The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Left Wing Attack on Judicial Independence and on Justice Alito
The left has abolished the secret ballot and legalized fraud-friendly mail in voting. now they want to destroy our independent judiciary
The Left wing attack on our traditional forms of constitutional democracy has had great success in abolishing cherished institutions like the secret ballot and same day voting. Emboldened by these wins, the Left has set its sights on eliminating judicial independence. Hate filled ethics attacks have been made on Justices Thomas and Alito. The Left is so mad about the overruling of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the abortion rights case, that they are now trying to force the Supreme Court's two most principled and brilliant members into resigning or recusing themselves from participating in important cases about the 2020 and 2024 elections, which they have a constitutional duty to help decide.
I wrote last winter on this blog that Justice Thomas's opinions show a steadfast devotion to the rule of law and are quite simply excellent on the merits. Not only is Justice Thomas incapable of being bribed, he is actually the best justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court in 234 years of American history. No one could read Justice Thomas's opinions and fail to be impressed by them. It is obvious on the face of things that Justice Thomas would never alter a word that he writes because of a gift from a friend.
The Left's attack on Justice Alito is based on an objection to the Justice's wife flying the U.S. flag upside down -- a distress signal used by some but not by Justice Alito's wife -- after the events of January 6, 2021. Justice Alito's wife raised the American flag in response to a dispute with a quarrelsome neighbor. A CNN poll on July 25, 2023 showed that nearly 70% of all Republicans think the 2020 presidential election was, in effect, stolen.
Under these circumstances, Justice Alito's wife has a First Amendment right to fly the U.S. flag in distress mode or to fly a Christian Appeal to Heaven flag to express her dismay and distress over anything at all. I well remember the parade of left wing law professors who hailed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) that Americans have a First Amendment constitutional right to burn the flag to express their opposition to something the U.S. government was then doing. The opinion in Texas v. Johnson was written by liberal giant William J. Brennan and was joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony M. Kennedy. It has been widely hailed by left and right wing law professors for 35 years as part of the gold standard on freedom of expression protections. Obviously, if you have a First Amendment right to burn the flag to express yourself, you have a First Amendment right to fly it in distress mode or to fly the Appeal to Heaven flag to express yourself.
Justices Thomas and Alito have quite appropriately stayed out of politics themselves, but it is unreasonable for the Left to demand that their wives stay out of politics too. In this case, Justice Alito's wife was not even attempting to express a political idea. The Left's recent practice of outing the behavior of the justices' wives is unprecedented, bullying, and unconstitutional insofar as it affects the Justices wives' exercise of their own First Amendment rights. The Left is demanding that, because of their wives' behavior, Justices Thomas and Alito should recuse themselves from Trump-related election cases. This outrageous demand just shows again that the Left is apoplectic that its 85 year choke hold on the Supreme Court majority has been broken. Justices Thomas and Alito should do their duty under the Constitution, which they swore to uphold, and they should sit on all the election related cases from 2020 or 2024 that come before the Supreme Court.
The Left should be ashamed of itself for seeking to politicize our independent, life tenured, judiciary. Left. to their own devices, the Left would take a wrecking ball to all of our constitutional rights and freedoms. Thank God that we have men and women on the Supreme Court who are willing to stand up for the Constitution notwithstanding the hell that the Left has made of their lives. The Republican Justices have to travel in public in a cocoon of U.S. Marshall's who are hyper-vigilant about their safety. The Justices cannot walk into a store or restaurant without being accosted. This is how constitutional democracies die, my friends. We should denounce in the strongest possible terms those who threaten the independence of our life tenured judiciary.
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
"Justice Thomas incapable of being bribed"
Then why have people spent over $4M trying?
Are you saying that your paymaster Harlan Crow is foolish with his money?
"Then why have people spent over $4M trying?"
This is a bit misleading. In order to get to that number, you need to include when Justice Thomas flew with Mr. Crow on his private jet, then put the reimbursement numbers at the cost of a private jet flight rather than a comparable commercial flight. Which...isn't really reasonable. The jet was going there anyway, it's not like like Thomas got personal use of it.
To use an analogy, Hunter Biden flew on Air Force One/Two overseas a number of times. How much is that flight worth? A flight like that, people would pay $100,000 plus for, easily.
Yet we don't say Hunter got millions of dollars of "gifts" from the US government for that.
you need to include when Justice Thomas flew with Mr. Crow on his private jet, then put the reimbursement numbers at the cost of a private jet flight rather than a comparable commercial flight. Which…isn’t really reasonable. The jet was going there anyway, it’s not like like Thomas got personal use of it.
Except he didn't put down any reimbursement numbers at all, until forced to by news accounts. Some of the gifts are years old, and only recently revealed.
we don’t say Hunter got millions of dollars of “gifts” from the US government for that.
Well, that's refreshing and surprising. Seems to me some people want to count every cup of coffee someone gave him as bribe to his father.
I don't think Roberts or Gorsuch would be able to tag along on that flight so what are you on about?
But the main thing is that you're quibbling over minor bits when Thomas is just rolling in gifts at a rate no other Justice is.
You're not going to quibble your way into a factor of nearly 12 in annual gift receipts.
Well if you want to compare apples to apples ask yourself what you would say if Thomas had a brother like Jim Biden, or a son like Hunter pulling in millions while Clarence was on the court.
Thomas’ mother certainly raked it in.
Sure dude Hunter Biden is the key once again.
You are almost in noun verb Hunter Biden territory.
The entire Biden Family cashed in. Who are you kidding?
This is not a thread about Hunter Biden. It’s telling your best shot is dragging him in.
Who made you Thread Umpire? It's actually better for "45" if Hunter gets off (wouldn't be the first time Hunter "Got Off", get it?) I actually like the guy, hate to see him pretend to be "recovering", so he likes to smoke some Crack? I thought all you "Progressives" wanted Drugs legal?(bad example, Cocaine already is, when prescribed by a Physician, primarily as a local anesthetic for Nasal Surgery, provides excellent Anesthesia (as well as fucking you up) and is the only Local Anesthetic that's also a Vasoconstrictor, so helps stop that annoying bleeding)
Love to see him fire up a Crack Pipe as soon as he's acquitted,
Frank
Your outrage over ethics is quite selective.
Incorrect conclusion to draw, Kaz.
I'm not engaging with Hunter Biden deflections because that's what they are.
As I said: "This is not a thread about Hunter Biden."
You want to talk about something else. That says something bad about you, and not much about Alito or Hunter Biden or me.
Being a certified douche does not make you the "decider' on who can comment about what on these threads.
Your commitment to name-calling continues to show how little you care to make serious arguments.
I'm not deciding anything, I'm pointing out attempts to deflect from the topic at hand for what they are - an admission you have no good arguments on topic.
Referring to you as a “douche” is not name calling but an accurate description of most of your comments on these threads.
Douche
someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he’s top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.
Urban Dictionary
Please feel free to "mute" as you claimed to have done in the past.
Sarcastr0 57 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Your commitment to name-calling continues to show how little you care to make serious arguments.
Sacastro - you regularly use profanity to insult others. Clean up your act if you want respect
Bumble is so juvenile he quotes urban dictionary to show he’s serious. Ah well, he's in good company around here, especially in these threads.
Tom doesn’t understand profanity in reaction to what someone posts, versus stalkerish empty name calling.
Douche double down.
Sacastro - you need to look in the mirror. You happen to be a prime offender.
Sure, Tom.
Hey, you post like Joe_dallas. You another sock puppet?
It's telling that he's off on his Biden Crime Family shtick again.
So drag in an evidence-free accusation about Biden to excuse Thomas. And don't mention Kushner while you're at it. Slimy, XY.
Go read up on bearing false witness.
Commenter_XY 10 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
The entire Biden Family cashed in. Who are you kidding?
Commenter - Every woke commentator here knows the bulk of the Biden family cashed in. Its surprising the delusions they go through to deny.
Has any Biden ever held a real job?
Himself.
'or a son like Hunter pulling in millions while Clarence was on the court.'
This is odd, considering what a massive case you lot are trying to make out of more or less exactly that.
Clarence Thomas has a nephew for whom Harlan Crow paid tuition, and a mother who lived rent free in a house Harlan Crow bought.
The purchase price was adjusted to reflect the future forgone rent. While its not a common transaction for a single family residence, it is not an uncommon for an elderly seller. Secondly wealthy individuals investment decisions tend to have much longer holding periods, as such, return on investments that wont materialize for several years are much more common with wealthy investors, ie Long term plays.
