I love the anecdote about Nina Totenberg, who I have been listening to since the days where she did dramatic replays of the court arguments. Having that inside-baseball information is terrific.
Gabe - how early do you have to be at the Court to get a seat inside the room? I assume that there was also a remote press room for those who weren't there as early as you.
On a more substantive note, while it is true that on the surface it seems that the Court restrained Trump's worst instincts, we are going to be regretting the Slaughter decision for years and possibly decades to come. This has the clear potential to obliterate the professional civil service and return the Federal government to a Tammany Hall-like spoils-focused operation.
Finally, Alito's dissent on Barbara is one of the most hypocritical, offensive statements he has issued during his term on the Court, and that is saying something. He completely discarded his own claims to textualism and originalism to raise concerns about questionable policy issues. There are many ways that Congress can address "birth tourism" but what Alito is really concerned about is the continued diversification of our country. I was shocked that Gorsuch, with whom I disagree on almost everything but respect his intellect, signed on to such drivel.
It appears that it's only in the bat-shit crazy cases where some of the conservatives will rule against Trump. A pretty low bar. And no regard for stare decisis, not with Dobbs and now not with Slaughter. And the emergency docket is even worse. Sad.
It's always helpful when things seem most bleak to take a breath and appreciate how much worse they could be.
The initial Federalist aim was to dismantle the regulatory state, but all they are actually accomplishing is empowering the executive to re-direct it for his own purposes. This is merely a process of subjecting a much greater share of public policy to the destabilizing vagaries of the political pendulum.
I think Roberts has decided that Job #1 is keeping the court from imploding. This was a possibility if a ruling altered birthright citizenship. Like the Second Amendment and abortion, these issues need the form of airing that will only occur if there is a serious effort to amend and/or add to the Constitution.
I predict that Alito will retire if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate.
I solute the three less reliably partisan judges on the bench whoever picked them and I hope we get more moderate judges in the future. The bickering between the fringe judges and the tendency of presidents to try to stack the court with their side's partisan acolytes whenever possible leaves me very cold.
From my experience, it’s not as unusual as it might sound. During the opinion announcements, the only justices who speak are the ones who have majority opinions to announce (yesterday, Roberts and Kavanaugh) and any who make the somewhat rare choice to read an oral dissent (yesterday, Sotomayor). The others just sit silently, so it doesn’t really change much whether they’re there or not (unlike oral arguments, where every justice participates). I’ve been to opinion announcements before where there were only seven or eight justices on the bench. It’s possible Alito and Gorsuch are just done with their majority opinions for the year, and just wanted a head start on their summer vacation.
Hi Victor, that’s fair. In general, my point with this piece was that the court has been very willing to adopt traditional conservative priorities, but very skeptical of adopting Trump-specific priorities, so I should have been more clear there that I think really the dynamic is the court is willing to disrupt the status quo when it aligns with longtime principles of the conservative legal movement (like overturning Roe or Humphrey’s Executor) but not willing to do so outside of those confines, even when Trump wants them to (like Trump trying to get them to overturn Wong Kim Ark). I should have been more nuanced in how I wrote the “status quo” line.
Spot-on analysis. That’s why Gabe’s Substack is a must-read.
Thanks, Richard!
Another great read! So glad I've been subscribing to you since forever!! Now time to celebrate 250 years of the USA!
Excellent, balanced, analysis. Thank you!
I love the anecdote about Nina Totenberg, who I have been listening to since the days where she did dramatic replays of the court arguments. Having that inside-baseball information is terrific.
Gabe - how early do you have to be at the Court to get a seat inside the room? I assume that there was also a remote press room for those who weren't there as early as you.
On a more substantive note, while it is true that on the surface it seems that the Court restrained Trump's worst instincts, we are going to be regretting the Slaughter decision for years and possibly decades to come. This has the clear potential to obliterate the professional civil service and return the Federal government to a Tammany Hall-like spoils-focused operation.
Finally, Alito's dissent on Barbara is one of the most hypocritical, offensive statements he has issued during his term on the Court, and that is saying something. He completely discarded his own claims to textualism and originalism to raise concerns about questionable policy issues. There are many ways that Congress can address "birth tourism" but what Alito is really concerned about is the continued diversification of our country. I was shocked that Gorsuch, with whom I disagree on almost everything but respect his intellect, signed on to such drivel.
It appears that it's only in the bat-shit crazy cases where some of the conservatives will rule against Trump. A pretty low bar. And no regard for stare decisis, not with Dobbs and now not with Slaughter. And the emergency docket is even worse. Sad.
It's always helpful when things seem most bleak to take a breath and appreciate how much worse they could be.
The initial Federalist aim was to dismantle the regulatory state, but all they are actually accomplishing is empowering the executive to re-direct it for his own purposes. This is merely a process of subjecting a much greater share of public policy to the destabilizing vagaries of the political pendulum.
Every time I hear he is doing something (no matter what it is) I know it’s for his own benefit, "legacy" or business
I think Roberts has decided that Job #1 is keeping the court from imploding. This was a possibility if a ruling altered birthright citizenship. Like the Second Amendment and abortion, these issues need the form of airing that will only occur if there is a serious effort to amend and/or add to the Constitution.
I predict that Alito will retire if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate.
Envious that Gabe got to enjoy the show!
Trump may indeed not gotten what he wanted from his nominees, but on the whole America did.
Great article, Gabe. You may be informing us, of DJT’s, future miscalculations in the days, weeks, months and years to come.
I solute the three less reliably partisan judges on the bench whoever picked them and I hope we get more moderate judges in the future. The bickering between the fringe judges and the tendency of presidents to try to stack the court with their side's partisan acolytes whenever possible leaves me very cold.
Wait, the final opinion day of the term, when the court announced massive decisions, and Alito and Gorsuch were absent. Why?!
From my experience, it’s not as unusual as it might sound. During the opinion announcements, the only justices who speak are the ones who have majority opinions to announce (yesterday, Roberts and Kavanaugh) and any who make the somewhat rare choice to read an oral dissent (yesterday, Sotomayor). The others just sit silently, so it doesn’t really change much whether they’re there or not (unlike oral arguments, where every justice participates). I’ve been to opinion announcements before where there were only seven or eight justices on the bench. It’s possible Alito and Gorsuch are just done with their majority opinions for the year, and just wanted a head start on their summer vacation.
That said, the court generally does not explain why justices are absent, and they didn’t yesterday.
Ah, thanks. That still surprises me given the magnitude of these cases.
They both wrote dissents that no one else wanted to join so perhaps they were slightly miffed.
Well some of them. Sometimes
I love your work Gabe but I’m not sure if overturning Humphrey’s Executor counts as clinging to the status quo.
Hi Victor, that’s fair. In general, my point with this piece was that the court has been very willing to adopt traditional conservative priorities, but very skeptical of adopting Trump-specific priorities, so I should have been more clear there that I think really the dynamic is the court is willing to disrupt the status quo when it aligns with longtime principles of the conservative legal movement (like overturning Roe or Humphrey’s Executor) but not willing to do so outside of those confines, even when Trump wants them to (like Trump trying to get them to overturn Wong Kim Ark). I should have been more nuanced in how I wrote the “status quo” line.
that makes sense! thanks for replying, love your work as always!
He buys into our system but works the angles to the max.
Excellent guy. So we let him continue hoisting himself on his own petard!