Today the Supreme Court issued two more unanimous decisions in Garland v. Dai and United States v. Cooley. This follow two unanimous decisions last week. The weekly display of unanimity is notable given the calls by Democratic leaders to pack the Court. Yesterday, I wrote about how the heavy-handed campaigns might backfire with the justices. As we await important and likely divided decisions on issues like abortion, Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues seem to be sending a message that the Court is not so rigidly ideological as Democratic members and activists suggest.
In the Garland case, the court ruled (again) unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch on the rule in immigration disputes regarding the credibility of noncitizens’ testimony. In Cooley, the Court unanimously ruled in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer that a tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation.
Last week, there were two unanimous opinions making this six 9-0 rulings in two weeks. Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion in United States v. Palomar-Santiago, an immigration decision that ruled for the government and against an immigrant. It also ruled unanimously in Territory of Guam v. United States, in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The Court ruled in favor of Guam on the collection of funding from the U.S. government to remediate environmental pollution on the island.
This is an extraordinary litany of unanimous decisions and could in part reflect an implied message from the justices that this is a court that is not nearly as rigid and divided as suggested by Democratic members and activists.
Recently, Breyer warned against any move to expand the Supreme Court. He also rejected the characterization of the current Court as “conservative” or ideologically rigid. Breyer was swiftly denounced by figures like cable news host Mehdi Hasan who called him “naive” and called for his retirement. Demand Justice, a liberal group calling for court packing, had a billboard truck in Washington the next day in the streets of Washington warning “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.” (Demand Justice once employed White House press secretary Jen Psaki as a communications consultant, and Psaki was on the advisory board of one of its voting projects.)
Other justices have denounced such court packing schemes. Shortly before she died, Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly warned against the move: “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”
Nevertheless, Democratic members have continued to call the Court, to use Joe Biden’s words, “out of whack” due to the conservative majority. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and more recently Sen. Richard Blumenthal have warned conservative justices of dire consequences for the Court if they did not rule with their liberal colleagues on high-profile cases expected in the next two weeks.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. not only endorsed the court-packing scheme but went even further to question why we should listen to just nine people on such important questions. She appeared to question the very basis for Marbury v. Madison — the case laying the foundation for the Supreme Court in our constitutional system. AOC challenged the role of the Court in overturning laws. She questioned “just, functionally, the idea that nine people, that a nine person court, can overturn laws that thousand– hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” She then added “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”
The scheduling of these unanimous opinions may be the Court clearing its throat on these campaigns and threats. The litany of unanimous rulings amplifies the fact that most cases are resolved with compromise and different alignments of the justices. There are always “big ticket” cases that produce more ideological divisions but they are the exception rather than the rule for the Court. These are honest ideological differences and we want the justices to be consistent on their underlying principles. However, most of the work of the Court remains less ideologically driven on issues ranging from statutory interpretation to evidentiary rules.
There remains a bright-line preventing justices from speaking on political issues or controversies, though this rule is sometimes honored in the breach. However, there are times when the justices speak loudest through their opinions, particularly when they speak with one voice. In these cases, the justices are discussing different subjects but they clearly want the public to see them speaking as one. One court. Unpacked and undivided.
THREE REGIONS – SIX JUSTICES
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and steal elections, in order to nullify the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance and impose “the dictatorship of the proletariat” on the American people.
The SCOTUS model, provided in 1789, was that the number of justices was to be directly proportional with the docket.
Juridical objectivity was the original intent, in avoidance of political subjectivity.
“To limit the geographical area traveled by the justices, the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the circuit courts into three regions: Eastern, Middle and Southern. The reason that the first Supreme Court had six justices was simple—so that two of them could preside in each of the three regions.”