Yeah. Crow was making a big-time real estate play. The house just happened to belong to the Thomases. Who knew?
"Well if you want to compare apples to apples ask yourself what you would say if Thomas had a brother like Jim Biden, or a son like Hunter pulling in millions while Clarence was on the court."
Look, a squirrel!
Thomas has rich friends. They pay for his stuff. As long as he isn't letting it influence his rulings, there's no issue.
Did you forget somehow that Hunter Biden is not and never will be a Supreme Court justice? Or be elected or appointed to any government position?
Contrast that to Jared Kushner, who has had literally billions put in his hands due to his actual position in the Trump white house. I am sure that bothers you not in the slightest.
Is your argument that we should ignore Joe Biden gifting government resources to his family?
Jared Kushner's investment firm got those investments after Donald Trump left government and was being persecuted for having been president. That's not at all like Hunter Biden getting laid off by Burisma after his father left government.
Is your argument that the only real corruption in the entire world is that which is alleged about Hunter Biden, let's ignore this whole Thomas fiasco?
There is no Thomas fiasco
Word.
Would you say that not only is Justice Thomas incapable of being bribed, he is actually the best justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court in 234 years of American history? And that no one could read Justice Thomas's opinions and fail to be impressed by them?
Oh come on, no one would say... uh, never mind.
What decision was beneficial to Crow?
Any?
Thomas just gets 10x more gifts than anyone else and fails to report them because of being the best Justice ever.
These aren't the Supreme Court Justices you're looking for.
'Which…isn’t really reasonable'
It's entirely reasonable.
'Yet we don’t say Hunter got millions of dollars of “gifts” from the US government for that.'
You could say that, actually, but giving a lift to your kid and giving a lift to a Justice Of the Supreme Court have somewhat different dynamics. After all, Biden didn't appoint his relatives to positions of high office.
They haven't been trying with Sleepy Joe.
Justice Thomas didn't take the money and the vehicle offer from John Oliver, so maybe Prof. Calabresi has a point. Of course the money from Harlan Crow didn't come with the condition that he step down from the court.
Prof. Calabresi, Justice and Mrs. Alito implore you to stop helping.
IOW, Justice Alito's wife is not the only gullible idiot in the country.
Yeah. I'll buy that.
You just proved it
How dare he speak truth to counter the lies of your delicate marxist beliefs?
Calling Noscitur a Marxist is the funniest MAGA nonsense I've seen in a while.
It doesn't mean anything. They don't have any idea what a Marxist is, or whether anyone in particular is a Marxist.
It's just an all-purpose insult. At least the idiotic "cultural Marxist" term is not much heard any more.
Say it with me: "Every accusation is an admission."
Yes, we know you have a list of admissions a million miles long.
Well said.
A CNN poll on July 25, 2023 showed that nearly 70% of all Republicans think the 2020 presidential election was, in effect, stolen.
Wow. Talk about chutzpah.
The reason people think that is that Trump has pushed the idea constantly, and supposedly “respectable” conservatives. haven’t pushed back. Far from pushing back, many have endorsed the insanity. And now Calabresi, who didn’t push back either, is screaming that “something must be done, because so many believe our lies.”
And of course the “something” is disenfranchising potential Democratic voters.
If you repeatedly assert that Calabresi is a serial bank robber, and people believe you, because they are gullible fools and nobody they listen to contradicts you, then it’s not hard to get them to agree that Calabresi should be arrested and imprisoned. But that’s what this post’s argument amounts to.
That this disgraceful man holds a prominent position in the American legal academy is shameful.
I finally figured out what's going on - professor Calabresi is turning this blog into a parody site
Or helping Blackman do it.
Unbelievable shit.
Maybe this is the best wingnuts can muster. They didn’t become culture war roadkill with good ideas, sound judgment, admirable character, and a healthy relationship with the reality-based world and modern America
You don't think it was well on its way to being a parody site when its front pagers whistled past the graveyard as the facts piled up against disgraced former Judge, bovine porn enthusiast, serial sexual harasser, and all around creep Alex Kozinski?
Bigger Volokh Conspiracy dreamboy: disgraced and discredited conservative creep Alex Kozinski or in-American right-wing asshole and disbarred insurrectionist John Eastman?
I can think of at least one more revolting example, Revolting.
Does Volokh pay you by the hour, by the comment, or with a salary?
How did he find you?
Just because You have to pay for it, doesn't mean everyone does.
Find me? Not like they "found you" fortunately, I think he followed a star in the East
Frank
In Polls in 2001, just 15% of Democrats say that Bush won the election "fair and square".
First, we need a cite.
Second, it would be useful to know the reasons. There's quite a difference between saying that the 2000 SCOTUS rulings were unfair, biased, etc. and saying there was massive vote fraud, for which there is not a shred of evidence, and which Trump repeats to this day, in contrast to Gore's concession.
But you've got your "Whatabout" so you're happy.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/4687/Seven-Americans-Accept-Bush-Legitimate-President.aspx, you lazy troll. It’s only the first hit on DuckDuckGo for “Democrats 15% think Bush won 2000 election fairly”.
And the difference between that and claims of 2020 being rigged and election processes abused is that lots of courts have agreed that complaints about 2020 have merit. For a recent example, it turns out that Hunter Biden's laptop really is Hunter Biden's laptop.
You're omitting that half of Democrats who responded in that 2001 poll admitted that Bush won the election (albeit on a technicality). Along with the 15% who said he won "fair and square" (whatever that means), that adds up to 65% of Democrats polled in 2001 who admit that Bush won the 2000 election.
Coincidentally, 65% is also the proportion of Republicans polled after the 2020 election who said that Biden stole the 2020 election.
The take-away here is that the proportion of Republicans who refused to accept reality in 2020 is almost exactly opposite to the proportion of Democrats who accepted reality in 2001. The clear implication of that is that if you want to appeal to Republicans, avoid reality.
What? The original claim was literally this:
It was precisely right.
So this isn't HS debate club.
Armchair made the claim in contrast to: "nearly 70% of all Republicans think the 2020 presidential election was, in effect, stolen."
So the appropriate number is the "65% of Democrats polled in 2001 who admit that Bush won the 2000 election"
Your 'precisely right' is just going along with Armchair's deceitful framing, and is not actually correct regarding this discussion in any functional way.
'For a recent example, it turns out that Hunter Biden’s laptop really is Hunter Biden’s laptop.'
If only there was something scandalous about the laptop, instead of about the shamelessness of the attempted stunt.
We get it, its only "Stolen" when the DemoKKKrats lose.
And Jeez-Us, AlGore, Hillary Rodman, and now Parkinsonian Joe, the 3 Fucking Stooges had more common sense.
Joe Biden succeeded in stealing the 2020 presidential election by altering our tradition that people should vote in secret, alone, on one day, in a voting booth with the curtain drawn behind them.
You POS. Biden didn't alter anything.
Besides, mail-in voting and extended voting periods have been a part of our elections for years. Why do you lie, blatantly and stupidly?
And how did any changes amount to "stealing" the election? I guess you think that only certain people should be allowed to vote. if you can't get off work, or can't get away during the day, or don't have the time to stand in a long line after work, then no vote for you.
Fuck you, Calabresi.
This guy is precisely what former Prof. Volokh wants at the Volokh Conspiracy. As is Blackman.
White.
Male.
Right-wing.
Disaffected.
Partisan.
Belligerent.
Bigot-friendly.
Likely on the spectrum.
Carry on, clingers. But only so far as better Americans permit. Not a step beyond. Thank you for your continuing compliance with the preference of the culture war's winners.
it's "Klingers" and leave your S&M fantasies in your cell.
Probably a good thing if you book yourself a vacation around election time someplace remote without Internet service.
It must be frustrating watching the election slipping away, and not because the opponent is so popular, but because your candidate is so unpopular and incapable of changing the public's perception of him, the public's accurate perception.
You know, I partly agree with you.
I don't think Biden or the Democrats are doing a particularly good job, and that accounts for the current polling.
And one result is that the "public's perception" is wildly wrong. And its perception of Trump is even further off. The guy is irrational and is losing whatever limited mental powers he may have had.
That you think it's accurate is neither here nor there, Kazinski, because you are a dedicated Trump cultist.
Correct, Biden never had that many mental powers to start with, and now he's soiling his pants in public events. It's very sad, but Democrats refuse to admit it because they -- amazingly -- don't have a better candidate.
You know what, Michael?
You are useless. All you do is spew nonsense and insults.
I already said that Democrats refuse to admit the facts, you don't need to demonstrate it for us.
