#Courts and the Judiciary

[the-sayuri-rin]

Lawmakers called for tighter rules on the Supreme Court after a ProPublica investigation shed light on gifts and favors Justice Clarence Thomas accepted from a major conservative donor for nearly 20 years.

[deadpresidents]

I just hope these next 4 years go by fast

This election isn't just about the next four years. With Trump in the White House and a Republican Senate at his side, the MAGA movement can pick up where they left off when it comes to packing the federal judiciary with right-wing judges who will control the Supreme Court and appellate courts throughout the country potentially for the rest of the lives of everyone reading this right now. It's the perfect recipe for them to continue stripping reproductive rights away from women nationwide and gives them the opportunity to turn their attention to the other issues that they have been dying to attack, from voting rights to gay marriage and every other extension of personal freedom that has been won by minorities and marginalized people in hard-fought battles over the past 60 years. This is the nightmare scenario that people have been warning folks about for the past few elections. It's here. And there isn't going to be a way to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

The consequences of this election will have a direct, negative impact on your life -- possibly on the entire remainder of your life. This country just re-elected a President with authoritarian tendencies who is the willing puppet of a dangerous Christian nationalist movement that figured out exactly how to manipulate him (through flattery) for their aims. They have created the perfect vehicle for a genuine cult of personality that they can use to achieve the goals they have been very clear about striving for over the past few years. And you can't blame anybody other than the American voters because they not only elected Trump, but they gave him a fucking mandate, with a Republican Senate and potentially a Republican House. They already have a right-wing dominated Supreme Court for the next few decades, and now they are going to ensure that the entire federal judiciary is in their control for years to come. And don't forget the fact that a few months ago, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that gave Presidents sweeping immunity for a broad (and conveniently undefined) range of "official" acts, so Trump is going to go into this second term knowing that not only does he not have to deal with the "guardrails" of responsible adults he had around him in his first term (Mattis, Tillerson, Kelly, General Milley, etc), but he knows he can get away with virtually anything and everything that he wants to do this time around. If you thought that Trump's first term was bad, just understand that they are prepared this time and now he's surrounded himself with people who will do his bidding -- people who are perfectly willing to let Trump be Donald Trump.

I wish there was a reason to cry foul, lodge protests, and challenge the election's results. But this wasn't a rigged election. There isn't any confusion about what the voters really wanted. The American people did this. People you know and care about and who say they care about you are the people who did this. We need to recognize that these elections aren't outliers anymore. Trump's supporters aren't simply chaos agents who got lucky on a bad day for the Democrats. That's the country we live in now and we have to find a way to resist it that actually makes a difference because now they have the keys to all the doors and all of the alarm codes. This country has normalized the conspiracy theories and nativism and racism that has powered the MAGA movement since the moment Trump came down the elevator at Trump Tower in 2015. He's given those people permission to be open with their hatred towards people who aren't like them, and it's actually become surprising to see how many Americans have been eager to take advantage of that. I didn't think I had any misconceptions about this country before Donald Trump because I recognized this nation's history, but I clearly had some misconceptions about people I thought I knew until I saw them wearing a red MAGA hat or noticed they had a gigantic flag with Trump's name hanging where their U.S. flag used to hang. Once that happened, it was like a switch went off with them and they started saying things in ways that I'd never heard them speak. I feel like that's happened to the entire country. It breaks my heart and it pisses me off.

For the past few years, I've been warning everybody about how elections have consequences. I imagine that there are hundreds of posts on this blog with that phrase in all caps listed with the tags. Now the elections have happened, and we have to live with real fucking consequences. And we're going to pass these consequences on to other generations because this is the one that you can't get a do-over on. When you give a movement like this the power and the mandate that this country just gave them, there is no easily rolling back the things that they end up doing. They are going to fundamentally change the lives of people in this nation and especially change the way the younger generations of Americans live and love and learn for years to come. And you have people in your life who made that happen. It's another disgusting day in America -- a prelude to another reprehensible four years (at the very least) -- and I'm ashamed of tens of millions of my fellow Americans because this one is on them. They know exactly who the man is that they voted for, and now we know exactly who they are, too.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

President Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court reforms

Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer at WaPo:

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to make substantive changes to the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers. Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. [...]

