A savvy reader points out that, even under Alito's distortion of the facts, #SCOTUS *still* would've lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay in Malliotakis—because the New York Court of Appeals ruling Alito treated as the "final" state court decision rested on an "adequate and independent state ground."
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv/post/3mgcvv4yhqs2o
The "adequate and independent state grounds" doctrine is a 150-year-old interpretation of the statute authorizing #SCOTUS review of state courts under which the Supreme Court *can't* review a state-court ruling that rests on a state law basis that's both conclusive and regularly/neutrally applied:
tile.loc.gov/storage-servic...
It seems like you're leaning really hard into the idea that the legislation has such power over the third branch.
A statute authorizing SCOTUS to have jurisdiction? They can't act without permission of the legislature? No, that doesn't make sense for an independent judiciary impaneled by the Constitution itself.
