The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
So Long As Dobbs Remains Undecided, The Lives of the Justices Are At Risk
The Dobbs 5 should immediately issue an unsigned per curiam order, with an opinion to follow, even over the Chief Justice's objection.
At 1:50 am this morning, an armed man with burglary tools was arrested near Justice Kavanuagh's home in Maryland. He told the police that he wanted to murder the Justice. Fortunately, someone tipped off the police, and the man did not make it onto Kavanaugh's property. The police stopped him nearby. According to the Washington Post, the would-be-assassin was angry about the leaked opinion in Dobbs. We should all pray for the safety of Justice Kavanaugh, as well as the other Justices.
Every day that goes by, and Dobbs remains undecided, is a day that the lives of the Justices and their families are at risk. Immediately after the leak, I wrote that the Court should issue a one-sentence per curiam opinion, with a reasoned decision to follow--follow the path of Ex Parte Quirin. Lurking in the back of mind was the risk that a Justice could be assassinated. Now, that risk looks so much more real.
Why, then, has the Court not issued a decision in Dobbs yet? We know the majority opinion was finished in February. Yet, at least in May, the Chief Justice still had not circulated his much-vaunted concurrence. My cynical take was that "circulating the draft opinion at the latest possible juncture creates chaos, and makes it more likely that things can move around without sufficient deliberation."
Or maybe there is a less cynical, but equally dangerous explanation. Shortly after the leak of the Dobbs opinion, Chief Justice Roberts proclaimed, "The work of the Court will not be affected in any way." Perhaps Roberts thinks that by deviating from the normal course, the Court would be sending a signal that the leak did affect the Court's business. If so, Roberts continues to live in a different reality than the rest of us. Justice Kavanaugh nearly faced an assassination attempt. A group bearing the name of Ruth Bader Ginsburg advertises nightly protests outside of his home. Similar protests are scheduled outside of the homes of other Justices. Their lives have been turned upside down. All of the other Justices are at similar risk. The way to ensure that the Court "will not be affected in any way" is to decide a case as soon as it is ready, and remove the threat that someone will try to deprive the majority of the fifth vote.
Why is there a delay? So Roberts can take yet another ill-fated attempt to pick off one or two votes? A real leader would have put aside his quixotical quest for balance. Every day that passes, as the Chief haggles over votes, a target remains on the backs of his colleagues.
The Dobbs 5 should immediately issue an unsigned per curiam order, with an opinion to follow, even over the Chief Justice's objection. The Justices should send a clear and unequivocal message that they will not be intimidated by these acts of violence.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Seems like there is a lot more effort to track down mee-maws who walked thru the capitol on J6 vs this doesn't there?
Remember when the Dems said that their commission would not politicized the events of that day or use the hearings for political reasons? Yeah....
Now they are holding "hearings" which are actually produced news events conducted under the guise of a Congressional investigation, held in concert with the DNC, for the expressed purpose of making political gains out of the investigation.
This is reason #48477210294 why we live in a banana republic.
Do you like the DOJ coordinating with the Democrats on the J6 committee with the timing of those sedition charges?
The Department of Political Prosecutions for the Banana Republic of Some States is obviously closely working with other operatives in the government. It is a concerted effort to subvert democracy.
The DOJ has been charging un-American, worthless, gullible, delusional insurrectionists with seditious conspiracy for months. It appears the prosecutors are likely to arrange convictions.
The prosecutors appear to be doing their job -- not quickly enough for some, not in the way others (sympathetic to delusional and un-American stains on our society) would prefer.
Weren't some of the un-American right-wingers convicted of seditious conspiracy months ago?
Other than that -- the wild claim about "timing" is demonstrably stupid -- great comment!
Just like with that Bernie Bro who shot up Republican Congressmen.
This is Good Trouble, condoned and often instigated by the Federal Class.
If you want to see what the Left thinks about this guy, just go look at what the blue checks on Twitter are saying. It is pretty disgusting (to us normals that is....)
"us normals"
Has a week ever gone by where you haven't posted something on this site fantasizing about killing liberals or leftists?
Yeah I do not post about that. You must have me confused with another person.
I would have wagered that Jimmy the Dane is among the useless culture war losers who has proposed gassing liberals, placing liberals face-down in landfills, shooting liberals in the face as they open front doors, raping liberals, sending liberals to Zyklon showers, or placing liberals in woodchippers (and all with Prof. Volokh's approval) . . . but I might have lost the wager.
