Open Thread: SCOTUS Decisions [UPDATE-1]

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

As noted the last two weeks, the end of the Supreme Court’s term is just ahead; SCOTUS continues to dump clusters of decisions in a short time frame.

Will SCOTUS finally decide the question of presidential immunity posed in Trump v. United States? Your guess is as good as anybody else’s.

Decisions released today follow in an update at the bottom of this post.

~ ~ ~

Time-killing observations:

1 — Stink: The New York Times published an op-ed yesterday by University of Michigan’s Prof. Leah Litman, a former clerk for retired Justice Anthony Kennedy: Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case, which Election Law Blog’s Rick Hasen helpfully excerpts here.

It sure looks fishy that the conservative majority SCOTUS can make a decision inside three weeks related to COVID vaccinations for the benefit of corporations, but drags its feet for months about presidential immunity though United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) already offers plenty of guidance on the latter.

(It looks fashy, too.)

2 — Head fake? There’s been considerable coverage of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrent opinion in the “Trump Too Small” trademark decision, Vidal v. Elster. See The New Republic’s Amy Coney Barrett Breaks With Supreme Court Originalists and Politico’s Amy Coney Barrett may be poised to split conservatives on the Supreme Court.

That’s all well and good but Coney Barrett remained one of the majority in the 5-4 decision; she’s still a conservative vote differing only in how she gets there — with or without Thomas’s brand of originalism.

3 — Unbenched: One of the cases SCOTUS is expected to decide yet this term — City of Grants Pass v. Johnson — addresses municipalities prohibiting the homeless from sleeping in public spaces. What are homeless folks supposed to do if SCOTUS allows municipalities to continue with such prohibitions while housing inventory remains excessively tight and rents unfettered?

This case has haunted me this week during the heat dome much of the country has been experiencing. Imagine being unable to find a cool place to sleep at night — not even a park bench.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE-1 — 10:25 AM — Today’s decisions:

First decision: Moore v. United States

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the 7-2 majority decision which upheld the retroactive tax assessed on repatriated income under Trump’s 2017 tax law changes. Suck on that “Trump Too Small” tax cut, MAGA.

That ethics-deprived jerk Alito refused to recuse himself on this one in spite of having been interviewed about the case by one of the lawyers involved.

Second decision: Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio

Justice Kagan wrote the 6-3 majority decision for this case regarding malicious prosecution and probable cause.

Third decision: Diaz v. United States

Justice Thomas wrote the 6-3 majority opinion which surprisingly included Brown Jackson in the majority and with a concurring opinion; the dissent was written by Gorsuch with Sotomayor and Kagan joining him.

I feel so bad for Diaz whose wretched taste in men was revealed by her foolishness in this case. I wonder if her sentence was shorter or longer than the amount of time she was romantically linked to her boyfriend.

Fourth decision: Gonzalez v. Trevino

This was a per curiam decision, read by Roberts; Alito wrote a concurrence, with Thomas the lone dissent.

This one probably deserves more attention considering the case concerns the effort to remove an elected official.

~ ~ ~

Any further updates regarding these cases and SCOTUS will follow at the bottom of this post. This is an open thread.

145 replies
  1. bmaz says:

    Lol, from the new “legal expert” at Emptywheel on things legal. Ring me up when you have spent one split second in a court that matters, much less SCOTUS.

    • Rayne says:

      There are quite a number of journalists covering the Supreme Court who are not also lawyers. It doesn’t take a juris doctor to write “SCOTUS wrote ‘XYX’” and provide links to sources where readers can find more detailed information about the cases decided.

      It shouldn’t be forgotten this site’s owner has a history of writing about legal matters without a JD acquiring a respected reputation for the effort.

      • bmaz says:

        And 100% of those are better qualified and knowledgeable than you. But, press on Rayne. And that too cute by a half “N/B” thing is hilarious. Nobody will ever confuse you with Marcy.

        • Rayne says:

          The nota bene added at the beginning of each of my posts is a direct result of frequent assumptions on social media when readers share links that the posts I’ve written were by Marcy.

    • Sloth Sloman says:

      Who are you? Have you argued in front of the Supreme Court?

      How do I know you aren’t Alina Habba cosplaying a cactus?

