In addition to all of the above, the corrupting influence of all these "shadow docket" decisions can't be overstated. "Decisions" handed down, unsigned, without justification, on cases that aren't actual emergencies, except to the corrupt "unitary executive".
Speaking of the unitary executive "theory", it's not only corrupt, but downright treasonous, because it's anti-constitutional.
This was an excellent piece, well written. When the Citizen United decision defined money as speech, it basically duplicitously excluded many of us from using this freedom. I believe speech is not just speaking out, but also being heard. I don't believe the first amendment has a qualifier to it stating we have freedom of speech if we can afford it. Now those with more money to spend, have the ability to be heard while those of us in the excluded group do not.
Well put. I'd be interested to see a similar study of the rich in general, especially in terms of C-suiters and specifically looking at those, such as Ford's Jim Farley, who gave Trump million-dollar election bribes.
Also the way out of the Balogun controversy is simple: The coach shouldn't play him tonight. When asked why, the coach should simply say that he's honoring the official's decision and playing by the rules.
I suspect there will be pressure of some sort or another on both the coach and Balogun, but if they both insist on his sitting this one out, that would be a win for everyone, especially soccer fans.
Warren's line about democracy failing "when people lack a collective agent they can trust to execute collective decisions" is worth sitting with. That trusted agent, in practice, has been the career civil service: hired on merit since 1883, with neutral review when the rules get broken. Last week's ruling reaches that machinery too. The dissent warned that civil service protections themselves could be at risk, and almost nobody covered it. Whatever you make of the Court's broader direction, one question is now live in the courts: does the government have to follow its own rules when it removes career employees? We wrote about it here: https://usaidemployeesupportfund.substack.com/p/the-court-just-rewrote-the-rules
The sort of institutional corruption you outline has been going on a long time. Pundits point to the SCOTUS Buckley decision defining money as "speech" and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment as the start of the ongoing Money-Go-Round. Go further back to the footnote in a decision that mentioned corporations as having "rights". There will always be tension in a capitalist system between the power of money and fhe rights of people, and the Republican party has made it as clear as they possibly can where they stand. The Democratic party is far, far away from blameless on this charge but they make some effort to regulate the power of money from time to time. But regulating money is anathema to a conservative mindset. Money deserves Freedom just like people just as corporations have rights just like people.
Yes. The infamous footnote. Santa Clara Co. v Union Pacifici, where the question of corporate personhood was not even before the court for consideration.
Ironic that Balogun is only eligible to play for the US because of birthright citizenship - his mother gave birth to him on a short trip to the US and he returned to the UK at one month. Has never lived permanently in the USA.
But that is Trump to a T: arbitrarily dolling out favors to anyone he likes and punishing his enemies. It is the definition of "arbitrary" as the opposite of rule of law.
And if the American side loses, he’ll be shipped “back where he came from.” (If Trump has his way—and he has proved weirdly successful in getting his way, in the face of all laws, checks and balances created to dissuade him.)
Absolutely no doubt SCOTUS is corrupting American democracy. The court has had this corrupting influence before, perhaps throughout most of its history (save maybe the Warren Court?), but the Robert's Court has to be one of the worst, or worst since the 19th c, right? The crazy part is how anybody at this point should find this claim about its corrupting influence controversial. It's "duplicitous exclusion" is like that of so-called "free markets," where the only stakeholders in markets actually granted any freedom are the super rich, while workers and consumers or any other democratic claims on markets (taxes, regulations) are systematically excluded or diminished as impingements on market freedom. Granting free speech rights to money and campaign funding works more or less the same. Excluding voters in the name of free and fair elections as well. Isn't packing the court a kind of "duplicitous exclusion"? Anyway, thanks for pulling together all the receipts and making the case. It's a slam dunk, if you ask me.
Thanks! With respect to an historical perspective of Scotus decisions I can only say that the damage to the concept of Democracy has been grave and Roberts and his band of originalists are culpable if the Republic fails
Thanks for a very interesting essay. I'll leave the balance between bribery/influence peddling and what the constitution may or not compel to others--although I will add money certainly has corrupted our political process and we sure as heck need to do something about it.
But on to more urgent matters, the USA world cup match this evening. It turns out that the decision is not without precedent, even in this very World Cup. Not that this makes it "right" but seems to be the state of play here. Here's some evidence (from AI).
Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal): He received a red card in qualifiers (violent conduct/elbow). FIFA imposed a 3-match ban but suspended the final 2 matches for a 1-year probation period (he served the first one in qualifiers). This cleared him for the World Cup start.
Nicolás Otamendi (Argentina) & Moisés Caicedo (Ecuador): Both had 1-match bans from red cards in qualifiers. FIFA amended World Cup regulations beforehand so certain minor/qualifier suspensions (including these) did not carry over into the tournament.
Tarek Salman (Qatar): Similar to the above — his 2-match ban was handled so it didn't affect World Cup availability ("moved away from tournament").
Folarin Balogun (USA): He got a straight red in the Round of 32 (vs. Bosnia). FIFA's Disciplinary Committee recently suspended his automatic 1-match ban under Article 27 of the Disciplinary Code (probation/suspension of implementation). This cleared him for the US vs. Belgium game.
Great piece! Political processes need to be protected by increasing access to those processes based on the individual, not the resources an individual acquires.
Thank you for this insightful essay. It does make me wonder if SCOTUS SHOULD be dedicated to maximizing democracy as well as interpreting the constitution. The Robert’s court clearly doesn’t think that way now, but if we are looking for reforms…
"Most" doing a fair bit of work, though (as your tagline suggests) Alito and Thomas are not being bribed so much as richly compensated for what they would do anyway.
