Tag Archives: ginsburg

Obama and Alito

Posted on by

I’m glad Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision in his State of the Union address last night. It was great political theater — Roberts, Kennedy and Alito sitting there stonefaced as everyone around them stood up and applauded the criticism. Um, awkward.

In response to one of Obama’s criticisms, Alito mouthed, “No way. Not true.” He probably didn’t realize the camera was on him — I doubt he would have muttered openly to himself otherwise.

(Oh, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg looked like she was asleep during half the speech.)

Now, I’ve read a couple of random blog comments from people who say it was “classless” for Obama to criticize the Supreme Court to their faces, or something like that. But that’s nonsense. It was perfectly appropriate for Obama to criticize a judgment of the Court. Despite the robes, Supreme Court justices are not gods; they’re a branch of the federal government, like Congress. If the President can criticize Congress, he can criticize a Supreme Court decision.

I really like this take on the matter and wish I had written it:

The Supremes are used to wafting into the House in their black robes, sitting dispassionately through the speech and wafting ethereally out again on a cloud of apolitical rectitude. It’s like they forget they’re there because they’re one of the three branches. And I truly don’t think it ever occured to them that crassly injecting themselves into the sordid partisan fray of what they like to call “the political branches” with that catastrophic decision would cause the President to treat them like people who’d injected themselves into the sordid partisan fray. (And why should they? After all, they got away with Bush v. Gore with barely a dent in their credibility). I even thought I detected a bit of “told you” coming from the four in the minority.

SCOTUS: No Cameras in Prop 8 Trial

Posted on by

“Irreparable harm.”

Nobody expected the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved in the Prop 8 case so soon, but a couple of hours ago, the Court issued an order preventing the broadcast of the Prop 8 trial to five federal courthouses across the country after being asked to do so a few days ago by the pro-Prop 8 lawyers. The order doesn’t address whether the trial can be broadcast on the internet, because that issue is still being worked out at the lower level (“the technical staff encountered some unexpected difficulties preparing a satisfactory video suitable for on-line posting”).

This whole case has so many people on edge — me included — that anything the Supreme Court says about it, even on a supposedly tangential issue like cameras in the courtroom, is being given talmudic scrutiny.

What worries me is the makeup of the justices in this decision. It just so happens that the five justices who voted to bar cameras in this case — and therefore agreed with the pro-Prop 8 lawyers — are Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy, and that the four justices who dissented are Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. This is exactly the lineup a decision on the merits could have, with the possible exception of Kennedy.

The thing is, I tend to agree more with the majority here, that the lower court probably didn’t follow proper procedure in allowing cameras in this case. But I could be persuaded that the minority is right as well. This really isn’t an emotionally charged issue — except for the fact that it happens to involve a trial about Prop 8.

And the fact that the trial is about Prop 8 is relevant. The majority opinion, which is unsigned, isn’t just about proper procedure; it also endorses the claims raised by the pro-Prop 8 lawyers that some pro-Prop 8 people have been harrassed, even physically, and says that there could be “irreparable harm” in letting cameras in.

Never mind the fact that we’re not even talking about broadcasting the trial on the internet — we’re just talking about broadcasting the trial in five federal courthouses.

So, is this an attempt to paint pro-gay-rights people as crazy harrassers? What about the people who get gay bashed? What about kids who get driven to suicide because their classmates taunt them for being gay or even just for being effeminate? Granted, the anti-Prop-8 people apparently didn’t bring that up in their arguments. But in citing “irreparable harm,” the majority opinion seems a little too sympathetic to the anti-gay side here. And again, that worries me.

So “irreparable harm” rears its ugly head again. It’s a valid legal concept, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. But I can’t help but remember that it came up in Bush v. Gore, too. There, Justice Scalia said — in an example of great chutzpah: “The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”

I really hope this procedural order isn’t a portent of how the case turns out.

New Yorker on Marriage Equality Lawsuit

Posted on by

The New Yorker has a terrific article by Margaret Talbot on the marriage equality case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, that began yesterday in San Francisco. It has pretty much everything you need to know about the case from soup to nuts.

I have to admit that while I was very leery of this lawsuit and thought it was a terrible idea, the more I read and think about it the more excited I am. It feels good to be going on the offensive. Ted Olson may be a Dark Lord, but in this case he’s our Dark Lord. By which I mean that he’s a top-notch lawyer, and it’s great that he’s finally using his powers for good. If there’s going to be a marriage equality case before the Supreme Court, we couldn’t have stronger legal representation.

And yes, it’s possible that the case will wind up in the Supreme Court and that we will lose. On our side: Ginsburg, Breyer, hopefully Sotomayor, and hopefully whoever replaces Stevens after he likely retires this summer. On the other side: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito. In the middle: Anthony Kennedy, who wrote Romer and Lawrence and therefore would seem to be on our side, but you never know, especially since it would be a really big deal for the Court to overturn the laws of 39 states. Some say that if we lose, it will set gay rights back for years. On the other hand, what do we really have to lose? And if not now, when? Roberts, Alito and Thomas are all young, and Scalia could be on the Court for another 10-15 years. The makeup of the Court isn’t going to change in our favor anytime soon.

