SCOTUS on Friday: "The Court Will Convene for a Public Non-Argument Session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m."

What does this notation mean?

On days when the Supreme Court will issue an opinion, the calendar on the site announces, "The Court may announce opinions, which are posted on the homepage after announcement from the Bench."

I checked the Court's calendar this morning, and there is a different notation for Friday, 2/16:

The Court will convene for a public non-argument session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m.
Seating for the non-argument session will be provided to the public, members of the Supreme Court Bar, and press. The Supreme Court Building will otherwise be closed to the public.

This probably means an opinion handdown will be posted at some point soon.

What will it be? The Section 3 case? As a rule of thumb, the earlier the Section 3 case comes, the more likely it is unanimous, or something close to it.

Comments

[Jerry B.]

Going to be interesting to see how the Democrats color this as a MAGA ruling when it’s unanimous (or almost) in Trump’s favor.

[Krychek_2]

You are aware that the litigation to keep Trump off the ballot was brought by Republicans, right? The mainline GOP wants to be rid of Trump almost as much as the Democrats do.

And speaking as a Democrat, I always thought the idea of suing to keep him off the ballot was a silly one, so if that's how the Court rules, I'm not going to have to "color" it at all. In fact, that's how I'd vote if I were on the Court.

[Mr. Bumble]

For "mainline" substitute RINO and you'd be more accurate.

[Krychek_2]

Right, they're not true Scotsmen.

And I think the current working definition of RINO is a Republican not affiliated with the totally-batshit-crazy wing of the party.

[Mr. Bumble]

The "totally batshit crazy wing" that gave Trump 74 million of their votes in 2020?

[Krychek_2]

Not all 74 million of them. Different people have different reasons for how they vote. But the totally batshit crazy wing is at present running the GOP asylum.

And although I'm a Democrat, I think the country benefits from having competitive parties run by sane, rational people with honest differences on what is good policy. So it is my sincere hope that the GOP works the batshit crazy out of its system sooner rather than later. Trump getting his butt kicked in November would be a start.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which "totally batshit-crazy" wing happens to be about 80% of the party, so, yeah, even if they're truly Scotsmen, they're at least renegade Scotsmen.

The GOP has long been dominated at the top by people who seriously disagreed with the party base on a lot of issues. Trump was the wrecking ball to bust them loose from that position, and they're not at all happy about that, still think they can retake the party if they can just get rid of him.

[Krychek_2]

80% of the party? So that explains why, i.e., the GOP extremist position on abortion loses when it's put on the ballot in red states.

[Josh R]

Is the GOP base the party of Bannon (economic nationalism, i.e., isolationism and tariffs) or the party of Trump (projecting him as knight in shining armor to address grievances, whatever they may be)?

[Randal]

This is totally true. Ever since the Republicans made a Faustian bargain with the Moral Majority / Family Research Council / Christian Coalition in the 80s, the Republican elites have been basically lying to their new base in order to win the votes of dumb people who don’t know better. Turns out those people like it even more when they’re not lied to... or at least, when the lies are lies about facts rather than lies about policy. Which is what Bannon and Trump figured out.

There’s no going back until all those people figure out that it’s an impossible dream, being completely detached from reality. That may never happen, owing to their aforementioned dumbness.

[Brett Bellmore]

Going back further than that.

There was this long period from 1933-1994 where the Democrats had almost uninterrupted dominance in Congress. You had a couple periods after WWI where the Republicans had narrow Congressional majorities for a couple years at a time, and from '81-'87 they had a Senate majority, but aside from that?

Sixty long years of one party rule.

Imagine you're a Republican member of Congress during that period. NOTHING passes if the Democrats don't want it. NOTHING. And you've got to do SOMETHING for your constituents!

Small wonder that a kind of Stockholm syndrome set in; The GOP at the federal level came to be dominated by Republicans who could suck up to Democrats. For a couple generations, it was the only way Republicans could get anything in Washington!

