Since we now know Alito was flying his flag upside down at the time, let’s review one of the plans the coup plotters had involving him.
This interview by criminal defendant Powell is interesting. It suggests that the purpose of the insurrection was to DELAY the electoral college certification to give #Alito time to intervene on this legal challenge. But, Powell says they didn’t anticipate Pelosi reconvening Congress that day.
Crimal defendant Powell is interesting. It suggests that the purpose of the insurrection was to DELAY the electoral college certification to give #scotus#Alito time to intervene on this legal challenge. But, Powell says they didn’t anticipate Speaker Pelosi reconvening Congress.
Remember when John Eastman admitted his proposals to nullify the 2020 election would lose at #SCOTUS 7-2?
The two Eastman was counting on for the insurrection were Thomas (atop the 11th circuit where they filed a lawsuit in Georgia) and Alito (atop the 5th circuit where they filed a lawsuit in Texas). That’s according to under-oath testimony from Pence’s lawyer. 2/
Let's dive into some citations Kagan used and see what the underlying stuff says.
For fun---because I definitely see a Federalist citation in there and the beauty of the writing is irresistible.
Chiafalo v. Washington, you may actually recall, was a Supreme Court case involving "Faithless Electors" in the 2016 election. (Image: Summary of Facts)
The Court permitted States to penalize the faithless electors.
The Pocket Veto Case was a case in which President Coolidge allowed a bill passed by Congress to expire without signing it after Congress' adjournment.
The question was whether the bill was law considering the Presentment Clause in Article I. (Image 1)
The Clause reads like an LSAT logic game, but the Court held the bill did not become law.
The important part for Kagan's opinion is the quote's context: (Image 2).
So if the Executive has been allowed to do something for a long time, and its done it for a long time, and the Legislature let it do it for a long time, and the Judiciary approved its doing it for a long time, then there is a constitutional inertia that exists.
The Court can intervene, but only if it can overcome the inertia.
Kagan then details the 200 years of unbroken tradition with broad Congressional discretion over form of Appropriation.
"The founding-era practice that the Court relates (Image 1) became the 19th-century practice (Image 2), which became the 20th-century practice (Image 3), which became today’s. (Image 4)"
[parenthetical added by me]
And throwing in Scalia for good measure. Everyone loves a good Scalia cite.
Kagan then notes that there are many appropriations made which are not on an annual basis and not required to return to the Legislature for additional funding:
Customs Service, Post Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Definitely an office I knew existed 😉), and the Federal Reserve Board.
And that's about it for Kagan and her interesting squad of justices.
McCulloch v. Maryland was an early case from 1819 in which the State of Maryland had put a tax on a bank chartered by the federal government. The litigation stemmed from a refusal to pay the tax, and the Court of Appeals held the bank to be unconstitutional, necessitating Supreme Court review.
Ends up being the seminal "necessary & proper" case.
And the part to which she cites... is exactly that:
She cites to this part of Byrd, citing Richardson.
The context around the quoted part is, I think, extremely important. (Image 2).
It not only notes that the court's role is not general supervision, but that the "irreplaceable value of [judicial review]" is its protection of individual liberties.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court has not been favorable, overall, to Trump's reelection. In 2020, they threw out a case brought by Republicans to have four Democratic states ejected from the election, for example.
But on the other hand, now with two justices' wives taking public actions to support Trump's reelection, it's really hard to take the idea of impartiality seriously. If you're the spouse of a justice, and if you took SCOTUS's work seriously, you'd sit it out. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html
The spouse of one Supreme Court justice was actively conspiring with Mark Meadows to overturn the results of the 2020 election, while another Supreme Court justice was flying the American flag upside down to show his solidarity with the Big Lie.
Now they're sitting on the DC Felony Trial to buy Trump and his acolytes more time to steal the next election.
America is at a crossroads.
We either turn a blind eye to #scotus reign of corruption, or we take this country back at the ballot box and restore rule of law.
#LegalEthics Tidbit: Can I get in trouble if my client is hired to verbally attack counsel outside the courthouse?
I guess we’ll find out. A defendant in the E.D. Michigan Flint Water Cases hired a PR firm to conduct a deceptive PR campaign to disrupt the proceedings including hiring a truck to circle the courthouse blaring attacks on opposing counsel. The Court found the PR firm’s CA attorney was involved with the campaign and referred her to the CA bar.
I sympathize with Judge Merchan, who I believe has refrained from jailing Trump to avoid allowing Trump to play the victim and raise money off of that. I also think Merchan probably doesn’t want to interrupt the trial for hearings over whether Trump is causing his sycophantic Republican electeds to say things that violate the gag order. But …. 1/ #LawFedi
#LegalEthics Tidbit: Do I have standing to seek an injunction against the unauthorized practice of law?
Yes. Per M.G.L. 221, 46B, standing to petition to enjoin the unauthorized practice of law in MA belongs to the AG, a DA, a bar assoc., or any “three or more members of the bar.” The three-members clause appears to have been used most recently in 1938 in an attempt to enjoin a legal advice-themed radio show: “Court of Common Troubles” (299 Mass. 286).
Law360: "Judge Taranto said he's typically 'disappointed' with the [amicus] briefs submitted to the court, and urged the attorneys in the room to do better. 'It's very rare we get amicus briefs that say something beyond what the parties say,' he said. 'Most amicus briefs make broad, unsupported general assertions about things for which we aren't given independent basis to evaluate the truth of the assertions.'"
I’m freshly appalled by Trump’s efforts to protect his 2016 election campaign by shadily paying Stormy Daniels in a way Trump hoped wouldn’t be traced back to him. I’m newly appalled by the cast of Republican electeds who come to the courthouse to violate the spirit of the gag order Trump himself is under. They present themselves as mouthpieces for Trump and make all manner of remarks that, if he made them himself, would be violations of the order. The Republicans are a lawless cult. #LawFedi
"Mansion" taxes are probably not going to ameliorate inequality anytime soon. Tying much-needed public services, like incentivizing the building of affordable housing, to revenue generated from them is not a good idea.