Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jan 24 6 tweets 2 min read
BREAKING: The Supreme Court grants two challenges to affirmative action in college admissions. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
The Supreme Court will reconsider whether race-conscious admissions in higher education violated both federal civil rights law and the Constitution, setting the stage for a total ban on affirmative action. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will hear challenges to affirmative action in higher education this term or next term. The calendar is pretty full this term, so the court may push oral arguments to October 2022. Stay tuned.
Like so many other grants this term, the affirmative action cases illustrate how Republicans have outsourced large chunks of their agenda to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court, which now serves as the nation's most powerful policymaking body.
Rather than expend time and energy prohibiting affirmative action through the democratic process, Republicans captured a sufficient portion of the federal judiciary—including the Supreme Court—to ensure that their judges will do it for them.
While Democrats' policies typically require 60 votes to pass in the Senate, Republicans' policies require only 50—the number of votes it takes to confirm judges who will implement those policies from the bench.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

Jan 25
If Florida Republicans’ new anti-gay bill passes, parents can sue a public school that “encourage[s] classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity” in a manner that is not “developmentally appropriate.” If they win, parents get damages and attorneys’ fees. Image
This bill has already passed out of a House committee and appears to be racing through the legislature. It would gag pretty much all discussion of LGBTQ people or issues at Florida public schools (unless teachers wanted to risk ruinous lawsuits). flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2…
Off topic, but bills like this remind me how sad it is that some gays (primarily men?) pretend the Republican Party doesn’t hate gay people any more. Like, dude, they hate you so much that are outlawing the mere mention of homosexuality in schools! How much clearer can they be?
Read 5 tweets
Jan 24
The Supreme Court's first and only opinion today is in a boring ERISA case that I did not follow. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf… 🤷‍♂️
I really do try to follow every dispute that the Supreme Court deems important enough to take up, but I simply must draw the line at ERISA and FERC cases. Otherwise I may truly lose the will to live.
Sometimes Alito recuses himself from FERC cases because his personal investments create a conflict of interest. I have a theory that he holds onto those stocks just so he has an excuse to bow out. Can't blame him.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 19
BREAKING: Supreme Court *rejects* Trump's attempt to block the release of his White House records to the Jan. 6 committee. The vote is apparently 8–1 with only Justice Thomas dissenting. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
The Supreme Court's order rests on the D.C. Circuit's determination that Trump's attempt to block the documents would fail "even if he were the incumbent." So SCOTUS declined to draw a distinction between the privilege of former and current presidents. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Justice Kavanaugh writes separately concurring with the decision against Trump while declaring that former presidents CAN claim executive privilege even when the current president waives that privilege. The majority does not endorse or reject this view.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Read 6 tweets
Jan 19
I just deleted a tweet about this statement because I want to be more specific about what it says—and doesn't say.

It DOES say that Sotomayor never asked Gorsuch to mask up.

But NPR reported that *Roberts* asked Gorsuch to mask up. This statement does not deny that claim.
So the Sotomayor–Gorsuch statement denies something that wasn't alleged.

That said, the NPR report did suggest that Gorsuch's refusal to mask up made Sotomayor uncomfortable, while this statement (arguably) implies that she is not uncomfortable. Hard to say. It's very vague.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 19
By a 2–1 vote, a Florida appeals court overruled a judge who refused to let a 17-year-old terminate her pregnancy because she was not "sufficiently mature."

The dissenter is married to the GOP legislator who recently introduced a 15-week abortion ban. documentcloud.org/documents/2118…
I will never understand the argument that a teenager can be too immature to get an abortion but mature enough to have a child. I guess the Amy Coney Barrett answer is that the teen can just drop her baby off at a fire station and forget about it.
Which decision requires more maturity: Taking a few pills to end a pregnancy, or carrying a pregnancy for nine months, then birthing and possibly raising a child? The teen here just wants a medication abortion and the dissenter says: "No, she's not mature enough for that!" What?!
Read 4 tweets
Jan 18
I missed this in December: Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, signed a letter to Kevin McCarthy accusing the Jan. 6 committee of engaging in "political harassment," "demagoguery," and "overtly partisan political persecution." conservativeactionproject.com/conservative-l…
The letter signed by Ginni Thomas urges McCarthy to revoke Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger's membership in the GOP conference, claiming that both representatives are trying "to undermine the privacy and due process of their fellow Republicans." conservativeactionproject.com/conservative-l…
Notably, the letter signed by Ginni Thomas claims that the Jan. 6 committee's subpoenas have no "valid legislative end."

Trump v. Thompson—which is before the Supreme Court *right now*—asks the justices to decide ... whether these subpoenas have a valid legislative end.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(