– History
_______
Failure begets failure. Government was never intended or designed to be so large and commanding in America, and the entire American welfare state is unconstitutional and only exists because of the failure of the Supreme Court to strike it down at each increment of its evolution . The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which was charged and sworn by legal mandate to support the literal manifest tenor of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
_______________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…[will] do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Sometimes it takes awhile to see the big picture, Turley, but it’s coming into focus. One of your assignments as a Fox News pundit is to stir the sh*t storm to try to help Republicans in the 2022 cycle. You encourage the culture wars, constantly trying to create the illusion that freedom of speech is being curtailed by Democrats, you constantly attack Democrats, especially female Democrats of color, you attempt to explain away and diminish Republican foibles and generally try to come up with ways to stir up the deplorables to keep hating and distrusting Democrats, all to prepare for 2022. You don’t really comment on controversial current political topics, because that probably wasn’t your assignment. Why haven’t you commented on Marjorie Taylor Greene and her comparison of having proof of vaccination to Jews being required to wear the Star of David in Nazi Germany? Diminishing the significance of the holocaust by trying to create a false comparison is outrageous. She should be expelled from Congress, but Turley has nothing to say about this. We all know why. Keep stirring the sh^t. How about Matt Gaetz? No, you don’t have anything to say about him “allegedly” diddling underage girls (attested to under oath), but instead you go after Hunter Biden for things “allegedly” on a lap top he “allegedly” owned that “allegedly” shows influence-peddling, plus you throw in licks against non-Trump media for good measure every chance you get because they don’t report this “important story”. All part of the culture wars you are encouraging, using your legal credentials. Why was your post about Michael Flynn encouraging a military coup taken down? Did Fox order you to do this? In today’s piece, you cite unanimous opinions on uncontroversial topics as “proof” that the SCOTUS is not ideologically rigidly right-wing. Of course, you had to throw dirt onto a Democrat in another piece on the same topic put out today. That won’t fly, Turley. None of these cases was controversial, significant or important. Let’s see what happens when it comes to the big-ticket items like abortion rights, civil rights, tax dollars diverted to religious schools and LGBTQ rights.
+100, hit it right on the nose. Thank you.
She’s once again talking out of her a$$; which would explain why she hit you right on the nose.
Touche’
Natacha, Hunter Biden hasn’t “alleged” that the laptop isn’t his. He hasn’t “alleged” that he and Big Daddy Joe didn’t meet with the Ukrainian oligarchs. If these things aren’t true why won’t Hunter and Big Daddy Joe say they are not true. Instead they allow for their sniveling little minions to infer that the photographs and emails in black and white are only “alleged” figments of our imagination. I refer to Hunter and Big Daddy’s sniveling minions posting on this forum.
Natacha, you say it takes awhile to come into focus. If it is just now coming into focus why have you said the same things about Turley in the past? It would follow that in the past your vision must have been clouded. I submit the possibility that your vision in the past and the present is myopic. Just so you’ll understand the big word https://www.google.com/search?q=myopic+definition&client=safari&sxsrf=ALeKk01uDkJEVwUjP47EtcT-3ENYwrAT0A%3A1622573076407&source=hp&ei=FIC2YKGaFpSm-wSFtaDgBA&iflsig=AINFCbYAAAAAYLaOJNqb4ZPjmfbqsxjsdH6_hGa34oxC&oq=miop&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIMCCMQsQIQJxBGEPkBMgcIABCxAxAKMgIIADIKCAAQsQMQsQMQCjIHCAAQsQMQCjICCAAyAggAMgcIABCxAxAKMgIIADICCAA6BwgjEOoCECc6BwguEOoCECc6BAgjECc6BAguEEM6BQgAEJECOgoILhCxAxCDARBDOgQIABBDOgcILhCHAhAUOgcIABCxAxBDOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QsQMQgwEQxwEQrwE6BQguELEDUI0WWIweYPAvaAFwAHgAgAH4AYgBzwSSAQUwLjMuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXqwAQo&sclient=gws-wiz
Voting unanimously for political ends is akin to their other pointedly political rulings. These appear to be decisions based on politics rather than what we used to call ‘law’.
I hope it works but it also lowers my opinion of the Court, excepting, of course, Thomas and Alito who tower over the rest.