More importantly, this case is a great teaching moment. From the list of witnesses that Ted Olson and David Boies have put together, it looks like the case will touch on everything from marriage to discrimination to child-rearing to children’s education to so-called “conversion therapy.” Despite the ballot initiatives and the state legislatures that keep going against us, the more we discuss marriage equality, the more the public gets on our side.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court rules in our favor, it could give fuel to the movement to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. But you know what? I can’t see 67 U.S. senators voting to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And I’m tired of worrying about what our opponents are going to do if we fight for our rights. We’ve been timid for too long. What happens, happens.

Interestingly, there’s another federal marriage equality case going on right now, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, which seeks not to overturn state laws against marriage equality but rather to overturn part of the Defense of Marriage Act. Gill seeks to force the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages that were validly performed in a state that recognizes them. Normally, if, say, Massachusetts allows a marriage to take place, the federal government doesn’t second-guess Massachusetts and refuse to recognize that marriage. Why should it be any different in the case of same-sex couples? This is what the Gill plaintiffs argue, and in a sense it’s a more palatable case, because it seeks not to overturn state laws but rather to strengthen them. It’s not clear which case will get to the Supreme Court first, Gill or Perry.

In the meantime — still waiting for Obama to stop discharging U.S. soldiers for being gay, and for Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Damn, I’m tired of waiting.

Judicial Liberalism Not Happening

Posted on by

If you believe in judicial liberalism — which I sometimes do and, to be honest, sometimes don’t — the current direction of the Court is a little depressing. Tom Goldstein, Supreme Court analyst extraordinaire, points out that the conservatives on the Court are free to move at a measured pace in overturning liberal precedents, at least for a while:

For the moment, there is no reason to rush. Time permits a jurisprudence of not just originalism, or textualism, but actuarialism. The sand running through this hourglass will not expire for eight years.

Later in his term, President Obama will likely replace Justice Stevens with someone else on the left. If he is reelected in 2012, he will replace Justice Ginsburg with someone on the left. Nothing changes.

It isn’t until the election of 2016 at the earliest that there is a real prospect for a significant shift to the left in the Court’s ideology. Actuarially, that election is likely to decide which President appoints the successors to Justices Scalia and Kennedy (both on the right, and both 73 now) and Justice Breyer (on the left, and 70 now). Absent an unfortunate turn of health, between now and the summer of 2017 there is no realistic prospect that the Court will turn back to the left. Over the course of that eight years, it is possible to take enough measured steps to the right to walk a marathon. Again, no need to rush.

Unless something happens to Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, or Kennedy in the next few years, the Court is on a slow rightward trajectory.

On the issue dearest to my heart — gay rights — it probably doesn’t mean much. Kennedy has been pretty pro-gay (Romer, Lawrence), but I don’t expect the Court to take up same-sex marriage for a while. It didn’t overturn the nation’s sodomy laws until only 13 states were left with such laws; the Court is too cautious to constitutionalize same-sex marriage rights at this point, when only six states allow such marriage.

What else could the Court tackle? Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell will be history in the next few years — I’m pretty sure Obama will get around to it after health care and energy are taken care of. DOMA (full faith and credit clause) is a possibility — which would be a sidelong way to rule on same-sex marriage. But I don’t think the Court will touch that right now. Again, the issue is just too volatile, and the Court generally knows when to stay out of things. (It has learned from abortion; would Roe v. Wade come out the same way today? Who knows; the opinion would at least be less intrusive if it were written today.)

Of course, I could be wrong. Issues have a way of showing up on the Court’s docket unexpectedly, especially since it only takes four Justices to vote to hear a case.

But for now, things seem to be in stasis, at least where gay rights are concerned. As for everything else — drifting right.

Concurrence Hell

Posted on by

I enjoy reading the little paragraph at the end of a Supreme Court decision syllabus summarizing who voted with whom. They tell you how complicated any particular court decision is.

Here are some examples, from simplest to most complicated.

First, there’s the per curiam opinion, which is unsigned, and therefore needs no summary at the bottom of the syllabus telling who voted with whom:

There’s the unanimous opinion:

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Then there’s the case with a lone dissenter or concurrer:

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

There’s the case with a few dissenters signing one opinion:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

There’s the case with a partial concurrence or dissent:

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined, except as to Part IV.

There’s the case with both a concurrence and a dissent:

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined.

There’s the case with multiple concurrences and/or dissents:

ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined.

There’s the case where it gets a little more complicated:

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined as to Part III. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which STEVENS, J., joined.