Then the Democrats' wall of gerrymandering bursts in a wave election in '94, and suddenly the GOP finds itself in control of both chambers for 6 long years, and generally competitive even after then as the last of the Jim Crow Democrats die out in the South.

But they can't govern, they don't know how to govern, their every spinal reflex is to suck up to Democrats, that's all they know. So that's what they do.

And their voters finally realize what's been going on, that their Congressmen are mostly just Democrat lite.

It's been a civil war in the GOP ever since, the Republican base trying to wrest control of the national party from Republicans who are more in agreement with the Democrats than with their voters.

[Randal]

It’s been a civil war in the GOP ever since, the Republican base trying to wrest control of the national party from Republicans who are more in agreement with the Democrats than with their voters.

Replace “the Democrats” with “reality” and we’re saying the same thing.

It’s hard to be a Republican politician. I get it. You have to either go against your voters and accept reality, like Cheney, or do what your voters do and ignore reality, like MTG.

[Michael P]

It's hard to believe people might disagree with you in good faith. I get it. But you're just proving that when leftists disagree with Republicans, it's because the leftists act in bad faith.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only a Democrat would think that "Democrat" and "Reality" are interchangeable.

[Randal]

Not true. Republican and Democratic politicians used to agree about reality and disagree on policy. Only since the rise of MAGA have they started disagreeing about reality.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"And their voters finally realize what’s been going on, that their Congressmen are mostly just Democrat lite.

It’s been a civil war in the GOP ever since, the Republican base trying to wrest control of the national party from Republicans who are more in agreement with the Democrats than with their voters."

Does this fiction come in paperback and hardcover? It's remarkable how you can conjure up such bullshit out of your mouth to justify anything you don't like.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I just invented the notion of a GOP civil war.

US New and World Reports: Tar Heel Lessons in the GOP Civil War

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Then the Democrats’ wall of gerrymandering bursts in a wave election in ’94, and suddenly the GOP finds itself in control of both chambers for 6 long years, and generally competitive even after then as the last of the Jim Crow Democrats die out in the South.

But they can’t govern, they don’t know how to govern, their every spinal reflex is to suck up to Democrats, that’s all they know. So that’s what they do."

Seems to me that you were talking about the 2000's, unless I'm wrong in thinking that 1994+6 would result in that value?

Lift those goalposts with your legs, not your back!

[David Nieporent]

The thing that makes Brett's narrative doubly bullshit is that he glosses over the fact that the parties weren't ideologically sorted for most of that time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We are trying to purge them just like FDR purged the Jacksonian Democrats in 1933.

[Jerry B.]

"You are aware that the litigation to keep Trump off the ballot was brought by Republicans"

Yep. And there are a lot of Democrats who think Biden shouldn't be on the ballot. Want to guess how that will turn out, barring a complete breakdown on Biden's part?

[Krychek_2]

Have any Democrats actually filed lawsuits seeking to keep Biden off the ballot?

[Jerry B.]

Not yet. Could see some movement for applying the 25th Amendment if he gets much worse.

[Krychek_2]

If he has a legitimate physical breakdown, invoking the 25th Amendment would be reasonable; that's why it's there. But he might not; he's six years younger than the current pope. And I would prefer that he not be my party's nominee; my personal choice would be Gavin Newsom.

But all of that is just you changing the subject. The litigation we're actually discussing was brought by Republicans, so don't try to blame the Democrats for it, or crow too much if the Supreme Court does indeed shut it down.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...my personal choice would be Gavin Newsom. "
So replace an incompetent old fool with an incompetent young fool?
Wonder how Kamala feels about that.

[Krychek_2]

I don't actually care how Kamala feels about that; he would clearly be a stronger candidate than she would, and that is fairly high on the priorities list. I think either Harris or Newsom handily beats Trump; the only reason the race is even close is because of Biden's personal unpopularity among swing voters. With a strong Democratic candidate, Trump loses and takes the GOP House with him.