Term limits and an ethics code would be subject to congressional approval, which would face long odds in the Republican-controlled House and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate. Under current rules, passage in the Senate would require 60 votes. A constitutional amendment requires even more hurdles, including two-thirds support of both chambers, or by a convention of two-thirds of the states, and then approval by three-fourths of state legislatures. The details of Biden’s considered policies have not been disclosed. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.

[...] Eight Democratic senators have co-sponsored a bill that would establish 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with a new justice appointed every two years. The nine most recently appointed justices would sit for appellate jurisdiction cases, while others would be able to hear original jurisdiction cases or to step in as a substitute if one of the most recent nine is conflicted or cannot hear a case for another reason.

Good News! President Joe Biden set to endorse major reforms to SCOTUS, such as term limits and an ethics code with actual teeth.

[charlesoberonn]

Trump is allowed to steal nuclear secrets, according to a judge he himself appointing.

(don't worry too much tho, the government is 100% going to appeal the decision, the case isn't dead yet)

[todaysdocument]

An Act to Establish the Federal Courts of the United States

Record Group 11: General Records of the United States GovernmentSeries: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of CongressFile Unit: Public Law, 1st Congress, 1st Session, Part 1: United States Judicial Courts. September 24, 1789

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress established with great particularity a limited jurisdiction for the district and circuit courts, gave the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction provided for in the Constitution, and granted the Court appellate jurisdiction in cases from the Federal circuit courts and from the state courts where those courts' rulings had rejected Federal claims. The decision to grant Federal courts a jurisdiction more restrictive than that allowed by the Constitution represented a recognition by the Congress that the people of the United States would not find a full-blown Federal court system palatable at that time. For nearly all of the next century the judicial system remained essentially as established by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Congress of the United States,

begun and held at the City of New York on

Wednesday the fourth of March one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

[centered heading/title:] An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate Justices shall have precedence according to the date of their Commissions, or when the Commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.

And be it further enacted, That the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts, to be limited and called as follows, to wit: One to consist of that part of the State of Massachusetts which lies easterly of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called Main [sic] district; One to consist of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called New Hampshire district; One to consist of the remaining part of the State of Massachusetts, and to be called Massachusetts district; One to consist of the State of Connecticut, and to be called Connecticut district; One to consist of the State of New York, and to be called New York district; One to consist of the State of New Jersey, and to be called New Jersey district; One to consist of the State of Pennsylvania, and to be called Pennsylvania district; One to consist of the State of Delaware, and to be called Delaware district; One to consist of the State of Maryland, and to be called Maryland district; One to consist of the State of Virginia, except that part called the district of Kentucky, and to be called Virginia district; One to consist of the remaining part of the State of Virginia, and to be called Kentucky district; One to consist of the State of South Carolina, and to be called South Carolina district; and one to consist of the State of Georgia, and to be called Georgia district.

 [complete document and transcription at link]

[tomorrowusa]

Want more bad judges and even worse decisions which will be around for the rest of your life? Just mope around and pretend that there is nothing you can do to impact the election.

When Roe v. Wade went into effect in 1973, the abortion opponents mobilized and worked tirelessly to get it repealed. It took them 49 years but they succeeded in 2022. They never gave up.

Too many people on the progressive side of the spectrum give up easily, don't take the long view, or act like that guy in the "distracted boyfriend" meme when they see a flashy third party or fringe candidate.

Elections are not unlike playing horseshoes – you can win by getting close even if you don't achieve the instant gratification of a direct ringer. And if you don't win on the first try you keep getting chances every 2 to 6 years to improve your score.

Persistence and long-term focus have worked well for Republicans. It's foolish to let them have exclusive use of these tools.