You lost your credibility a long time ago, but now spreading an obvious lie......It's beneath even you, Michael P.
Polls this far out are trash, bernard11. The election is POTUS Biden's to lose. He just has to survive to Feb 2025, post-victory. After that, it won't matter.
Trash? doesn't voting start in Vermont next week? I think they have same day registration also. Time to make a trip to Burlington and find my Carlos Danger "Official Breast Inspector" ID card.
Frank
Funny thing how election fraud looks like that.
No, FUCK YOU!
I'm more of the opinion that the election was botched by incompetent Democrat Hacks but there is no way that you can even suggest that the stuff that happened was routine.
And now with throwing the opposition in prison like a banana republic, you want to claim the next election should be accepted?
Go FUCK YOURSELF you..............
Shorter Ed:
Republicans should never be held accountable for their crimes.
When Democrats are held accountable for theirs, maybe this comment will have some validity.
Right now it’s horseshit on stilts.
Wait, youre saying Republicans *shouldn't* be held accountable for any crimes they commit?
You mean like Menendez? And Hunter Biden? Your wait is over. Do you have any other arguments to excuse holding Republicans accountable?
Lack the guts to finish your sentence?
Impotent rage. I've seen this before
Lot of it going around.
Like when you were calling our Veterans losers? Tell me you don't have a Sildenafil prescription, like I'd believe a "Stolen Valor" fuck-face anyway
Frank
Who started the thread with “Fuck You?” Once was gain, you partisan hack lefties don’t hold yourselves accountable for anything, but set standards for others. Which oddly, is the very thing we’re talking about.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Hobie.
If you don’t like a liberal’s comments, ask Mr. Volokh to censor or ban the offender. Volokh has done it before. He said he would do it again. Include an explicit racial slur in your request if you want to improve your chances with Volokh.
I’m more of the opinion that the election was botched by incompetent Democrat Hacks
So which is it, Ed?
Are the Democrats incompetent hacks who botched the election and got lucky and fell into the schmaltz pot, so Biden won?
Or are they master schemers and plotters, who stole it from right under Trump's nose?
Or gee. Maybe Biden just won?
Amen.
bernard,
What has gotten into you?
I don't recall you using crass insults and profanities on a regular basis in the past.
You do not seem to object when your fellow clingers habitually launch racist slurs, homophobic slurs, Islamophobic slurs, antisemitic slurs (although you leap to try to pin them, real or perceived, on liberals and libertarians), misogynistic slurs, xenophobic slurs, and other bigoted slurs -- yet you complain that a liberal commenter has used profanity.
You -- and the other anti-abortion absolutists, gun nuts, religious kooks, supporters of right-wing Israeli belligerence, and other clingers -- deserve everything that has been, is being, and will be inflicted on you by better Americans in the culture war.
You're slipping, Revolting, can't wait until November 6, when your entire philosophy will be "Shattered" (get it? of course you do)
and you left out the "Disabled" Slurs, that your side uses on Texas Governor Abbott (what is it with the name "Abbott" and disabilities?) and oh yes, Bill Maher just added a bit about how "45" is gonna get raped at Rikers, Oh, sorry, that one probably hits a little too close to home (and the other place)
Frank
Good question, Don.
I wonder about it myself.
Basically, I'm much angrier than I was.
Of course this mostly, but not entirely, has to do with Trump and his supporters.
I think the man is a completely disgraceful human being on every count one can think of - lacking in any positive characteristic whatsoever. I find his rhetoric and proposed policies worse than revolting and his personal life and business career a swamp of lies and dishonesty. I think he is an ignorant, narcissistic fool.
And don't even get me started on the Christian nationalist stuff, and Russell Vought. We'll hardly have a Constitution left if the take over.
If I started listing specifics I would never stop.
And his supporters advance absurd arguments in his defense - absurd beyond belief. Again, if I start I won't stop, but it doesn't matter to them. Sean Hannity or someone said X, and they repeat it, mindlessly.
Trump supporters are an unreasoning cult, who, if Trump wins, wil destroy the Constitution and democracy in the US. Period. To support him is inexcusable and yes, I'm angry because so many here, including some I though had brains, are finding excuses to do just that.
Relax.
First, the modern American culture war isn't quite over but it has been settled. Better Americans have been relegating right-wingers -- and their conservative bigotry and superstition -- into increasingly small, desolate corners of America for more than a half-century. Republicans now try to hide behind silly euphemisms ("traditional values," "religious values," "conservative values," etc.) because mainstream America has prevailed against the racists, gay-bashers, immigrant-haters, misogynists, antisemites, Islamophobes, and other right-wing bigots.
Trump fans have not stuck with or accomplished much of anything for so long as they have been alive; evidence disinclines an expectation that that will change.
As modern, mainstream America continues to reject Federalist Society thinking, conservatives soon enough will have nothing much going for them beyond the magnanimity of the culture war's victors. Right-wingers will continue to lord over places such as Idaho, Alabama, West Virginia, South Dakota, and other can't-keep-up parts of America, at least for a while, but the future is predictable and for conservatives hopeless. Not even another Trump miracle at the Electoral College would do anything beyond delaying briefly the liberal-libertarian mainstream's comprehensive culture war victory. (A Trump would likely would also intensify the mainstream's crushing of conservative preferences with respect to abortion, guns, Israel, and a dozen other issues.)
Vought, Thomas, Alito, Volokh and the rest of the movement conservatives are the losers in modern America, and they know it (even the superstition-addled hayseeds). That's what makes them so disaffected, desperate, dispirited, and delusional.
Even if everything you say were true, the Trump Presidency was much superior to Biden's. Good reason to vote for Trump.
I mean, you're an antisemite nativist who wants to deport American citizens, so you liking Trump does not say anything good about him.
He's also a son of a bitch.
An un-American, bigoted bitch who improved America by departing.
This. I hate to go all "at least it's an ethos," but no matter how vile other historical American figures were, at least they believed in something other than themselves. Trump does not. He has no core of any sort; he's Trump First, Last, and Only.
Apparently it is unfair to suggest that Thomas comply with disclosure rules, such as they are.
Oh. He "didn't understand them" or whatever that pathetic excuse was?
Well, if he can't understand disclosure rules, maybe he shouldn't have the job of interpreting the Constitution and statutes. If you can't walk 20 feet without falling down maybe don't try to runa marathon.
Let's dig up Ruth Bader Ginsburg and draw & quarter her for her offenses, like they did Cromwell.
But whattabout…. Weak sauce.
Whatever Ginsburg did, she at least admitted they were mistakes. And Whatabout is bullshit.
Previously, Thomas said he was not required to disclose. Now he says he overlooked disclosing. That makes him an obvious liar one time or the other. It does not preclude lying both times.
“An obvious liar”…..which now makes two with Alito’s timeline being blown out of the water. He lied to minimize the flag blowback. This is your Republican leadership. They will lie to cover up their ethical lapses. Yes, these sorts of lies are normal for politicians. They are not normal for Supreme Court justices. This is what happens when Supreme Court justices start getting tangled in political arguments outside or their official role.
They have a very prestigious job. It simply isn’t too much to ask them to stay in their lane. The fate of our Republic actually depends upon it.
I think at one point he said he didn't understand the rules, which is really pathetic for a Supreme Court Justice.
Man, 33 years later and you fucks are still trying to get my main man Clarence, He ain't goin away Mo-Fo, and did you know his father lived to be 112? (OK, making that one up, hey, if Anita Kill can make shit up, so can I)
Frank
” Not only is Justice Thomas incapable of being bribed, he is actually the best justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court in 234 years of American history. No one could read Justice Thomas’s opinions and fail to be impressed by them.”
The strongest Yes-Man type would be embarrassed at this level of hero worship. I think the last part might be correct on some level. Prof. Eric Segall (who might be the Federalist Society’s favorite critic; he gives them so much “see we are a debating society” cred) is quite “impressed” at how horrible Thomas is.
https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/05/justice-thomas-supreme-judicial.html
I continue to support a Volokh Conspiracy post on the Supreme Court policy opposing their “employees” promoting partisan views, down to bumper stickers on their cars. One of the more notable tidbits that came out in the NYT flag coverage.
The rule applies to clerks:
https://ballsandstrikes.org/guest-essay/law-clerks-statement-gaza/
The burning the flag business is silly. There is a First Amendment right to oppose Donald Trump. OTOH, it was still unethical (as she admitted, unlike Alito) for Ginsburg to do so. I feel silly telling this to the co-founder of the Federalist Society, but you know, yeah.