Oh, and "incompetent" does not mean "you disagree with his policies." In terms of getting stuff done, Biden has been one of our most effective recent presidents. It's just stuff you mostly don't like.

[Brett Bellmore]

Newsom's problem is that winning in modern California requires taking positions that are toxic in the rest of the country. He's got a record in California that it's going to be hard running away from, even with all the help most media outlets would gladly give him.

[Krychek_2]

More toxic than Trump threatening to pull us out of NATO? More toxic than the GOP abortion bans that keep losing every time they're on the ballot?

People living in the Ohio River Valley may not agree with Newsom on this or that issue, but all voters rank the issues they care about, and those aren't the issues people actually vote on. If Newsom runs, they will see an intelligent, articulate, thoughtful and rational person, in contrast with the Trump shitshow, who doesn't happen to be under 91 indictments. Again, the only reason this race is even close is because of Biden's personal unpopularity. Replace him on the ballot and that issue -- which is pretty much the only issue the GOP has -- goes away.

[Brett Bellmore]

More toxic than Trump threatening to pull out of NATO if they didn't fulfill their treaty requirements? Yeah, more toxic than that. Ordinary people can perfectly well understand threats to pull out of a bargain that's being violated.

" If Newsom runs, they will see an intelligent, articulate, thoughtful and rational person,"

Well, we agree about that, because that's what the media will report, regardless of the facts. The question is whether they'll be able to keep his nutty, appeals only to Californians side hidden.

They'll surely attempt it, but will they succeed?

[David Nieporent]

There are no such "treaty requirements," Brett. Trump lied to you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Tell us just what "stuff" has the Biden administration done.

[Krychek_2]

Bumble, we had this identical conversation a month or two ago. I said that Biden had accomplished a lot, you asked what he has done, I gave a bunch of examples, and you proceeded to ignore them and continue to make the claim that he's an ineffectual president. Well, I'm not going to repeat myself. Try googling "what has Biden accomplished" and see what pops up.

Just to make it easy for you, start here:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/02/joe-biden-30-policy-things-you-might-have-missed-00139046

[Mr. Bumble]

From the sub headline:
"Drone armies, expanded overtime pay and over-the-counter birth control pills are just some of the new things Biden has ushered in as president that you might not have heard about."

...but what would you expect from Politico.

Also, you assume I saw your post "from a month or two ago".
It wouldn't be so hard to name a few accomplishments that you thought were important.

[Magister]

Among his many accomplishments, three stand out for even being popular with Republicans: lowering drug costs (and capping the price of insulin), the infrastructure bill, and the CHIPS and Science Act.

Republicans hate to acknowledge that he presided over the economic recovery from the disastrous crater the previous Republican administration left it in; same as every Democratic president I've ever voted for has had to do.

Just averting government shutdowns despite the lunatic bomb throwers in charge of the House is actually impressive.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They are not Republicans -- they are the cadre who seized the party 30 years ago and who we have beet trying to rid ever since.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's silly. They've been in control of the party for a lot longer than 30 years; All that happened 30 years ago was that they were exposed. The dog caught the car, Both chambers of Congress ended up with solid Republican majorities, and they contrived to lose anyway.

It's a lot easier to take a plausible dive when you're in the minority.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like the Ukraine aid vote.
Border security can wait.

[Darth Buckeye]

The plaintiffs are putative Republicans. The parties funding the litigation and providing the legal support are all Democrat aligned.

[FivebySixThree]

His influence is one reason both Senator seats in Georgia flipped and his damage is broad reaching across many offices. The sooner the Republicans are done with him the better. He is the best thing to happen to Democrats since Obama.

[Greg J]

Oh, bullshit

Both Senate seats in GA flipped because McConnell had the "Republican controlled Senate" pass a Democrat "Covid bill" a week before the election.

One that gave the Democrats and their billionaires massive $$$, and jack shit to normal people.

So, having established that a "Republican controlled Senate" wouldn't actually DO anything for normal voters, normal voters didn't bother to get out and vote.

