From SOTU to SCOTUS
The Chief Justice granted my motion.
It's been a busy twenty-four hours. Yesterday evening, Steve Vladeck and I chatted about the emergency/shadow docket at the Georgetown Federalist Society. There was more agreement than you might expect. Remember, social media is not the real world.
After dinner with the students, where we talked about the new GULC Dean, I braced myself to watch the State of the Union address. In the past, my favorite part of the SOTU is when the Justices entered. Last night, the drama was about which Justices would attend. In the end, four showed up: Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Gorsuch, who has attended in recent years, was absent. Justices Thomas and Alito have not attended in years. Justice Sotomayor who has usually attended was not there. Justice Jackson attended when Biden was in office, but was not there last night. (All of the Justices made it to the bench this morning, so none were out of town; it was a choice to not attend)
When the President entered the chamber, each of the Justices greeted him cordially. I couldn't make out anything that was said. If the Justices were bothered by Trump's remarks--as they should have been--they didn't show it. I give special extra credit to Justice Barrett, who displayed some serious self-control by pleasantly smiling when she talked to the President, and held that pose even as the camera lingered on her for a bit longer.
Once Trump started, I waited with despair for him to talk about the Supreme Court. The baseline was President Obama's remarks during the 2010 State of the Union following Citizen's United.
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
I suspected that President Trump would go lower than President Obama, but I didn't know by how much. Here are the remarks as delivered:
One of the primary reasons for our country's stunning economic turnaround — the biggest in history, where the Dow Jones broke 50,000, four years ahead of schedule, and the S&P hit 7,000, where it wasn't supposed to do it for many years — were tariffs. I use these tariffs, took in hundreds of billions of dollars to make great deals for our country, both economically and on a national security basis.
Everything was working well. Countries that were ripping us off for decades are now paying us hundreds of billions of dollars. They were ripping us so badly. You all know that. Everybody knows it. Even Democrats know it. They just don't want to say it. And yet these countries are now happy, and so are we. We made deals. The deals are all done. And they're happy. They're not making money like they used to, but we're making a lot of money.
There was no inflation, tremendous growth. And the big story was how Donald Trump called the economy correctly, and 22 Nobel Prize winners in economics didn't. They got it totally wrong. They got it really wrong.
And then just four days ago an unfortunate ruling from the United States Supreme Court, it just came down, came down. Very unfortunate ruling. But the good news is that almost all countries and corporations want to keep the deal that they already made, right, Scott? Knowing that the legal power that I as president have to make a new deal could be far worse for them. And therefore they will continue to work along the same successful path that we had negotiated before the Supreme Court's unfortunate involvement.
So despite the disappointing ruling, these powerful, country-saving — it's saving our country, the kind of money we're taking in — peace protecting — many of the wars I settled was because of the threat of tariffs. I wouldn't have been able to settle them without — will remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes, and they've been tested for a long time. They're a little more complex, but they're actually probably better. Leading to a solution that will be even stronger than before.
Congressional action will not be necessary. It's already time-tested and approved. And as time goes by, I believe the tariffs, paid for by foreign countries, will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love.
Right? Moving forward, factories, jobs, investment and trillions and trillions of dollars will continue pouring into the United States of America. Because we finally have a president who puts America first. I put America first. I love America.
For decades, before I came along, we had the exact opposite. From trade to health care, from energy to immigration, everything was stolen and rigged in order to drain the wealth out of the productive and hard-working people who make our country great, who make our country run.
The President said the ruling was "unfortunate" and "disappointing." Honestly, I was expecting much, much worse. What made Trump's press conference so problematic was that he did not only criticize the decision, which I think is within bounds, but he targeted specific Justices. At the State of the Union, he reserved his criticism for the ruling, and not the Justices.
There is a long line of Presidents who criticized rulings from the Supreme Court. President Lincoln was not a fan of Dred Scott and Chief Justice Taney. President Theodore Roosevelt said that "I could carve a judge with more backbone out of a banana" than Oliver Wendell Holmes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to expand the Supreme Court in response to their rulings. But "disappointing" seems a plausible word to use. Indeed, the language that President Trump used should sound familiar. In 2013, President Obama said he was "deeply disappointed" with Shelby County. I recall President George W. Bush used similar language after Boumediene. I'm okay with "deeply disappointed."
I did notice that the Justices quickly exited the chamber before Trump made his way down. I think they made the same exit last year. In the past, the Justices would wait until the President made his way out. I suppose the Chief Justice felt the need to get out of there.
Speaking of the Chief Justice, today was a special day for me. For the first time, I moved for admissions at the Supreme Court. Way back in 2016, my good friend Ilya Shapiro moved for my admission on the day Zubick v. Burwell (better known as Little Sisters of the Poor) was argued. I sat a few seats away from Paul Clement. It was pretty cool. Since then, I have signed admission papers for several lawyers, but have never done the process in open court.
The South Texas College of Law Houston arranged a session for alumni to swear in. Today, there were ten lawyers seeking admission, five of who were my former students. I gave everyone fair warning that the Chief Justice very well might deny my motion. After everything I've written, that would surely be within the bounds of discretion. (No, I was not going to seek his disqualification like with Justice Black.) With fair warning, the alumni still asked me to move for their admission. I've heard that Chief Justice Roberts has not denied any motions for admissions, but apparently Chief Justice Rehnquist would sometimes take the matter under advisement if lawyers did not stick to the script. One lawyer apparently started to heap praise on his colleagues, and Rehnquist told him to get on with it.
The process was quite enjoyable. My law school organized a breakfast in the East Conference room starting around 8:00 a.m. Friends and family were allowed to attend. The Clerk of the Court, Scott Harris, came to introduce himself and explain the process. I had seen Harris many times before, but I'm not sure that we met. All of the staff from the Clerk's office was extremely professional and organized. Everything was executed to perfection.
Around 9:30 we had to line up in a reverse order. The movant (me) goes first, followed by the last person I will admit. That way when we enter the Court, the first name I read is sitting closest to me. It makes sense.
There were three movants. One of the co-counsel for Respondents moved for an admission. A group of lawyers from the Civil Air Patrol were second. And I was up third.
I have seen bar admissions more time than I could count, but it was very different being on the docket. "Mr. Blackman," the clerk called.
I was a bit nervous. Actually making a motion before the Supreme Court is a serious affair, far different than pounding on a keyboard. And, as has often been remarked, the Justices are very, very close. Some of them are looking down at papers. Others are looking into the distance. But the Chief Justice looks right at you.
I had a sheet of paper with the script to read, so I couldn't forget what to say. I began:
"MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I MOVE THE ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING ATTORNEYS:
I then read the attorneys' names, grouped together by state. I conclude:
I AM SATISFIED EACH POSSESSES THE NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS.
I took a breath, and braced myself for, "we will take the matter under advisement," but the Chief Justice said "your motion is granted." I sit down.
The clerk then issues the oath.
The Court shifts to handing down opinions. I could relax. I was hoping Callais would come today. Oh well.