    • Magbeth4 says:

      Methinks that the hyper-sensitive lawyer does not appreciate that a Citizen might express dismay at rulings from the Supreme Court with all the mystery surrounding why they make some of the cockamanie decisions on cases before them. Most folks who are not lawyers are not familiar with all the thousands of cases which provide precedence for coming to these disturbing conclusions/decisions. Please tell those who are not graduates of law school why you are so irritated with Rayne’s dismay.

    • SelaSela says:

      I would love to read your own analysis of the SCOTUS decisions, including explanations about where Rayne got it wrong, instead of content-free personal attacks.

  2. P-villain says:

    Perhaps more to the point, SCOTUS took two months, from acceptance to decision, to resolve the 14th Amendment ballot case, but we’re coming up on four months to decide the immunity case.

  3. originalK says:

    Thank you Rayne, this is just the kind of curation I need to be informed, timely, with links to the cases, links to the decisions.

  4. Thomas C. says:

    Haha: “which surprisingly included Jackson Brown in the majority” — Maybe you were just ‘Running on Empty,’ but I don’t think Jackson Brown[e]’s opinion really matters here. Now, Justice KBJ on the other hand. Beyond that one little slip, thank you for the summaries. Very helpful, especially linking to the decisions.

    • Rayne says:

      My bad — I’ve fixed the unconscious name flip. And yes, I’ve been listening to far too much 1970-1980s music this week.

      • Scott_in_MI says:

        “I’ve been listening to far too much 1970-1980s music this week.”

        No such thing! :D

        • Rayne says:

          LOL if the neighbors start side-eyeing you, yes, there is. The decrepit motherfuckers on the HOA are already a PITA, don’t need them bitching about my boogie-oogie.

    • LeftsidePortland says:

      Hear, hear. As pleasant (and as helpful) as a fart in a crowded elevator every single time.

    • Matt Foley says:

      And don’t call Trump an insulting name; he doesn’t like that. Got to keep things civil and respectful.

        • Benji-am-Groot says:

          Earl of – regardless of how TFG is referenced here I now find that my personal choice ‘The Former Guy’ has shifted to “The Felon Guy” – both are accurate and spot on.

        • Error Prone says:

          Earl – Can I use a lower case t, not T? The post is useful, and I have read this far with nobody commenting on any of the cases, except the one hanging fire, immunity. I read today there is a MAGA, Inc. The website has multiple pages and you can sign up for a newsletter. Sitting on a fortune, ready to advertise. Not affiliated with any campaign. The footer says so. The sleeping in public case, the saying, “The law in its majesty demands neither the rich nor the poor may beg in the streets, sleep under bridges, or steal bread,” comes to mind without having studied the opinion. I admit I have not yet followed Rayne’s links, instead deciding to read comments here first. My understanding is Bmaz has paid his Jack Dorsey dues, and not being a Jack Dorsey ways and means fan, I will not pile on. The genesis of the feud predates my being an EW reader. Opinions of others are helpful. Or that’s my opinion.

    • Fcb plus 5 says:

      I disagree. I always look out for the ornery Mr. B.

      [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this as “Fcb-to-the-nines” though you changed your username to “Fcb plus 5.” I’ve edited your username to match your last known username; please make a note of your correct username and check your browser’s cache and autofill./~Rayne]

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          No one barges in here, except mountain trolls. And be serious, when you throw kerosene on a fire, it doesn’t help put it out. Just look at the number of posts piling on, with empty cans in hand.

        • c-i-v-i-l says:

          June 20, 2024 at 1:52 pm

          According to you, what will help put out this particular fire? It certainly doesn’t seem to be burning out on its own.

      • P-villain says:

        Personally, I’ve held my tongue for quite some time. And I still appreciate and benefit from his substantive posts. It’s the never-ending, one-sided feud with Rayne, which constitutes about half of his current posts, that I find tiresome.

  5. Randy Marks says:

    Re Gonzalez v. Trevino, why was it a per curiam decision?

    The best theory I can manage is that Alito had the assignment (look how long and detailed his concurrence is), lost his majority on some of Part II (see concurrences by Kavanagh and Jackson joined by Sotomayor), refused to make concessions to those reluctant to join, and thus had to punt on the opinion. The Chief didn’t want to take it away from him so wrote the PC.

