Today’s decisions by the Supreme Court were a major defeat for certain Democrat politicians and liberal activists.  Yes, Obamacare was preserved in a 7-2 decision and in another 9-0 decision religious liberty was preserved. But liberal court packing activists lost today.  As the Committee for Justice wrote:

Consider the contrast between reality and Democrats' exaggerated predictions and fear mongering. Last fall, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senator after Democratic senator told stories of constituents who would suffer, if not die, were Barrett confirmed. She would provide the fifth "far right" vote for striking down the Affordable Care Act, they said, some of them implying that Barrett had promised President Trump to strike down the ACA in return for her nomination. . . .

Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed, but so much for closely divided far right decisions and constituents robbed of health insurance by a nefarious deal between Barrett and Trump. Instead, what we got today was a 7-2 rejection of the challenge to the ACA with Barrett in the majority, a unanimous and narrow decision protecting religious objections to same-sex marriage, and an overall picture of a moderate Court which will sometimes disappoint liberals, sometimes disappoint conservatives, and often the split the baby.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in Terry v. United States. The holding is not particularly novel. The Court upheld Terry's sentence for a drug offense because recent changes to mandatory minimum sentencing did not apply to the offense he was convicted of. As Ed Whelan explained in the National Review, this decision is an embarrassment for the Biden Solicitor General because the DOJ decided not to defend the lower court's decision at the last minute.

The true colors of President Biden, who refused to say where he stood on court-packing during campaign season, are beginning to shine through with the rollout of the administration's new Commission of Supreme Court Reform. What exactly will the commission do? While the answer isn't entirely clear, it's another signal that Democrats are setting the stage to expand the Supreme Court by all means necessary. 

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reinstate the Wisconsin absentee ballot deadline extension ordered by a lower court earlier this year and kept the deadline established by Wisconsin law in place. As a result, absentee ballots must be received by election day to be counted. This is another victory for the integrity of November's election.

President Trump has laid out in detail his potential nominees to the Supreme Court.  Later this week he will formally nominate a new Supreme Court Justice.  Meanwhile, Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden refuses to announce his list despite an earlier promise to do so.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Sunday said he won’t release his list of prospective Supreme Court nominees until he is elected, giving off a set of reasons he believes “could influence that person’s decision” ahead of the November election despite pressure from both sides him to do so. . . .

However, Biden pledged in June to release his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, telling reporters that his campaign is “putting together a list of a group of African American women who are qualified and have the experience.” He added that the list wouldn’t release until each nominees are vetted but declined to give a timeline of when the list would be revealed.

The liberal group Demand Justice released its own shortlist of 17 Black women it says would make ideal justices, calling on Biden to follow Trump’s lead in releasing a list.

To follow up on yesterday, we thought we would break down some details of President Trump’s new list of judges. President Trump released his list because voters deserve a clear understanding of a candidate’s vision of the direction of the Supreme Court.  Vice President Biden needs to explain what kind of judges he would select, for as President Trump stated: “Unfortunately, there is a growing radical-left movement that rejects the principle of equal treatment under law. If this extreme movement is granted a majority on the Supreme Court, it will fundamentally transform America without a single vote of Congress.”

Briefly on the new list.  It includes three Senators, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who are very well known and leading conservatives.  Instead let’s first focus on the current judges on the list:

This morning, the Supreme Court dropped its much-anticipated opinion on faithless electors in Chiafalo v. Washington, which was consolidated with Colorado Department of State v. Baca.  Ruling unanimously, the Court held that a state may enforce an elector’s pledge to support their party’s nominee – and the state voters’ choice – for president in the Electoral College.

For many, the Court’s opinion puts to rest the argument that electors have the freedom to depart from the will of the voters to instead cast their vote as they please; however, the Court’s decision leaves open two methods by which electors can remain faithless – (1) when the state has no law in place to compel faithfulness, and (2) when the penalty is a monetary fine that the elector can pay in exchange for his unfaithfulness.

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.