That one's entirely on the GOP Establishment

[Brett Bellmore]

Conservative activists have noticed that the GOP establishment abandons seats where challengers win the primary since that first became a common thing back in the 90's. They'd actually rather be in control of the minority party, than lose control of the majority party, and not helping non-establishment primary winners in the general election is a way of keeping that control.

Although, the recent financial disclosures suggest it may just be a matter of winning elections not being in general a RNC priority.

[tylertusta]

… litigation to keep Trump off the ballot was brought by Republicans

Not quite. Some of the plaintiffs were actually independents.

But to call anyone “Republican” for these purposes is kinda meaningless in a state with open party registration. If I were a Colorado Dem, I could change my party affiliation online through the Secretary of State to Republican and that would give me standing to sue over the GOP primary instantly.

When your “Republican” voters have their litigation paid for and supported by a Democrat-run lobbying firm and their affiliated law firms, it’s obvious that this isn’t a genuine “Republicans don’t want Trump” effort.

[MaddogEngineer]

I think she was a lifelong Republican. It doesn't matter legally. We're a country of 300+ million people. A contrarian can always be found. Democrats were not interesting in hearing from any life-long Democrat offended by Bill Clinton's womanizing.

[MaddogEngineer]

So what?

I'm a Never Trumper, but I'm also not convinced by Bill Kristol's whining that Trump requires everyone to vote for all Democrats. Actual right of center people are not stupid to be convinced that something is correct because a "Republican" says it is.

No Democrat was convinced when some of John Kerry's military compatriots were against him. It's all so exhausting.

[Kazinski]

CREW was backing the whole thing.

If I found 10 Democrats who were willing to file suit under some absurd 25th Amendment theory that Biden had to be replaced, that Was funded by ALEC would you claim the mainline dems want to be rid of Biden as much as I do?

Lets at least try be honest in our arguments.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bush v Gore was 7-2 on the merits, and they still paint that to this day as a total conservative hack job.

So I'm sure even if it's unanimous they'll find some excuse.

[Josh R]

It was 5-4 on the effect (stopping the counting).

[Brett Bellmore]

And it was 7-2 on the merits: That the count was being conducted in an unconstitutional manner.

Two, and only two, of the justices thought that there was still time to conduct a constitutional recount if you ignored the safe harbor date, and ran right up to the day the EC was supposed to vote.

[Josh R]

The "merits" include what the court's final order is, and only 5 signed on to that. Four justices said there could be time.

[Magister]

That the Supreme Court blocked the counting and then exalted the safe harbor deadline over actually finding out who won the election is not really reaching the merits. If any of Trump's many election challenges (which were all promptly decided) had been delayed past January 6th or 20th and then declared moot because of the delay, he might have actually had a legitimate complaint (but of course not a justification for insurrection).

[MaddogEngineer]

Not sure if you're criticizing SCOTUS exalting the safe harbor deadline, but that's exactly the same thing that legally sunk Trump's stolen election nonsense. It doesn't matter what additional vote count changes happen after that date, the electors vote are final according to federal law.

It was true for Al Gore. It remained true for Donald Trump.

There is no (court) recourse under federal law to revisit the circumstances of the electors appointment past the safe harbor date. Congress's counting duty is to ascertain that the votes have been cast according to the law and properly transmitted to the seat of government by the prescribed date.

[Magister]

Congress could accept electoral votes provided after the safe harbor date, as they did in 1961. And they could also consider objections to states that met the safe harbor deadline, although none of those objections has ever been upheld. Certainly Republicans iin 2000 wanted to exalt the safe harbor deadline, and equally certainly Republicans wanted to disregard it for the 2020 election.

The merits should be who actually got more votes. If different recounting methods were unconstitutional violations of equal protection, why weren't different voting methods also? There may not have been a remedy to a badly run election, and Gore accepted the result (as did the Senate; no Senator challenged the Florida result). The Supreme Court stopped any counting and ran out the clock on the assumption that Florida would want to meet the safe harbor deadline (as the Republicans who controlled the state would undoubtedly have wanted to do). But gloating over the merits in such a case is more than a little unseemly, especially from defenders of Trump.

