Posted on 04/28/2022 8:19:52 AM PDT by LS
I got a note from a court analyst I call Zen Master to protect his identity. He has YET to be wrong on any call.
Ok, he is so specific he often will give me the week of confirmation of a justice, and was off 7 days on his date of Kavanaugh's confirmation when Christine Balless Edsel was dragged out at the last minute.
Anyway, he always knows who will be selected and when they wiull be confirmed. He's been right on all the decisions, as well.
He is looking at a case out today from the USSC, Cummings v Premier Rehab Keller. Zen Master says this is a "relatively inconsequential" case and the "details aren't important," but what IS important is who wrote it: Roberts.
"The court rarely has a justice write two consecutive decisions," he noted. "It looks bad." Gorsuch had a rare moment when he authored two decisions in November, but Zen Master thinks this is the exception.
The meaning of this is that Roberts wrote THIS decision and likely will NOT be authoring the Dobbs (abortion) decision. That would leave it to Thomas! Now, Thomas may assign this decision to someone else . . . but I don't think so.
It also means likely Roberts will be voting with the losers in a 5-4 decision against abortion.
No sooner did ZM send me this than Bloomberg's legal guy, Schor, came out with exactly the same argument. If Thomas writes this, a) it will be MUCH better argued, b) have FAR fewer loopholes that can be exploited or challenged, and c) make libs heads explode.
I hardly dare hope.
...Hence all this impeachment talk.
P4L
c) make libs heads explode.
I like that part...................
ZM said it’s possible it’s 6-3 in which Roberts has to allow someone else to write, but he thinks it’s 5-4.
Democrats To Explore Impeachment Options For Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Political Insider
April 27, 2022
RUSTY WEISSImpeachment-happy Democrats are expected to hold a hearing to explore the possibility of impeachment for Supreme Court justices in the wake of controversial messages surfacing from the wife of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.
Very interesting in that they seem to think they can impeach someone for the actions of a spouse.
Obviously I don’t think Mrs Thomas did any thing wrong or illegal.
But suppose she did. Suppose she robbed a bank. Who cares. You don’t impeach a husband for something a wife did.
I normally take things like this with a large grain of salt, but this is nonetheless very interesting... Thank you for posting this.
There is zero chance of any impeachment before the decision will be released.
Even the possibility of an impeachment and a trial before the mid term elections is very remote. If the RATs want to see a really, really bad mid term, go ahead.
Really. What are they going to do? Hang him as an accessory to her emails? Did he edit them? Will they use the “hate” argument against her and then extend it to him? Argue she was a meanie?
Yep. Never get through Yertle.
He is horrible, but he has been pretty good on all things judicial. No way Dems find 17 R votes to convict.
Do we really want the entirety of America, in varying degrees, to look like the average San Francisco street, but with bodies?!?
If the Senate fails to meet the 67% majority, the Supreme Court Justice remains in office.
I agree. That seems the most likely scenario.
Here's the idea. The Court hears cases by monthly "sittings." Typically, the Court seeks to hear no more than nine cases at a given sitting, give or take a case. For instance, during the current Term, the Court scheduled nine cases to be heard in the October sitting; 10 cases in the November sitting (here, one petition has already been dismissed as "improvidently granted," and so only nine cases were ultimately argued); nine cases in the December sitting; 10 cases in the January sitting; seven cases in the February sitting; eight cases in the March sitting; and 10 cases in the April (i.e., final) sitting.
Following on to this, the Court then tries to distribute the workload evening among the nine Justices. That is to say, ideally, when the Court heard nine cases during a given sitting, each of the nine Justices will write one majority opinion. Of course, when there are fewer than nine cases heard during a given sitting, that isn't possible. And when there are more than nine cases heard during a given sitting, at least one Justice will write more than one majority opinion. That's just a function of math.
Here, the Dobbs case was argued during the December sitting. Two of the nine cases argued in December have now been decided: Cummings, the opinion in which was issued today, per C.J. Roberts (as was noted), and Hughes, the opinion in which was issued back on January 24, per J. Sotomayor.
Does this necessarily indicate that Roberts is not writing Dobbs? No, not really. In a high-profile case like Dobbs, the Court's general practice of "distributing the workload" will, if necessary, give way to other, more significant "political" considerations.
For instance, if it were the case that, in Dobbs, there were, following Conference, five Justices siding with the petitioner -- i.e., Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett -- and those five Justices were looking to overturn Roe, Roberts might throw in with those five (even if he was not himself inclined to overturn Roe), just so that he could assign himself the opinion and write it as narrowly as he wished. That Roberts has already written Cummings by no means precludes such an outcome. It may suggest that Roberts isn't writing Dobbs, but, at this point, it would be going out on a limb to make such a definitive call at this point.
It is the case that, if Roberts did vote with the liberal minority in Dobbs, then Justice Thomas, as the senior Justice in the majority, would be at liberty to assign the majority opinion to himself. There is no guarantee, however, that Thomas would choose to do that. He might not wish to assign the case to Barrett, the Court's most junior member. On the other hand, there could be some internal Court politicking going on in which the call is made that it is best to assign any opinion overturning Roe to a female Justice.
In any case, insofar as there are as still six cases remaining from the December sitting yet to be decided in addition to Dobbs, it probably makes more sense to see who's writing the majority opinions in those other cases (assuming that decisions there are announced in advance of Dobbs, which seems likely) before speculating too much on who's writing Dobbs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.