Or even more complicated:

ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III–A, and III–C, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts III–B and IV, in which SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

But I think my favorite is this one, from a 2003 campaign finance decision (which, incidentally, was gutted last week):

STEVENS and O’CONNOR, JJ., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, in which O’CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined except with respect to BCRA §305, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §§304, 305, 307, 316, 319, and 403(b). BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Title V, in which STEVENS, O’CONNOR, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, and concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, except for BCRA §§311 and 318, concurring in the result with respect to BCRA §318, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II, and dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I, V, and §311, in which opinion SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, II—A, and II—B. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined, in which SCALIA, J., joined except to the extent the opinion upholds new FECA §323(e) and BCRA §202, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §213. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA §305, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined.

So much for judges being mere umpires!

Thoughts on Alito

Posted on by

Get used to saying “Scalia, Alito” rapidly, as in, “Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas,” who will be voting closely together in lots of cases.

Fortunately, there are still five pretty solid votes on the Court for the area I care most about, gay rights – Stevens, Kennedy (who wrote Lawrence and Romer), Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Now that O’Connor’s presumably gone, I think Kennedy’s going to become the new swing vote. Also interesting and still semi-applicable: this SCOTUSblog article from June about a possible “gang of three” – just replace “Rehnquist” with “Alito” in the following excerpt:

On a Court somewhat more conservative without O’Connor, Kennedy’s influence seems sure to grow. He has a chance to become the new balance wheel, a role that was filled so routinely by O’Connor. (Even if there were to form a solid Rehnquist-Scalia-Thomas-Roberts phalanx, they would still need Kennedy to prevail, and he would not be with such a quartet automatically.) Kennedy also has more influence than is sometimes credited to him. He has a store of common sense that saves him from ideological rigidity, and that steers him away from agenda-driven voting. He has an even deeper sense of what history asks of the few who become members of the Court. Those are summonses to the use of sound judgment.

As I’ve said recently, despite my relatively liberal social views, my judicial views have been in flux lately. Alito seems not be an ideologue or an asshole like Scalia, which is good. I prefer him to someone like Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen. (And hey – go, New Jersey, with two out of nine seats!)

The Harriet Miers nomination was bad for the Court as an institution. The Alito nomination is good for the Court, regardless of how good or bad it turns out to be for the country.

Gang of 3?

Posted on by

Here’s a great analysis of how Roberts could become part of a new “Gang of 3” on the Court:

Thus, the possibility is a Court in the new Term starting in October that has Scalia and Thomas, joined somewhat loosely by Rehnquist, on the most conservative wing, Justices Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens on the most liberal wing, and Roberts somewhat loosely aligned in the center with Kennedy and Breyer.

It’s all tea leaves at this point, but this is interesting nonetheless.

Kelo v. New London

Posted on by

I didn’t think this day would come, but today I find myself agreeing with Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist (and O’Connor) and think that the more liberal-minded justices (Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer, and sort of Kennedy) issued a really asinine decision this morning.

The Court ruled in Kelo v. New London, 5-4, that governmental entities can take private homes for private economic development. The “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” A governmental entity has always been allowed to take someone’s private property and provide compensation for doing so, but only if it’s for a “public use” – a highway, a railroad, etc. (There are more examples, but I can’t think of any – I’m far from an expert on the takings clause.) This morning, in an opinion by Justice Stevens (who’s usually one of my favorites), the Court broadly interpreted “public use” and stated that private economic development can be considered a public use if a government entity thinks it is.

What’s weird is that this decision can be interpreted, in one way, as pro-corporation. Meanwhile, Thomas, dissenting, writes, “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a ‘public use.'”

FYI, Kennedy agreed with the majority, but only based on the specific circumstances of this case. It’s possible that if the facts were a bit different, the decision might have gone the other way.

I don’t know what on earth the majority was thinking with this one.

Interstate Wine

Posted on by

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning that a state cannot prohibt wineries located out of state from shipping wine directly to customers in that state. The decision “is expected to increase the sales of wines over the Internet by small, boutique wineries.”

And I love it when things like this happen:

The majority is Kennedy (author), Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The dissent is Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, and Thomas.

Scalia versus Thomas! Stevens and Thomas voting together! Dogs and cats living together!

And how often do you see the Supreme Court having to interpret the amendment that repealed Prohibition?

I’ll really have to read the decision.

Justice Stevens

Posted on by

Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme Court

I’d guess that the justices most likely to retire in the next four years would be Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and perhaps Justice Stevens.

Here are the general leanings of the current court members:

conservative — Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas

swing voters — O’Connor, Kennedy

liberal — Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Clearly, the biggest blow to social liberals would be the loss of Justice Stevens. A Rehnquist retirement wouldn’t change the court that much; an O’Connor retirement would. But the loss of Justice Stevens would be the biggest deal. You don’t hear much about him. He’s currently the oldest justice, at age 84 (he was appointed by Ford in 1975). However, I’ve read that he’s as mentally sharp as ever, and as one of the most liberal of the liberals, I’m sure he wouldn’t want Bush to name his replacement. He’d die on the bench first. (Which I sure hope doesn’t happen.)

If Bush wins, I fervently hope that the Democrats retake the Senate in 2006, if they don’t do so this year.