b-boy bouiebaisse: once again i think that mark lemley’s article on the “imperial supreme court” is the most perceptive thing written about the roberts court and its overarching project harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...

once again i think that mark lemley’s article on the “imperial supreme court” is the most perceptive thing written about the roberts court and its overarching project harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...

The Imperial Supreme Court - Harvard Law Reviewharvardlawreview.org The past few years have marked the emergence of the imperial Supreme Court. Armed with a new, nearly bulletproof majority, conservative Justices on the...

"The common denominator across multiple opinions in the last two years is that they concentrate power in one place: the Supreme Court." 🔥🔥🔥

@marklemley.bsky.social Is the Trump immunity ruling the exception that proves the rule, or does it fit in to your remarkable thesis is a way that eludes this layman?

I know it's crazy, but so was that ruling. Do we need to start engaging with the idea that this court is complicit in providing legitimacy to an autocratic regime? Specifically a Trump one? Or do they think the prospect is ridiculous? Or is it a vindication of Nixon and Jamelle suggests?

It's an interesting question and I have been puzzling over it. It definitely gives power to presidents, which seems at odds with my thesis. But the Court keeps for itself the power to decide what is immune. And it clearly plans to use that power to protect acts it likes and not those it doesn't

The first two paragraphs of this op-ed agree with your preliminary take. www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/o...

Opinion | The Supreme Court Creates a Lawless Presidencywww.nytimes.com It is increasingly clear that this court sees itself as something other than a participant in our democratic system.

*three

Prof. Lemley has been an intellectual superstar for decades. I'm proud to call him a friend. @marklemley.bsky.social

Yes, but I have been thinking about how right Thomas Keck was back in *2004*. press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bo...

The Most Activist Supreme Court in Historypress.uchicago.edu When conservatives took control of the federal judiciary in the 1980s, it was widely assumed that they would reverse the landmark rights-protecting precedents set by the Warren Court and replace them ...

Brilliant book.

People have been making these critiques of the court for decades. The only difference is the ideological stakes and who controls the court.

Yes, though I was reluctantly to accept Keck's take back then because I thought there was more conservative commitment to judicial minimalism (Roberts' appointment in 2005 reinforced that for me initially). But now, I think his book looks prescient.

Deferring to the Supreme Court is a norm. How long do we observe a norm in the face of an utterly unleashed and unimpeded Court that does the fuck what it wants and makes up reasons for it later?

oh, absolutely, thanks for reminding me of this

The "newfound conservative majority is simply doing whatever it wants in the cases before it, consistent with a particularly strong form of the legal realist idea that judges just implement their own policy preferences."

Thank you for sharing this.

The motivated reasoning supreme court

Post