It’s a shame that this guy went off the deep end.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/06/what-election-denialism-is-really-about
I suppose Mrs. Alito has a British and Philly flag flying now that the Phils are playing in London. LGM!
Would you prefer she be a handmaid?
Well, being a Phillie fan is pretty low.
Still, not as bad as being a Red Sux fan. They are....ugh.
Hey, as a Braves fan, I respect the Filthy-delphia fans, they beat the shit out of us fair and square when it counted, I love (no Homo) Bryce Harper (of "That's a Clown Question, Bro" fame), and so what if they "Booed Santa Claus" I'd boo that faker too. Best thing about yesterdays game was they were playing (and beating) the Mets, of whom, I have nothing good to say, about their fans, their city, their stupid stadium,
Frank "Beat the Mets! Beat the Mets! Step right up and Beat the Mets!"
I suspect she would like most other women to be handmaids.
That's because you are a tool.
No you are just really bad at media literacy.
Distinguishing fantasy from reality is, in fact, an important part of media literacy.
Take it up with Ed, I guess.
And good luck with that.
This is just lunacy.
Yes, Bernard, you are slipping. In fact, all of the lefty commentariat is slipping lately. You guys just don’t notice because you’re all slipping in unison.
Trump has driven all of you batshit crazy.
And yet we're still kicking the bigoted shit out of right-wingers in the culture war.
Who would have guessed that being half-educated, superstitious, and bigoted had become a handicap in modern, improving America?
Trump has driven all of you batshit crazy.
Talk about every accusation being an admission! Trump is clearly making people crazy… such as the Jan 6 rioters, unhinged right-wing media, election deniers, and most of all, Steven Calabresi.
Thanks for the links, Joe.
Dorf crushes Thomas and his hypocrisy on racial classifications. Greatest Justice ever……lol. His opinions contradict themselves and, unsurprisingly, each has the political result he and his wife prefer. Whether he’s being bribed to change his opinions is questionable, that he is being bribed to stay on the Court to continue giving the political results he and his benefactor prefer is undeniable.
He said himself that he was considering retiring due to what he considered low pay. In steps Harlan Crow.
Anyone who finds themselves defending Thomas’ integrity or the quality of his judicial opinions, please go read the Dorf link.
Hey, weekends are usually slow so this just gives everyone a chance to comment on something other than Ilya's posts.
What can be said? This is just plain sad.
You know what's sadder? People who criticize our Veterans and never served, not even in the "Kiss" Army.
Yes, but he appears to now be serving in the kiss ass army.
Get an editor, asshole.
Until you intend to contend, for example, that wingnut justices are cowering in discount retailers (and TJ Maxx affiliates), that is.
Revolting Arthur's Asshole needs an Editor, for as many "revisions" as it's undergone.
To the trustees, administrators, law school visitors, law deans, and law faculties of Northwestern and Yale:
Are you reading this shit?
Have you learned your lesson with respect to hiring movement conservatives?
If you can't figure this out yourselves, try following UCLA's lead.
Yes, Revolting, we are reading your shit, it's like watching a Monkey try to fuck a Football, you know it's immoral and disgusting, but you're amazed it's even happening, and you want to see how it ends.
This post is embarrassing, professor.
Just another day at the white, male, bigotry-saturated, antisocial Volokh Conspiracy.
Not certain how you can discern skin color on a non visual medium, ironic that a Sex Fiend is talking about bigotry, Anti-Social? Guilty, just curious, what Klinger is holding a gun to your head (oh that’s right, you’re in a “facility” where guns aren’t allowed, you’ve got something else held against your (redacted)
So who’s forcing you to come to this site? Is your computer possessed? C'mon (man!) This isn't Roosha, is this Roosha Danny? This isn't Roosha
Frank
Better than 90 percent of the posts at this blog are authored by Volokh, Blackman, Bernstein, Somin, Adler, Calabresi, and perhaps a few other white males who are easy to overlook. Whittington, for example, or Sachs. Prof. Kerr tries to minimize his association with this bigoted clustermuck, but he's as white and male as any of the other Conspirators. Some of the mostly forgotten clingers -- Kontorovich, Lindgren, Post -- also are white and male.
This blog is odds-mockingly male and strikingly white. Not a coincidence. First, right-wingers tend to be as misogynistic as a Kozinski. Second, this blog's rampant bigotry -- a tone set at the stop, by Mr. Volokh's repeated use of vile racial slurs, and amplified daily by the carefully cultivated collection of bigoted commenters -- likely would disincline most people who are not white and male to associate with this blog, even if the Conspirators wanted them around. Third, the Federalist Society tends to be a haven for disaffected, antisocial, awkward, throwback white males. Fourth . . . you get the point.
White. Male. Bigoted. Misfits. Proud of it. The Volokh Conspiracy.
Misogynistic? Your "Bettors" wrote the book on it, let's see, Ted Kennedy (ask Mary Joe's family), Bob Packwood, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton, AlGore(ask Tipper) Gary Condit, John Edwards, Eric Balls-smell, Carlos Danger, Al Franken, John Conyers, and last but not least, Katie Hill, even your sides Bee-otches are Misogynistic
Frank
Not just here, but more than 90% of everything worth reading was written by White males.
That's so wrong.
Its more like 95%, with the 5% being Bill Cosby/Richard Pryor bits.
Frank
These are your fans and target audience, Volokh Conspirators, and the reason every one of you should be wondering whether you will be the next Volokh Conspirator who wears out his welcome on a legitimate, mainstream, liberal-libertarian campus that disrespects right-wing thinking for good reason.
Did the Federalist Society threaten to put his face into a vat of rats or something? I remember this:
https://abovethelaw.com/2022/11/federalist-society-tells-founder-he-cant-call-himself-founder-in-purity-purge/
Now he’s Elise Stefanik level pure.
When I was in law school, recently-retired Justice Powell was the public face of the Federalist Society. Nowadays they wouldn't even let him in the door.
History has demonstrated that Powell was an obsolete southern jerk, appointed by a scoundrel. A coward on racism but a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, other corporate abusers, and right-wing nuts. It surprises no one that this giant of conservativism was a bigot. Many say he was a nice man, which is a vivid indictment of the standards of his day.
Modern America is a rebuke to most of what former Justice Powell did or preferred.
You're correct for once, Revolting. "Dobbs" was a rebuke to "Roe", which Powell wrote a concurring opinion on. So how do feel about Scalia? Who was confirmed 98-0 BTW.
Frank
When I was in Med School Bruce Jenner was the very symbol of Heterosexual Male Virility, now he doesn't even have a penis.
Frank
Interesting capt. My son joined the Federalist Society when he was at U Chicago Law. He hasn't practice law for 15 years, I wonder if he would join now.
Is he a bigot? Is he superstitious? Is he a disaffected white male who can't abide all of this damned progress, with its uppity women, uppity Blacks, uppity gays, uppity agnostics, etc.? Is he socially awkward?
If so, he would be right at home at the Federalist Society.
Looks like the damn left is at it again, my friends! Professor Calabresi, a true patriot, has exposed the progressive agenda to destroy our cherished institutions, one by one, like dominoes falling to the relentless march of their socialist revolution.
You see, the left has tasted blood after successfully abolishing the secret ballot and same-day voting. And now, like a schoolyard bully eyeing his next victim, they have set their sights on our independent judiciary, the very backbone of our constitutional democracy. They're like vultures circling, waiting for the moment to strike and tear apart the very fabric of our justice system.
Justices Thomas and Alito, two badass patriots in their own right, have become the left's latest targets. Why? Because they dare to uphold the rule of law and protect our freedoms from the progressive mob. The left, still butthurt over Roe v. Wade being rightfully overturned, is now pulling every dirty trick in the book to get these justices to resign or recuse themselves from election-related cases.
But let's talk about the real heroes here: the wives of these justices. Justice Alito's wife, a true badass lady, sent a clear distress signal to the nation by flying the U.S. flag upside down. She saw through the left's dirty tricks in the 2020 election, and she damn well expressed her dismay, as is her First Amendment right! Hell, if burning the flag is protected, then flying it upside down sure as hell is too!
The left, in their typical hypocritical fashion, cries foul when these wives exercise their free speech rights, yet they remain silent as their unhinged mob threatens and harasses these very justices in public. It's like trying to silence a canary in a coal mine while setting the whole damn mine on fire!
My dear friends and like minded patriots, we must stand strong against these attacks on our judiciary. Justices Thomas and Alito are the heroes we need, standing firm against the progressive wrecking ball that threatens to demolish our freedoms. So, let's raise our middle fingers to the left and their attempts to silence us. We will not be intimidated, and we will damn sure not go quietly into the night!