I give it to you. “Get up in their faces”, “ Kavanaugh and Gorsuch you have released the wind and you will reap the whirlwind”, “Go and peacefully protest”. Which of these statements might incite violence.
Thinkittthroughh, you made me think about tennis star Naomi Osaka
Naomi racked up $52 million dollars in 2020 & blows off required media interviews
The 23-year-old said that she had “suffered long bouts of depression” since winning her first grand slam title in 2018. But she laughs all the way to the bank.
However, aren’t those rare “big ticket items” the driver of court packing schemes? That is when the ideological divide is bet upon by those who wish to expand the Supreme Court in order to the end of Single Party Rule, the Democrat hegemony.
Karen: why do you keep trying to use the big words you don’t really understand but think make you sound sophisticated and educated (which you aren’t) to attack Democrats all of the time?
Natacha, I thought I’d help you out. https://www.google.com/search?q=hegemony&client=safari&sxsrf=ALeKk02KWgS5BAiEOiMGQZxvMzX5AubPGA%3A1622569676179&source=hp&ei=zHK2YMTJBubF0PEP3–SwAs&iflsig=AINFCbYAAAAAYLaA3Kr2E1rJP3LAQ6T5rGsrS7e8pKdY&oq=hege&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIFCAAQsQMyBQgAELEDMgUIABCxAzIFCAAQsQMyBQguELEDMgUIABCxAzIFCAAQsQMyAggAMgUIABCxAzICCAA6BwgjEOoCECc6BwguEOoCECc6BAgjECc6BQgAEJECOgQIABBDOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoECC4QQ1DsIliaN2CERmgBcAB4AIABoQKIAdUFkgEFMC4zLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6sAEK&sclient=gws-wiz. The use of the big word applies appropriately. Sorry that you couldn’t comprehend.
Karen: I am embarrassed for you because you display your faithful adherence to the lies put out by alt-right media and attempt to portray yourself as sophisticated and educated by throwing around big words. What you don’t have is any appreciation of the extent to which you are gullible and have been misled into believing lies, especially the Big Lie. Facts don’t faze you, because your devotion is based on faith: faith in a deeply-flawed liar, hypocrite, narcissist, racist misogynist. Part of your indoctrination is to distrust any non alt-right media and to engage in “whataboutism”, like you’ve been taught. Your radical hatred of Democrats and defense of Trump and lack of understanding of why he is neither conservative or patriotic is sad and scary because there are so many more like you out there.
And yet, Turley feels the need the chum the waters.
Yes, and that’s because things are going so well. Biden was the right man for the job, and his calm, empathetic leadership is succeeding in repairing the damage done by Trump. The economy and unemployment are improving, COVID is being brought under control (although the alt-right keeps trying to scare the disciples into refusing the vaccine by lying about false dangers, all to prevent Biden’s success), things are opening back up, and people are optimistic. Trump and his devoted followers can’t stand it, so they have to keep the disciples stirred up about their “rights” being violated, abut the Left taking over and shoving a socialist agenda down their throats, the First Amendment and conservatives are under attack, school kids getting indoctrinated over pronouns, transgender sports and Planned Parenthood teaching kinky sex techniques, Mr. Potato Head and Dr. Seuss being censored, the list goes on and on. They tried to sell the idea that Biden is senile or only a puppet of the radical Left, but that message is failing. Turley’s just part of the plan to keep stirring up the disciples–keep them pissed off so they’ll vote Republican.
As yet, Turley hasn’t tried to sell the idea that Trump will be “restored” to his “rightful Presidency” by August, which is the Q-Anon’s latest quack theory, or Mike Lindell’s claim that he’s going to go to the SCOTUS with “overwhelming evidence” that Trump was cheated out of the presidency so that they’ll have no choice other than to kick Biden out of the White House — but if the money’s right…… . Turley hasn’t commented about this, either, and as a legal expert, he could simply lay this garbage to rest. Or, more importantly, he could discuss how outrageous it is that Republicans not only don’t shut down this kind of crazy talk and theorizing, but they keep encouraging it just to keep things stirred up–not just because it won’t go anyplace, but that it is anti-democratic and un-American.