    I’d love to hear if others have a better theory.


    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this as “Randy” which doesn’t comply with the site’s standard — a minimum of 8 letters and unique. I’ve edited your username to match your last known username which is standard compliant. Please make a note of your correct username and check your browser’s cache and autofill. /~Rayne]

    • Rayne says:

      Your theory makes sense to me, and the even greater effort Alito put into his concurrence suggests we should read the decision and dissent carefully — especially considering the facts of the case.

      Is Alito signaling where he would be on a case related to the fake electors, considering Alito made a point to unspool all of the facts beginning here:

      Because the District Court dismissed Sylvia Gonzalez’s
      complaint for failure to state a claim, the per curiam opinion properly takes its facts solely from the complaint. But
      I provide a fuller account of the events leading up to her
      arrest because they may typify the messy quarrels that
      courts will have to sift through if we accept Gonzalez’s reading of our case law.
      Upon her election to the city council, Gonzalez launched
      a campaign to oust Ryan Rapelye from his position as city
      manager. As part of her efforts, Gonzalez paid personal visits to Castle Hills residents, requesting their signatures
      and support. According to some accounts, her efforts were
      aggressive. Chalene Martinez averred that Gonzalez solicited her signature “‘under false pretenses’”—specifically by
      misleading her about the nature of the petitions and by lying about Rapelye’s performance in office. Record in No.
      5:20–cv–01151 (WD Tex., Sept. 9, 2020), ECF Doc. 1, p. 9;
      App. 45, 52. Another resident, Jesus Quilantan, reported
      that Gonzalez had asked to see his parents. When she
      learned that they were not home, Gonzalez cajoled him into
      signing the petition on their behalf. Id., at 57. Her efforts
      paid off. In a town of roughly 4,000 inhabitants, she helped
      garner over 300 signatures for her petition seeking
      Rapelye’s removal.

      Did Thomas lose Alito specifically?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        One might ask where Alito came up with those facts – most of which describe common politicking, including the lies – and why his recitation of them should be considered reliable.

        Since the facts are clearly in dispute, taking judicial notice of them is clear error. But Alito makes up history all the time, when he needs support for a decision he’s already made.

        So, yeah, I agree that Alito is setting up something for a future decision.

        • Rayne says:

          I’d forgotten we still haven’t seen a SCOTUS decision related to the January 6 cases — Fischer v. United States. This split between Alito and Thomas might also offer an indication of where they are on that case.

      • Randy Marks says:

        I don’t think he ever had Thomas. I’m guessing he lost Jackson and Sotomayor and maybe Roberts, Kagan, Barrett, and/or Gorsuch and never really had Kavanaugh (surprised he didn’t concur in judgment).

        Interesting thought about Fake Electors. I wonder whether his wife would have agreed to be one if Virginia had been in play. Or created a False Electors flag. 😀

    • David Brooks says:

      Randy, you almost sound as if you are a lawyer with experience at the Supreme Court.

      • Randy Marks says:


        Thanks and no. It’s weird.

        I was an FTC attorney for over three decades. But enforcing a law that says “unfair methods of competition are illegal” limits one’s ability to be a lawyer; I was more a fact gatherer and economist whisperer.

        Since I retired, I have learned way more about the law than I ever knew through legal podcasts (especially Lawfare, Strict Scrutiny, Divided Argument, Advisory Opinions, MSNBC’s Prosecuting Donald Trump) and blogs (especially Scotusblog, How Appealing, Lawfare). So I channelled Melissa Murry, Kate Shaw, Leah Litman, Will Baude, Dan Epps, Sarah Isgar, David French, Andrew Fleishman, and Mary McCord; they had a great discussion in my head an I came up with my theory. I can’t think of anything else that works.

        Thanks again for the shout out

  6. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Four decisions today. LOL. That leaves another twenty to announce between tomorrow, and next Thursday and Friday. Good indicator of a badly dysfunctional court.

    Given the arrogance and cowardice so prominent with this radical majority, my guess is that the Trump immunity decision comes out next Friday. We won’t like it, so they’ll bury it under another 8-10 decisions. The Court will then promptly turn out the lights until the Fall.

