Why are Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson not calling out the other justices for delay?

[Goodheart]

They should be out in public... "it's not us, it's them."

Are they afraid of alienating their friends or something? THIS COUNTRY IS MORE IMPORTANT than their f**king happenstance friendships.

It would be an ethics violation, you say? When has this court ever operated by a code of ethics?

[Ocelot II]

1. Do you think it would make the other justices behave if they did that?

I don't.

[Goodheart]

2. Of course it wouldn't.

But at least the public would know for certain that there's no sanctity in this bullshit.

[JohnSJ]

3. They know.

[jimfields33]

4. Maybe through experience, they know the schedule

and agree with it. We have no idea how any of the justices feel or believe about this. It’s all speculation. The decision will be made on the 9 member time line.

[NoRethugFriends]

7. Very generous of you

[jimfields33]

19. It's not hard when they've been doing this for decades.

Maybe not on the court, but appellate and other courts.

[NoRethugFriends]

21. good grief. they know what the rethugs on the court are doing

[Silent Type]

5. I think they see their roll as writing reasoned dissents when they disagree. I would not be surprised if one of them

released the abortion ruling early in the hopes and uproar might change things.

In any event, I doubt the 3 liberals see their position as getting trump to court before election. It wouldn't have made a difference if the immunity decision had come out 2 months ago, even if the Court tells trump to pound sand for the 50+th time on electon related issues.

Unfortunately, the cases were languishing under the weight of numerous frivilous motions, lawsuits, etc.

[triron]

46. Why are you making excuses for them?

[Silent Type]

47. Because we depend on the 3 liberal justices. You can bash them if you like.

[RockRaven]

6. You can't shame the shameless.

It wouldn't do anything, and they know that.

[anciano]

8. I am just as anxious as anyone

to hear their ruling, but the judiciary doesn't operate on my timetable, yours, or the cashier's at the local supermarket. We will know when we know.

[elleng]

9. Prolly a serious violation of protocol;

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2024, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

gotta take it up privately with chief.

[H2O Man]

22. Absolutely.

They have respect for the institution of the USSC. That's a good thing. Calls for them to add to the destruction of the court are -- at very best -- short-sighted.

[elleng]

25. Yes indeed.

Thanks, H2O Man.

[triron]

48. Perhaps the court needs to be destroyed.

[H2O Man]

52. Respectfully disagree.

I rarely, if ever, agree with Steve Bannon et al.

[ShazzieB]

57. Amen to this!

If the OP is an indication that people here are going to start bashing the 3 liberal justices because their colleagues are assholes, I may have to take a break from DU to keep my blood pressure under control.

Serving on the court right now has got to suck for those women. No matter how many brilliantly reasoned dissents they write, they're in a no win situation that requires them to sit and watch while the supermajority cranks out one terrible decision after another. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

The 3 liberals can't control the actions of the sinister six, and publicly criticizing the conservatives would just make things worse, however richly deserved that criticism may be. Suggesting that they do so is a terrible ides.

Sonja, Elena, and Ketanji need our gratitude and support, not senseless, unfounded scolding. Berating them for not launching public attacks on the other 6 justices is extremely misguided and completely unfair.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

58. Agree.

So tired of Democrats being blamed for MAGAt fuckery.

[H2O Man]

59. Very well said!

Very well said, indeed. Thank you for this.

[Goodheart]

33. Protocol? As I've said, when did ethics govern this Court?

Protocol that propagates injustice is protocol not worth honoring. This country is more important than their protocol.

[yagotme]

43. Perhaps OUR side wishes to keep the sanctity of the court.

If we stoop to their level, how are we any better than them?

[triron]

49. Yep

[erronis]

53. If there's a "protocol" is it public? Or, just like their internal ethics, is it cloaked?

So much happens under those dark robes that regular mortals are not allowed to see.

I'll bet Leonard Leo and many other fat cats get to peek and tweak as much as they want under those dark robes.

I really think Goodheart's question(s) deserve a closer analysis and some better answers other than "that's the way it's always been done."

[TheBlackAdder]

10. Sotomayor hinted that she cried over some of the rulings coming down. I think it's kick the can.

I think they will try to kick it back to Judge Chutkan to review the various reasons why immunity could apply. This will definitely kick the can past the November elections, so releasing it now or later in the week becomes a moot point.

Just a feeling.

[Irish_Dem]

15. She needs to stop crying in private and do the right thing.

[former9thward]

18. She is doing the right thing.

Which is why she is a SC Justice, and her detractors are not.

[Polybius]

27. The right thing is what she's doing right now n/t

[Irish_Dem]

29. I strongly disagree.

Like someone else here on DU said, sometimes you need to put on big girl panties
and do the right thing.

Crying in your bedroom is not going to cut it.

[Polybius]

44. Did you see Antonin Scalia call out RGB and others who were in the majority that he strongly disagreed with?

Neither did I.

[Irish_Dem]

51. Our democracy is doomed if leaders do nothing.

[Goodheart]

34. I'm not operating under any delusion that it could mean a trial date before November

Instead, it seems high time to me that the veil of arrogance and untouchability be removed.