[schraubd]

Losing Your Chevrons

Somewhere, an environmentalist wished upon a star: "I hate big oil. It's a blight on the universe. If only Chevron would disappear forever!" and a monkey's paw curled once. I was steeling myself to write about Loper Bright and my official welcome on behalf of the Con Law professoriate to the Admin Law professors joining the "burn all your lecture notes and start from scratch club", and then Trump v. United States came down. Even though the latter is a more immediate big deal and is closer to my expertise wheelhouse (I've fielded far more inquiries from former students asking "what is going on!" with respect to the Trump decision than any ruling in my entire career, Dobbs included), I really don't have all that much to say at this moment. That may change -- in fact, it almost certainly will, as I try to work this blog post into an essay -- but for now I'm going to lay off and just write what I planned to write about the demise of Chevron. My short version take is this: in many, many cases, we'll see little difference between before and after. This prediction, however, should not be confused with sanguinity. Rather, it is a recognition that judges are human, with the normal assortment of human interests, talents, and vices.  In most deep-weeds administrative law cases, where judges neither know nor care about the difference between, say, nitrogen oxide and nitrous oxide, they aren't going to actually do a deep dive review of the law from scratch. These issues are hard enough for a team of subject-matter experts with Ph.Ds in the hard sciences grinding away for months. For a judge with a J.D. from Hofstra who last took a statistics class in 11th grade? Forget about it. In practice, no matter what the doctrine purports to demand or what they claim to be doing on the opinion pages, judges will end up deferring to reasonable agency interpretations of the law unless they're howlingly off-base -- which, of course, is why we ended up with Chevron in the first place. Any objective observer of courts sees this sort of thing from judges all the time -- there are all sorts of cases where nominal "de novo" review is the furthest thing from, because judges simply find the topic boring, repetitive, or impenetrable (you can usually spot these cases by their use of the phrase "after careful review ...."). This will be what happens for many if not most cases on obscure rules in unremarkable issue areas. What will change is in those administrative rules on hot button issues of high-salience. Here, Loper Bright doesn't make judges any smarter, but does give them a green light to start substituting their judgment for expert agencies who at least have some measure of accountability to the political process. In other words, Loper Bright won't universally result in the substitution of inexpert judicial policymaking for the judgments of administrative agencies; rather, it will result in that substitution on an ad hoc and arbitrary basis whenever the judge who happens to be draw the case has an idiosyncratic or ideological hobbyhorse to ride. The administrative state will be able to carry on, with a cutaway for partisan judges to meddle more openly whenever partisan proclivities instigate an urge. So there's your consolation about the end of Chevron. Feeling better? I thought so. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/ow8Pq4G

[starzalign]

Theres too much going on regarding American politics it scarily mirrors the Nazi Regime.

The Supreme Court just overruled Cheveron v NRD. Which in simple terms means, they just stripped experts in their respective fields of their RIGHTS to speak on and determine whats proper for the FDA, Safety in Aviation, healthcare, social security, education, civil rights, WORKERS rights, the environment etc. People are going to lose their jobs or have to “transfer” because of this.

More importantly the judiciary branch can now take payouts and implement whatever they’d like, experts be damned. Now the supreme court holds all the power & a certain party has made it clear that they will take away abortion nation wide, same sex marriage, interracial marriage, the right to privacy and more. I suggest you all look into Project 2025!

To make matters worse the supreme court LITERALLY just ruled that homelessness is illegal….it’s about to get scary

​I encourage anyone that lives in America to vote for the democratic party and do their research on the people you vote for. Not just on the national scale but your mayors, governors, etc.

[jensorensen]

What can we do about a Supreme Court packed with corrupt extremists?

To be fair, some Dems have made an effort to expand the court. In 2023, a group of senators and representatives including Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, Cori Bush, and Adam Schiff reintroduced legislation to increase the number of justices to 13. Schiff made the case eloquently:

Schiff, a congressman from California, said: “This is not a conservative court, not in a legal sense. A conservative court would have some respect for precedent. This is instead a political and partisan court with a reactionary social agenda and the only question, Mitch McConnell having packed the court, is will we do anything about it or will we subject an entire generation of Americans to the loss of their rights? “Dirtier air and dirtier water and dirtier elections? Is that the fate we would have for the next generation? My kids are both in their early 20s and I am not satisfied that they should have to live under a reactionary supreme court for their entire adult lives and I don’t want anyone else’s kids to have to suffer that fate.”