    • soundgood2 says:

      They could extend the time to issue decisions. Can someone check the flight schedules for Harlan Crowe’s jets?

    • paulka123 says:

      Am I correct that the immunity case specifically has a condition in there that regardless of the decision, the DC court can’t take it back up until they receive the “final” written decision? Like could be another 30 days?

      • c-i-v-i-l says:

        For all SCOTUS cases, the written opinion and any concurrences/dissents are released the day the decision is announced, likely next week. The clock on the trial was paused by Chutkan when Trump first appealed, and IIRR, there were 88 days left on the clock before the trial would start, so — depending on the specifics of the SCOTUS ruling — the earliest that jury selection could start is the end of September.

    • Error Prone says:

      earlofhuntingdon – June 20, 2024 at 12:43 pm
      My only insight as to the probability, Leonard Leo might not like the idea of Trump being absolutely immune for conduct during his term – I believe Leo sees infallibility for only one guy. Some on the Court may agree. And it is complicated for Leo, given how that one guy trimmed wing feathers of the Knights of Malta. Leo might distinguish doctrinal infallibility from managerial error possibility. Apply that distinction to Trump immunity? We shall see.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s highly unusual for a chief judge (and a second judge) to interfere with case assignments. Most novice judges would defer to such an unusual, direct recommendation to step aside and let a more experienced jurist handle a complicated case – one involving a defendant to whom Cannon had already displayed inordinate deference, indeed prejudice in his favor.

      Cannon wanted this case, apparently got lucky with a spin of the wheel. and is doing her damnedest to rule in favor of Donald J. Trump.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Presumably, only three people knew about that advice to Aileen Cannon: Cannon, the chief judge, and that second, unknown district court judge. If Cannon didn’t leak it, that leaves two possibilities.

      That it leaked is as big a story as that they gave her the advice. And as damning about their assessment of her ability to act like a judge.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Apparently, this particular piece of advice was common knowledge among the judges in the SDFL, which means their clerks and a lot of other people knew about it. Odd that it should meet the press now, then.

        • Just Some Guy says:

          This story seems timed to today’s hearing. That is, the details were probably already known to everyone involved (except the general public).

  7. harpie says:

    Father Reidy Goes to Washington — As Supreme Court Clerk Notre Dame law professor Father Patrick Reidy will clerk for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, starting in October. June 19, 2024

    Holy Cross Father Patrick Reidy, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, will clerk for Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming term. Few lawyers have the privilege of clerking for a sitting Supreme Court Justice, but Father Reidy’s vocation to the priesthood makes his situation even more impressive.

    “I believe he’s the first priest to serve as a priest and Supreme Court clerk simultaneously,” said Father William Dailey, who is, like Reidy, both a Holy Cross priest and a lawyer. The Register inquired at the Supreme Court Public Information Office and the Supreme Court Historical Society to verify the novelty of Father Reidy’s clerkship, but neither organization maintains sufficiently detailed records of past clerks. […]

      • klynn says:

        Telegraphing Catholic voters to remind them of their electoral opportunity in Nov. This is engaging in politics, not law.

        • Rayne says:

          Sure would like to know what happened to Christ’s exhortation, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” The law is Caesar’s — the state’s.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      “Impressive” is not the word I would use to describe a Supreme Court Justice hiring an ordained priest as a law clerk. Regardless of his credentials, this is wrong.

      This is Beer Kavanaugh engaging in performance art. He’s throwing 2x4s into the eyes of the Court’s critics, who complain that he and five of his brethren are demolishing the separation of church and state. Another long-held precedent this majority is happy to throw away to remake American society and governance in their own image. How godlike.

      • Spencer Dawkins says:

        And regardless of his credentials, whether or not it IS wrong, it LOOKS wrong.

        I will confess to being pleasantly surprised that Justice Barrett isn’t as horrible as I feared – I wrote in a comment on another blog this morning that she might have realized that she is a theocrat, but Thomas and Alito are fascists, so there is SOME daylight between her and the worst justices, but I really don’t know what to do with Kavanaugh.

