After Biden v. Nebraska, any reliance on the standing doctrine is purely political.
For those not familiar, Biden v Nebraska is the student loan case in which John Roberts and the Fash Five struck down the effort to help struggling student loan debtors. Several states sued, The lower courts dismissed for lack of standing. That was right, because no state had any actual injury.
The six frauds held that Missouri had standing because it had chartered a student loan processing corporation which had refused to participate in the iltigation. The frauds that Missouri was damaged because if loans were cancelled the student loan company wouldn't collect as much money, and that might mean that Missouri would not get a bit of money if the student loan company ever paid anything. In other words, no actual tangible injury.
That's ridiculous. I actually own stock in corporations that actually pay dividends, but that doesn't give me standing to sue if the government cuts funding to one of them, and Missouri didn't even own stock. The explanation for why the plan was unconstitutional is ever more stupid.
Precedence gone. Equality gone. The current Supreme Court is composed almost entirely of DEI hires - women, a Jew, a Latina, five Catholics, two African Americans. - eats itself.
I used to believe that putting term limits, with emerita standing, and expanding the court was not the way to go. I then read Elie Mystal's book, Allow Me to Retort, and began to question my previous reasoning. Now, I'm all in for term limits, expanding the court and instituting a mandatory ethics code on this court. Justice Robert's legacy will be that of heading up the most corrupt, racist and political courts in history.
Angry white male frat bro Kavanaugh finally shows not only his sexist credentials (see confirmation hearings) but now his racist core is on full display.
A reminder that Kavanaugh, Alito, and their ilk interpret the Constitution in a way such that "The Founding Fathers" obviously meant it from their point of view. I'm sure they will find nd away around birthright citizenship once that eventually makes its way to SCOTUS.
They are biased and unhinged. They have been indoctrinated from the start of their careers. As much as the right wing decries liberal activism by the courts, their own side is more radical. They prefer to strip away our rights because they "know" what the authors meant. It's such BS.
Also, in some ways the fash five (love that term) are correct. Justice has always accepted racism in the courts. The country was partly founded on that principle, so these "traditionalist" interpreters of the Constitution will read it as "whites only." POC weren't included from the beginning, so any amendments and rulings which came afterwards are most likely null and void in their puny minds.
Amendments to legal documents can't be considered null and void because of the original document. An amendment always supersedes whatever it amended. So it's MORE important that our Constitution was amended to prohibit discrimination "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (Amendment XV) or "on account of sex" (Amendment XIX) or on account of wealth (inability "to pay any poll tax or other tax" (Amendment XXIV)).
Exactly, any amendment inherently over-rules any prior aspect of the constitution which conflicts with it. Hence the need to enforce the 14th amendment, section 3, based upon Trump's pardoning of ALL the Jan 6 insurrectionists, giving both Aid and Comfort to them. The idea that somehow his being elected would nullify that is completely bogus.
I wished Biden would have insisted on enforcing the constitution and not allow Trump to be sworn in, but it would have been messy in many ways.
Again, the Founding Fathers would NEVER countenance a court like this - women, Negroes, Roman Catholics, a “Jewess” - so how can SCOTUS honestly make this claim?
Thanks Aaron, for the great reporting. I’m reading retired Judge Michael Luttig every chance I can for truth and value. Ya know, Sometimes I wonder if any of the Six are in the Epstein files. They are such creeps.
Just have to thank Kavanaugh for his 'transparency', clarifying for us his thinking. He did not have to do that.
The whole issue of citizenship was not very well defined when this country was created and only got addressed post civil war, in the 14th amendment, in order to clarify blacks were citizens, but that amendment did not address race, simply birth place. So the idea that the constitution limits rights to citizenship is NOT in the constitution and so if the court were to rule that non-citizens were not entitled to rights of due process, would be worse than 'making law out of whole cloth', it would be denying the validity of the constitution.
I am guessing Kavanaugh limits his news intake to conservative media and avoids reading lesser court's rulings and findings. After all, it is much easier to know what is right when you keep facts and thinking out of the process.
Kavanaugh seems to feel there is an emergency here, where these immigrants are about to crush our country in one swift violent act or something. I say immigrants and not 'illegal immigrants' because ICE has clearly taken to targeting immigrants who have current legal standing, performing their regularly scheduled check-ins as part of their legal ability to stay here, per court rulings on their case, and just grabbing them and deporting them. So the concept that they are only after people violating our laws is laughable.
The sheer fact that citizens are being abused in this process clarifies their intentions to grab first and maybe get around to asking questions later.