Help keep this work sustainable by joining the Sorensen Subscription Service! Also on Patreon.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

By Steven Lubet

In an unprecedented move, the Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced a bill requiring the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct and to create a mechanism for investigating alleged violations of the code and other laws.

It is no secret that the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act was prompted in part by investigations into several Justices’ deficient financial disclosures, receipt of extravagant gifts, questionable transactions and misuse of staff. The full court has consistently resisted adopting such an ethics code, but certain Justices’ justifications for their questionable conduct only hurt their cause.

Their excuses were all remarkably flimsy, almost beyond belief.

Justice Clarence Thomas began the round of rationalizations when Pro Publica reported that he had enjoyed decades of lavish vacations at the expense of billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow — including cruises in Indonesia and the Greek Islands on Crow’s superyacht — none of which were included as gifts on Thomas’s financial disclosure forms as required by the Ethics in Government Act.

In a one-paragraph statement, Thomas opaquely claimed that he had sought guidance early in his tenure on the court from unnamed “colleagues and others in the judiciary,” who advised him that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends” was not reportable.

Thomas has never revealed the identities of his alleged ethics advisors, but it is notable that no Justice or Judge has stepped forward to take responsibility for his decidedly lax interpretation of the disclosure rules. Whoever may have mentored Thomas, it is highly unlikely, to put it mildly, that any federal judge in the early 1990s would have understood “this sort of personal hospitality” to cover the omission of 20 years of luxury vacations at a private Adirondacks resort, a Texas ranch and California’s Bohemian Grove, ferried on a private jet (not to mention payment of private school tuition for the Justice’s nephew and the purchase of his mother’s home).

As excuses go, “somebody once told me it was okay” is about a step above “the dog ate my homework,” but it is still better than Thomas’s earlier excuse for ­­not disclosing years of his wife’s employment when Virginia Thomas was paid $686,589 by the conservative Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College.

Upon amending 20 years of his financial reports, Thomas gave the far-fetched explanation that he had “inadvertently omitted” the information “due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” It takes almost preternatural shamelessness for a Supreme Court Justice — whose job calls for parsing the most complex legislation — to insist that he misunderstood the plain meaning of “spouse’s employment” for 20 reporting years.

If Thomas’s excuses for nondisclosure were sketchy, at least he didn’t become visibly angry when he was caught. Not so Justice Samuel Alito, who made an irate preemptive strike via the Wall Street Journal editorial page when he learned that Pro Publica was about to publicize his own nondisclosures.

The Pro Publica reporters contacted Alito for comment before going live with their article about an Alaska vacation financed by prominent Republican donors. Rather than answer their questions, however, Alito took advantage of his contacts at the Wall Street Journal to get a jump on the story. He published his response several hours before Pro Publica’s post, in which he called the yet unseen article misleading and false.

There was no disputing the facts. In 2008, Alito enjoyed a three-day, all-expenses junket at a remote Alaska fishing camp owned by a wealthy conservative activist named Robin Arkley II which was apparently arranged by Federalist Society official Leonard Leo. Another guest was the billionaire Paul Singer, who flew the Justice to Alaska on his private jet. No details about the trip were listed as gifts on Alito’s disclosure forms.

Unlike Thomas, Alito claimed no preexisting friendships with his benefactors, which did not stop him from playing the “personal hospitality” card. Although the statutory disclosure exception clearly applies only to “food, lodging, or entertainment,” and not to transportation, Alito defended his nondisclosure by cobbling together several unrelated statutes in a tortured attempt to show that private jet flights constitute “hospitality facilities.”

The Justice seemed to argue that the trip had no value because he sat in “what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat,” imposing no “extra cost” for Singer. One might expect an avowed textualist to pay more attention to the statutory definition of “gift,” which includes, for example, “free attendance at an event,” which also costs nothing to the host.