[MaddogEngineer]

Don’t recognize your handle enough to tell whether you're a Trump person or a Democrat. Because that answer could be from either one.

Mostly your response ignored the particulars of what I said previously. I put “court” in parentheses because that is what the safe harbor provision definitely binds, lawsuits. Of course Congress can do what it wants after that, but in theory it too is also bound by the safe harbor provision, albeit unenforceable by any court. The election of 1876 really did happen and caused a chance in the law.

If you can’t discern a difference between a disparate recount approach for all votes cast versus casting votes via different voting methods (machine/paper), I can’t help you grasping at straws.

SCOTUS stopped selective recounting, not all recounting. That’s because according to its decision any results would have been invalid/less accurate, not more, from a legal perspective. It did not “run out the clock”, because the clock had already practically expired because there was not enough time to do a full recount and meet the safe harbor deadline. Which really is a thing, no matter how much you might want to discount its legal significance. Gore’s mistake was not asking for a full recount from the beginning. But his goal was not to obtain a correct overall count, but find enough votes to win. So they went looking for them where it seemed likely to find them.

[Magister]

It doesn’t matter what additional vote count changes happen after that date, the electors vote are final according to federal law.

Nothing there about courts only, even if you qualified it later.

Congress’s counting duty is to ascertain that the votes have been cast according to the law and properly transmitted to the seat of government by the prescribed date.

That's not accurate; there are specific provisions for objections, as were made to two states in 2021 (more were intended, I expect, based on the fake elector schemes, but sympathetic members of Congress were probably too embarrassed by Trump's insurrection). Both those states met the safe harbor deadline.

SCOTUS stopped selective recounting, not all recounting.

They halted a state wide recount which could have been completed before the safe harbor deadline. It's not at all clear that a uniform process would not have been reached, even before the safe harbor deadline. The Florida Republicans wanted the safe harbor deadline because it would favor Bush, not because there was any intrinsic virtue to it (while no Senator joined an objection to Florida, my recollection is that this was in large part due to a 50-50 split in the Senate, and Democrats settled for more in the Senate rules than they might have gotten, rather than an objection that would not have been sustained).

Not a Trump supporter, although I do think Trump should be on the ballot even though he is an insurrectionist.

[Kazinski]

Not to mention that Steven dissent in stopping the count proposed the designation of an alternate slate of electors so Congress could have more time to investigate and choose the slate that represented the ultimate winner.

"In the interest of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent–and are therefore legal votes under state law–but were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines. It does so on the basis of the deadlines set forth in Title 3 of the United States Code. Ante, at 11. But, as I have already noted, those provisions merely provide rules of decision for Congress to follow when selecting among conflicting slates of electors. Supra, at 2. They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined. Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines."

It will be interesting what the Supreme Court makes of the fake/alternative electors scheme if it ever gets before them, it will be worth noting if they decide Stevens was advocating something that could be construed a felony. Stevens dissent will certainly be brought up.

[MaddogEngineer]

Yes indeed, Justice Stevens definitely being a noted/suspected insurrectionist.

This is just another corollary of the Washington definition of bipartisanship (compromising by doing whatever Democrats want).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you seem an excellent candidate to explain the hackish right-wing practice you just practiced when you wrote this:

Bush v Gore was 7-2 on the merits, and they still paint that to this day as a total conservative hack job.

It was not a merits decision. It was an order to stop counting votes. An order predicated on an explicitly stated need to protect Bush from harm to his presidential legitimacy if vote counting indeed turned out bad for Bush.

There was time to complete a statewide recount prior to the federal deadline to report a result. The Court could have ordered a statewide recount. It found reason instead to honor a conflicting shorter deadline, and thus hand Bush the election—without anyone knowing, one way or the other, whether he had been elected.