There have been so many calls to violence against their betters by Volokh Conspiracy fans -- maybe even as many as vile racial slurs published by this white, male, right-wing blog -- that it is difficult to recall which wingnut is responsible for which delusional, stupid, blustering, ugly comment.
Carry on, clingers.
That reminds me of one of my favorite jokes.
What do you call a cruise ship full of 1000 lawyers that sinks to the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
Your resentment toward your betters is obvious.
Open wider, loser.
Oh, at this point the lives of the conservative justices will never be the same again regardless. (And no, I don't approve of it; merely pointing out the reality.) I'm not sure a delay will change that.
If there were a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment doesn't protect private gun ownership, and the opinion leaked, does anyone seriously think the reaction of the NRA crowd would be any different? People really don't like losing what they've come to believe are their rights. Maybe that's the real message: Tamper with freedom, prepare to have your life turned upside down.
If the NRA crowd was outside the PERSONAL RESIDENCES of the Justices protesting we would have 24/7 news coverage of it with commenters talking about how dangerous of a precedent this was setting for our democracy and the holiness of the Supreme Court.
The same day that the Left complains about a clearly theatrical gallows being constructed at a protest, Leftists put a guillotine in front of Bazo's house during one of their protests. Guess which one got the press coverage? Bonus point for if it was positive or negative.
The primary difference being that the 2nd amendment IS in the Constitution, and Roe conspicuously isn't. So the NRA would have a lot stronger basis for claiming the decision illegitimate.
But, yeah, the general principle is valid none the less.
You just keep telling yourself that that's relevant.
The actual contents of the Constitution aren't relevant to Court rulings?
Unlike a motion to dismiss, constitutional law is not limited to the four corners of the document. I realize originalists think so, but they are not the whole of the legal profession.
Even living constitutionalists pretend to be originalists when the public is watching.
No we don't. You will not find a single living constitutionalist who would argue that the 14th Amendment is restricted to the original intent of its authors.
Look at Stevens' Heller dissent: He went to great lengths to pretend he was practicing originalism. Because the public was watching.
Krychek - very explanation on how the court got Kelo so wrong
I don't believe Kelo was a 14th Amendment case.
If the past is anything to go by, not all 6 justices in that hypothetical majority would even make it to the bench to announce their opinions, because one or more of them would get kidnapped by armed rednecks.
What past event are you thinking of here?
Don't be coy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot
What, you're suggesting that the FBI might encourage people to kidnap a Supreme court justice? I admit it's not entirely implausible.
That's just your disaffected, delusional autism talking, Mr. Bellmore.
Remind me, how did that episode turn out, exactly?
With a conservative jury refusing to convict a conservative defendant.
"I don't approve of it; merely pointing out the reality."
"Just asking questions" vibe
Bob, there are a great many things I don't approve of that I still recognize as reality. Are you perhaps projecting?
Krychek, the side that you are running interference for in this post has constantly aggressed against gun rights. And nothing like the retaliation that Kavanaugh just received was ever done. Do you think it ought to have been?
As I told Bob, the mere fact that I point it out doesn't mean I approve of it. I don't approve of violence and intimidation as a political tactic. Even though historically they pretty much always have been.
But your comparison isn't apples to apples anyway. I'm not sure how you define "constantly aggressed," but in point of fact gun rights are safe. It would take a total sea change in our political life for there to be any genuine threat to gun rights.
Unlike abortion, in which there is a very real likelihood that the right is about to disappear.
I think you're confusing the rope that's being tugged on not moving, for there not being a tug of war going on. What you're looking at is a stasis arrived at by two evenly matched forces doing their utmost to move things. That's NOT peace, and not stable in the long run.
Not sure I entirely agree, but that would have been true of abortion until relatively recently. The violence was mostly on the side of anti-abortion radicals shooting abortion providers and firebombing abortion clinics because they couldn't win in the legal sphere. Then once the dynamic shifted and it appears that they will win in the legal sphere, the intimidation and violence have switched sides. Because violence is what you do if you're not winning in the legal and political arenas.
At this point, the Second Amendment absolutists are pretty much firmly in control of Congress and the Supreme Court (at least to the extent necessary to prevent any meaningful gun control). And I'm really not seeing much violence on the other side; nobody has shot up the NRA headquarters, or the Republican senators keeping gun reform from happening. But I'll bet if that rope started to move in the direction of meaningful gun control, there would be violence, and lots of it, from the gun fanatics.
Gun controllers have, historically, engaged in enough violence. It's just that they delegate it to people wearing badges.
