Understanding the State of the Corrupt Supreme Court Today
Deep Dives
Explore related topics with these Wikipedia articles, rewritten for enjoyable reading:
-
Legal realism
14 min read
Directly referenced in the excerpt as the 'Legal Realism Freak Flag Flying' approach the author advocates for understanding the Court's political behavior.
-
Originalism
12 min read
Mentioned in the excerpt as one of the 'robes' (alongside textualism) that the Court uses to legitimize its decisions while acting as a political-economic actor.
-
Supreme Court of the United States
78 min read
Provides essential institutional context for understanding how the Roberts Court functions as a 'Trump-era power machine' described in the excerpt.
Legal Realism in CrazyTown facing the chaos-monkey president: Reading the Roberts Court as a Trump‑era power machine as Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett turn Trumpist chaos-monkey impulses into what they call “law”. The robes donned are “textualism” and “originalism”. The reality is emergency stays, shattered agencies, and a presidency unchained as hollow promises are made of rule of law and simply calling balls and strikes. The Roberts Court is not really a 3-3-3 court with a moderate center at all, but one with a neofascist two and four neofascist fellow travelers. That is what you see when you look at the Roberts Court as a political‑economic actor in a Trump‑run regime…
There are many people worth respecting and following writing about the current state of the Supreme Court and its right-wing neofascist turn.
I recommend:
Steve Vladeck <https://www.stevevladeck.com/>
Adam Feldman <https://empiricalscotus.com/>
Amy Howe <https://www.scotusblog.com/author/amy-howe/>
Erwin Chemerinsky <https://www.scotusblog.com/author/erwin-chemerinsky/
Ian Millhiser <https://www.vox.com/authors/ian-millhiser>
Leah Litman <https://michigan.law.umich.edu/faculty/leah-litman>
Kate Shaw <https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/>
But they—all of them, overwhelmingly—clothe what is going on in the drapery of legal doctrine and argument. They thus pretend that justices are law-abiding and law-respecting. And that is—except for Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan—a mistake.
We need more Legal Realism Freak Flag Flying here. So let me—stepping far indeed away from my wheelhouse—try to provide some:
There are two on the Supreme Court—Alito and Thomas—who are fascists in the strict sense: believe that the United States is under dire threat from Wokeism, the U.S. Constitution is thus suspended: Trump, in the words of the late-Roman Republic’s senatus consultum, ultimum, is free to act as he wishes: videat præses ne quid res publica detrimenti capiat, let the president see that the republic suffers no harm.
There are two on the Supreme Court—Gorsuch and Kavanaugh—who will almost always vote with Alito and Thomas that Trump gets to do what he wants.
These two will, however, occasionallywant to put a time limit on it—allow Trump to move fast, break things, and establish facts-on-the-ground that then shape the future, but only for a limited time—perhaps a year or so. (Although do note that Kavanaugh dissented and joined the true fascists on Learning Resources v. Trump.)
Then there is Justice Barrett—her vote will almost always drag Roberts’s along. (The only significant exception I can recall is the two EPA cases Ohio v.
...
The full article by Brad DeLong is available on DeLong's Grasping Reality.