The most recent revelations involve Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s use of court staff to bolster her book sales at speaking engagements. That would have violated the lower federal courts’ Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which prohibits the substantial use of “chambers, resources or staff” to engage in otherwise permitted financial activities — if the Supreme Court had ever adopted its own version of the code.

Sotomayor’s excuse was that her “chambers staff” was only recommending “the number of books based on the size of the audience so as not to disappoint attendees who may anticipate books being available at an event.” In other words, the Justice admitted assigning a judicial assistant to keep track of book purchases relative to audience sizes, in order to maximize her potential sales.

The three Justices’ hollow rationalizations display a patronizing expectation that the public will ultimately buy whatever they say, no matter how implausible.

But to paraphrase the late Justice Robert Jackson: Supreme Court Justices do not get the last word because they are infallible; they only believe themselves infallible because they get the last word. When it comes to judicial ethics, that has to change.

[nodynasty4us]

From the October 9, 2024 story about cases that the Supreme Court might take up this year:

Amid the carnage of dead women and children left motherless, the right is pressing ahead with its crusade to control who has a family, as well as when and how they’re able to do so. In response to the public unpopularity of these efforts, conservatives are turning to their favorite time-honored tactic: playing the victim.

...

If the right gets its way, employers would be free, for example, to restrict a woman’s ability to take time off for IVF treatments. At the heart of these cases is conservatives’ thinly evidenced claim that their religious freedom is under attack.

...

After banning abortion throughout much of the country, anti-abortion agitators are now asking the Trump justices for carte blanche to harass patients and providers in the states where abortion remains available.

...

In the America the Supreme Court is crafting in its image, the purest form of anti-abortion “public discourse” is to harass a woman at the moment of her most personal and private medical decisions. And unless the law permits one to do so all the way up to the clinic’s door—so that one’s target can’t even walk away—it’s the harasser whose rights have been “eviscerated.”

[secular-jew]

What the Battle Over Judicial Reform in Israel Is Really About

By CAROLINE GLICK

Any complex issue deserves (no, requires) lengthy argument, and this piece by Caroline Glick this is no exception. But Caroline is a cogent writer who makes everyone smarter. So read it and get properly informed.

***************************************

In Israel as in states throughout the Western world, the political Left is an ecosystem of power, and not merely a political camp. It starts with the parties of the center- and far-Left. But it encompasses far more powerful institutions and actors, as well. These include the universities, the vast majority of media organs, most of the entertainment industry, and much of the economic elite. The Left also comprises the senior ranks of the security establishment—represented most clearly by politically active retired generals.

The most powerful component of the Left's ecosystem in Israel is the legal fraternity, which is comprised of the Supreme Court, the attorney general, the state prosecution, and the legal advisors to the Knesset and the government ministries.

Despite its control over vast power sources in Israeli society, the Left does not control the Israeli people themselves. A significant majority of Israelis define themselves as right-of-center. In the last elections, right-of-center parties won 64 seats in Israel's 120-seat parliament, the Knesset. The Left's parties won a mere 46 seats. The other 10 seats went to two anti-Zionist Arab parties, which are supported by, but are not constituent parts of, the leftist ecosystem.

For the first three decades after Israel won independence in 1948, the Left held all levers of political power. The Labor Party controlled the government and the Knesset. And its loyalists controlled the Left's nonpolitical ecosystem. When, under Menachem Begin, the Right won its first electoral victory in 1977, Begin disappointed his loyalists and opted not to replace Labor's apparatchiks in the public sector, the Israel Defense Forces, the legal system, and state media with his own. Begin's refusal to bring in his own people was a source of rancor, but when viewed in its historical context, his decision had its merits. Labor's apparatchiks were old-left socialists, ideologically, but they were experienced in the ways of governance and they were patriots. True, they despised Begin, but they loved Israel. Leaving them secure in their positions may have made them political thorns in Begin's side, but it didn't harm the national interest.

Begin would probably have acted differently today.

Like the Left throughout the Western world, over the past 30 years, Israel's Left has abandoned labor union politics for cultural Marxism and post-nationalism. Its new globalist ideals render the Left's constituent parts contemptuous, and increasingly hateful, of Israel's nationalist majority.

