With their ruling in Trump v. USA, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced which dance move is sweeping America

At least, their immunity decision proclaims which is the go to dance move at Trump U Law School faculty mixers.

That move is the Abject Genuflect.

From Merriam-Webster -

Wonder if the majority on the Court realized that with their ruling creating an imperial presidency, they also created a paradox along the lines of "if God is all powerful, can he create a rock that's so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?"

Guessing that they did - they may be utterly without integrity, but none of them are utterly without intelligence.

The paradox is thus - If an entity created by a Constitution and given the authority to evaluate whether something adheres to that Constitution then declares that Constitution to be null and void, do they then retain the authority to render such a decision?

They'll say that they do, of course, but credibility counts, and they have none.

1099s or W2s: Which will the Cheeto Org give to the USSC justices who conferred immunity upon Dear Leader?

Or maybe they'll just award the justices knighthoods.

From The Guardian (UK) -

Sotomayor says immunity ruling makes a president ‘king above the law’

In a stark dissent from the conservative-majority US supreme court’s opinion granting Donald Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision was a “mockery” that makes a president a “king above the law”.

The court ruled Monday that Trump cannot be prosecuted for “official acts” he took while president, setting up tests for which of the federal criminal charges over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election are considered official and sending the case back to a lower court to decide.

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, like all other courts, relies on moral credibility to buttress its decisions.

It has none.

Interestingly, the person helped most by this decision may be Joe Biden.  He's looking to win an election, not receive a coronation.

"Ethics" and "Supreme Court" are two terms that shouldn't be used in the same sentence

From The Hill (emphasis added by me) -

Nadler questions Supreme Court ethics after Alito flag debacle: ‘None of them have clean hands’

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) brought the question of Supreme Court ethics back to light after Justice Samuel Alito was criticized earlier this week for an upside-down American flag allegedly flying outside of his Virginia home in 2021.

“None of them have clean hands, none of them have clean hands,” Nadler said during an appearance Saturday on MSNBC’s “The Weekend.” “And again, I would say we need two things. We need to enforce a code of ethics. And we need term limits on the Supreme Court.” 

I'll disagree with Nadler on one major thing - when it comes to Supreme Court ethics, there's nothing there to question.

While I do agree with him about needing to enforce a code of ethics for justices on the Supreme Court, but I believe doing so will obviate any need for term limits.

The American people deserve something from the Court we not getting from this Court - more of the members of the Court have to be honorable people.

Criminalizing being poor? How's that for an "American value"?

From AP -

Record numbers in the US are homeless. Can cities fine them for sleeping in parks and on sidewalks?

The most significant case in decades on homelessness has reached the Supreme Court as record numbers of people in America are without a permanent place to live.

The justices on Monday will consider a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

When the U.S. Supreme Court sides with fining poor people for being poor (and they almost certainly will  do so), how long will it be before someone proposes the use of prisons for people who can't afford to pay the fines imposed for being poor?

Short Attention Span Musing

...Am I the only one who thinks that Congress-elect George Santos is the incoming Congress' version of Madison Cawthorn?  Just as creepy, but with even more baggage?  And not just US-based baggage?

...It's been popcorn-riffic to see Republican Kevin McCarthy's desperation to be Speaker of the US House of Representatives.  He's made a lot of concessions to the MAGA types in his caucus in order to gain the support, but at this point, he could offer to step into the well of the house chamber and publicly kiss the ass of each member of the GQP's "Freedom" Caucus, and many of them still wouldn't vote for him.

...USSC Chief Justice John Roberts is desperate, too.  Unlike McCarthy though, he's worried about the legacy of his court.

It's too late - his time as chief justice will be remembered with neither fondness nor respect.

Double standards - are they taught to all lawyers or just to Supreme Court justices?

Like Samuel Alito.

In 2014, he (allegedly) leaked a decision involving Hobby Lobby and contraception to a GOP megadonor.

From CNN, dated 11/19 -

New York Times: Former evangelical activist claims he knew of 2014 Supreme Court decision before it was released

A former evangelical activist claimed in a letter to the Chief Justice of the United States that he knew about the outcome of a 2014 Supreme Court decision involving contraception and the Affordable Care Act by the court prior to the formal announcement, according to The New York Times.

Rev. Rob Schenck wrote in the letter this summer to Chief Justice John Roberts, which was originally obtained by the Times, that he was informed by a wealthy political donor, Gayle Wright, about the verdict of the ruling prior to it coming out.

According to the letter dated in June of this year but not sent until the following month, Wright had dinner with Justice Samuel Alito and his wife and spoke of the upcoming ruling at the time.

Yet, no outrage from Alito.

Yet, leaking an anti-choice decision to the public inspires lots of outrage from Alito.

