Trump's gambit of once again doing some judge shopping......... Trump Asks SCOTUS To Help Fend Off DOJ In MAL Docs Case Former President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to throw out an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that allowed the DOJ to continue accessing classified records it seized from Mar-a-Lago. Trump asked Justice Clarence Thomas to vacate the appeal court decision, effectively reinstating an order issued last month by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for the Southern District of Florida. Thomas, the circuit justice for the 11th, is among the most hard-right justices on the court. In 2020, he and Justice Samuel Alito were the only two justices to vote to hear an election challenge filed by state attorneys general. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-asks-scotus-to-help-fend-off-doj-in-mal-docs-case .......gives the Court an opportunity to show itself not to be, at least in every case, an ideologically driven body with an unprecedented political/religious agenda. Clarence has the option of ruling on Trump’s request alone, or he could refer the matter to the full court. One hopes Ginni's husband understands the little remaining confidence, by the public, in the Court's impartiality will evaporate completely if he or the full Court once again breaks with precedent for political, not legal reasons. Deconstructing Dobbs Whether or not one sees the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision as barely concealed theocracy, it fails to provide any coherent legal analysis of why the right to abortion is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Deconstructing Dobbs | Laurence H. Tribe The chaos and cruelty unleashed in late June by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which wiped out a www.nybooks.com Dobbs was in no way the removal of the final brick in a steadily crumbling wall of protections for reproductive autonomy. The course of the law over the half-century separating Dobbs from Roe v. Wade (1973) had witnessed no erosion in the principles of personal liberty and equality that had been embodied in pre-Roe decisions. On the contrary, these principles had been continually extended during those years. Roe had built on decisions like Loving v. Virginia (1967), protecting interracial marriage; Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), affirming the right of married couples to engage in sex without risking procreation; and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), extending Griswold from married couples to all individuals, married or single. And Roe had in turn furnished the foundation for decisions like Lawrence v. Texas (2003), upholding the right of consenting adults to have sex with partners of any gender, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), affirming the right of people to marry those they love regardless of sex. Far from the culmination of a gradual trend toward government control over people’s intimate lives, the decision in Dobbs—no less shocking because a draft of it had leaked nearly two months earlier—felt like a bolt from the blue. “To hear the majority tell the tale, Roe and Casey [v. Planned Parenthood, 1992] are aberrations: They came from nowhere, went nowhere—and so are easy to excise from this Nation’s constitutional law,” the dissent said, but as the cases listed above demonstrate, “That is not true.” Observers had to conclude that only the changed composition of the Court during Donald Trump’s one-term presidency and the formation of a five-justice bloc committed to a religiously inflected political agenda could explain the sudden shift.