Well, people don't typically dirty their own hands punishing people who commit crimes against them; that's why we have the police and the courts. But if you seriously think the police and the courts are analogous to a mob then you've completely lost it.
I think the police and courts are perfectly analogous to a well organized mob. Government is just a highly evolved form of protection racket. Violence doesn't stop being violence just because you wear a badge.
You believe that, Mr. Bellmore, because you are an autistic misfit who hates modern America (because of all of this damned progress, reason, tolerance, modernity, science, inclusiveness, etc.).
And "violence" is morally neutral; context determines whether it's good or bad. Killing an al Quaeda terrorist just as he was getting ready to drop a dirty bomb on Manhattan? Violence good. Shooting up a Texas elementary school? Violence bad.
And the central flaw in your argument is that you consistently make category errors. Your analysis begins and ends with "violence". Even though my two examples both involved violence, they are not morally equivalent and they actually have very little to do with one another.
Your analogy of government to a protection racket ignores the differences between the two. If you think about it long enough I'm sure it will come to you.
Good lord, Brett, this is like sophomore stuff.
Well organized mob is an oxy moron.
And government isn't just about protection. Just ask the Ancient Greeks, for whom civics was become an independent virtue, not a payment to a boss.
You're better than this babby's first libertarianism nonsense.
Fine, don't pay your taxes. You'll find out fast enough who you were paying to be protected from.
Ah yes, taxation is robbery. Takes me back to college.
Just because the government's tools include force doesn't mean the are a protection racket. Lots of things use force but aren't a protection racket.
What bizarre hyperventilation.
Although, of course, I'm sure our ever-empathetic fuzzy-headed author naturally has *just as much* concern for each and every woman whose lives will be "turned upside down" by this decision.
What a pathetic example is a “what about”? Women who can keep their legs closed, or use some other type of birth control, won’t have an issue with how their lives will be turned upside down. As for the rest - maybe a little self control will come in handy. Or move to New York or California.
That all aside - try not to bend yourself into too much of a pretzel justifying the attempted murder of a sitting USSC judge.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Jane's Revenge, a pro-choice terrorist organization that's been going around firebombing pro-choice offices and counseling centers. And is threatening a bloodbath if Roe really is overturned.
The Justices in the majority of that decision, and their families, will need to be guarded for years against that threat.
We should all pray for the safety of Justice Kavanaugh
What does he need prayer for? Surely he has a massive arsenal just like any other hot-blooded American who is afraid of his life?
Jesus, what patent stupidity.
I agree. But not my stupidity.
So now citizens utilizing "Second Amendment Solutions" is supposed to be a bad thing? What happened??
Didn't you hear? You're only supposed to use those guns to rebel against a tyrannical government if it's tyrannical in a liberal way.
I'm always impressed with out quickly the Federal Class bootlickers can put away their fainting couches.
Dude, you're literally licking the boots of Brett Kavanaugh right now. How could you possibly be more "Federal Class" than that?
Can you quote me where I'm doing what you claim?
Every one of your comments on this article. Maybe you could explain why someone who hates the "Federal Class" - so much so that that's all they ever say - feels the need to go to bat for Brett Kavanaugh?
It’s remarkably easy to search this thread and discover that you are not telling any form of “truth”. You probably ought to confine those kinds of untruths to situations where the actual data isn’t so easily checked.
OTOH, this could be kind of ruse and you’re only _pretending_ to be a dim liar, for the lolz.
Serious question, are you one of those mongoloids?
How is taking it to the Federal Class and their bootlickers sucking up to BK?
You aren't "taking it to" anyone. You're an idiot impotently bloviating on the internet; nothing more. The only person actually taking action against any member of your so-called "Federal Class" is this would-be assassin.
It’s Dutch. It knows tulips, garbage-filled canals, and a certain peculiar sense of European superiority - peculiar, in that its country was occupied by a tyrannical government within living memory.
A *right-wing* tyrannical government, you may recall.
You need quotation marks around "liberal." Real liberals aren't interested in tyranny. Fascists are. And yes, using guns against a tyrannical government is something people should do. our Founders did it. Here's hoping we'll never have to.
Real liberals aren't interested in tyranny.
Well, no. But you may have noticed that these days remarkably many people feel tyrannised by something someone else does that doesn't affect them in any way.
Who do you think you're quoting about "Second Amendment solutions"?
Most prominently the undisputed leader of your political movement, Donald J. Trump, said this:
"“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
But he's certainly not alone - many right wing politicians have stated that they believe the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to use force against a government they view as tyrannical.
