'Outrage is growing in lower courts-- they witness the lawlessness, they see the creepy method and pattern'

[bigtree]

Sheldon Whitehouse @SenWhitehouse

The latest shadow docket decision moves the Supreme Court further down a submissive pattern of wins given up to Trump: the pattern is 10:1. 🧵

Courts allow bias to be assessed using evidence of pattern, so what’s good for the goose should be good for gander, and pattern evidence should be fair game.

Particularly when the shadow docket allows this Supreme Court to submit to Trump without explanation, pattern is all we’re left with.

A tell: regular federal law courts are REJECTING Trump lawlessness in nearly exact opposite pattern (Trump win-loss ratio less than 1:8 by some calculations), and it’s across judges appointed by ALL presidents.

Not only are these judges rejecting, they’re often rebuking the government — the sort of rebukes normal administrations work hard to avoid.

What’s up? If the plan is to submit to spare the Court conflict with lawless Trump, that’s a tactical strategy, but it’s not law. Cases should be decided by LAW.

If the plan is to submit to Trump’s rampage through government because they share his political hatreds and want to enable him, that’s a political strategy, not law.

If the plan is to submit to reward the creepy billionaires who put them on the Court, who are driving Trump and looting the public, that’s payback, not law.

It’s hard to see any lawful explanation for the pattern of submission in the Court’s shadow docket — as sharp dissents keep pointing out with increasing outrage.

Outrage is growing in lower courts too — they witness the lawlessness, they see respected colleagues’ sound decisions overturned, they see the creepy method and pattern.

When the Supreme Court decides cases based not on law, but for tactical, political or payback motives, it ruins itself, destroys its own constitutional purpose. Some legacy.


end.

x.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1973127482761941321

[Blues Heron]

1. SCOTUS is anything but. It's just 6 corrupt bribe takers, abusing the public trust. They are fucked up mentally

[bigtree]

2. avarice is indeed a mental condition

... characterized by an excessive or insatiable desire for wealth and possessions, often leading to negative behaviors such as selfishness and disregard for others.

It is considered one of the seven deadly sins in various belief systems, indicating its psychological implications; and can manifest as a compulsive pursuit of material gain.

Greed is an abomination of man and animals.

[bigtree]

3. The best-known power of the Supreme Court is not found within the text of the Constitution itself.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

Over the years, various Acts of Congress have altered the number of seats on the Supreme Court, from a low of five to a high of 10. Shortly after the Civil War, the number of seats on the Court was fixed at nine. Today, there is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Like all federal judges, justices are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. They, typically, hold office for life. The salaries of the justices cannot be decreased during their term of office. These restrictions are meant to protect the independence of the judiciary from the political branches of government.

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about