        IIUC, your take is that he’s reliving the proudest moments of his confirmation hearing (“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace,” he said in opening remarks written only 24 hours before. “The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced ‘advice and consent’ with ‘search and destroy”), and you may be right!

        I wonder if he has enough theocratic street credibility to write theocratic decisions without a guide.

    • gmokegmoke says:

      Six Catholics on the Supreme Court, most, if I’m not mistaken, Opus Dei affiliated. Now a Jesuit priest as a clerk for Kavanaugh. We are getting close to having to call them the Holy Inquisition if we want to have truth in advertising.

      And I’m old enough to remember when JFK’s Catholicism was an issue during his 1960 election.

      PS: Turns out that the first Catholic on the Supremes was…. wait for it… Roger Taney.

      • Spencer Dawkins says:

        I’m not going to look at the list of justices by declared religious identity, but with Taney as the first name on that list and the current names on that list, that sets my expectations for those in the middle to be pretty low.

        “Must not pre-judge, must not pre-judge …”

    • harpie says:

      Also from Wikipedia entry:

      […] While Becket typically litigates in favor of religious liberty claims, it occasionally intervenes in favor of the state to oppose free exercise challenges. One example came when Jewish plaintiffs challenged Indiana’s restrictive abortion statutes after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, claiming that Indiana’s laws limiting abortion infringed on Jewish religious belief (which the plaintiffs contended require that abortion be available in most or all situations). In contrast to their normally broad defense of religious liberty claimants, Becket here argued that the Jewish plaintiffs, who had won a preliminary challenge in lower court, were “insincere” in their stated religious beliefs and that even if their religious beliefs were sincere Indiana was justified in overriding them to protect “innocent life”.[41] […]

      [41] “Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Appellants,” Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1 […]

        • Matt Foley says:

          Does the law specify which language? I suggest Wu Chinese.

          Damn MAGA theocrats make me puke.

        • Peterr says:

          Yes, Matt. It prescribes the version used by Cecil B. DeMille in “The Ten Commandments”.

          And no, I’m not kidding. Historian Kevin Kruse actually wrote the book on this, and will be on Chris Hayes in a few minutes to talk about it.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Yes, Kevin Kruse’s, “One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America (2015).”

      • harpie says:

        Also, Kevin Kruse wrote about this yesterday:

        Thou Shalt Not

        […] Cecil B. DeMille believed he could best serve the conservative religious revival of the postwar era with his considerable talents as a filmmaker. In August 1952, he announced that his next film would be an epic production of The Ten Commandments. […]

        And Sarah Posner today:
        Nationalist Strategy: Ten Commandments in Louisiana The Ten Commandments mandate is a means of gaining acceptance for the core belief that America should be governed according to “biblical law.”

        • Rayne says:

          I sure would like to know why Louisiana legislators think an excerpt from a movie script will pass the test as a religious text to be protected under the First Amendment rather than corporate-produced entertainment content pushed in federally-funded K-12 education facilities.

          Or do they think a movie extract has a better chance of surviving a contest than their own religion’s text?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The requirement includes all public college and university classrooms, too, as well as primary and secondary school classrooms.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Not coincidentally, DeMille’s multi-year 1950s film promotion coincided with adding the novel, “under God,” to the Pledge of Allegiance.

        • Alan Charbonneau says:

          It’s political theater. If the courts overturn it, the MAGAs still win, spinning it as ‘liberal jurists writing law from the bench’.

          I remember seeing Colbert years ago. He had on Lynn Westmoreland, a U.S. congressman who cosponsored a bill to place the Ten Commandments in the House of Representatives and the Senate. During the interview, Colbert asked Westmoreland to name the Ten Commandments. Westmoreland replied “uh, don’t kill… don’t steal…, don’t lie…, I guess I can’t name them”. They’re the foundation of western civilization, the most important laws ever created, and Westmoreland was able to name only three of them. I’m 70 and went to Catholic school grades 1-6 and I can still name them, despite being an atheist since age 12. Of course, the list I memorized was the DeMille version, in Genesis it’s not listed the same way at all, but it still beats Westmoreland!

    • Konny_2022 says:

      I try hard to not look at the religious belief and affiliation of public figures — as long as their work is not determined by the specifics of that religion.

      And if it does play a role, institutions should look at least similar to the population represented.