So you misquoted him. Intentionally?
"Akshually he never said solutions, that's 167 pinocchios! You've been owned and deboonked"
Is there a particular point to this pedantic bullshit? Are you seriously disputing that most conservatives, from Trump on down, have contended that the Second Amendment protects the right to use violence against the government?
"Right wing politicians" like the Founding Fathers. Read the Federalist Papers sometime, ignorant cretin.
So you're saying it was self defense?
We do not know the majority opinion was finished in February. We know five justices voted to uphold the abortion restriction and Alito wanted to overrule Roe in the process.
Oh wait.
You mean Josh is making shit up again?
"We know five justices voted to uphold the abortion restriction and Alito wanted to overrule Roe in the process."
Technically, we know that Alito wanted to overrule Roe, and we have anonymous sources saying there were five votes to uphold the restriction.
But I don't count anonymous sources as very reliable.
The fact that Alito's draft was labeled the opinion of the Court suggests that four other Justices were in agreement.
Well, either that or it was a draft that aspired to reflect the view of at least five Justices.
DavidBehar still hasn't disclaimed this incident. Are we sure he wasn't involved? And even if he wasn't, I need reassurances he won't pull such behavior on us now.
Oh, cool, a new QA/LTG-grade sock puppet account to mute! Buh bye.
It would be entertaining if Kavanaugh had already caved, before this event.
I suspect that, if any of the justices in the majority had already caved, you'd have had that per curium order, announcing that Roe was safe. In order to lift the threats.
I think they're planning on having the fecal matter hit the rotary impeller on the last day, seconds before they escape via helicopter.
Josh - either you're plainly lying about what's known about the Dobbs opinion, or you're privy to facts that you shouldn't be privy to and have inartfully tipped your hand here.
Which kind of idiot are you?
How? What individual point did he make that was a lie? And no, your feelings being hurt doesn’t mean he lied.
Nothing would enhance the legitimacy of the Court like a one-sentence order, opinion to follow, overruling Roe v. Wade.
As John McEnroe said to the umpire, "You cannot be serious."
Well that Roe decision was a beauty wasn't it?
Yeah, nothing enhances the legitimacy of the Court like "finding" (more like inventing) fake rights.
It's nice to see that you agree with Prof. Blackman about the proper course of action, but your argument would be stronger if you actually elaborated it.
No, it's two sentences. The second being, "Opinion to follow."
IIRC, the Court has done this in the past.
Yes, the last time was when they signed off on killing some POWs.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1534371941133459456
"According to the Washington Post, the would-be-assassin was angry about the leaked opinion in Dobbs."
No comments allowed on this article in the Post. Probably because the majority of their commentariat would have been rooting for the would-be-assassin, and that wouldn't look good.
Look, the WaPo has got other online-comment-monitoring work to do right now, and they can't add more to their workload.
When their reporters work out their middle-school drama, they'll get back around to looking at reader comments.
Our society has normalized threats and violence against judges to intimidate them into making rulings in their favor. It is a sign of civic breakdown and moral decay.
"We should all pray for the safety of Justice Kavanaugh, as well as the other Justices."
Does that really work?
If so, can you pray that I get a boat. . . a big boat?!?
And give my regards to the Big Kahuna too (just in case).
Thanks.
The lives of Supreme Court Justices are always at risk.
Calling on them to issue decisions based on threats is a call to cowardice.
It is craven. It is unAmercian.
A person issuing such a call is no gentleman.
But we already knew that.
I doubt the risk of harm is greater before the opinion is released compared to after. I think the risk you're really worried about is a death causing a 4-4 deadlock.
The productivity of the court is at an all-time low. We ought to have a lot more decisions on a lot of cases.
"Think of the lives of the poor justices!" but never mind the lives of thousands of women this will impact each year. Forget about the fact that this opens up a new "war on drugs" against abortifacients and the effect that will also have on women. I guess with the legalization of pot, we need some other way to fill the prisons.
But "Oh! Those poor justices!"
So the end justifies the means? You sure you don’t want to delete this comment?
We know that *a proposed* majority opinion was circulated. We know that 5 justices appear to be willing to uphold a 15 week ban on abortions. We don't know whether there are 5 votes for fully overturning Roe and Casey, as Alito's leaked opinion proposes. At the end of the day, Justice Alito's leaked opinion may end up being a mere *concurring* opinion.