+10
eb
Natacha you aren’t embarrassed for anyone. Especially yourself.
This debate reminds me that youth is too often wasted on the Young.
Back in the 1970’s, Professor Saul Brenner of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) had done research on the voting practices of the US Supreme Court and authored several articles and book(s) on the results.
He also taught a class called “Judicial Behavior” which I was fortunate enough take as part of my education.
The short version is he proved there is no way to predict how any Justice is going to vote on any given topic as their decisions do not follow the Liberal/Conservative….Left/Right….Republican/Democrat tags they are labeled with.
That holds true yet today.
One must know your history before you speak of what has been, is, and shall be….and far too many. here are speaking without having any basis whatsoever for them their comments
SCOTUS is just releasing the easy ones first. The nasty ideologist ones are coming later where the Rs on the bench will show us their true colors. The Rs did not spend decades shaping the court and then not push their adgenda.
Their agenda was to shape the court, see the Lewis F. Powell memo from 1971.
Progressive scum alleged that Roberts is/was an ultra-right wing nut case; on every one of his biggest rulings he voted with the Progressives such as to keep Obamacare.
There’s a school called Centro De La Familia de Utah, primarily for the children of immigrant food workers. Pre-Obama care the bus drivers whom work less than 40 hours had full private medical insurance. Post Obama Care the employer cut bus drivers to below 32 hours and cancelled their medical insurance. Obama care had the same effect on hundreds of thousands of US employees. Formerly they had private insurance now they are stuck feeding at the Federal trough, Demonkraut voters for life. The Dems did to Latinos what Lyndon Johnson did to blacks.
We know a couple in CA who lied on purpose Re. their income so they could get Obamacare. They got busted more than once but there’s no real deterrent so they just keep lying and stealing from others whom pay their way.
I realize all the above theft pales next to warmongers whom foment war and death to sell arms but still both forms of theft are offensive.
“Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another.”
–Friedrich Hayek
Suze, it is the hallmark of socialism that non-elite persons are not supposed to think. That is why it fails down to anything that needs to be produced. Those most knowledgeable of specific processes are the one’s not permitted to think.
Hayek is great!
Allan, being a god of all gods, maybe you answer a pressing question: how come no magats were anally raped by a cattle prod on the Capitol steps on 1/6?
Is that the dream of your life?
“This is an extraordinary litany of unanimous decisions”
No, it isn’t.
In fact, if you look at the annual statistics released every year by SCOTUSblog — scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/ — unanimous decisions are the plurality.
That said, a majority of rulings split in some way, and conservative/liberal splits are common.
Is JT ignorant when he claims that the unanimous rulings are an “extraordinary litany,” or is he being dishonest and disingenuous?
“Is JT ignorant … or is he being dishonest and disingenuous?”
JT provided the history behind his words and said, “could in part reflect an implied message from the justices .” Elsewhere JT discusses that the court is not as divided as one might believe.
Anonymous the Stupid likes to make up things and frame them to make his enemies appear Stupid. This type of mischaracterization is Anonymous deception and lies. JT pointed something out and clearly explained he could not make any decision one way or the other. JT has a historical perspective based on the FDR attempt. Anonymous the Stupid has no perspective. He arises from the sewer to pleasure himself by libeling another.
Allan S. Meyer always insults people he dislikes using insults that describe Allan better than his opponent.
It’s a fact that there’s nothing “extraordinary” about unanimous SCOTUS rulings, and I provided a link to two dozen years’ worth of statistical evidence to demonstrate that they have long been common.
But Allan has no interest in discussing the statistics of the ruling splits, probably because Allan knows he’ll lose that argument. So instead he resorts to the common logical fallacy known as ad hominem, even though that’s also a losing strategy.
