Quinta Jurecic: ignore the hed, this is extremely harsh criticism from the very measured Will Baude of the Court's rulings in the 14th Amendment and immunity cases www.nytimes.com/2024/07/05/o...

ignore the hed, this is extremely harsh criticism from the very measured Will Baude of the Court's rulings in the 14th Amendment and immunity cases www.nytimes.com/2024/07/05/o...

Opinion | A Principled Supreme Court, Unnerved by Trumpwww.nytimes.com Most of the court’s decisions were principled and sound — most, but unfortunately not all.

Sorry. This is still granting the Court far too much: "In case after case, it has rightly emphasized the importance of turning to historical understandings in deciding constitutional cases rather than imposing modern policy views." The GOP majority's "historical understandings" are nonsense.

When the Supreme Court's Republicans invoke history, it is invariably a cover for their desire to impose their modern policy preferences.

The fact that a handful of critical rulings this term were so outrageous that the GOP justices weren't even able to give them the cover of the Federalist Society's made-up "history" doesn't make the other decisions any better.

"Chief Justice Roberts is not pro-Trump, he just thinks Democratic-operated institutions are captured by a corrosive anti-Trump derangement" is a distinction without a difference IMHO

I did kinda share Baude's sense of Roberts' smugness that he's convinced himself he's performed an act of civic grace that will save politics from itself bsky.app/profile/saba...

Roberts sitting smug, really thinks he pulled off a commendable Nixon Pardon that’ll go down as laudable wisdom (it was not wisdom) bsky.app/profile/saba...

right, I think it's useful as a way of explaining how roberts sees himself

I'm sure the majority felt that way in Bush v Gore as well. That these acts of elevated statesmanship always benefit their side is just a coincidence I guess (not that you are wrong, just that one must have the mind of a toddler for their vanity and self-interest to align so effortlessly)

"Isn't it weird how my independent jurisprudential philosophy keeps giving conservative interests whatever they want?" bsky.app/profile/saba...

It's an amazing coincidence Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia 180'd on Chevron Deference some time around 2009 The timing worked out great, do you think?

Who knows (or, frankly, cares) what they felt in their heart of hearts? My sense is that O'Connor, at least, really wanted to retire and didn't want a Dem appointing her successor.

Ok, but it’s still not harsh criticism of Roberts, it’s the typical right-wing abusive narrative: he’s not doing this because he wants to, but because you (the left-wing institutions infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome) are making him do this for your, and everyone else’s, good.

It's not just Roberts of course, too We have -two pro-Trump partisan idealogues, -one pro-Trump libertarian, -Kav who has been saying for 25 years the Nixon Tapes case was wrongly decided, and -then the most confounding of all is Barrett and IDK what the heck she was thinking

That the media has spent the last forty years claiming that Ford's pardon of Nixon was an act of civic courage helped get us here. The media (and public) had it right in 1974: the pardon was the final major act of the coverup.

One way it comes full-circle: there's no way a majority of SCOTUS in 1974–75 was going to hold Richard Nixon immune for obstruction for ordering HR Haldeman to order the CIA to obstruct the FBI's Watergate burglary investigation And such precedent would not be reversed IMO bsky.app/profile/saba...

Leon Jaworski's memoirs and law review articles make clear both he & Ford's staff expected in the month following Nixon's resignation to be eventually indicting & trying Nixon for obstruction of justice, but that Nixon's would have to be after the John Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, et al. trials

"Some critics say that everything the court does is generally unprincipled and illegitimate, which is not correct." instead of hand-waving this one away without evidence, we might need to take another look...

"Everything" is a very high hurdle to clear, and not exactly exonerating of the Court's pattern of behavior (after all the Court handles many mundane not-so-partisan matters of statutory interpretation, resolving arcane circuit splits, etc.) "They behave predictable partisan" is 💯 true

"The Court has no problem applying evenhanded principles of statutory interpretation in a case on whether willful violations of foreign bank account reporting requirements accrue on a per-report basis or per-account basis" is as vindicating as saying "Congress can pass Post Offices renaming bills"

right. and if whatever principles they purport to have can never get in the way of giving republicans more power, are they really principles?