In the decades since Begin opted to leave the Labor apparatchiks in place, their post-nationalist successors have formed an oligarchy whose power sits beyond the reach of the elected Israeli government. Its members, particularly in the legal fraternity, have seized more and more executive powers away from the government, and more and more legislative powers away from the Knesset. For the past three decades, government lawyers have killed government decisions and legislative initiatives, before they were off the drawing board, by proclaiming them "unreasonable" or "legally problematic" (as opposed to illegal).

When the government and Knesset chose to disregard the unsubtle orders from their unelected lawyers, the Supreme Court pounced. The justices haven't flinched from abrogating the government's actions; and more often than not, the justices have based their decisions not on statutory law, but on the extraordinarily vague "reasonableness" rationale that has enabled them to strike down laws and lawful government actions simply by deeming them "unreasonable."

Today, led quite openly by Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Esther Hayut and her predecessor, Aharon Barak, the Israeli Left is in open rebellion against the Netanyahu government and its plans to reform the judicial system. Buffeted and sometimes led by a media that has abandoned all pretense of dispassionate journalism for propaganda, some on the Left—including the mayor of Tel Aviv—have outright called for civil war. Others have deployed a combination of riots, protests, boycotts, highway blockages, and lawfare in a bid to paralyze and intimidate the Netanyahu government into standing down.

The Netanyahu government's program for judicial reform is astounding for its modesty. If passed in full, it will simply realign Israel's currently unchecked judiciary with the checked judiciaries of the vast majority of Western democracies.

The judicial reform package's main components are: placing judicial appointments under more political control; requiring justices to base their judgments on the law, rather than the malleable veneer of "reasonableness"; banning the Supreme Court from amending or overriding Israel's Basic laws, which form the basis of Israel's quasi-constitutional rule of law; and placing constraints on the Supreme Court's power to abrogate laws duly promulgated by the Knesset, while providing the Knesset with a mechanism for overriding the Court's decisions.

The final clause of the government's reform package stipulates that the attorney general's opinions do not bind the government that he ostensibly serves.

While the Left has managed to engender a sense of chaos, the situation in Israel is actually far more stable than it appears. The Left's riots will continue so long as the billionaire funders in Israel and abroad send their checks. But the legal reform will be passed into law and implemented.

Any doubt that this would occur was dispelled two weeks ago, via a strategic intervention by Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Although the position of Israeli president is a largely ceremonial post, two weeks ago Herzog inserted himself into the middle of the debate. In a primetime address, Herzog set out his own proposal for judicial reform. A former head of the Labor Party and the son of Israel's sixth president, the late Chaim Herzog, Isaac Herzog is a scion of the leftist establishment.

Herzog's proposal involved fewer limits on the Court's powers than the government's proposal. But his intervention was important—indeed, it was decisive—for three main reasons.

First, Herzog's proposal is predicated on both recognition and opposition to the fact that today, Israel's Supreme Court has no checks on its power whatsoever. To restore and safeguard Israel's democracy, the Israeli Supreme Court must cease to operate as a self-perpetuating judicial oligarchy.

Second, Herzog's proposal recognizes the fundamental legitimacy of the political Right. Knesset opposition leader Yair Lapid and his partners have so far refused to follow suit; as far as they are concerned, the Israeli people's vote last fall to restore Netanyahu to power was no more than an arbitrary moment, and far less legitimate than the unmoving positions of the nation's ruling elite.

Finally, Herzog's intervention gave cover to leftist politicians and luminaries who, like him, are willing to work with the Netanyahu government to reach a workable compromise on legal reform. Despite public denials by various opposition politicians, following Herzog's speech, prominent leftists have been meeting behind the scenes with Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Chairman of Knesset Law, Constitution, and Justice Committee Simcha Rothman, and their advisors, in order to bridge differences.

And those differences are not all that large. Nearly every single leading politician on the Left—including Lapid himself—has put forward a program of judicial reform similar to the Netanyahu government's plan. Back in 1994, Herzog's father, then-President Chaim Herzog, also called for constraining judicial power.