Also from CNN, dated 10/25 -

Alito calls leak of Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe a ‘grave betrayal’ that endangered some justices

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Tuesday called the leak of his draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade last spring a “grave betrayal” and “shock,” saying that it put the lives of some of the high court’s conservative justices at risk.

In his most extended and direct comments about the leak to date, Alito said it made the justices who were thought to be in the majority “targets for assassination” because it gave some people a reason to think they may be able to prevent the release of the final opinion “from happening by killing one of us.” He also noted officials have charged a man with attempting to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

He did not offer an update on the leak investigation, but his comments suggested the court has yet to find out who breached its inner sanctum.

Well, at least we know what to get him for Christmas.

From ULine -

Fairness, Bias, and Prejudice: The Dosadi Experiment and the US Supreme Court

In 1977, author Frank Herbert of "Dune" published a book called "The Dosadi Experiment."

The book told the story of a hybrid alien/human people.

Many readers consider it to be his best non-Dune book. Not having read the sequels to Dune, or anything else by him, I can't comment on that, but it *was* good.

While I generally don't read for quotes, just for entertainment and/or information, one part has stuck with me,

From Google Books, emphasis added by me -

Chief Justice John Roberts, while not the worst chief justice ever (Roger Taney of Dred Scott decision infamy, forever holds that title) definitely qualifies as "biased" under Herbert's definition.

Of course, the other members of his conservative majority qualify as "prejudiced".

Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett are nothing more than partisan hacks wearing black robes.

They don't care about society, right or wrong, or precedent, only how they've decided to rule.

This court, *any* court, needs to be seen as impartial to be seen as legitimate.

Certain people have noticed this court's lack of legitimacy.

From AP, dated 9/12/2022 -

Justice Kagan cautions Supreme Court can forfeit legitimacy

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Monday cautioned that courts look political 

and forfeit legitimacy when they needlessly overturn precedent and decide more 

than they have to.

Speaking less than three months after a five-justice conservative majority 

overturned Roe v. Wade’s constitutional guarantee of abortion access, Kagan 

said the public’s view of the court can be damaged especially when changes 

in its membership lead to big changes in the law.

She stressed that she was not talking about any particular decision or even 

a string of rulings with which she disagreed.

Still, her remarks were similar to points made in dissenting opinions she wrote 

or contributed to in recent months, including in the abortion case.

“Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves ... when they instead stray 

into places where it looks like they’re an extension of the political process or 

when they’re imposing their own personal preferences,” Kagan said at 

Temple Emanu-El in New York. The event was livestreamed.

As expected, one of the hacks took issue.

From The Hill, dated 9/29/2022 -

Alito: Questioning Supreme Court legitimacy ‘crosses an important line’

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the decision earlier this year overturning Roe v. Wade, told The Wall Street Journal that implying the court is illegitimate “crosses an important line.”

Alito offered the remark in response to an inquiry from the Journal about whether the court’s justices were concerned the public was losing faith in the Supreme Court after a series of controversial decisions that have roiled public debate.

Dear Justice Alito:

Maybe the USSC will merit the public's faith when it actually earns some of that faith.

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer advises justice that some opinions could 'bite you in the back'

Betting he wasn't thinking "back" when he said that, :)

From CNN -

Breyer warns justices that some opinions could 'bite you in the back' in exclusive interview with CNN's Chris Wallace

Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is warning his colleagues against "writing too rigidly" in their opinions, saying that such decisions could "bite you in the back" in a world that is constantly changing.

In a wide-ranging interview with CNN's Chris Wallace on "Who's Talking to Chris Wallace," which debuted Friday on HBOMax and airs Sunday night on CNN, Breyer also bemoaned his position in the court's minority liberal bloc during his final year on the bench, addressed the court's reversal of Roe v. Wade and spoke about the ongoing controversy regarding Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Dear Chief Justice Roberts: If you want your Supreme Court to be seen as legitimate, maybe the court should look out for the interests of all of America

...and not just the wingnuts and moneyed interests.

Oh, and it would help your personal credibility to not make your comments in Colorado Springs, a known haven for fanatics.

From CNN -

Roberts defends Supreme Court's legitimacy and says last year has been 'difficult in many respects'

Chief Justice John Roberts -- making his first public comments since the US Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade last term, triggering demonstrations across the country -- defended the legitimacy of the court Friday night while also acknowledging it had been "gut-wrenching" to drive into a barricaded high court every morning.

Roberts, without directly mentioning protests, said that all of the court's opinions are open to criticism, but he pointedly noted that "simply because people disagree with opinions, is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court."

[snip]

Speaking to an audience of judges attending the 10th Circuit Bench and Bar Conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Roberts noted that the metal barricade that had been installed around the building is now down, and he announced that when the justices return to the bench to start a new term next month, the public will finally be able to attend arguments in person once again.

"Trust" in the Supreme Court has been weakened by the leak? Dear Justice Thomas: Trust was gone long before now.