Hence, the Anonymous the stupid title. He doesn’t even know that he is “Anonymous The Stupid”
FishWings, you have the intellect of a worm. The name, Anonymous the Stupid, was a name I labeled the jerk in question to differentiate him from others posted under that name. Characteristic of Anonymous the Stupid is his propensity of libel, character assassination, deception, and lies. He does that continuously because he is Stupid.
You have demonstrated a lack of brainpower on this blog. Your comments have always been shoddy, and shall I say Stupid. I don’t call you a liar because I don’t think you know enough to lie about the things under discussion.
Continue to swim in the sewer with anonymous the Stupid. It might improve your ability to think, something presently near non-existent.
I’ll have to stop by asking myself how stupid can anonymous get, and I’m afraid if I asked you, you would take that as a challenge.
FishWings, I just sent you another reply to place this discussion on a higher plane. Therefore, I will defer from providing an appropriate response until I thoroughly understand how you wish to proceed.
I note a bunch of other tiny replies by you that are meaningless. It seems you wish to get into the game. That is fine. The only question is, will you be one to advance the intellect of the blog or detract from it? That is your choice.
“Allan S. Meyer always insults people he dislikes using insults…”
I only insult others that willfully swim in the sewer with Anonymous the Stupid. I insult you whenever I find you deceptive, lying, or engaging in libel and character assassination.
You did that recently. Another poster commented on that as well.
Can’t you disagree without the obnoxious ad hominem attacks? We are all adults here, and no one expects total thought conformity. But honest disagreement — with no personal agenda — presents a counter argument without the put downs.
I didn’t post an ad hominem attack (they have a specific form: iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHominem). I asked a question about JT’s false statement, providing a link to evidence demonstrating that it’s false. Other than ignorance or dishonesty, what other explanations are there for a law professor to make a false claim about common court conduct? How do YOU explain JT’s false claim?
My guess is that he knows it’s false, but if he doesn’t, then as a law professor, he should learn that there’s nothing “extraordinary” about a string of unanimous rulings.
We are all ignorant about some things, but professors should not be ignorant about basic facts in their field, and they should not mislead their readers about those basic facts.
The professor clearly stated that this was a possibility, but he didn’t know. One should look at history and see how the court reacted to FDR’s court-packing plan. You decided to insult the professor by playing your typical word games.
Why doesn’t a constitutional law professor know that the plurality of SCOTUS rulings are unanimous?
Ignorance is no excuse for insults. The professor didn’t say otherwise, but your mind is filled with small, hateful thoughts filling it up and letting nothing else in.
To threaten the court is to threaten the ideas behind our founders’ checks and balances system.
Whether it be a mob of protestors or legislators, it means the same thing. Both are guilty of offenses against the Constitution and the American people. Those offenses are more significant than any of the impeachment claims made against former President Trump.
My recollection is that multiple Justices going back quite a few years have insisted that the SupCt is not as ideological as people think and politicians put out. Well…. that is probably true in general, but a couple of observations:
1. It is the business of politicians to exaggerate differences, to pit us against each other and help their fund raising and the GOTV. 90%+ of politicians are moral pond scum, and at the Federal level doubly so, but that seems to be what the system produces and we the people keep voting for them….
2. A small number of very high profile issues are clearly ideological–abortion, guns, affirmative action, Bill of Rights issues in general, some elements of immigration, maybe some elements of regulatory law… and that is what we mostly see and the media covers, that form our impressions. Cases like the ones in this post are not grounded in large social or economic issues, but involve finer points of legal interpretation, and I can believe that those tend to be less ideological. After all, when a Pres and his party’s senators decide on a nomination, and the other party’s senators decide how to respond, the rooms reek of ideology (see #1, above) on the hot button issues of the day–but that may say little about how the person would rule on cases such as these. Which is good, almost an affirmation that the Court can consider second-tier issues in terms of honestly interpreting the law rather than remaking or recasting it.
