat
Bruce, I believe you are onto something. It might take a bit of time, but loud consistent messaging similar to what you propose would certainly be helpful in turning the tide. With almost all the rights found in the Bill of Rights courts use a balancing test of some sort to measure how a statute effects the various interests, values, or purposes of the state, or the litigants, or the people/community. The post-Heller SCOTUS never seems to give any consideration to societal values in its 2nd Am jurisprudence. It just votes for more guns and more death and injury. Its so called "originalism" is just bs--intellectual fraud designed to reach preconceived outcomes based on their radical (not hardly conservative) ideologies.
I believe it was retired Justice Breyer who has suggested that interpreting the Constitution ought to be done through the lens of the overall purposes of the document, its preamble, and the Declaration of Independence: creation of a representative democracy by and for the People, preserve the rule of law (rather than the rule of kings by devine right), the right to live in peace and tranquility, and to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Apologies Justice Breyer if I have mangled your constitutional vision.