"Gee I wonder if federal judges are partisan" bsky.app/profile/saba...

Under Biden's presidency, of 41 appointees to the US Circuit Courts of Appeals (5 await confirmation), only 4 are GOP to Dem flips, of which 2 are due to deaths and 2 due to retirements (there are 179 seats total) Biden also elevated a Trump appointee following retirement of a G.W. Bush appointee

Let's try this "Bigoted asshole racist shitweasels, unsure how to get away with ANOTHER century of bigoted asshole racist shit, look to the bigoted asshole racist shitheads of historical record for inspiration & guidance on how to be moar bigoted asshole racist shits tomorrow than they are today"

Well that's a good argument not to feel entirely bound by _actual_ history. But very often what this century's bigoted asshole racist shitweasels believe is sufficiently different from what BARS believed in the pastthat today's BARSs still have to falsely project their beliefs onto the past.

This is generally true about everything having to do with the 2nd Amendment, for example.

And he STILL says they crossed a line.

youtu.be/aQ3utlNSbkw?... Meidas touch - another perspective.

SECRET Plan of Trump’s Minions EXPOSED before Electionyoutu.be MeidasTouch contributor Anthony Davis discusses the right-wing organizations working behind the scenes to weaponize the court system at all levels against our democracy. Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Support the MeidasTouch Network: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-meidastouch-podcast/id1510240831 Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook: https://facebook.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram: https://instagram.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@meidastouch

I mean… I’d also have to ignore the lede that gives the Roberts court credit for being “principled and sound” most of the time which… No, I do have eyes and that already strains credulity.

God. If this reads like “extremely harsh criticism” of the court I’m not sure I knew that level of lawyer brain was possible.

“These one or two decisions seem…less than great” Lawyers, apparently: OMG SCOTUS GOT NUKED

"Trump has attacked Roberts" is not evidence that Roberts isn't making decisions with the intention of benefiting Trump. A) Roberts is helping the party, and B) coercion works when attacks or threats yield the desired behavior.

Definitely the weakest moment of the column.

Is “historical understandings” a way not to say “Originalism”?

Baude is an originalist

Of course. IF by originalist you mean one who longs for the state of nature as known in the 18th century. Or is he a libertarian. Oops. Social Darwinist. This law talk is hilarious.

"At this point at this Supreme Court, originalism is a dead letter, to be resurrected and employed only when it suits the court's purposes," said Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal judge.

i dunno man, still feels like pretty garbage tier analysis when the dude is claiming that the DOJ and the lower courts have 'trump derangement syndrome'

What are you talking about? This piece is non-stop apologia for the truly stunning corruption of the court. This guy’s either an idiot or thinks the reader is.

He clerked for John Roberts and is at the forefront of "New Originalists" who are basically conservative living constitutionalists, as the critique goes.

Fundamentally unserious analysis disguised in faux balance. John Roberts disciple indeed

Principled? 🤣🤣🤣 Trump made them do it?

I wouldnt doubt it, or in his name

So much for the third independent branch of government.

The thing is, theyre Federalist Society members doing 45yo policy work who before this week rejected that criminals hail mary passes. Things changed to get this. And project 2025 paints an even worse reason for the reasoning.

The project has been in the works for many decades. They’ve been supremely successful.

I didn't expect the Times to mention that Baude's a Federalist Society member, because that information's redundant. But it should have mentioned that he once clerked for John Roberts!

Q. Who is above the law of the land? A. Nobody. That's all there is to it, surely?

Not remotely "harsh criticism." It's at best a mild critique that ignores all evidence in order to pretend the court is acting reasonably if irresponsibly because it's trying to do the right thing. Laughable. The court has failed as an institution since it's adopted the framings of the insurrection

If the principle is 'Fuck you, we'll take yours too!' Then the right wing of the court is principled, yes. Otherwise, they're just 6 pro authoritarian hooligans who deserve so much worse than they will ever experience in consequences for ending our 250 year experiment.

I think this is a worthy read but the way he hand waves “the court is pro Trump” isn’t helpful. Trump attacks allies frequently and in any case Roberts isn’t as important as he once was

Perhaps he should take a meeting with Jack Goldsmith.