About Those Dueling Abortion Rulings…

The state of federal courts.

By and

Federal courts, bad incentives, culture war exhibitionism, and abortion distortion… And the week’s only started. But Sarah and host emeritus are here for you to make sense of:

-Dueling abortion rulings in Texas and Washington state
-Clarence Thomas’ friendship with Harlan Crow
-Transgender cases and the winding down of shadow dockets
-Gov. Greg Abbott wants to pardon a convicted murderer under Texas’ “Stand Your Ground” law

Show Notes:

-Assessing the Legal Claims in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (257)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Dan

    I'm almost universally a fan of AO episodes, even when I disagree with the legal conclusions S&D reach. In this episode, I'm disappointed by two key omissions.

    First, in discussing the judicial filibuster, David pointed out how 40+ Democrats were prepared to filibuster now-Justice Gorsuch, even though Gorsuch was unimpeachably qualified. He did not mention Merrick Garland. To not mention Garland is to miss the point of a potential Gorsuch filibuster.

    Second, in discussing Justice Thomas, there was repeated mention of Thomas and Mr. Crow being "old friends." What was not mentioned is they became friends (so I've seen multiple reports of) after Thomas joined the bench. You can dispute the salience of this fact, but to omit it starts to feel like cherry-picking facts about their relationship.

    Collapse
    1. Mrjsfisher

      100% agreement.

      I would add - 1) talking about old and new ethics rules or reporting requirements without ACTUALLY saying what they are is misleading. 2) - this is not the first time Justice Thomas has been cavalier about his ethical requirements. The Jan 6 congressional hearing discovery cases (Trump v Thompson) that directly implicated his wife’s activities around that, and where he was the sole dissenting voice on the stay, is of recent note. 3) it is also notable that justice Thomas previously reported some of this in years past but stopped.

      I literally do not have any legal or ethical problem with the Thomas-Crow affair. You’re allowed to have rich friends who take you places. But this isn’t an isolated incident of questionable but harmless oversight, and the discussion disregards that history and the actual law and rules at issue in favor of a vibes and tweets discussion.

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Citizen60

    Please, I’m begging you, provide written transcripts.

    Some of us are not able to enjoy podcasts. Don’t leave us out

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    To Clarence Thomas "Friends with Benefits" from The Dispatch.

    Your buddy broke the law.
    The laws of mandatory disclosures. 50 yr old
    Took unreported money from Harlan Crow.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

    Of course if this was Bill or Hillary Clinton, Tlaib, Omar, Schiff and a couple of more radical Islamic Arab oil billionaires.... holy Hell !!

    A new definition of hypocrisy?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Witt Case

      This real estate situation feels so much worse. And yet it’s seemingly quieter so far:

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    For all the people justifying and defending Thomas, the equation of legitimate whatanoutism fails you.

    Not one conservative can tell me honestly, but do try, if Bill and Hillary Clinton while in office, were being treated by Arab billionaire with all the Nazi paraphernalia in his Dubai or Riyadh etc palaces.

    Imagine the reaction if Omar, Tlaib or Ellison all were so luxuriously treated by just a bit extreme viewed Arab Sheik, billionaire. Jets to sandy beaches. Nazi paraphernalia and Auschwitz items in the 800 ft yachts and 50,000 sq ft homes.

    Conservatives and Christians wouk unleash the lions.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/bonus-22-the-mifepristone-mess-continued

    A much better legal analysis from Steve Vladeck.

    Collapse
  6. Corilowe

    With the financial inequality in our world, it is no wonder people are angry when they read and hear about the super wealthy and their doings, while they are struggling to feed their kids. So, what Clarance Thomas does can appear to be insensitive and allows people to think that he is taking advantage of his position. He should have thought about that before and said no. Why does he have such opportunities? Because he is meant to work for the people of this country. I think the ick factor is huge. And then add the Ginni factor, he is is deep dodo.

    Collapse
    1. Corilowe

      In my book, CT is guilty of hubris and arrogance. Not good qualities for a Supreme Court judge. He has taken the Supreme to his heart and soul.

      Collapse
    2. Corilowe

      And let's not forget Anita Hill.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    TheKingPrawn

    Sarah playing viola is sort of perfect. Everyone will assume they know what she plays, but she will still have to explain it to them.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    When it comes to the Massachusetts coastline, the Atlantic Ocean has been eroding Cape Cod for the last several thousand years. My entire lifetime they’ve been saying it’ll erode good parts of the National Seashore and the houses that were on the outer beaches are still there. Somehow I doubt the National Seashore will wash into the sea anytime soon even if some of the parking lots get washed out.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Seth B

      Someday, only a single Massachusett will remain.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        Ha!

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ethan Cordray

    Here's a principle: Supreme Court justices should not accept any valuable gifts or valuable services from anyone, under any circumstances, ever.

    They have been selected as guardians of our national legal order. They rightly should be held to a much higher standard of personal rectitude than a normal person -- indeed, an even higher standard than other office-holders.

    They should avoid not merely the appearance of impropriety or corruption, but also the appearance of personal favoritism toward any person of class of persons. They should, as much as possible, avoid all associations and connections with the powerful and the wealthy.

    They should accept the limitations on personal wealth appropriate to the compensation they receive for their office. They should scorn luxury. They should cultivate the virtues of simplicity, impassivity, and disinterest.

    Supreme Court Justices have been entrusted with immense power and authority. With that power comes a heavy burden of immense personal responsibility. To whom much has been given, of him much will be required.

    Collapse
    1. Corilowe

      This is a well written and well thought out message! Thank you. You said it better than I could but you wrote what I believe strongly.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      Clarence and Ginni really don't give a darn. They are both way above the law of conservatives

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    The ProPublica authors probably think it’s a crime to be rich and another crime to be friends with someone rich so I’m not too worried.

    Collapse
Load More