Why did the Court do that? It was discovered years later, by an enterprising FL newspaper—in Tampa, if memory serves—that the count of alleged, “undervotes”—meaning ballots cast that had initially been disqualified for one reason or another—included a subcategory of so-called “overvotes”—meaning ballots on which a candidate’s name had been properly marked, but with the same name also written in—a formal reason to disqualify the ballot. But, as was happening in actuality, not a reason which passed scrutiny in a manual recount, where the intent of a voter who marked a ballot twice for the same candidate could be plainly discerned, and add one vote to the count.

Experience during the partial recount had already shown that for some reason those overvote twice-marked ballots notably favored Gore. That made it look like Gore was headed for victory if the count were completed. Hence the order to stop counting to, “protect,” Bush.

I have read that analysis statewide (done I think by that same newspaper) showed Gore would have won had a statewide recount been completed, with the net overvote applied in his favor. That seems to be reflected in the Wikipedia article now current on the subject.

But of course the whole issue remains controversial. In some cases it is obvious nonsense to insist that a court decision somehow settled a controversy while proof remains unavailable. But hacks love to do it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It was not a merits decision.

What do you think “merits decision” means?

[Brett Bellmore]

It was 7-2 that the Florida recount was being conducted unconstitutionally, that's what I'm calling the "merits". And 5-4 on what to do about it, the remedy.

[Kazinski]

So by a standard that was not the one ordered by the Florida Supreme Court Gore won?

I thought the newspaper consortium at least had a plausible premise: what would happen if the count according to the standard the Florida Supreme court ordered was followed? And Gore lost.

I don't think there is much dispute that Gore would have won by about 10x Bush's 500 vote margin if there was a way to count the butterfly ballots intended for him, but there wasn't any legal way to do so.

I can't see what good it does for a Tampa Bay newspaper to come up with their own cherrypicked method to give Gore the win does. Why don't they just come up with a standard that statistically assigns the butterfly ballots to Gore and claim he won by a 5000 vote landslide? That's just as valid.

[tylertusta]

They're in favor of packing the Court. The only question is how many they want to add today.

A unanimous ruling? +10 Justices.

[Randal]

If we were in favor of packing the court we've packed the court.

[Randal]

Democrats by and large don’t want Colorado to win. We’d definitely lose the election in that case. Plus, it’s not really on brand.

The trouble is, it’s hard to read Section 3 (and Article II) and not conclude that it applies to Trump. So depending on who writes the opinion and how contorted it is, you’re likely to see Democrats taking the opportunity to paint the conservative justices as hypocrites for abandoning originalism when there’s a Republican presidential candidate on the line… again.

One possibility is that Kagan writes a unanimous opinion and it's super anti-federalist. Which would be... funny.

[Greg J]

The trouble is, it’s hard to read Section 3 (and Article II) and not conclude that it applies to Trump

Not if you actually know how to read.

1: Section 3 doesn't cover the presidency, it only covers appointees, and people elected within a single State.

2: It wasn't an insurrection. It was a protest, far less violent than the Democrats' fiery "Summer of love" / BLM riots, and little if any more disruptive than the anti-Kavanaugh protests, the riots on Trump's inauguration, or your average Code Pink disruption.

Of, for that matter, your average fire alarm pulling Democrat's house member's actions.

3: Section 5 clearly puts all power for this in the hands of Congress. You have to be pretty much a full on imbecile to claim that ANYTHING in the 14th Amendment was about giving States more, or new, power.

As Kagan and Roberts both pointed out repeatedly.

So it's a nice try at sounding reasonable, but the problem is that what you're saying is entirely unreasonable and delusional

[Randal]

#1. I'm with you on this, but believe me, it's hard. I think even Josh would agree with that!

#2. Well, insurrections aren't defined by the level of violence or disruption.

#3. Non-sequitur.

So, my statement stands. It's hard to read Section Three (and Article II) and not conclude that it applies to Trump. Possible, but hard.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's easy to read it either way, the problem is going from "Section 3 applies to the Presidency", to "Trump is disqualified by Section 3".

