This exciting Supreme Court term

This exciting Supreme Court term

I don’t think that I have ever called a Supreme Court term exciting But this one is. This Supreme Court docket is Trump dominated. The court is now hearing the Louisiana case on racial gerrymandering. The implications being if the court rules against racial gerrymandering then the some states many then gerrymander blacks out of seats like Texas is trying to do to oust Al Green and Jasmine Crockett from their seats. Some say as many as 19 minority seats, mainly in southern states might be affected. The court is also hearing the Colorado case on “conversion therapy” where Colorado stopped a Christian therapist from counseling minors on changing their gender identity.

As to the cases directly tied to the president, the court is finally going to hear if the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Mind you, if the courts rule against the president there are other legal avenues under which the president can impose tariffs temporarily. Another case deals with the “independent agencies” that are ostensively under the executive branch and whether the president can fire members of those agencies. The case before the court involves a member of the Federal Trade Commission. This is different from the cases involving the Fed and the National Credit Union Administration. The president has tried to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook on the grounds that she committed mortgage fraud and therefore can be terminated for cause. With NCUA the two democrat members of the agency were fired without any explanation. Since the legal structure of the Fed and the NCUA are similar, the court may rule of whether the president has the authority to dismiss members without cause as well as for cause.

Then there is birthright citizenship which the administration has lost in the lower courts and likely will lose at the Supreme Court. There are cases involving immigration. The president used an 18^thcentury law to deport the Venezuelan gang members to that El Salvador jail. The court will also hear cases involving states that ban transgender athletes for girl’s teams. BTW, why haven’t I heard anything about transgender athletes who want to compete for boy’s teams?Another case involves voting by mail and whether ballots can be counted received after Election Day.

There have been over 30 rulings regarding the president’s actions but the Supreme Court has yet to issue a full ruling on the legality of any of them. I guess the time is now. The president has been pushing the limits of executive power and the court will decide which if any of these actions are constitutional. Regardless, as I have often said, the democrats should be in favor of all that the president has done so that the next democrat president can avail himself (or herself) to them. Instead of course the democrats will be applying pressure on the court in the media accusing the conservatives as Trump’s lackeys if they rule for the president.

Trump’s people have on the other hand been quick to criticize any of the conservatives who rule against the president as “wobbly” or something worse. Of course, the president himself has not minced words on decisions that he disagrees with. The president’s supporters have also been very vocal. Here’s our Andy Ogles (R-TN) “Judges targeting President Trump are political hacks and their decisions belong in my SHREDDER.” “This is a judicial power grab. Plain and simple,” Chad Mizelle, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff. Mike Lee (R., Utah) has called for impeaching “corrupt judges.” When Amy Comey Barrett ruled against the president, one hack said “Amy Coney Barrett shows the danger of Republican DEI.” Mind you, John Roberts joined her in that particular opinion but somehow escaped being called a DEI hire. I wonder why?

With all this inflamed rhetoric. Some judges and their families have been physically threatened and even attacked. This is not confined to the loonies on the right. The loonies on the left are also motivated to threaten judges that rule for Trump. Recall the assassination threat to Justice Kavanaugh. Judges say that intimidation does not affect their rulings. That may be so, but in today’s charged political atmosphere, they would best watch their backs. 

I, for one, will be glad when all of this is resolved by the court. I think the president has a legitimate right to know the limits of executive power. I am interested in seeing how the president responds to any ruling against him. Thus far he has not disregarded lower court rulings against him. Will that continue?