      The current composition of the Supreme Court, however, is amazing, see I wonder if any non-Catholic was on Leonard Leo’s list …

    • iamevets says:

      I know it’s a silly question, as they keep going through boundaries, but how much more blatant can they be? Has a law school professor ever gone to clerk before? Seems an odd career choice. Guess it’s more of a vocation, bringing religion straight into government. Gotta think that the religious calling is number one job, performing the governmental duties of a supposedly nonbiased supreme court clerk is second fiddle, except to bolster the dissemination of the religious views of the number one job.

      what’s an atheist to believe in government now?

      • Peterr says:

        Per his CV, this is his first year as a professor.

        I also see that he served as a clerk for Judge Thomas Hardman of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Pittsburgh in 2021-22.

        • Epicurus says:

          His name is Hardiman. He was a finalist for the SC under Trump but lost out to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Hardiman was a Notre Dame undergrad and a Georgetown Law grad.

    • Peterr says:

      Note, too, that the source of your post is the conservative National Catholic Register, a right-wing journal of Catholicism with ties to the Eternal Word Television network.

      Interestingly, the independent (progressive-leaning) National Catholic Reporter has no story on this as yet. This says to me that the NC Register was fed the story by conservative folks at either Notre Dame or SCOTUS.

    • John H Wolfe says:

      We are marching towards a theocracy. In trying to do some research on Patrick Reidy I find it interesting that there seems to be nothing on Wikipedia. I have to wonder if his entry is being scrubbed to reappear.

  8. OldTulsaDude says:

    Only because it is an open thread and plainly borrowed from Neil Young.

    I moved to the White House
    and I lost my spouse
    I saw the needling
    when a Democratic louse said
    there was only one kind of fact

    I’ve seen the needling
    and the damage done
    another Karen’s really come undone
    Milk Duds to keep from smoking again.

    I sing the song because
    I love the man, my insides jiggle
    and my heart expands,
    oh, oh the damage done.
    Uh, oh, it’s a coronary ….

  9. Konny_2022 says:

    May the Kavanaugh hiring a priest be in anticipation of the expected case re the 10 Commandments in Louisiana going to the Supreme Court? Would be a little early though.

    • Peterr says:

      No, I’m sure this clerkship was in the works long before the LA bill was even filed in the state legislature.

      • Spencer Dawkins says:

        I know what you mean, but I’m reading that the Texas ledge tried, and failed, to pass a similar law last year, so “in the works long before the LA bill was filed” and “in anticipation of the expected case re the 10 Commandments in Louisiana going to the Supreme Court?” can both be true … it’s not like multiple red states file the same bills expecting the same challenges (/snark).

        It will be interesting to see how many more states come up with laws that are appealed before the LA law hits the Supremes.

      • Spencer Dawkins says:

        Thank you for this link. I can’t recommend reading that page highly enough – it makes what Louisiana has done sound even crazier.

        To name only one thing that jumped out at me – if the text chosen as the wording required by law is from Cecil B. DeMille, doesn’t that mean they’ll be corrupting their youth by making them study “the words of the Bible after Hollywood changed them” with full state backing? (/snark)

        I need to go lie down now …

      • David Brooks says:

        But, but… I thought the only authentic version of the Bible was that concocted by a King specifically to buttress his own divine appointment and the ordination of clergy, directly inspired by God in the 17th century English spoken by Moses. No wonder the evangelicals worship it.

      • theartistvvv says:

        I read that and thought “Holy Shite” and not, “Holy Shite!”, rather, more shite allegedly holy.

        And ain’t, it’s just shite.

        Looking forward to the lawsuits, adding another state to my “no $ spent” list (TX, FL, AZ, WI, etc.).

        And I *liked* Mardi Gras.

      • Konny_2022 says:

        Overruling previous judgments isn’t difficult for this SC.

        I only wonder what kids will be answered when asking (because it’s in their view every school day) why politicians and other public people aren’t indicted for the infringement of “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

        • P-villain says:

          If the rule of law still means anything, this law will be enjoined before it ever goes into effect, and it will stay enjoined all the way to the Supreme Court.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      This “Supreme Court” may easily morph into an Inquisition. All the players are in place.