From USA Today -

Justice Thomas laments leak of draft Supreme Court abortion opinion: 'Kind of an infidelity'

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday compared the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion in a blockbuster abortion case to "an infidelity," arguing that it weakens trust within the high court as well as public perceptions of the institution.

"When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I'm in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder," Thomas said at an event in Dallas. "It's like kind of an infidelity – that you can explain it but you can't undo it."

Ummm....sometimes the decisions are pro-corporate, like in Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, or pro-party, like Bush v. Gore or Rucho v. Common Cause, most of this court's decisions are like the draft Roe decision - anti-American people.

Trust in the Court was set aside, by the Court itself, long ago.

Gotta love the selective outrage

From CNN -

John Roberts calls Supreme Court leak 'absolutely appalling'

Chief Justice John Roberts said Thursday that the leak of a draft opinion that would strike down Roe v. Wade is "absolutely appalling" and stressed that he hopes "one bad apple" would not change "people's perception" of the nation's highest court and workforce.

In his first public appearance since the leak on Monday, Roberts also said that if "the person" or "people" behind the leak think it will affect the work of the Supreme Court, they are "foolish."

Was Roberts publicly "appalled" when a sexual predator was appointed to the court?  No.

Was he publicly "appalled" when one nominee was railroaded out of an appointment to the court out of partisan tactics?  No.

Was he publicly "appalled" when a secretive partisan hack was appointed to the court?  No.

Was he publicly "appalled" when it turns out that one of his justices is married to an (alleged) traitor?

No.

There's more than one "bad apple" on the court, and the "people's perception" of the court is that while they are paid by society at large, the majority of them absolutely despise that society.

Gotta love hypocrisy

Ever notice that the people most in favor of court packing and railroading through judicial nominations are conservative.

At least, they favor it as long as they're the ones doing the packing and railroading.

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe vs. Wade, I just donated some money to Planned Parenthood.  Like most of us, I don't have much to give, but gave what I could, and recommend that all do the same.

Supreme Court Justice Thinks That Criticism Of The Court Constitutes "Intimidation"

From The National Review via Yahoo! News - 

Alito Defends Supreme Court’s Texas Heartbeat Ruling in Defiant Speech

Justice Samuel Alito rebutted Thursday what he called “unfair and damaging attacks” on the Supreme Court over its emergency adjudication of politically-charged cases, such as the Texas heartbeat law, which recently went into effect after the bench declined to block it.

Responding to criticisms that the conservative-dominated court has been strategically rushing into hasty decisions to advance a secret political agenda, Alito objected to the media’s use of the term “shadow docket” as a misnomer, and claimed such an accusation erodes the legitimacy of the federal judiciary.

From The Guardian (UK) -

Alito hits out at ‘intimidation’ in defence of supreme court’s Texas abortion ruling

[snip]

“The catchy and sinister term ‘shadow docket’ has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its ways,” Alito said at Notre Dame, referring to increasingly common emergency applications that come before the justices outside regular sessions.

“This portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution. There was nothing new or shadowy about the procedures we followed in those cases. It’s hard to see how we can handle most emergency matters any differently.”

In many ways, he's echoing a fellow justice, Amy Coney Barrett.  From the Louisville Courier-Journal - 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett argues US Supreme Court isn't 'a bunch of partisan hacks'

In the wake of a controversial decision on abortion rights, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told a crowd of more than 100 here that she doesn't believe the highest court in the land is politically driven.

“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she told the guests at a Sunday celebration of the 30th anniversary of the opening of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville.

Maybe Alito would have more credibility if he wasn't such a snowflake who ignored the stacking of the federal judiciary (not just the Supreme Court) with legally unqualified but ideologically pure Trumpkins.

And maybe Barrett would have more credibility is she didn't give her speech at an event named after the person who used politics to grease/facilitate her appointment to the USSC.

The Supreme Court favors States' Rights over Voting Rights but favors Corporations over everything

In other words, to them bigotry matters more than individuals, but money matters more than anything else.

From The NCSL Blog -

Supreme Court Rules Against States’ Rights in Pipeline Case

In PennEast Pipeline v. New Jersey [link updated to something that doesn't require a sign in] the U.S. Supreme Court held 5-4 that the federal government may constitutionally grant pipeline companies the authority to condemn necessary rights-of-way in which a state has an interest. Pipeline companies likewise may sue states to obtain the rights-of-way.

The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed an amicus brief 

[link updated to something that doesn't require a sign in]

 asking for the Court to reach the opposite conclusion. NCSL did not join the brief.

Some may consider Kelo v. The City of New London (the USSC decided that it was OK to seize property from a private owner and give it to a corporation) to be the worst USSC decision ever, but I'll always consider the decision The County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific (where the USSC deemed corporations to be people who can avail themselves of Constitutional protections) the worst ever.

Corporations are not people.

Though the Dred Scott decision was pretty vile too.