After Ukraine and the Russia-hoax, it seems likely the Democrats in the U.S. House's quest for Donald Trump’s tax returns is just the latest effort to damage the President politically.  During oral argument over President Trump’s tax returns, USA Today sums up that point as follows:

On the other hand, all the conservatives and some liberal justices wondered whether the subpoenas go too far in seeking a decade of private data involving not only the president but members of his family. They suggested such extensive probing could harass and distract both Trump and future presidents.

. . .

“How can we both protect the House’s interest in obtaining information it needs to legislate but also protect the presidency?" Kavanaugh asked House general counsel Douglas Letter. . . .

But even liberal Associate Justice Stephen Breyer noted the subpoenas "go way, way beyond tax returns," a concern voiced by several conservative colleagues.

Yesterday Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer outrageously threatened Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.  . You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Chief Justice Roberts in a rare rebuke stated:

Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.

The Supreme Court today announced that it would hear arguments about the “faithless elector cases.”  As SCOTUS blog writes:

In Chiafolo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the justices will consider the constitutionality of “faithless elector” laws, which require presidential electors to vote the way state law directs. The petitioner in the Washington case, Peter Chiafolo, was elected as a presidential elector when Hillary Clinton won that state’s popular vote in 2016 but voted for Colin Powell instead, which led to a $1,000 fine for violating a state law that required him to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who won the majority of the popular votes. The respondent in the Colorado case, Micheal Baca, was removed as an elector after he attempted to vote for John Kasich, even though Clinton won the popular vote in Colorado as well. Chiafolo told the justices that the question has real-world importance in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election: In 2016, he noted, “ten of the 538 presidential electors either cast presidential votes other than the nominees of their party” or tried to do so but were replaced. A similar swing would “have changed the results in five of fifty-eight prior elections,” he added.

For being a black conservative, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been subjected to an entirely different set of standards in the criticism of his judicial leanings and his personal life, according to an upcoming documentary highlighting his career and path to the Supreme Court. 

“If you criticize a black person who’s more liberal, you’re a racist. Whereas you can do whatever to me, or to now [Housing and Urban Development Secretary] Ben Carson, and that’s fine, because you’re not really black because you’re not doing what we expect black people to do,” he added.'

Demand Justice, a far left group run by former Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon that has become the left’s voice on judicial nominations, came out with their “short list” of potential liberal Supreme Court nominees.  The list is extreme to say the least.  How extreme?  As Carrie Severino points out:

Amazing: there must be hundreds of federal judges Obama put on the courts, and only 4 make this list. This list would have been way too liberal for Obama.

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) October 15, 2019

Today, Justice Gorsuch's new book, A Republic if You Can Keep was officially released.

Early reviews and comments indicate that President Trump hit a home run when he nominated Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Here are few quotes about and from the book that have come out in the last few days.      

The Democrats of the 2010s have become the Party that refuses to respect results or the rule of law.  While the most obvious example is their continuing efforts to undermine elections, the most recent example, and most troubling to those who practice law, may be the recent threats of Senate Democrats to the courts.  As we wrote last week, Senator Whitehouse threatened the Supreme Court in an unprecedented amicus brief.  Today, Senate Republicans responded.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made news this week for not only once again praising Justice Kavanaugh, but for also trashing a new liberal wackadoodle idea - COURT PACKING. Ironically, there is arguably no greater living liberal icon than RBG, so will Democrats listen to her wisdom? 

This time when she defended Justice Brett Kavanaugh she also defended Justice Neil Gorsuch. 

On Thursday evening, President Donald J. Trump announced that he would be issuing an executive order requiring every federal agency to furnish records relating to the number of citizens and noncitizens present in the country to the Commerce Department.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling on the question on citizenship status in the 2020 Census, legal scholars of all ilks have weighed in. In a recent opinion column from Hugh Hewitt, Hewitt takes an interesting approach to the implications of the decision requiring the Department of Commerce to provide a more conclusive rationale for including the question in next year’s census.