It's in fact quite easy to look at January 6th and not see an insurrection by Trump, even if you concede that some of the yahoos who broke into the Capitol are just as guilty of insurrection as a lot of people in prior years. The problem is, there's just no evidence Trump ordered that break in.

And if you're going to call his plan to have Congress mis-count the electors an "insurrection", then Democrats who tried to get electors to be unfaithful back in 2016 are also guilty of insurrection.

As I keep saying, once you lower the bar for "insurrection" enough that anything Trump did clears it, "insurrection" turns out to be quite common.

[Greg J]

#1. I’m with you on this, but believe me, it’s hard. I think even Josh would agree with that!

Then I disagree with both of you, because no, it's not "hard".
1st: Senators, 2: Representatives, 3: Officers
The listing goes from the least populous to most populous. The idea that they'd just sort of leave President out because it fits in "Officers" is ludicrous.

And the Presidency is voted on the National level, so there was no chance that one of the Confederate traitors would ever win. So there's no need to include it

Finally, the US was founded by violent insurrectionists. Our first and most respected President was a violent insurrectionist. So the idea that they'd leave it to the American people to decide if an "insurrectionist" should be elected President? That's not the least bit far-fetched

[Greg J]

#2. Well, insurrections aren’t defined by the level of violence or disruption.

Sure. Let us know when the DoJ starts prosecuting every single left wing insurrectionist who disrupts or tries to disrupt Congress or a State Legislature in action,

Until then? Bullshit

[Greg J]

#3. Non-sequitur.

Tell it to Kagan. Who's going to be voting to overturn the CO SC on just those grounds

[Randal]

Maybe, but that doesn't mean Section Three doesn't apply to Trump, just that Colorado isn't the right enforcer.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wondering who will write the opinion when it does come down.

[Longtobefree]

A.I.

[MoreCurious]

Today's winner.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for reminding me to think twice about the provenance of any content. (My first thoughts about content are the quick, cursory, probably-all-clear kind that are no longer adequate.)

I'm increasingly having paranoid thoughts, and though they're not a result of mental illness, they sure do feel like mental illness.

[Josh R]

Per curiam or Roberts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you think they could get away with a per curiam decision?

[Josh R]

Why not? Bush v. Gore was.

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, could you define what you think "per curiam" means?

[Josh R]

Sometimes it means unanimous. Other times it means without a noted author (in the name of the court).

[Magister]

The Bush v. Gore decision is labeled "per curiam", meaning not attributed to a specific Justice rather than unanimous. Several other examples exist.

[Kazinski]

Unsigned per curiam almost certainly. However I expect at least a few justices will write separately.

In Bush v Gore the opinion was unsigned, but Rehnquist wrote a concurrence, Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg all wrote dissents.

[Syd Henderson]

Maybe they're having a cocktail party.

[tylertusta]

With the public? That'd be a nice treat.

[Kazinski]

At least they are talking to each other, thats a good sign.

To be fair none of the justices have never seemed to be on board with the idea of the Supreme Court being the partisan forum of last resort, or first resort either.

[DavidOS]

This notation was on the court's website prior to oral argument last week, so I doubt it's the Trump v Anderson decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not unless they'd discussed it ahead of time and agreed that it was going to be quickly decided.

[David Nieporent]

Not how it works, Brett.

[dwb68]

See my note below. ding ding, the winner.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Sotomayor's retirement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not impossible.

[Area Man]

I thought the same thing. Though, it seems like they'd just wait until the next regular opinion day for that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unless her health has taken a bad turn for the worse.
The other thing is to announce extensive new security measures BEFORE they announce the Trump suit next week.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why announce them in advance? So that attackers can work out how to work around them?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Say they were to close the building to the public. You would have to announce that earler.

Say they intended to announce the decision electronically with no one in the building. With emotions what they are, it wouldn't be a bad idea.