  10. IainUlysses says:

    Thanks for bringing up “unbenched.” The homelessness case isn’t flashy, but it will affect a very vulnerable group. The consequences are also likely to show up very quickly in local politics. I’m going to be watching my local city council pretty closely afterwards. I don’t imagine there’s any chance this will work out well.

  11. harpie says:

    This is informative:
    The Major 2024 Decisions and Cases Still Before the Supreme Court
    Adam Liptak, Abbie VanSickle and Alicia Parlapiano Updated June 20, 2024

    As the Supreme Court enters the final weeks of its term, it is poised to issue a series of blockbuster decisions, including ones on federal criminal charges against former President Donald J. Trump, abortion rights and the Second Amendment.

    No Supreme Court term in recent memory has featured so many cases with the potential to transform American society. […]

  12. Error Prone says:

    Father Reidy – Order of the Holy Cross. Now the Jesuits will want one. The Benedictines. How many orders, how many Justices to Clerk for.

    What struck me in the NCRegister item: follow the money. Specificlly, “In 2023, he returned to Notre Dame as an associate professor at the law school. There, he teaches courses in land use and property and serves as the faculty co-director of the Fitzgerald Institute for Real Estate’s Church Properties Initiative, which facilitates proactive stewardship of church property in service of evangelization and charity. Father Reidy declined to comment for this article.”

    Buried at the end of the article. I wondered, with The Church shrinking in the U.S. how might repurposing the goods while keeping tax-free status be a Father R. consideration?

    Easily searched, Fitzgerald Institute and Church Property Inititive. Reading between the lines might not be as easy, but – THE MONEY. Always an anchor to understanding.

    Father R. is on YouTube:

    “Faith and Law: Bridging Real Estate and Religious Values at Notre Dame — ND Day 2024” is the item’s caption. It is posted by: ND Loyal

    (Another thing of interest they post, not involving Father R. and his Real Property deliberations:
    “Fighting for the Ethical Use of Technology”)

    And, since nobody else posted it, there is Aileen Cannon’s name tied to Leonard Leo’s:

    Everybody seems to know everybody else, and Cannon not giving up the case – while a Trump appointee – may touch upon her having a security clearance other judges might lack, where she could have ranging loyalties beyond to Trump, if that is a factor coloring her judging.

  13. timbozone says:

    Am I the only person who calls askance of Haberman and Goldmacher’s so-called news article at the NYTs here:

    In the print edition of the East Bay Times, the syndicated article states >definitively< that "Trump has avoided tapping his own personal fortune to fund his hefty legal bills" and "He has not used his campaign committee for legal bills". My question is 1) why are the NYT reporters making definitive statements unless they have full forensic access to both the Trump campaign committee's books and all of Trump's personal accounts? How does anyone know this to be true at all? Seriously, there's been some falling down of late at the NYT but this is just a bridge too far for me. So, 2)why/how are reporters and editors selling this story around the country as if it is news and not an opinion piece? Saying something is true does not make it true at all. And it is shameful that the NYT and the newspapers that buy the syndicated news that is actually opinion have fallen this low in journalistic integrity. For, unless Haberman and Goldmacher have complete, full, unfettered forensic access to both the Trump campaign committee's full financial accounts directly, also have similar full access to all of Trump's personal financial accounting, there is no way that they can know that the NYT's reporting is valid whatsoever. It's as if journalists and good journalism have fallen so far at the NYTimes (and beyond) that this now passes as news, that few editors are left that will say "waitaminute here…that doesn't sound right—where is the proof behind what you're saying coming from?!" And that, my friends, is my opinion on their pathetic opinion piece in instant incredulous magical fact.

    Note that I could find find the syndicated article in the EBT’s Sunday print’s news section on the EBT’s website in a quick search, nor is Haberman-Goldmacher article yet listed in the NYT’s own Trump legal fight section, although several other articles from two days ago and further back are linked to through there.

  14. tinaotinao says:

    Hey, my summer reading list includes, ” The Glass Bead Game”
    If you get the copy that has a foreword by Theodore Ziolkowski…Please ALL AMERICANS should reasd it. I believe. Whether you toterate my writing or not should not decide whether I live here.

Comments are closed.