At the end of the day, the fight over judicial reform in Israel isn't about judicial reform at all. It is about the radical Left, and its refusal to accept the validity of democratic outcomes when its side loses. The Netanyahu government will win because, despite the fact that the radicals have taken over the leftist ecosystem, enough old-left Zionists are still around to work with their counterparts on the Zionist Right and cut a deal.

Caroline B. Glick is a Newsweek columnist, the senior contributing editor of Jewish News Syndicate, and the diplomatic commentator for Israel's Channel 14. She is also the author of The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, (Crown Forum, 2014). From 1994 to 1996, she served as a core member of Israel's negotiating team with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

[deadpresidents]

I hope I'm not jinxing things, but do you see President Harris picking former President Obama for the next vacancy on the SCOTUS?

I'd be stunned if President Obama had any interest in being nominated to the Supreme Court. I think any former President would have a difficult time adjusting to being one of nine justices after the experience of being the most powerful person in the world during their Presidency. President Obama has a deliberative temperament, but I think the judiciary requires an entirely different form of deliberation and I imagine Obama would feel handcuffed as a member of the Supreme Court.

William Howard Taft was appointed to the Supreme Court after leaving the White House and spent nearly nine years (1921-1930) as Chief Justice, but he's the exception to the rule when it comes to former Presidents and the Court. Taft was a judge before he was an executive, and it was his lifelong dream to sit on the Supreme Court, not to be President. Taft had actively worked to be appointed to the Supreme Court as far back as 1889 when Benjamin Harrison was President, but the politics or the timing just never worked out in his favor until after his Presidency. If it had been up to Taft, he would have gladly traded his time in the Executive Branch (under Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt) and four years in the White House for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Despite his background in Constitutional law, I think Barack Obama has always been an activist at heart, and while we now have a hyper-political Supreme Court, I don't see the judiciary as the place where Obama wants to spend the rest of his post-Presidency.

(Plus, if/when a President Harris fills a vacancy on the Supreme Court, it's probably best if she picks someone younger than Obama in order to lock down that seat for as long as possible.)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one. But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office. [...] On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics. Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law. For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality. [...] First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment. It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators. Second, we have had term limits for presidents for nearly 75 years. We should have the same for Supreme Court justices. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court. Third, I’m calling for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. This is common sense. The court’s current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced. Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt. All three of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans— as well as conservative and liberal constitutional scholars. And I want to thank the bipartisan Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.

President Joe Biden for The Washington Post on Supreme Court reforms (07.29.2024).

President Joe Biden wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post this morning about his plan to reform the Supreme Court. His plans to fix the nation’s highest court include 3 key items:

Term limits of 18 years.

Binding code of ethics.

Constitutional Amendment that states Presidents cannot have immunity for crimes committed while in office.

These plans are supported by the majority of Americans.

[importantwomensbirthdays]

Leeona Dorrian

Leeona Dorrian, Lady Dorrian was born in 1957 in Edinburgh, Scotland. In 2005, Dorrian was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Courts. In 2016, she became Lord Justice Clerk, the second-highest position in the Scottish judiciary. In this role, Dorrian is also Chair of the Scottish Sentencing Council. Before becoming a judge, her roles included Advocate Depute as well as Standing Junior Counsel to the Health and Safety Executive Commission.

[tomorrowusa]

Special Counsel Jack Smith has had it with Trump-appointed Federal Judge Aileen Cannon. Judge Cannon has been indulging every questionable whim used by Trump's lawyers in the classified documents case in order to stall it. Her decisions have been blatantly partisan; perhaps Trump promised her a seat on the US Supreme Court – not that he's famous for following through on loyalty.

Jack Smith filed a motion asking Cannon to get moving with the case – with the implied threat that he will appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to have her overruled or even removed from the case. The 11th Circuit had already, in a unanimous decision, vacated a previous order of hers which would have delayed the proceedings.

Time To Fire The Cannon?

Putting Trump back in office would allow him to appoint more dubious judges like Aileen Cannon. Defeating Trump would not just protect democracy but would prevent the federal judiciary from becoming a corrupt Trump tool.