[Raven123]

11. I can't imagine any positive impact of such a move

[Irish_Dem]

16. It would let the public know the whole team is not corrupt.

For one thing.

And that the entire court has not lost their minds.

[Raven123]

31. They can say the same in their written opinions

[Irish_Dem]

32. Their written opinions are meaningless and do nothing.

This is not leadership.

This is not stopping American carnage.

[Raven123]

42. No public statements from the justices will "stop the carnage."

The only way to address the problem is through elections. Hopefully after the decision comes down, Biden-Harris will amp up their campaign on this issue. I think they are holding back pending the actual decision.

[Irish_Dem]

50. Elections can be overturned by Congress and the SC.

The SC can get off their duffs and start doing the right thing.

If they don't have courage, shame on them.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

60. Liberal SC Justices' written dissenting opinions

are meaningless and do nothing, but, "They should be out in public... 'it's not us, it's them."" will have meaning and do what, exactly, besides fuel right wing BS?

And calling them cowards who need to put on their "big girl panties," is beyond ugly.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. I have an ugly feeling that Alito and Thomas are trying to strong arm Coney-Barrett.

This is not the way the Supreme Court is supposed to work.

[MerryBlooms]

13. My father-in-law was just a Circuit Judge, that is Never done.

You do not criticize fellow judges in public. It's just not done. Sorry, but, "It's not us, it's them", comes off as juvenile and beneath our SCOTUS, any judge, to me. My father-in-law never talked about any of his peers, staff, cases, etc... Ethics. Now we have some on the SCOTUS who have no idea what are, or how to follow ethics guidelines, doesn't mean I want those who do, to break their ethics and standards. No way! I get your frustration tho, and am sympathetic. 🤗

Turned 61 today, got off work a bit ago. Time for some fun. Have a great evening, take care. 💜

[Goodheart]

35. High time that it IS done.

[Irish_Dem]

14. Silence is complicity.

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

[onenote]

17. could be a matter of protocol. could be because they also aren't ready for the decision to come out.

Particularly if they are writing their own concurring or dissenting opinions. They may be reacting to the other justices' opinions and vice versa. All of the justices see all of the opinions before they are released.

[Goodheart]

36. None of which would have prevented any of them from the very beginning publicly proclaiming

"we should never have agreed to take this case. It is ridiculous and political that we did."

[onenote]

40. Except, and none of us know, they may have voted to take the case.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. It's an important issue. Smith himself argued to the court that, in his words, "Only this Court can provide the final word on [ Trump's ] immunity defense." To be sure, Smith also argued that the Court should decide the matter expeditiously, but I think its more likely than not that Democrats on the court supported having the court hear the case, even if they might have preferred a faster schedule.

[Joinfortmill]

20. I'd rather keep the focus on the 6 problem

makers than the 3 problem solvers.

[Bucky]

23. Collegiality

Besides, there's really nothing to gain from it.

[Goodheart]

37. Is there anything to gain from, say, Jamie Raskin publicly criticizing Jim Jordan?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

55. Raskin can fundraise and get votes in the upcoming election NT

[Bucky]

61. Of course

That's literally his job. He's there to argue and political arguments get personal when there's a stench of hypocrisy (or a lack of substance on one's arguments

Judges' jobs are to persuade each other in chambers, not publicly shame each other. If someone wants to shame Alito or Thomas, they need to be in Congress, not SCOTUS

[Goodheart]

62. Yes, of course. That's my point. There's also much to gain

by one justice publicly criticizing the opinions and behaviors of others. They're ALL political animals, they're ALL the products of elections, and Elena Kagan can do as much (and probably more) to sway public sentiment toward certain philosophies and toward future electoral outcomes.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. The liberal justices aren't here to meet anyone's vicarious emotional needs. Nt

[Polybius]

26. Because that's not how the Supreme Court does things?

Not should it be.

[myohmy2]

28. +1...

...the guy lead an insurrection against our government and tried to overturn the results of our presidential election and we're going to let him do it again...???

...maybe the autocrats have a point, democracy is fucked...

...or maybe the way we practice democracy is fucked...

...

[Emile]

30. I been thinking the same damn thing.

Why in the hell are they not speaking up?

[Goodheart]

38. Apparently the answers are "protocol" and "collegiality"....

The secretive inner circle must be maintained, apparently, the rest of us be damned.... for the sake of their internal camaraderie.

[Kaleva]

39. Maybe they don't think there's an unnecessary delay?

[DoBW]

41. pretty useless

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson should invite a code of ethics, lobby for it. Beat the frggin drums

[Mad_Machine76]

45. I don't think that they would do that publicly

They may be venting privately about it and/or among themselves but I could not see them publicly attacking their colleagues as wrongheaded as they may be.

[budkin]

54. It's an elite club, and we're not in it.

Paraphrased from George Carlin.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

56. Perhaps they don't feel there is a delay

Or the delay is for a good reason. Things rarely move swiftly in the legal system.