In addition to all of the above, the corrupting influence of all these "shadow docket" decisions can't be overstated. "Decisions" handed down, unsigned, without justification, on cases that aren't actual emergencies, except to the corrupt "unitary executive".
Speaking of the unitary executive "theory", it's not only corrupt, but downright treasonous, because it's anti-constitutional.
This was an excellent piece, well written. When the Citizen United decision defined money as speech, it basically duplicitously excluded many of us from using this freedom. I believe speech is not just speaking out, but also being heard. I don't believe the first amendment has a qualifier to it stating we have freedom of speech if we can afford it. Now those with more money to spend, have the ability to be heard while those of us in the excluded group do not.
Well put. I'd be interested to see a similar study of the rich in general, especially in terms of C-suiters and specifically looking at those, such as Ford's Jim Farley, who gave Trump million-dollar election bribes.
Also the way out of the Balogun controversy is simple: The coach shouldn't play him tonight. When asked why, the coach should simply say that he's honoring the official's decision and playing by the rules.
I suspect there will be pressure of some sort or another on both the coach and Balogun, but if they both insist on his sitting this one out, that would be a win for everyone, especially soccer fans.
Warren's line about democracy failing "when people lack a collective agent they can trust to execute collective decisions" is worth sitting with. That trusted agent, in practice, has been the career civil service: hired on merit since 1883, with neutral review when the rules get broken. Last week's ruling reaches that machinery too. The dissent warned that civil service protections themselves could be at risk, and almost nobody covered it. Whatever you make of the Court's broader direction, one question is now live in the courts: does the government have to follow its own rules when it removes career employees? We wrote about it here: https://usaidemployeesupportfund.substack.com/p/the-court-just-rewrote-the-rules
One of the best pieces I've read in awhile, and judging from the earlier Comments, I'm far from alone in thinking so.
The sort of institutional corruption you outline has been going on a long time. Pundits point to the SCOTUS Buckley decision defining money as "speech" and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment as the start of the ongoing Money-Go-Round. Go further back to the footnote in a decision that mentioned corporations as having "rights". There will always be tension in a capitalist system between the power of money and fhe rights of people, and the Republican party has made it as clear as they possibly can where they stand. The Democratic party is far, far away from blameless on this charge but they make some effort to regulate the power of money from time to time. But regulating money is anathema to a conservative mindset. Money deserves Freedom just like people just as corporations have rights just like people.
Yes. The infamous footnote. Santa Clara Co. v Union Pacifici, where the question of corporate personhood was not even before the court for consideration.
Ironic that Balogun is only eligible to play for the US because of birthright citizenship - his mother gave birth to him on a short trip to the US and he returned to the UK at one month. Has never lived permanently in the USA.
But that is Trump to a T: arbitrarily dolling out favors to anyone he likes and punishing his enemies. It is the definition of "arbitrary" as the opposite of rule of law.
And if the American side loses, he’ll be shipped “back where he came from.” (If Trump has his way—and he has proved weirdly successful in getting his way, in the face of all laws, checks and balances created to dissuade him.)
Absolutely no doubt SCOTUS is corrupting American democracy. The court has had this corrupting influence before, perhaps throughout most of its history (save maybe the Warren Court?), but the Robert's Court has to be one of the worst, or worst since the 19th c, right? The crazy part is how anybody at this point should find this claim about its corrupting influence controversial. It's "duplicitous exclusion" is like that of so-called "free markets," where the only stakeholders in markets actually granted any freedom are the super rich, while workers and consumers or any other democratic claims on markets (taxes, regulations) are systematically excluded or diminished as impingements on market freedom. Granting free speech rights to money and campaign funding works more or less the same. Excluding voters in the name of free and fair elections as well. Isn't packing the court a kind of "duplicitous exclusion"? Anyway, thanks for pulling together all the receipts and making the case. It's a slam dunk, if you ask me.
Thanks! With respect to an historical perspective of Scotus decisions I can only say that the damage to the concept of Democracy has been grave and Roberts and his band of originalists are culpable if the Republic fails
Thanks for a very interesting essay. I'll leave the balance between bribery/influence peddling and what the constitution may or not compel to others--although I will add money certainly has corrupted our political process and we sure as heck need to do something about it.
But on to more urgent matters, the USA world cup match this evening. It turns out that the decision is not without precedent, even in this very World Cup. Not that this makes it "right" but seems to be the state of play here. Here's some evidence (from AI).
Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal): He received a red card in qualifiers (violent conduct/elbow). FIFA imposed a 3-match ban but suspended the final 2 matches for a 1-year probation period (he served the first one in qualifiers). This cleared him for the World Cup start.
Nicolás Otamendi (Argentina) & Moisés Caicedo (Ecuador): Both had 1-match bans from red cards in qualifiers. FIFA amended World Cup regulations beforehand so certain minor/qualifier suspensions (including these) did not carry over into the tournament.
Tarek Salman (Qatar): Similar to the above — his 2-match ban was handled so it didn't affect World Cup availability ("moved away from tournament").
Folarin Balogun (USA): He got a straight red in the Round of 32 (vs. Bosnia). FIFA's Disciplinary Committee recently suspended his automatic 1-match ban under Article 27 of the Disciplinary Code (probation/suspension of implementation). This cleared him for the US vs. Belgium game.
Great piece! Political processes need to be protected by increasing access to those processes based on the individual, not the resources an individual acquires.
Thank you for this insightful essay. It does make me wonder if SCOTUS SHOULD be dedicated to maximizing democracy as well as interpreting the constitution. The Robert’s court clearly doesn’t think that way now, but if we are looking for reforms…
And the end of the day, don't you get to all of these decision because 'money = speech'?
"Most" doing a fair bit of work, though (as your tagline suggests) Alito and Thomas are not being bribed so much as richly compensated for what they would do anyway.