A must-read @bartongellman analysis of Trump's efforts to derail his 2020 loss and plans in the works to steal the next election. In @rickhasen's words, “We face a serious risk that American democracy as we know it will come to an end in 2024." theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
It's dire, folks
Republicans are exiling leaders who averted catastrophe last time
And there are at least four members of SCOTUS with a budding theory that will let rogue states pull all the shenanigans they like to subvert the next election.
In a Boston Globe piece last year, @tribelaw and I warned about this "independent state legislature doctrine" and how it could facilitate a coup bostonglobe.com/2020/11/01/opi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
At 10:00, the Supreme Court will be hearing a case that could poke another hole in the (already teetering) wall of separation between church and state: Carson v. Makin. You can listen in at this link. I'll be listening & tweeting.
Thomas has the first question for Scott Stewart, solicitor general of Mississippi: does it make a difference if we focus on privacy or autonomy or more specifically on abortion?
An interesting wrinkle: the progressive left is somewhat at odds with itself in this case. Gun control advocates oppose broadening the right to bear arms while racial-justice activists deplore the discriminatory manner in which states decide who gets to carry a concealed weapon.
The argument begins at 10 AM and you can listen via a button on the Supreme Court homepage supremecourt.gov
Lots of us have been puzzled as to why SCOTUS didn’t lift the 5th circuit stay on the district-court injunction to temporarily block SB 8 when it granted cert before judgment, and why only Sotomayor dissented from that denial
After today’s hearings, it’s less puzzling.
1. The “procedural morass” (Kagan) is more troubling to more justices in US v. Texas, yet that’s the (only) case w a lower-court injunction that could be restored. The majority preferred the Whole Woman’s Health route all along.
2. Seems the majority knew they wanted to block SB 8 but didn’t know exactly how and wanted to use briefing & oral arg to sort out whom specifically to enjoin (clerks, judges, AG, private parties). Path of least resistance sounds like state clerks.
The first SCOTUS case this morning is Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, a challenge to SB 8, the Texas abortion ban, from abortion clinics and providers.
Marc Hearron, arguing against the law, is up first.
CJ Roberts begins by noting that it's the 30th anniversary of Justice Thomas's investiture. "Our heartfelt congratulations."
Opening line of SG Prelogar's final brief in US v. Texas, the federal government's challenge to Texas's 6-week abortion ban: SB 8 is an affront to SCOTUS's authority.
It's a smart approach, putting the justices' very authority front and center. All nine care about preserving their power and shutting down renegade states trying to circumvent their rulings; only three care about preserving abortion rights.
Later: SB 8 is "a brazen nullification of this Court’s precedents accomplished by subverting the judicial review Congress authorized to protect the supremacy of federal law."