#giveThemTimeToHashItOut
" At the end of the day, Justice Alito's leaked opinion may end up being a mere *concurring* opinion. "
Not so long from now, Justice Alito's opinions are likely to be nothing more than a seething series of bitter, impotent dissents.
If change of government ideology by assassination is a current issue, we should also modify the statute on Presidential succession, for #3 and #4. Currently, after the Vice President (#2), we have the Speaker of the House (#3) and the Senate Majority leader (#4). That works fine now when all four posts are controlled by the same party. But suppose we were talking about a shift, eg. from Trump and Pence in 2019 to Pelosi, or Biden and Harris in 2023 to Kevin McCarthy. If a President-by-assassination were to push partisan change too far, he could spark civil war.
(2) This danger could easily be avoided if an elected President were given the *option* to name Congressional leaders of his own party as #3 and #4. Nixon may have been thinking in such terms when he nominated House Minority leader Gerald Ford as VP replacement for the disgraced Spiro Agnew.
TIL some people don't know what a proper noun is.
You mean when Obama tried to blame terrorism on free speech?
The titles of movies ARE proper nouns, yes.
It isn't a "partisan dodge" when that is what happened as an attempt to cover up terrorist at Benghazi.
The word of the day is "partisan" I guess. ha
And you expected him to mention that? I'm not saying violence is restricted to one side, I'm just saying I was surprised he didn't mention them, since they're relevant and in the news.
None. For any other ignorant statements to make?
Yes, "extremist kinds of talk" is a problem:
“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you." - Chuck Schumer
Too many people have their entire life and identity wrapped up in this ridiculous issue. No change in timing is going to stop the crazy from coming out of the woodwork.
I respectfully disagree. The (unusual) existence of a pre-confirmed replacement Justice makes the assignation strategy much more likely to succeed, as the "pro-choice" side will argue she can immediately step in and vote.
Without the leak, we wouldn't know that the court was leaning towards overturning Roe, meaning there is a good chance (given the number of times in the past that Roe prevailed) that Roe would continue to prevail. But the leak changes that calculation - the court is leaning towards overturning Roe, but its not final until the opinion is published. Thus, if one of the justices were removed from the board, Roe would remain in play (because a 4-4 opinion doesn't count as precedent). Once the opinion is published, Roe is gone - removing a justice from the board doesn't bring Roe back.
So right now, after the leaked draft, but before the opinion on Dobbs is published, the justices are most at greatest risk from a deranged lunatic. Issuing a per curium ruling deciding Dobbs, whether its for upholding Roe or overturning it, gets rid of an incentive for bumping off a justice.
What a great point Queenie.
Ooh! Aren't you clever? You've uncovered the plot!
She wasn't part of the oral arguments. Does that not keep her out of the voting?
What, pray tell, the fuck are you talking about?
So you're betting he will be held in solitary without bail while his trial is delayed for over a year?
I'll take that bet.
The assassin was a male feminist running dog from California. He was woke, Queenie. Woke is just being nice to people.
This just backs up what I am saying - right wing protesters equal dangerous and a threat to democracy. Where left wing protesters either just don't get the coverage or it is always framed as being pro-democracy and "we need to listen". Just look at the difference from the Wisconsin capitol takeover and the Michigan one. (Note before you start complaining about guns, they were legally carried and the organizers had permits for their protest. In WI, the protesters illegally occupied, and trashed, the capitol building).
I thought it might have been a reference to it.
It's like "clinger" is to the Rev. Like a parrot
Keep going Kavanaugh and pink hats too.
I think the fact they hired an actual "producer" to direct the hearings and moved them to prime time in the evening is a pretty good indicator that it is a commercial for the DNC and not a legitimate Congressional investigation.
I never thought of that Queenie. Thank you.
Mostly peaceful too right? Ha
Protesting a judges home to intimidate is also illegal doofus.
Thank God that there are hundreds of other channels.
IMNSHO, this is fundamentally a huge fund raiser for the Democrats.
I'm betting millions of fund raiser e-mails will be timed to go out mid and post showtime; "Send $3, $5 or $10 right now to help us fight this violent insurgency and save Democracy." Feh!
Liz Cheney will announce she's switching parties either on camera tonight or tomorrow AM. She'll still get beaten like a rented mule, but that will be the media lede. As proof of how horrible the J6 "Deadly Insurgency" was.
Other than Ashli Babbit, and a cop that died of a heart attack in his office days later, still waiting on that list of the "deadly" part.
That's a great retort, Queenie.
DavidBehar, it took you a suspiciously long time to check in with us in the comments. Usually the first several posts are you.