Fuck off back to Breitbart, loser
I actually think that's a satirical version of Calabresi's foolishness.
Please don't tell me I fell for sarcasm.
It’s hard to tell! On another post I commented that this guy is one of the best to ever do it!
I'm afraid ya did. The guy is really good at it so don't feel bad.
OK, I'll just stick to the stolen valor
That's not mere satire or sarcasm, that's Performance Art nonpareil!
Bravo! Bravo!
Wow, that escalated quickly, I mean that really got out of hand fast. Must stick in your rectum that Andrew Breitbart started off as a Liberal Loser like you (although I don't think he stole any valor) 12 years since he died (of a "Heart Attack"? right) and he's still got a multibillion dollar website, what do you have to show except a terminal case of Prostatism?
Frank
10/10 commitment to the bit here.
Love the 'fill yer hands' energy.
". Justice Alito’s wife, a true badass lady, sent a clear distress signal to the nation by flying the U.S. flag upside down."
She could have taken Brandon's advice and fired a shotgun.
Godalmighty....the pathology gets worse. The body-snatcher plague has gotten another
Life-tenure was one of the founders’ biggest mistakes. It’s actually a bad thing to have people exercise immense political power with limited accountability! And I’m sorry, but if you’re going to have the kind of unaccountable power to make people’s lives worse…then you kind of have to accept your life isn’t always going to be comfortable and free from public pressure. Weirdly, the elected and appointed officials that are most accountable somehow understand this better. Only the pampered little princes in our federal judiciary don’t. And while the right-wingers are the biggest whiners by far, I haven’t been impressed with liberal ones either. I can’t think of a group that I’ve lost more esteem for between law school and now than federal judges. Well, maybe law professors.
Earle Warren comes to mind.
Why???
Sorry, I'll take John Adams, George Washington, James Madison, and Tommy the J's opinions on how to run a government over yours. It's worked pretty well for almost 250 years.
It’s worked pretty well for almost 250 years.
Except for that little bit of trouble it ran into after about seventy years.
There was and remains good reason for life tenure. It remains also in many state court systems.
Yours is only an ipse dixit rant.
There was and remains good reason for life tenure.
And bad consequences as well.
I’d claim that most of the bad consequences are due to the “original sin” of political appointments.
Having said that, I find that every system has “bad” consequences.
I’d claim that most of the bad consequences are due to the “original sin” of political appointments.
Not sure I agree. Political appointments would be a problem regardless.
I think most of the benefits of lifetime tenure could be obtained with limited term, non-renewable, appointments, followed by generous retirement arrangements.
I haven’t taken the time to independently verify, but some quick internet research indicates that Rhode Island is the only state that has life tenure: all the others have either fixed terms of office, mandatory retirement ages, or both.
I stand corrected with respect to my response to Don's post.
I do not believe that there are any U.S. states where judges have life tenure. (A handful — three or four — have indefinite tenure rather than fixed terms, but they have mandatory retirement at age 70.)
The only judges making people's lives worse are left wing judges.
"The Left should be ashamed of itself..."
The Left is nothing if not impudent.
Your confused again. The word the doctor used when talking to you was "impotent".
In Med School we used to joke about how you never used that word with Afro-Amurican patients, it'd go something like this
Student: "Well Mr. Jefferson, of course you can't have an erection, you're impotent"
Mr. Jefferson "Wat-choo mean I be Impotent? I just be a po black man from Mo-Beel, I ain't Impotent!"
Frank
.
re: "The Justices cannot walk into a store or restaurant without being accosted."
I agree, this is despicable behavior. Reason Magazine, on the other hand:
source: http://reason.com/blog/2018/06/25/red-hen-sarah-huckabee-sanders-dinner
source: http://reason.com/blog/2018/09/25/protesters-end-ted-cruz-dinner-early-acc
Maybe a bit overboard, but not too wrong.
Half witted, fearo mongering idiocy. There is no thoughtful analysis here. There is no rational examinination. There is nothing of substance, only more of the insane boot licking.
writer believes in neither the constitution or democracy, and accuses liberals of....
Oh nevermind.
Put your cap lock on Steven, then we will know you are gone for good
I must have missed the memo, when did Volokh become "All Calabresi All The Time"?
I disagree. The blog needs a measure of comic relief. Josh can't handle that all on his own!
Well, Somin will probably make his multiple post, weekend appearance soon enough to round things out.
Better than the Revolting Reverend's Stones picks, he's been locked up so long he doesn't know we have options other than Spark-O-Matic(remember them) 8-Track players.
Frank
In this wingnut’s world, I am in prison, conservatives anre winning the culture war, and Mr. Volokh and his racial slurs are still welcome in law school classrooms.
You are, we did, and the only racial slurs welcome in law screw-el classrooms come from the Ham-Ass Supporters.
Speaking of Arab Terrorists, surprised you don't have your Seminiferous Tubules in a lather about the Successful Israeli Hostage Rescue this weekend, OK, 200+ Palestinians were sacrificed in the rescue, sounds like a "Win-Win"
Frank
I respectfully disagree. The two flags were not flown at a place belonging solely to Alito’s wife; they were flown from homes belonging to both Alito and his wife. People viewing those flags would reasonably assume that the owners of the homes (Alito and his wife) both wished to convey the message suggested by those flags. They have an absolute First Amendment right to convey that message, but the flags may create an appearance that Justice Alito has a certain bias in cases involving claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
Justice Alito’s wife could have, and should have, exercised her First Amendment rights in a different time, place, and manner that would not have implicated her husband. I worked for many years for a state supreme court as a staff attorney, and my wife and I discussed this very question. We decided that it would be appropriate for her to make donations to political candidates and organizations, so long as the donations came out of her separate property and not community property. Even then, I might have asked the judge for whom I worked to recuse me from doing any work in a case involving those candidates or those organizations — the question never came up — but I certainly would not have done any work in a matter in which the acts of my wife created the appearance that I shared her views.
In my view, this is not a situation in which the left has politicized the Supreme Court or threatened its independence; rather, it is a situation in which the acts of Justice Alito and his wife may have given rise to the appearance of bias in certain matters. I am also dismayed at the hyperbolic tone of Calabresi’s post (very different from any post that Eugene has ever submitted), which is not conducive to a reasoned discussion of this issue.
If you're surprised, I can only say that you haven't seen any of Steve's other recent posts. They're all like this.
In addition to what you have said, there is also a legitimate question about whether the flag signals were solely the doing of Alito's wife. Alito was the one who threw her under the bus in the first place--no one had accused her of doing anything wrong. And then he told two different stories about why "she" had flown the flags. He may simply have been mistaken one of the times. Or both times...
Making mail-in ballots easier to enable quarantined people to vote during a pandemic was the destruction of cherished institutions and an assault on democracy? Really? It’s not like absentee ballots never existed before.
One can expect this kind of shrillness from a minor acolyte of the propaganda ministry of a dictatorship. But a supposed legal scholar in a constitutional republic?
This man really needs professional help.
We should denounce in the strongest possible terms those who threaten the independence of our life tenured judiciary.
Well, we should denounce those who threaten the Justices, but I'm not sure that's what Calabresi is getting at.
Anyway, I'm not sure it's possible to threaten their independence. Can you threaten something that doesn't exist?
Apparently Mr. Calabresi thinks that right-wing justices are such craven snowflakes that the slightest criticism will make them crumble and fall. The only way they can maintain independent judgment is if people say nice things about them. If they don’t get constant flattery, they might get panic attacks or something.
If Mr. Calabresi is right about this, perhaps we ought to spot them for the special robes with the built-in diapers.
Apparently ReaderY is okay with Supreme Court Justice getting death threats and being subject to assassination attempts.
Today's left is just as sad and lawless as it has ever been.
Where did ReaderY say anything remotely like that?
It's implicit in equating what those justices have been subjected to with "the slightest criticism" and not getting constant flattery.
You really are reaching for every off topic straw, eh?
Could you point out where exactly Mr. Calebresi says anything about death threats?
From my reading, Mr. Calebresi’s post is exclusively about ordinary political criticism. He says so directly. “Politicizing” the Court by criticizing its justices threatens its independence.
Where exactly is he talking about death threats? Please provide the exact quote.
This verges on the hilarious and doesn't warrant a serious response.
