Tag: Supreme Court Decision

Posted on

Today’s Supreme Court Decision in Department of State v. Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition

This image provided by Rachel Malehorn shows Judge Amy Coney Barrett in Milwaukee, on Aug. 24, 2018. (Rachel Malehorn, rachelmalehorn.smugmug.com, via AP)

Washington Post, Supreme Court says judge can force Trump administration to pay foreign aid

SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment

If you want to dig in the weeds, please do so; the two sources above, along with many others, will help.

Big picture: the issue presented by the case is whether it is A-OK for Trump to spit on the Constitution by exercising kingly power to destroy a federal agency created and funded by Congress—particularly in a situation where the destruction of said agency will lead to unimaginable loss of life. 

In a dissenting opinion written by Justice Alito—who has been drinking a whole lot of Kool-Aid lately—and joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, the four justices seemed to take it as self-evident that Trump need not obey the Constitution and that it was a grievous act of “judicial hubris” for a lowly federal district judge to think that Trump has any obligation to the Constitution. 

But one of the three Trump-appointed justices, Amy Coney Barrett, has been tapering off the Kool-Aid lately. She joined with Justice Roberts and with the three liberals in a short, unsigned opinion, indicating that the lowly federal district judge in question could bloody well go right ahead and order Trump to pay up. (That is, it’s OK for the judge to order Trump to pay pending a final resolution of the case.)

If you read the opinion—and I hope you do—you will see that I have oversimplified. You will see that this onion has a lot of layers. But I do not think I have oversimplified in a misleading way. And my guess is that it’s going to be Constitution, 5, Dictatorship, 4, from here on.

I did say “guess.” There is a difference, you know, between a guess and a prediction.

And, by the way, as Trump becomes increasingly unpopular, I would’nt be shocked if we peel off Kavanaugh. 

Posted on

A First Ruling from SCOTUS on Trump 2.0—and a Reading of the Tea Leaves

The Hill, Supreme Court stiffs Trump, punts on firing whistleblower agency head

SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court sidesteps Trump’s effort to remove watchdog agency head

Trump fired someone named Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel, a body that prosecutes government misconduct and protects whistleblowers. He gave no reason for his displeasure; you are free to fill in the answer for yourself.

Mr. Dellinger sued to get his job back and found a district judge who granted him a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Trump from shitcanning him while the employment case proceeds.

TROs don’t last long. This one is set to expire a few days from now, February 26, by which time the parties can brief the issue and present evidence as to whether the TRO should or should not be changed into a preliminary injunction—which would allow Mr. Dellinger to keep his job until the case is tried. 

If the district judge should rule for Mr. Dellinger on the preliminary injunction question next week, then Trump can take the case to the court of appeals and on to the Supreme Court. Should that happen, the legal process will probably be as speedy as shit through a goose.

But that is not fast enough for Trump. Trump argued that it’s a red hot emergency if Dellinger gets to stay in office for another few days. That was the issue on which the Supreme Court ruled today. 

In short, the core issue in the case, though involving arcana of appellate procedure, was similar to that in State of Washington v. Trump, about which I posted yesterday. To wit, must the courts consider it a red hot emergency just because Trump claims it’s a red hot emergency?

In short, Trump was aiming for some Shock and Awe action from the High Court. He wanted the Court to smite his enemies with a mighty rod, and that right quickly, and without much thought.

That’s what he wanted. What he got instead was support from only two of the nine justices, Gorsuch and Alito.

At the other end of the ideological spectrum, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would have ruled that Trump should just take a long walk off a short pier. 

Two at one extreme and two at the other extreme. That leaves five in the middle, at least for right now. And a motley crew they are: Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Thomas.

And the specifics of their middle position? To hold the appeal in abeyance pending until the TRO expires. 

And, in so doing, to say—along with the Federalist Society judge in State of Washington v. Trump—no, no, it’s not an emergency just because Trump claims it’s an emergency. 

And Now for the Reading of the Tea Leaves

And no, friends and neighbors, this is not a prediction. It’s just a first reading of the tea leaves, based on the first Trump 2.0 case to reach the Supreme Court.

Alito and Gorsuch are not a surprise.

But a big eyebrow raiser for me was that seven members of the Court stood up to Trump’s procedural bluster and bullying.

And the biggest eyebrow raiser was the presence of Justice Clarence Thomas among this crew. One is compelled to wonder whether Justice Thomas might have had a little talk with his bosom buddy and traveling companion Harlan Crow, a Republican megadonor who megadonates to a lot of Republicans not named Donald Trump.