If the SCOTUS had done its duty to support the literal, manifest tenor of the Constitution, America would not be forced to suffer the preposterous aberration that is this double affirmative action beneficiary, ensconced in an office she is clearly not qualified or eligible for, as the result of an unconstitutional “rigged” election which the SCOTUS refused to correct through adjudication:
“And let me just tell you, I eat ‘no’ for breakfast, so I would recommend the same. It’s a hearty breakfast.”
– Kamala Harris
What this empty trouser suit eats is affirmative action and government “assistance” by the truck load.
“Failing up.” It’s the government way.
Democrats continue to demean the SC, and they use threats that if used by Donald Trump, would be impeachable offenses. I don’t know what is in the minds of the nine Justices, but it is clear that they are trying to rebut the Marxist signals, thrown at them by the Democrat Party leaders.
This is not a fight that we should be seeing in America…nobody except the far leftists who want to overthrow our form of government, can win in this battle to keep us a Constitutional Republic, rather than a dictatorship by one Party.
Senator Chuck Schumer prefers impeaching Judges Gorsuch & Kavanaugh
Senator Rich Blumenthal prefers court packing
AOC & the squad led by Maxine Waters prefer stalking & attacking judges & their families in public.
The strategy is to block, neutralize & isolate the supreme court judges.
Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of perjury by multiple people under penalty of perjury — ca10.uscourts.gov/ce/misconduct/kavanaugh-complaints . His possible perjury should be investigated, and if true, he should be impeached.
The above is an Anonymous the Stupid type response. Accusations need to be accompanied by some fact. When the facts don’t suit Anonymous the Stupid’s narrative, he makes an as$ out of himself.
And Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is a fan of all of the above.
Sheldon is awesome.
eb
The public has always been told the most brilliant minds are on our Supreme Court. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion that “packing” is a very dumb idea! It is.
“She appeared to question the very basis for Marbury v. Madison — the case laying the foundation for the Supreme Court in our constitutional system.”
Has AOC even read Marbury v. Madison? Would she even know of its relevance? The answer to both questions, I’m certain, is no.
Interesting. I thought I was very good at deciphering moves by the Government. Didn’t see it! But some semblance of unity in this country is important. This administration has done nothing to unify. I really would like to point out one unifying action. Not one. As a Roman Catholic he should know better.
The Democrats need to keep hands off on the Supreme Court!
That’s right, because in your view only right-wing ideologues and republican presidents are the only ones that should, right?
FishWings, ignorance of the Constitution and the law is not an excuse for your intellectual deficiency on the blog. Everyone has gripes and can express them. Court-packing is different from what you are suggesting. You should know better, but you don’t.
Intellectual deficiency is what Turley’s blog has become, Turley’s recent concern about “court packing” is only recent, he had no such concern when Moscow Mitch denied Obama’s constitutional right to have advice and consent from the Senate, and Mitch didn’t even have a hearing. Court packing is more than just adding to the court. And you should know better, but you don’t.
“Intellectual deficiency is what Turley’s blog has become”
No, it is what people like you have created. There is nothing wrong with differences of opinions backed up by fact and logic. You demonstrate none of these traits. My proof is based on what you have written for a long time. You have it in your power to add rather than subtract.
Turley discussed both issues you are comparing but are not comparable. We do, however, have historical comparisons and prior legislation and rule changes to judge the history of these acts.
There is a difference between court-packing and appointing a person to the Supreme Court. The latter is a power created by the Constitution.
You say I “should know better,” but you are the one that neither knows history, the law, or the Constitution. That is fine. That is something for discussion. Don’t claim that others lack knowledge when that lack is an essential foundation for what you write.
So the children behave themselves under threat of getting grounded? If anything, that’s even more of an embarrassment and an indictment of their previous behavior than continuing in their blatant partisanship.
Support for the theory that Courts listen to election results?
This was far from a normal set of election results. Get a copy of the paperback book, _Bid Rig_ by Patrick Byrne.
Sorry, the accurate title is: The Deep Rig.