I have a coworker like this but on the opposite end - Sotomayor is the greatest justice of all time, narrowly edging out RBG, the Court is illegitimate because of McConnell but also because Diebold manipulated the 2004 election, et cetera, but in long form all day every day. Completely oblivious to social cues once he gets going. The girls at work joke that having sex with him would probably like falling asleep listening to NPR. I sort of wonder what they say about me. Anyway, that guy has a podcast with like three subscribers plus any coworkers he can buttonhole for his audience. Meanwhile, Calabresi is posting here with basically the same energy.
Probably better not to wonder or know.
Hey maybe we just all agree Trump is Jesus if he comes back three days after we crucify him. Seems like we should all be able to agree to that.
Just a little background...
The upside-down American flag has long been used by both the right and left as political messaging to express distress about the policies and actions of the administration in charge at the time. It had a relatively minor presence among the MAGA seditionists of Jan 6th itself, but that specific use has since become much more common, ballooning especially after Trump officially announced his presidential candidacy.
The “AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN” Pine Tree Flag was, at least as George Washington described it, a literal call for supernatural powers to intervene in a nation's affairs, in support of righteous revolution against the lawful government—an originalist's meaning shared by most people who have taken it up in recent years.
Beyond background, the real issue is that by allowing both of these flags to fly over his houses, Justice Alito is publicly demonstrating fellowship and support for those attempting to replace our democratic representative constitutional republic with his own dream of authoritarian theocracy, a dream shared by populist MAGA and the ultra-right academics of National Conservativism. (btw, good article on that topic in today's WaPo. Search on Trump loyalist pushes ‘post-Constitutional’ vision for second term.)
That is…not a good thing.
To support the long-term credibility of and trust in the Supreme Court, every Justice has a responsibility far beyond that of most citizens, to control the partisan messages that will be reasonably attributed to them.
And given a verifiable history with, for example, his personal Court stenographers in the WSJ editorial department, there is no reason to grant Justice Alito any benefit of the doubt that he is not simply lying about whose message those flags really represent.
Alito’s concern is not the Supreme Court's reputation or credibility, but its and his own ultra-right, National Conservative, theocratic authoritarian, power.
So you think the San Francisco city government spent the last 60 years making “a literal call for supernatural powers to intervene in a nation’s affairs, in support of righteous revolution against the lawful government”?
I would expect they did not share that view. The flag was actually part of a display of 18 flags from the US' history, which had been in place since 1964. Another of those flags was apparently the Confederate Battle Flag (although it was permanently removed in 1984). Do you think there is a better explanation?
Yes. The rather obvious better explanation is that the left is trying to implement 1984's Ministry of Truth.
Nah, it's more a case of the right being heavily influenced by religious cranks and trying to pretend it isn't.
So, you think a 60-years-ago curator’s decision about a display of flags from American history (for which the symbolically MAGA-important Gadson and Washington’s Cruisers Pine Tree flags certainly qualify), is the equivalent of “…most people who have taken it up in recent years?”
So, to answer your question, no, the San Francisco city government did not spend a single moment of the last 60 years making a literal call for supernatural powers to intervene in a nation’s affairs, in support of righteous revolution against the lawful government.
I do not think one can confidently say the same about Justice Alito.
Glad I could help you out with that. Any other questions?
The left-wing attack on Justice Alito was long delayed. It turned up along with the evidence that he is corrupt, not impartial, and defiant about his responsibility to avoid appearance of prejudice.
Now do Judge "Mistrial" Merchan.
You mean Judge "The Only Person Standing Between Convicted Felon Donald Trump and a Prison Cell" Merchan?
Or Judge "The Man Who Could (Maybe Should) Send Convicted Felon Donald Trump Straight To Fucking Jail" Merchan?
You're just jealous "45" will get a nicer cell than yours. Sort of would like Mercan to do that, will change a 30 State Landslide to 40.
Frank
SCOTUS is an independent branch of the Federal government.
There is a remedy available to remove Justice Thomas and Justice Alito from the bench: impeachment. If these acts by the Justices rise to the level of being impeachment-worthy (in reality, all that means is getting a House majority to vote a party line), the Congress can draft articles of impeachment and impeach them. And then have 67 Senators vote to remove them. Judges have been impeached and removed before.
Those are the rules, as I understand them. Otherwise, they stay (and the libs keep fulminating) and both Justices will continue to chip away at the administrative state (hope they kill Chevon) and rein in the outer limits of federal power.
XY — Given the corrupt reality on this nation's political right, your comment is more a taunt than otherwise. Try to be more serious, and more respectful. I will give you a chance. See if you can answer this question without changing the subject, or resort to whattaboutery: Do you think Alito and Thomas are behaving as they ought to?
Also, SCOTUS is no more independent than the Congress or the Executive. All members of each branch have sworn oaths of fealty to the jointly sovereign People of the United States. That is not independence and never has been. It is constraint of the most serious kind, which some members of SCOTUS are in process of defying.
SL,
You never can resist: "jointly sovereign People of the United States"
As someone wrote in a previous thread, despite what you claim, you are a Democrat and you reveal in partisanship.
He's a Democrat.
You're a Republican bigot who actually claims to believe that silly fucking fairy tales are true.
Everybody is something.
Love when someone lands a punch, and that's one that left a mark, so you can't impeach either Judge, so you're asking theoreticals, well I'll play your Reindeer Game
NO, I don't think Alito/Thomas are behaving as they ought to.
If I was Sammy "the Knife" I'd get Mid-Evil on everyone involved in this Bullshit about him and Clarence. I'd make Phil Leotardo look like Pee Wee Herman, I'd make Tony Montan look like Tony Orlando and Dawn,
but that's just me
Frank
Impeachment is an option, but an extreme one, and we can see from recent history that it is a largely ineffective one.
I'm coming around to the idea that life tenure is more of a problem than a benefit.
Tell us you don't understand why life tenure is a thing without using those exact words.
Huh. Could you explain further?
Do you think life tenure is the only way to assure judicial independence?
We could go to the Continental system of a university trained judiciary taking the instillation of the lowest ranks of judges out of the direct hands of politicians. Even the courts of final appeal are largely staffed by long time judicial professionals.
However that system also is at great odds with the structure of American investigatory and prosecutional practices.
Or, just long single terms.
You're overcomplicating things.
You just don't want to listen when it is not your idea.
I think that your idea is a bad one.
Good lord, Don.
You said this about your suggestion: "that system also is at great odds with the structure of American investigatory and prosecutional practices."
And then you're mad when I pointed out there's something simpler and without the need to fundamentally remake our system.
You spend a lot of energy working to pick fights with me; quit it.
You could have said that we don’t have to go full Napoleonic, sujt go to academically trained judges to eliminate the root problem of political appointment or election of judges. That would be consistent with American prosecutorial and investigative practice.
You are the one who picked the fight this morning.
Michael said: "Tell us you don’t understand why life tenure is a thing without using those exact words."
I don't think Michael understands why life tenure is a thing, so I pointed that out.
That's where you came in.
So I don't think the discussion you thought you were having is the conversation you were having.
[FWIW I don't think we have an party-dependence problem with our Justices except Alito; they may have partisanship-friendly philosophies but none of them seem to have personal loyalty. Except Alito.]
There you go shifting the goalposts.
I answered your question not Michael's with a bona fide approach that is used throughout the EU, except in the EU it is applied in a different prosecutorial framework.
I pointed out the actual goalposts, which have not shifted you just didn't realize what they were.
You continue to fail to read the context of the posts you reply to, especially when they're mine.
Which is why yesterday you defended that antisemite guy so you could insult me.
Don Nico, Sarc referred to a proposal to impose 18-year term limits on SCOTUS, as an alternative to your single solution of “Continental system of a university trained judiciary,” which you bring up only for the purpose of striking it down.
It was a directly relevant to your comment, and not “picking a fight.” As such, it deserves thoughtful discussion, not just sniping from the bushes. So let’s try that, adding the related issues of court-packing and SCOTUS expansion.
So, accepting as fait accompli the Republican’s hypocritical manipulation of Senate process arcana to achieve ultra-politicized court packing, may be the one thing with worse long-term consequences than suggested Supreme Court expansion. However, another radical idea under discussion—term limits—if implemented concurrently with a specific form of court expansion, may, perhaps counterintuitively, make such SCOTUS restructuring seem less radical.
Start with the fact that at one time there was one Federal Circuit for each Supreme Court Justice (they were literally circuit riders who had oversight responsibility for that circuit). So, to match the fortuitous coincidental current total of 13 Federal Circuits, how about a Supreme Court of 13 Justices, returning to the original construction of one Justice per Circuit? Basing the size of the Court on such a historical precedent provides a rationale beyond the pure political play.