This concept of an emergency is laughable, since Trump did not address this emergency in his first term, other than his effort to 'build a wall'. Trump is claiming all sorts of 'emergencies' that are not even remotely new events. It would be like claiming an emergency authorizing martial law because too many cars have a busted tail light. There is just no evidence of any actual damage being done that must be stopped immediately. His claim that immigrants commit horrible crime (even though they commit them much less often than Citizens do) as justification for an emergency is equivalent to the idea that we need martial law because even though violent crime has already been greatly reduced, there is still crime in our cities and even though the 'per capita' crime rate is worse in red states, we are going to focus on Blue states because they are bigger and so the numbers look bigger.
Day by day, ruling by ruling, they chip away at their legitimacy and any last bit of respect accorded them by a large percentage of the public. That they feel compelled, like Barret did, to proclaim that public opinion doesn't matter to them tells you it absolutely does matter to them.
The name for the famous Miranda warning (about rights when people are arrested) comes from a SCOTUS decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). One principle at work is that a word of warning can make a world of difference. But there is an even greater principle at work: our public servants should educate us, not deceive us, about our rights.
Particular warnings in Miranda should be as famous as the Miranda warning issued upon arrest. Miranda repeated wise warnings that had been included in prior opinions of SCOTUS justices.
The warning stated in the Miranda opinion (about how and why crime is contagious, especially when judges become infected) was originally by the wise and great Justice Brandeis (joined by the wise and great Justice Holmes) dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)). This warning was first offered just before SCOTUS (finally) started enforcing our First Amendment rights almost 100 years ago.
"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
In Miranda, SCOTUS elaborated on how judges play the long game. They do not merely decide the case or controversy before them. They use their opinions or statements to teach, encourage and assist others to undermine our Constitution and defraud us of our rights. Judges can and do use their opinions to misrepresent, distort and deny our rights. Their misrepresentations, distortions and denials, in turn, encourage more litigation to even further encroach on our rights.
After Biden v. Nebraska, any reliance on the standing doctrine is purely political.
For those not familiar, Biden v Nebraska is the student loan case in which John Roberts and the Fash Five struck down the effort to help struggling student loan debtors. Several states sued, The lower courts dismissed for lack of standing. That was right, because no state had any actual injury.
The six frauds held that Missouri had standing because it had chartered a student loan processing corporation which had refused to participate in the iltigation. The frauds that Missouri was damaged because if loans were cancelled the student loan company wouldn't collect as much money, and that might mean that Missouri would not get a bit of money if the student loan company ever paid anything. In other words, no actual tangible injury.
That's ridiculous. I actually own stock in corporations that actually pay dividends, but that doesn't give me standing to sue if the government cuts funding to one of them, and Missouri didn't even own stock. The explanation for why the plan was unconstitutional is ever more stupid.
Precedence gone. Equality gone. The current Supreme Court is composed almost entirely of DEI hires - women, a Jew, a Latina, five Catholics, two African Americans. - eats itself.
Thank you for that review. I had heard it was 'struck down' but never any explanation.
Brilliant and insightful as always. I love reading your pieces in PN!
I used to believe that putting term limits, with emerita standing, and expanding the court was not the way to go. I then read Elie Mystal's book, Allow Me to Retort, and began to question my previous reasoning. Now, I'm all in for term limits, expanding the court and instituting a mandatory ethics code on this court. Justice Robert's legacy will be that of heading up the most corrupt, racist and political courts in history.
Giving that Taney Court a run for its money (which, SCOTUS previously ruled, is legit “gratuity.”
Not to mention a total ratification of an unaccountable imperial President.
Angry white male frat bro Kavanaugh finally shows not only his sexist credentials (see confirmation hearings) but now his racist core is on full display.
A reminder that Kavanaugh, Alito, and their ilk interpret the Constitution in a way such that "The Founding Fathers" obviously meant it from their point of view. I'm sure they will find nd away around birthright citizenship once that eventually makes its way to SCOTUS.
They are biased and unhinged. They have been indoctrinated from the start of their careers. As much as the right wing decries liberal activism by the courts, their own side is more radical. They prefer to strip away our rights because they "know" what the authors meant. It's such BS.
Also, in some ways the fash five (love that term) are correct. Justice has always accepted racism in the courts. The country was partly founded on that principle, so these "traditionalist" interpreters of the Constitution will read it as "whites only." POC weren't included from the beginning, so any amendments and rulings which came afterwards are most likely null and void in their puny minds.
Amendments to legal documents can't be considered null and void because of the original document. An amendment always supersedes whatever it amended. So it's MORE important that our Constitution was amended to prohibit discrimination "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (Amendment XV) or "on account of sex" (Amendment XIX) or on account of wealth (inability "to pay any poll tax or other tax" (Amendment XXIV)).
