How do you know when SCOTUS will be handing down opinions in argued cases? I usually check the calendar on the SCOTUS website, but I just looked 5 min ago and there were no opinion days scheduled. Thanks for a great newsletter!

Expand full comment

Thanks for the clear explanation of the two theories. I wasn't aware of them & appreciate the opportunity to think more clearly about the matter of racial preferences.

Sent it to my lawyer wife, and my lawyer son & his lawyer wife, but also to a non-lawyer son because I know he would be interested and the explanation is layman-friendly.

Expand full comment

This isn't relevant to this article, but top of mind and I'm curious what you think. I've been thinking about the legal issues potentially raised by Pres. Biden's possible actions to avoid default. The two most prominently discussed are invoking the 14th Amendment to say that the debt of the United States shall not be questioned and therefore the Government will continue to pay its bills (and sell additional securities to pay those bills); or minting a trillion dollar platinum coin. Paul Krugman (and others) has also discussed the idea of selling premium bonds to replace maturing bonds. These would have a higher interest rate and thus would sell for more money than their face value. I don't fully understand how this would work, but it sounds like it might be a way out.

One concern about any of these is how, shall we say, bonkers the Federal courts (especially SCOTUS) have become. I don't think anyone would want to predict with any confidence what, say, Justice Alito would do (except he would do it angrily). But it seems to me that based on long-standing precedent, there would be nothing for the courts to decide.

First, standing. If Biden invokes any of these options, who would have standing to sue? Who would be injured by the United States NOT defaulting on its debt? Vladimir Putin? Donald Trump? They seem to have strong incentives to see the United States burn to the ground, but their political fortunes not being advanced does not seem like a cognizable injury.

Second, one might imagine Kevin McCarthy bringing suit on behalf of the House. But what's his argument? That the President has usurped Congress's authority to drive the country off a cliff? That Biden is being mean to him? Wouldn't this be a political question? I remember learning in my first year in law school that the courts keep their hands off of cases like this - and for good reason. If Congress doesn't like something the President does it can pass legislation. Of course, I assume they would not be able to pass legislation declaring what Biden has done unlawful, and even if they did, I assume he would veto it and it seems highly unlikely that 2/3 of both houses would want to override his veto in order to force a default. Or, Congress could use its power to impeach - but I doubt that even the crazy House Republicans would vote unanimously (which is about what it would take) to impeach Biden over this and obviously he would be acquitted in the Democratic Senate.

So, doesn't it seem that Biden could take any of these actions without any real legal risks? Obviously politics is a different matter, but it would be a great public service if Joe Biden managed to kill the stupid debt ceiling once and for all.

By the way, I haven't read the statutes, but it seems like the platinum coin option and the premium bond option are based on pretty solid statutory grounds. And again, who would have standing to object to either of those options?

Expand full comment

Hi Steve, you're a graduate of Yale Law School. How would you feel if even after graduating Summa cum laude from Amherst and probably scoring 175+ on LSAT, you wouldn't have been able to be admitted Yale? I'm sure you know that having that law school on your resume would have opened certain doors which wouldn't have opened if you had graduated from a school not in T14.

In the end that's what this is about, the caste system of the universities and also how the society discriminate against non Ivy students and when you add race in the mix it becomes a tinderbox.

Since on 5-4 you said that we should analyse the law based on the societal contexts, I would like to hear your thoughts on affirmative action considering the above context.

Expand full comment