At the same time, match that to the staggered 18-year SCOTUS term limits that are currently under much discussion and at least arguably constitutional (because at 18 years a Justice would not be forcibly retired, but shifted to lifetime senior status). Providing a mechanism to always allow every President to appoint multiple Justices (two per term), might reduce future pressure to repeatedly increase SCOTUS size (the envisioned primary negative consequence of court expansion).
Concurrent implementation of both these ideas could help to restore the tradition of non-partisanship destroyed by Mitch McConnell’s bad faith.
Does this seem…perhaps workable? Would you consider it as something a little more deserving of serious consideration than your kinda frivolous artificial dichotomy of either the current SCOTUS or the Continental System, but nothing else?
Go ahead, I’m interested in what you have to say.
Or, go really radical.
26 Justices. Term-limited.
Every case heard by a panel of nine randomly-selected from the 26.
(There could be rules such that if a particular Justice isn't selected for X number of panels, their odds of being picked for another panel increases.)
This would lower the temperature, hopefully, as well as maybe lead to an increase in the number of cases taken.
No, I haven't the foggiest idea for en banc procedures, or if there should be one.
Not bad. We'll add it to the brain-storming bin. I've been following this issue for a while, and this from a couple years ago (prompted by Stephen Breyer's retirement decision) is one of the best rational, thoughtful, readable things I've seen on it—and much broader than just SCOTUS...
Well worth reading the whole thing.
I've never really thought through all the mechanics, but I'd like to see a system where the President nominates and the Senate approves all the federal judges, district and circuit, just like now. Then through some system judges get elevated from the federal circuit courts to the Supreme Court for short fixed terms, and all or most of the circuit judges cycle through a term on SCOTUS.
Perhaps all the district judges could vote on which circuit judges to elevate, and any who have already been elevated once aren't eligible.
I think you'd have to have some kind of en banc provision, or rulings would veer wildly when you get the five most extreme justices (from any political extreme) on a panel and subsequent cases are worked to overturn or limit that result.
Another approach would be not to limit the number of justices, but just add one in every odd numbered year; as long as justices average more than 18 years, you're going to have at least nine at any time. Maybe make it more frequent.
In effect, staggered 18-year term limits result in one new Justice every other year, and I agree it should be odd years to reduce impact in election years.
Loki — that bit about, "odds of being picked," brought to mind a notion of would-be plaintiffs acting like casino card counters, waiting to place their bets until the odds had properly stacked the deck.
PM: “which you bring up only for the purpose of striking it down.”
Stop your mind-reading. I did no such thing.
The napoleanic prosecutorial practice and the institution of an academically trained are completely separable. The creation of a purpose trained judiciary does away with politically selected judges.
It eliminates the court-packing BS and the description of R and D judges. This proposal deserves respectful discussion. S_0 just blew it off with “You’re overcomplicating things.” That was picking a fight.
You are simply dismissive with your "kind of frivolous." BS it the non-political judiciary works throughout the EU. Open your eyes and your mind.
The creation of a purpose trained judiciary does away with politically selected judges.
How does it do that? Why can't the judges just be academically trained partisans?
Is the notion that they are committed to judicial careers, and so are lees likely to make partisan rulings? Or that the have impartiality drilled into them as part of professional ethics?
I wouldn't mind having some standards - some required experience at each level as judges move up. Among other things some time spent as a trial judge or even (shudder) a courtroom lawyer might be beneficial.
Moreover, the "academy" which would be training them would likely be dominated by the US' current academy, if the US were to adopt such a radical overhaul of its judge selection system. I can't see that prospect being welcomed by anyone to the right of Joe Biden.
The 18-year tenure idea, which allows each elected President to nominate (er, that could be a problem if they still must be confirmed by Mitch McConnells...) two Supreme Court justices, could solve a lot of problems people have about the current system.
That may be the thinnest-skinned claim I've ever seen.
Hey Mo-Fo's (Fun Drackie Fact, "Mo-Fo" is the most commonly used word in the Haitian Creole language, at least it's the word I heard most often treating Haitian Mo-Fos)
For years I've had to listen to the Bullshit that burning an Amurican Flag is a 1st Amendment Right, I may disagree with you with what you do, but I'll defend blablabla, bla bla.
Now all a Surpreme's Wife (Not his Gumar, Not his Daughter, Not his Son, his friggin Wife) flies a Flag upside down and it's a national controversy, Fuck you Assholes, it's like Burning a Flag (In England they "Burn a Fag" it's not what you think),
you don't like it? go to Gaza
Frank
Apart from the usual sadness and noting the 180 turn within a year, the thing about these weekend Calabresi spasms is how much there’s an overrepresentation of the liberal posters in the VC commentariat.
A few of the obligate MAGA bomb-throwers are here (dragging Hunter Biden with them, natch), but most on the right side seem not to have an appetite to defend this stuff. Whereas the left, well, who doesn’t like some fish in a barrel sometimes? I do enjoy it as a change I shall admit.
Anyhow, just noting the reverse of the usual commenting population.
Many of us don’t feel the need to defend the truth, just applaud the bravery of publicly stating it.
The Left is in here like a bunch of bees because they do not tolerate people who speak out against their secular religion. It enrages them, and triggers a bloodlust in some. E.g. if there were trannies that were regulars, instead of a bunch of homo's, a post like this might trigger them and lead to the murders of a bunch of White Christian children (to be quickly memory-holed and covered up).
'to be quickly memory-holed and covered up'
Happens a lot, does it?
...just applaud the bravery of sycophantly agreeing with Trump on whatever he feels "Truth" to be on that day.
there, fixed it for ya.
Steve needs to be careful.
He doesn't want to raise the ire of the DOJ with these posts.
On voting from today’s NYT:
“The E.U. Is Voting. It’s Never Mattered More.”
One day, in person, in secret.
I'll ask my brother if he bothered to vote today.
Who cares? its Europe, they don't even let Trucks drive on Sundays (unless they're carrying perishables to Soccer games, gotta have your priorities!)
Perhaps this is what some people are afraid of:
CNN: "Macron dissolves French parliament, calls snap election after strong showing for far-right in exit poll."
Democracy can be an unforgiving mistress.
Would the EU results have been different had there been mail-in votes over a one month period? There is no way to know.
It's Sunday. Things are closed. Not so much here.
Are you ready to declare a national holiday, and spend the money this would take in the US? I'm betting at least some state legislatures would be happy to underfund urban polling places.
Germany and Spain allow mail-in votes. France allows voting by proxy.
I haven't checked other countries.
Ugh.
Look, this is terrible, and doesn't acknowledge the very real concerns people have about ethics in the judiciary, especially with the Supreme Court.
Ensuring that Justices are both above reproach and seen to be above reproach should be a bipartisan goal. To put this more plainly- I am quite certain that if, for example, Justices Kagan and Jackson were regularly given large "gifts" by ... oh ... SOROS ... people would start to complain, right? And it does seem weird how certain Justices manage to make all these new billionaire friends?
From leaks to "gifts" to, yes, books (and before you reflexively say Sotomayor, make sure you see who just got the two big book deals) ... there are certainly issues with the Supreme Court that could be cleaned up. And that's not a partisan issue.
(I would add that the Supreme Court would benefit from stronger mandatory recusal rules as well. The standard of, "I'll recuse when I feel like it," just doesn't seem to really work. Especially when you have people like Alito who have turned that into, "I think that the rules mean that when people have doubts about my impartiality, I cannot recuse!!!! Suck it!")
blockquote>(I would add that the Supreme Court would benefit from stronger mandatory recusal rules as well. The standard of, “I’ll recuse when I feel like it,” just doesn’t seem to really work. Especially when you have people like Alito who have turned that into, “I think that the rules mean that when people have doubts about my impartiality, I cannot recuse!!!! Suck it!”)
This is one possible advantage of the model of 18yrs on the S.Ct., followed by move to "Senior S.Ct. Justice": a plenty deep bench to keep 9 justices on each case even if there are recusals. It makes stringent recusal rules much more reasonable if there's even an appearance of impropriety due to book deals, upside down flags, undisclosed trips to Bali, etc.
This blog has become a far-right mouthpiece. No one will miss me, I know, but I won’t be back. Volokh’s deference to letting people say whatever they want while letting shit-spewing propagandists like Blackman and Calabresi dominate the blog have utterly ruined it.
Take the Rev Kirkland with you, please and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Maybe block RAK then.
So leave already. But you'll be back, it's like mulching, you gotta mulch.