Exactly, any amendment inherently over-rules any prior aspect of the constitution which conflicts with it. Hence the need to enforce the 14th amendment, section 3, based upon Trump's pardoning of ALL the Jan 6 insurrectionists, giving both Aid and Comfort to them. The idea that somehow his being elected would nullify that is completely bogus.
I wished Biden would have insisted on enforcing the constitution and not allow Trump to be sworn in, but it would have been messy in many ways.
😢🤮💔
Again, the Founding Fathers would NEVER countenance a court like this - women, Negroes, Roman Catholics, a “Jewess” - so how can SCOTUS honestly make this claim?
Being brown or black in America right now is entirely unsafe.
With a side order of Islam and Judaism. AND misogyny.
The Shadow Docket not only allows them to be Fascists without owning it, it lets them be lazy. They get paid not to work.
Once a creep, always a creep.
Why do I continue to be shocked? Because I need to believe there’s a foundation to our laws. But it sure is getting hard.
Thanks for this. Exceedingly well-done.
Thanks Aaron, for the great reporting. I’m reading retired Judge Michael Luttig every chance I can for truth and value. Ya know, Sometimes I wonder if any of the Six are in the Epstein files. They are such creeps.
We need Court reform - including term limits & expansion
An excellent article but just sickening that the 5 conservative SCJ have lived up to the criticism they were so indignant of back in 2021.
Actually it's 6, right, it's just that one is a woman.
Just have to thank Kavanaugh for his 'transparency', clarifying for us his thinking. He did not have to do that.
The whole issue of citizenship was not very well defined when this country was created and only got addressed post civil war, in the 14th amendment, in order to clarify blacks were citizens, but that amendment did not address race, simply birth place. So the idea that the constitution limits rights to citizenship is NOT in the constitution and so if the court were to rule that non-citizens were not entitled to rights of due process, would be worse than 'making law out of whole cloth', it would be denying the validity of the constitution.
I am guessing Kavanaugh limits his news intake to conservative media and avoids reading lesser court's rulings and findings. After all, it is much easier to know what is right when you keep facts and thinking out of the process.
Kavanaugh seems to feel there is an emergency here, where these immigrants are about to crush our country in one swift violent act or something. I say immigrants and not 'illegal immigrants' because ICE has clearly taken to targeting immigrants who have current legal standing, performing their regularly scheduled check-ins as part of their legal ability to stay here, per court rulings on their case, and just grabbing them and deporting them. So the concept that they are only after people violating our laws is laughable.
The sheer fact that citizens are being abused in this process clarifies their intentions to grab first and maybe get around to asking questions later.
This concept of an emergency is laughable, since Trump did not address this emergency in his first term, other than his effort to 'build a wall'. Trump is claiming all sorts of 'emergencies' that are not even remotely new events. It would be like claiming an emergency authorizing martial law because too many cars have a busted tail light. There is just no evidence of any actual damage being done that must be stopped immediately. His claim that immigrants commit horrible crime (even though they commit them much less often than Citizens do) as justification for an emergency is equivalent to the idea that we need martial law because even though violent crime has already been greatly reduced, there is still crime in our cities and even though the 'per capita' crime rate is worse in red states, we are going to focus on Blue states because they are bigger and so the numbers look bigger.
Day by day, ruling by ruling, they chip away at their legitimacy and any last bit of respect accorded them by a large percentage of the public. That they feel compelled, like Barret did, to proclaim that public opinion doesn't matter to them tells you it absolutely does matter to them.
SCOTUS - in the shadow, without explanation or justification- now ignores precedents, lower court findings and common decency … just like its daddy.
The name for the famous Miranda warning (about rights when people are arrested) comes from a SCOTUS decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). One principle at work is that a word of warning can make a world of difference. But there is an even greater principle at work: our public servants should educate us, not deceive us, about our rights.
Particular warnings in Miranda should be as famous as the Miranda warning issued upon arrest. Miranda repeated wise warnings that had been included in prior opinions of SCOTUS justices.
The warning stated in the Miranda opinion (about how and why crime is contagious, especially when judges become infected) was originally by the wise and great Justice Brandeis (joined by the wise and great Justice Holmes) dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)). This warning was first offered just before SCOTUS (finally) started enforcing our First Amendment rights almost 100 years ago.
"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
In Miranda, SCOTUS elaborated on how judges play the long game. They do not merely decide the case or controversy before them. They use their opinions or statements to teach, encourage and assist others to undermine our Constitution and defraud us of our rights. Judges can and do use their opinions to misrepresent, distort and deny our rights. Their misrepresentations, distortions and denials, in turn, encourage more litigation to even further encroach on our rights.