Steve Vladeck

@ksvesq’s husband; father of daughters; prof. @GeorgetownLaw; #SCOTUS nerd @CNN & NYT bestseller: #LGM

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

I'm going to continue posting to this site, but not engaging. It's just not worth the steady stream of toxicity and venom.

I'll be much more active over where the sky is blue (stevevladeck), and, of course, through my newsletter (https://t.co/1ui2DpY3Cq).

Hope to see you there.

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@SCOTUS_gami It’s your dime, but then it’s not the “lineup” that’s the SCOTUSgami, right? I think most folks would think the term refers to the vote count…

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

Hey @SlangsOnSports, when’s the last time a team scored 10 or more runs in an extra inning?

Asking for some … friends.

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

Other than discovering that I’m apparently John Oliver’s son, @LastWeekTonight’s deep dive into the shadow docket is really quite good:

https://t.co/EbR3uV8XBE

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

The redistricting chaos we’re seeing in AL, FL, LA, TN, and VA is something #SCOTUS knowingly enabled, and it belies both the putative purpose of the “Purcell principle” and the Court’s repeated insistence that it’s staying out of the political process:

https://t.co/1t66xX7t5F

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

Not only is the after-the-fact claim belied by evidence; it's also sometimes the justices' own behavior (with regard to whether they decide a case broadly or narrowly) that is responsible for *both* whether a case is "big" and whether it divides the Court along ideological lines.

[Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein]

@steve_vladeck rebuts Justice Amy Coney Barrett's claim that the media makes #SCOTUS look more partisan through post hoc tinkering with which cases are big ones
https://t.co/mU50BV2AXe

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@nikkidadlani @dilanesper @EWess92 Danco and GenBioPro intervened as defendants, so there’s no adverseness problem. As for jumping straight to the merits, I’m not categorically opposed, but I do think there are costs to that, as well—which I tried to get into in a previous post:

https://t.co/RtyUwO9t9D

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@dilanesper @nikkidadlani @EWess92 Yes. The original post reflects a rather remarkable lack of awareness of what the critics to which it is putatively responding have actually said (over and over and over again).

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@ZFerg94 @dilanesper https://t.co/6e6DB9wit8

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

Two different technical, procedural moves from #SCOTUS yesterday have one thing in common: The Court is behaving differently in otherwise similar cases based upon the ideological/partisan valence of the dispute.

Results aside, that's not a healthy trend:

https://t.co/yc3Fu8oxws

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

Today’s #SCOTUS isn’t—and doesn’t think it ought to be—accountable to other government institutions, especially Congress. Today’s “One First” shows how that’s new—by walking through eight of the levers Congress *used* to pull to keep the justices in line:

https://t.co/YOuohcUpjn

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

Callais is the latest evidence that the real problem with #SCOTUS is that it can do whatever it wants w/o any fear of pushback from Congress.

The way to fix that is not by expanding the Court or imposing term limits, but by making it *accountable* again:

https://t.co/YvnUt0y1nC

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

Monday's summary reversal by #SCOTUS of the three-judge district court in the TX redistricting case "for the reasons set forth" when it granted emergency relief last December puts the lie to the effort to describe grants of emergency relief as "interim":

https://t.co/wcU97ySR2c

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

Today's "One First" suggests that, as the Court's docket has shrunk, the arguments for continuing to hold an "April" argument session—which, in the best-case scenario, leaves the justices two months to decide their last tranche of cases—have disappeared:

https://t.co/YhXkNwboTi

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@nyttypos This one is pretty close:

https://t.co/8lIvgjnanZ

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

In today's bonus "One First," I wrote about the critiques of the NYT Clean Power Plan cases scoop—and how they're are deflecting from the serious evidence it provides that #SCOTUS treats presidents differently on the emergency docket depending upon party:

https://t.co/YfTa2xQTLp

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@nyttypos Just to take two:

Dep't of Ed. v. California: https://t.co/AzYnSbJB2E

AVAC II: https://t.co/XE156mqCeQ

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@nyttypos The first point is belied by how the Court behaved during the Biden administration (when this was already a thing); the second is belied by its behavior in numerous cases during this administration (when it has relied on harm even when the challenged behavior was very unlawful).

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@nyttypos I totally accept that the "likelihood of success on the merits" will cash out differently under different administratons based on the justices' interpretive committments.

But I don't see any argument for balancing the *harms* differently based upon who the President is...

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@fakenytimes99 @jimmy_esq So when you accuse me of "crickets," what you really mean is "I disagree with your basis for distinguishing these two types of behaviors."

That's fine, but it sure isn't the same thing.

[Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck]

@fakenytimes99 @jimmy_esq Again, I've written specifically about what the difference is:

https://t.co/APzGujhdWe

There's plenty of evidence to disprove the claim that judges appointed by presidents of the same party all decide cases the same way. You may disagree, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.