Well stated.
Is the secret ballot a "cherished institution?" I'm not sure exactly when it became a thing, but it certainly was not a thing at our country's founding, and for many years after.
And just out of idle curiosity, how exactly is the left trying to abolish the secret ballot? I'm not familiar with that particular charge.
Oh never mind, I'm just catching up now and reading the posts in recent to oldest order. I see his lame argument about mail-in ballots. As in all such discussions, I'd really like Prof. Calabresi to explain how active duty service members would vote, if mail-in voting were abolished.
"Not only is Justice Thomas incapable of being bribed, he is actually the best justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court in 234 years of American history."
I needed to highlight this for two reasons.
First, the entire reason we have ethics laws is ... well, trust, but verify. I'd like to think that Justice Thomas isn't capable of being bribed (as in quid pro quo), but there are two problems with that. The first is that almost anyone can be bribed, if you find the right amount (and they think they won't be caught). The second is that the issue isn't just quid pro quo bribery- it's that billionaires befriend Justices, and then shower them with gifts that allow them to access and talk about their legal issues (and their friends' legal issues) on a regular basis. That's ... a problem. We are all influenced by what we hear, and letting people buy access to get their own pet legal issues before the Justices is something we need to be worried about. Because that's ... well, that's a big bag for the dollar.
Second, the best Justice in history? O RLY? Marshall? Holmes? Story? Cardozo? Harlan? Hughes? Heck, Warren? Brandeis? Black?
I'd certainly put Scalia and Rehnquist (despite my personal disagreements with some of their decisions) about Thomas.
Seriously- think about all of the great and transformative Thomas decisions. Or even the great dissents that are taught in law schools.
I mean, it's one thing to say that you respect his jurisprudence, but the Supreme Court has been around for a while, and he's certainly not the greatest Justice ever by any metric I can imagine.
(Other than writing a screed)
It's good to see someone recognize that SCOTUS is big league bribery. We're not talking minor league, "Here's an envelope of hundreds, vote for my zoning change." Crow is Thomas' volunteer handler on behalf of Leo and the Federalist Society. Help him financially, make sure he meets the right people, send him on retreats to talk to the right people. All in the interest not of some sordid quid pro quo, but for continued loyalty to a class and a political philosophy congenial to that class. Thomas may be greedier, and sloppier, but I wouldn't bet against the other conservative justices having similar, but perhaps more subtle, handlers.
"Continued loyalty"? You mean, you sincerely believe that if Crow hadn't given Thomas a penny, if Thomas never got a single vacation stay or flight, that he would vote even one bit differently? It's unseemly, and I'm not defending Thomas. But the accusations of corruption are a pretext.
Yeah, it’s hard to argue Thomas is corrupted by the gifts (I’ve noticed a distinctly MAGA trajectory to his opinions since 2016, but that’s almost certainly all Thomas as well).
But it does show low character to be the 10x king of profiting from your position, I think.
Even with his recent descent into being more faction-oriented, I’d rather a second Thomas than a party tool like Alito.
But hey, we got them both. So I'm mostly going to complain on the Internet about it.
I think Thomas would dissent differently.
I think Thomas would be less likely to bruit right-wing agenda items he would like a chance to vote on—or at the very least he would not be in position to coordinate to match right-wing agendas with which bruits he chose to bruit.
Would it be fair to say at this point that to be a republican in good standing today, in 2024, requires election denialism?
Says the election fraud denialist .
I'll repost this from yesterday's Calabresi post-
Calabresi in 2020-
“But I am frankly appalled by the president’s recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist. But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.”
Calabresi in 2023-
“Let me, however, be very clear about one thing. I am a Never Trumper. I will vote for any Republican in the primaries over Trump or, if necessary for the Democratic Party’s nominee for President over Donald Trump. I am a Never Trumper because of the former President’s behavior on January 6, 2021 when he stirred up a crowd, started a riot on Capitol Hill to disrupt the counting of electoral votes, and then declined to call off the riot either with a Tweet or by calling out the National Guard. … The Senate foolishly failed to convict and disqualify Trump, and so now he is running for re-election. Let me make it crystal clear that I will vote for any Republican and for any law-abiding Democrat, including certainly Joe Biden, in 2024, if Trump is the Republican nominee for president. Trump is loathsome … So, Trump’s name should appear on election ballots in the 2024 presidential election, but I strongly urge my fellow Americans to vote against Trump, almost no matter what else is the alternative.”
Also in 2023-
“Trump took the Presidential oath of office at noon on January 20, 2017. Then, knowing that he had lost the 2020 election, he engaged in an “insurrection” on January 6, 2021. … He lied to the American people for years that the election had been stolen and continues to repeat those lies even to the present day.”
Also in 2023-
“Donald Trump is manifestly out of his mind at the age of 77, and he is no longer qualified to be President.”
Calabresi in 2024-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As someone smarter than me said the other day, to be a Trumpist in 2024 requires a boundless reserve of either cynicism or credulity. I think credulity becomes easier eventually, from an internal mental perspective.
The movement is made up of brain-damaged lunatic true believers and cynical opportunists who think they can ride the tiger to power without getting their faces eaten. I would have put Steve, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, heck maybe even Josh Blackman behind door number 2. But after this recent series of… shall we say florid… offerings, I’m not so sure.
Eventually you start to believe the stories you tell, if only for the simple reason that it’s easier than dealing with the dissonance.
All that is required are two good eyes and two good ears and the capacity to use them.
Now go put on your facemask and get your covid booster and bird flu shot.
I’ll put you down for credulity
"Also in 2023 'Donald Trump is manifestly out of his mind at the age of 77, and he is no longer qualified to be President.' ”
That is manifestly obvious.
If Trump is "out of his mind" then describe Biden.
Without a mind?
well, it does appear that anything less than Keri Lake-level fellating of Trump's election denialism runs the risk of being labeled a RINO.
Seriously— is there a republican running for federal office this cycle who isn’t a 2020 denialist? I honestly can’t think of one.
Calabresi's wackiness notwithstanding, I have to say that I think the attacks on Alito/Thomas are ultimately doing MAGA's work. If one is going to attack the legitimacy of the judiciary, it should be based on actual corruption, not just partisan criticism. Nobody really thinks these shots at Alito/Thomas are motivated by anything other than dislike for the way these judges vote.
I disagree. I think that there is always a partisan component.
But I think that there are serious ethical issues with the Supreme Court.
And yes, I would like something done. That doesn't mean I'm demanding Alito and Thomas are removed (far from it), but that we start taking ethical issues a little more seriously. And I include book issues with that.
Look, no one is saying that Justices can't have friends. Or that their spouses can't have lives. Or that they can't write books. But we need to really think about the propriety of some of these things. Judges do not get to have the normal lives and the ability, to, say, rant on facebook about whatever they want for a reason.
I have no objection to "These things are undesirable and we should have rules against them, and we should have enforcement mechanisms, and those should be utilized. My objection is to, "These people are corrupt and need to be removed immediately! All of their votes are tainted!"
I am not so naive as to think that Trump and his acolytes would not be saying the same things that they are now about Merchan and Kaplan and Chutkin (and every other judge who rules against him on anything). They would accuse the judges (and everyone else against Trump) of being corrupt regardless of the facts. But I think that throwing around even more accusations of judicial corruption just causes average people to think that the whole system is corrupt.
Nobody really thinks these shots at Alito/Thomas are motivated by anything other than dislike for the way these judges vote.
Could well be, since the set of people paying attention will be those who are more political.
But they did things no other Justices have done. I don't much care that there won't be much professional accountability. Same with Trump and impeachment.
The truth, in the end, counts for something. And the truth makes them look not great. The should both at least live with that.
Unfortunately, like most if not all MAGARINOs, they have learned to live with it.
The weirdly selected bold sentences are approaching "serial killer cutting letters out of a magazine" levels of crank.
“Left. to their own devices, the Left would take a wrecking ball to all of our constitutional rights and freedoms.”
That’s just silly, alarmist, and without factual basis to assert. Also, when did same-day voting become a sacred value? How does same day voting exceed early voting in value? Voting by mail has been happening in US elections as least as far back as the Civil War.
A piece such as this, rife with supposition and poorly (or not) supported claims, is embarrassing for a scholar of Prof. Calabresi’s stature. I mean, I get that part of the whole idea here is to be opinionated and to provoke, but this is simply beneath a law professor.
Same day voting has to be put in context of state legislatures which control how many polling places to use, where to put them, and where to inflict hours-long-lines on disfavored voters.