The other possibility is that they caught the Dobbs leaker.
Say the leaker was going to publicly confess -- this is how they would do it.

[Brett Bellmore]

That last notion: Maybe that's Sotomayor's excuse for resigning so that Biden can replace her?

[Krayt]

Is that how they announced such things in the past? What has such a thing been used for?

[MoreCurious]

More likely it's Clarence, who has finally realized that he can stop grifting and retire thanks to his investments in the Friends of Billionaires Retirement Fund.

[tylertusta]

As I think about it more, I think this might be correct.

She won't want to wait until the end of the term to announce it because she wants the Senate to have enough time to consider a replacement.

[dwb68]

The made the same notation Jan 5th, 2024: “The Court will convene for a public non-argument session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m. Seating for the non-argument session will be provided to the public, members of the Supreme Court Bar, and press. The Supreme Court Building will otherwise be closed to the public.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

There were no opinions issued on Jan 5th, 2024. The SC did issue a stay in an Idaho abortion case, and issue orders as usual, including in the Trump ballot case, but thats all I can find. There is no audio for Jan 5th, either.

So… we will see, but they are not labeling it an opinion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe someone will leak what is going on.

[dwb68]

If you go back to June, 2023, you will also see this announcement, in addition to an announcement that opinions will be issued. From time to time, they put this on the calendar. It doesn't mean anything big.

I think they will announce the oral argument schedule for April and May. If they decide to announce an opinion, they will add an additional bullet to the calendar. Blackman is a drama queen and frankly should already know that this bullet is a regular occurrence on the SC calendar and does not mean an opinion will be issued. It took me 10 minutes to figure it out. If you studied law from him, demand a partial refund. What else is wrong?

[dwb68]

Also, the same notation happens Nov 17th. This isnt an opinion, IMO, some other announcement (although they may also add opinions to the calendar).

[dwb68]

Also, the same notation happens Nov 17th. This isnt an opinion, IMO, some other announcement (although they may also add opinions to the calendar).

What I see on both dates on SCOTUSblog is that the SC scheduled arguments for major cases. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-schedule-major-cases-on-deference-to-federal-agencies/

If this turns out to be nothing more that the court's way of announcing schedule, I am going to politely suggest everyone taking a law class from Blackman get their money back. I feel like something this mundane should be known to a constitutional professor, and certainly shouldn't be the subject of tinfoil blog post.

[Kazinski]

Goddammit, if they do that they are nothing but a bunch of attention whores.

Like everyone else in Washington.

[dwb68]

No: this appears to be a standard, periodic notation they use to signal they they are releasing the upcoming argument calendar.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could it be a space holder?
"Maybe we'll be ready to announce the Trump decision, maybe we won't, so let's be ready.

[Magister]

Maye they'll make a human pyramid with two Justices atop three other Justices with a base of four Justices*! Maybe they'll all play banjos! Maybe Clarence Thomas will show photos from his last billionaire funded vacation! Maybe they'll all tell their favorite lawyer jokes! Maybe they'll have a belching contest!

Probably going to be routine scheduling announcements. They do all the fun stuff privately.

* this is the biggest danger of expanding the court, as they would be tempted to go to four levels.

[Michael Resanovic (still highly opinionated)]

Stop the steal! They're gonna coronate John Roberts! It's treason, folks!

[John F. Carr]

Trump is expected to be found liable for civil fraud on Friday. Ten internet bucks(*) says the Supreme Court will overrule the decision in the 10:00 session.

It's as good a guess as any.

* No cash value. Not redeemable for prizes. Void where prohibited, taxed, or regulated. In fact, just plain void.

[Greg J]

So did anything happen?

I went to the SCOTUS website, no orders, no opinions.

I went to the ScotusBlog website, their "SCOTUS calendar" had nothing for today, and Arguments & Orders next Tuesday.

The SCOTUS calendar, OTOH, still shows what Josh described, and just has Arguments for Tuesday

[dwb68]

huh, nothing happened, just as I predicted.