Are you OK? Are you involved in the incident (for instance, did you commit it)? Can you please provide assurances you aren't going to commit such incidents against any of us?
"Thus, if one of the justices were removed from the board, Roe would remain in play (because a 4-4 opinion doesn't count as precedent)."
Depends on whether somebody screws up and removes one of the 4 in the impending 5/4 decision; 5/3 decisions certainly are precedential.
Obviously Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer are safe, but Roberts might be sweating right now over somebody thinking he's part of the majority.
I was accused of killing an Ivy indoctrinated law prof. He expelled me from PrawfsBlawg blog over the objections of his co-owners. Turns out his brother in law ordered the hit, after a divorce hassle. I do not want to kill the lawyer. I want to debate the lawyer. The problem? I could not understand a word of his Harvard talk. I attended a conference with him. I asked another speaker in the back of the room what he had just said. The other speaker just rolled his eyes.
I did write to Trump to choose Barrett not Kavanaugh, an Ivy indoctrinated lawyer, born and raised inside the Beltway. Had Trump listened to me, the country could have been spared the drama. Kavanaugh will be another Kennedy. Appointed as a conservative, but a big government, Beltway elitist.
Thank you for replying. I was very worried about you when I clicked on the comments and saw so many posts that weren't by you.
Just to be clear, you've only ever been accused of one murder?
Did you do it?
There is no "rule." The D's will say no, the R's will say yes. The media will side with the D's.
Honestly, you're worse.
Dishonestly, keep up the great work! Love what a good job you're doing!
Wait.
You were complaining about "time to track down." Having been shown to be full of shit, you've shifted.
Who exactly are you alluding to and what facts of the case are you deliberately leaving out because you're a lying sack of shit?
This attempted assassination is a political crime. As was the leak that caused it. As was the Hillary campaign giving a fake dossier to the FBI.
Your reply is goofy enough to not take seriously. I think you do not know what you are talking about. If you think you do, a more serious answer would be helpful.
I love Queenie. So well spoken.
I thought for a moment he meant the newly confirmed justice, slotted for Breyer's seat, would just fill in, except that makes no sense for a second vacancy; or would an assassination be the first vacancy, and Breyer's retirement be the second? Which would the justice-in-waiting fill, as if it made a difference in the job title?
Anyway, I too do not know what he is blathering about.
He should receive zero cash bail. Queenie, isn't that woke?
No, I think he clearly did mean that: Since there's a Justice nominee who's already confirmed, he thinks she'd just drop into place if one of the existing justices was murdered.
For all I know, it might even work that way, has the circumstance come up before?
I'm not aware of any Justice being assassinated before. The closest I can think of is Roberts was originally announced to replace O'Connor but, when Rehnquist passed away, he was nominated for that position instead, which was a less controversial replacement.
No, it absolutely does not work that way: Jackson was appointed specifically to replace Breyer. In the unfortunate event that another vacancy arises in the next few weeks, Biden will need to nominate someone else (someone who, presumably, will be just as strongly in favor of Roe as Jackson is).
The mostly peaceful protestors in Portland were locked up right way. And then released to do it again next day. So no still valid comparison. Split some more hairs.
Chief and Associate Justices are separate jobs that require a separate confirmation (just like when an associate justice is nominated for promotion to Chief). But all associate justices have the same job, they're not nominated (or confirmed) for a specific job. So I don't see why Judge Jackson couldn't take any other seat than Breyer's, if a vacancy should occur through unfortunate circumstances.
That was about what I was thinking.
No, all federal judges are absolutely and unquestionably nominated and appointed for a specific job.
Just like BLM rioters were not threatening anyone, right? They were just "protesting"....
Was the leaker a liberal seeking to cause havoc or a conservative striving to preserve Alito's majority for sweet infant baby Jesus, you bigoted, obsolete culture war casualty?
Open wider, Ed Grinberg.
Exact same train of thought I had, and I concur with the result…
Superstition is for gullible children of all ages, including a surprising number of ostensible adults.
He could nominate Jackson and the senate could skip the hearings.
What is your legal basis for that claim? The reason why someone was nominated for a certain office or judgeship might be relevant politically, but legally it isn't.
Case in point: Lina Khan was nominated and confirmed to be an FTC Commissioner. As soon as she was confirmed, she was bumped up to FTC Chair. No one thought that required a new nomination.
🙂 In my enthusiasm, I typed one too many jobs. What I meant to say is that they're not nominated for a specific seat, like the seat previously/currently held by Justice X or Y.