SCOTUS roundup briefs

The Trump immunity ruling is everything wrong about today's SCOTUS. It's partisan; it pretends not to be partisan; it takes an initial bite of the apple while pretending that it won't take more bites when the case comes back; and that's just for starters.

I think the delay was not only to put this at the end, but also to figure out how exactly to craft the decision with all the particulars above. 

Beyond that, the 1970s Office of Legal Counsel's ruling that presidents couldn't be indicted? Constitutionally nugatory, as I said long ago (during the Mueller report, when Ball-less Bob failed). 

In light of that, this current Supreme Court ruling has been teed up for 50 years, just waiting for the next Nixonian or worse president to come along.

Or, 55 years, as Joyce Alene says, essentially, that absolute immunity for constitutionally prescribed acts creates Bill Douglas-like shadows and penumbras for lesser levels and degrees of immunity. Alternet has a summary of her take, and general left-liberal, but not leftist, reaction.

That said?

The biggest problem with the Trump immunity ruling itself starts with the whole "originalism" idea. "The Federalist" is a one-sided document. Many of the Philadelphia 1787 White men who signed off on, and physically signed, the constitution, did not have the same interpretations of the document as Hamilton, Madison and Jay. The idea that an "energetic" executive was desired is belied by the actual governance of the U.S. through the time of Andrew Jackson, with the lead-up to that being the setting for Jackson himself being called "King Andrew."

That said, the Blind Umpire et al selectively read "The Federalist" anyway.

3. In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the President would be "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the "King of England," who was "sacred and invulnerable," and the "President of…

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 2, 2024

There you go. Shocking, I know. Selective reading?

Let us not forget that Henry Clay got the Senate to officially censure Jackson.

Let us also not forget the exclusion of non-Whites and non-males. Well did William Lloyd Garrison call it a "covenant with death." Sadly, even Frederick Douglass internalized the over-veneration of the constitution. One will notice here the lowercasing of the word "constitution."

And, per the "teed up"? The Nine have been cutting blank and semi-blank checks for executive authority since, oh, probably since Reagan's time and definitely since Shrub Bush's time. And, Democrats' failure to impeach Reagan over Iran-Contra added to this.

And, that's why this non-librul leftist does NOT "revere" the constitution.

==

Second, contra the wingers, SCOTUS did NOT say in Murthy that Team Biden can coerce social media. Rather, it DID say that plaintiffs lack standing. The is the latest of several cases this year where the court has said the Fifth Circuit has simply gotten wrong, and egregiously wrong in most cases, the issue of standing. The 6-3 opinion also said that no actual injuries had been shown, nor was it shown that the social media content moderation in the particular cases was due to government coercion.

I don't totally agree with that last one, and have said so here before.

That said, I do agree with SCOTUS at a minimum sending the two Net Choice cases back to lower courts. Because it was the plaintiff, unlike Murthy, there was no standing issue. But, rather than overturn the lower courts and set some sort of standard for what governments can't do, the court punted that back to lower courts without guidance beyond saying Net Choice improperly framed its argument.

==

And, was this a Dobbs-type leak? SCOTUS's opinion allowing the federal government to let ER doctors, at least in Idaho, perform emergency abortions, was accidentally posted online before being hauled down. It's not a ruling for the Biden Administration; rather, it's a ruling for its injunction. The Notorious KBJ noted that. Unfortunately, nobody at Bloomberg, who first noted it, did a copy-paste of web information, or a download of the PDF, if the full opinion was indeed posted. As it turns out, the actual was basically the same as the leaked opinion, so, if deliberate, nobody was swayed.

Slate notes that the leaked document indicates that, long term, there's support for Idaho's stance, and even suggests that simply ruling on the stay punts the final ruling past the November election calendar.

==

Is criminalizing homelessness, with many other locales surely primed to follow Grants Pass now, really going to stop homelessness? (I picture the Umpire saying, "The only way to stop homelessness is for people to stop being homeless.") Of course not. That said, if the third arrest results in 30 days in jail, max, upon conviction, in Grants Pass, what does the city do when it runs out of jail room?

Answer: Having grown up in Gallup, New Mexico, and seeing the sad Sunday morning, and sometimes Monday morning, parade from the drunk tank at the Gallup city jail that was right across the "Perkie" from our house, these people aren't being held 30 days.

==

Without officially gutting Chevron, the SEC ruling continued to erode it at the edges.

And then, right after that, the court finished the job. Details of Loper here. On Twitter, as far as deference to expert agencies or lack thereof now, somebody noted Gorsuch not knowing the difference between nitrogen oxide pollutants and nitrous oxide laughing gas. That was in the case involving EPA's "good neighbor rule," which of course was also gutted. A whole set of rulings of last week tipped SCOTUS' hand before the shiv was wielded.

Next? OSHA is a probable target. And, per the Corner Post case, a bunch of rich wingnuts can now deliberately launch a start-up shell business just for the purpose of challenging federal regulations.

==

The Sackler ruling was, I think, correct. Not just re the Sacklers, but per the general idea.

==

Very good, on the gunz front, after the ruling allowing bump stocks? The court has, after affirming that states can prevent people with domestic abuse issues from owning guns, that in light of that, it will reject challenges to state laws on felons being barred from guns, Illinois' ban on assault weapons and more. It's not perfect; it continues a pattern of this court of ducking many issues, but in this case, it told lower courts to rehear the cases in light of the Rahimi decision.

==

As far as how bad each is? Really, only dyed-in-the-wool Blue Anon think the Trump immunity ruling is the worst. In actuality, it's Loper, especially when seen in conjunction with Corner Post, that's the worst. Hands down, or hands semi-down, at least.