Justice Kagan Skewers Justice Kavanaugh's "Scorekeeping" through Virtue Signaling

But in the process, she undermined the basis for Chief Justice Roberts's quixotic "long game."

|

After Justice Scalia died, I wrote the Foreword for the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty. The piece was titled, fittingly, SCOTUS after Scalia. In that essay, I criticized Chief Justice Roberts's so-called "long game":

The institutional theory views the Court as something like a checkbook: the Court can take a big withdrawal once in a while, so long it makes regular deposits. Indeed, Roberts has adopted such a fiduciary approach to judging. Back in 2007, he viewed the Court's three-decade-long pattern of divisive 5-4 decisions as "eroding, to some extent, the capital that [Chief Justice] Marshall built up." Thus, decisions can fall on either side of the ledger: deposits or withdrawals. By depositing "capital" in the narrow decisions—such as WRTL v. FEC, NAMUDNO v. Holder, NFIB v. Sebelius, and King v. Burwell—the Court can withdraw that "capital" in the broad decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, and cases yet to come. Like the myopic "long game," the checkbook approach to judging is premised on an unrealistic understanding of how the Court perceives popular opinion.

Over the years, I have returned time and again to the flawed "checkbook approach to judging."

Today, I read Footnote 8 of Justice Kagan's Edwards v. Vannoy dissent. She used a very similar metaphor to attack Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion. Kagan wrote:

No one gets to bank capital for future cases; no one's past decisions insulate them from criticism. The focus always is, or should be, getting the case before us right.

Justice Kagan and I viewed the Kavanaugh (and Roberts) approach to judging in nearly identical terms.

Last month, I wrote a post titled Conservative Justices Do Not Need To Apologize For Making Socially-Conservative Rulings. I criticized Justice Kavanaugh's incessant virtue-signaling:

This sort of hand-wringing is, unfortunately, a common feature of Justice Kavanaugh's jurisprudence. In case after case where he reaches a socially-conservative rule, he apologizes to progressives. . . .

This pseudo-empathy serves no purpose. Make your decision and own it.

Earlier in Footnote 8, Justice Kagan viewed Justice Kavanaugh's jurisprudence of equipoise in a similar jaundiced light. She wrote:

[Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion] treats judging as scorekeeping—and more, as scorekeeping about how much our decisions, or the aggregate of them, benefit a particular kind of party. I see the matter differently. Judges should take cases one at a time, and do their best in each to apply the relevant legal rules. And when judges err, others should point out where they went astray.

Sounds familiar? And don't take my word for it. Mark Joseph Stern of Slate wrote that Kagan "echoes" me. Me!?

The conservative Josh Blackman has condemned Kavanaugh's habit as "virtue signaling." While she comes at it from a very different perspective than Blackman, Kagan's dissent in Edwards echoes this allegation. It seems that, in her view, Kavanaugh is trying to "bank capital" by flaunting his empathy, as if he can mitigate the unjust effects of his most conservative opinions. His deep concern for the losing party should offset the actual ramifications of his actions. When he supports a liberal outcome, even better: He can defend himself against future charges of callousness by pointing to his past votes. In doing so, Kavanaugh seeks to "insulate" himself from criticism when he writes a decision like Edwards, which will keep people locked up on the basis of "no verdict at all."

I agree entirely with Justice Kagan. "Well, no, scratch that." Maybe, she agrees entirely with me. Whatever. The direction of agreement is irrelevant. Consistently, I view issues in the same fashion that Kagan does, but in reverse. We seldom reach the same conclusion, but our thought processes are in-sync. Yet, I seldom see issues in the same fashion as Roberts or Kavanaugh, even as we reach the same conclusions. Our thought processes are 180 degrees out of phase. In the span of a single footnote, Justice Kagan has crystallized my years-long jeremiad against the Chief Justice, and now Justice Kavanaugh.

Chief Justice Roberts plays the "long game" of "scorekeeping" on a macro level. For every X conservative rulings, there should be Y liberal rulings. Some cases benefit the right, and some cases benefit the left. On balance, Roberts reasons, the lemmings will be happy. For years, Justice Kagan was happy to ride the left tail of those decisions, and held her fire on the right tail. No longer.

So far, Justice Kavanaugh has played the long game of "scorekeeping" on a micro level. In a given conservative opinion, he still throws praise to the liberal side. Rule against the Dreamers, but praise them. Rule against the LGTB people, but praise them. And so on. In the past, Justice Kagan has held her fire. But here, Justice Kagan trained her fire on Kavanaugh's superficial approach to judging.

Stern observes that Kagan may be done playing nice with Kavanaugh–and I would add, Roberts:

In his superb profile of Kavanaugh, the Atlantic's McKay Coppins reported that Kagan "launched a quiet charm offensive" to win over the justice after his confirmation. And indeed, until recently, Kagan rarely aimed her sharpest arrows at him. Her tone changed during the election, after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, when she ruthlessly undermined his error-ridden opinion defending voter suppression. (He later issued a correction.) Kagan's dissent in Edwards confirms that the justice is done trying to nab Kavanaugh's vote by pulling punches. Indefinitely confined to a three-justice minority, Kagan knows her influence is largely limited to dissents. If she cannot bring Kavanaugh around to her side, she might as well show the rest of us the cynicism at the heart of his jurisprudence.

Vanoy may be a preview of a very brutal end-of-the-term. Last year was Blue June. This year, after Kagan is done, may be Black and Blue June.

NEXT: From Ramos to Edwards in 13 months

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Like the myopic “long game,”

    Editor to the oxymoron department, stat!

    1. No time for editors with takes this hot.

  2. How about Red June?

    1. How about it?

  3. If you don’t know the difference between 90 degrees out of phase and 180 degrees out of phase, avoid such references.

    1. Is your comment directed against yourself? Blackman’s usage here seems completely understandable — he and they reach the same result via completely opposite reasoning.

  4. There are two actual judges on SCOTUS, Thomas and Gorsuch. And there are six politicians – Roberts, Kavanaugh, Alito and the three libs. It’s too early to say what species Barrett is.

    I would be lying if I said Kavanaugh has been a grave disappointment – he always seemed a DC establishment type, likely to go along with Roberts and the cocktal circuit flow.

    I suppose there was a hope that after he was roughed up by the Senate Dems and the media during his confirmation, the scales might fall from his eyes and he might work out that sucking up to the libs is madness. But it turns out not.

    As for Roberts and his “long game” it is a mystery how an intelligent man can be so clueless to imagine that the way to establish SCOTUS’s reputation as an apolitical judicial body is to hand out wins and losses by sniffing the political weather.

    1. Thomas isn’t a judge. He’s a committed ideologue whose entire body of work is “see my last dissent where I ignored what every other judge said about this issue and did some cherry-picking of historical sources.”

      1. Well there’s ideologies and ideologies. Thomas is certainly ideological as to legal philosophy. He’s a textualist, subfamily originalist. That approach informs his conclusions. And he doesn’t really believe in stare decisis, about which he is at least honest, unlike the rest of them, especially St Stare de Kagan who (as Gorsuch pointed out) is full on for stare-ing liberal precedents but not so much for ones she doesn’t like.

        And since Thomas is not a fan of stare decisis, it’s hardly surprising that he harps on about past decisions being wrong, even to the extent of saying “that decision was wrong as I have said seventeen times before.”

        He’s not playing the “respect the old beardies of the past” game. Nor is he playing the “I am a member of a distinguished college of The Elect, whose decisions I really ought to go along with for the sake of the college’s reputation for collegiality.” He’s playing “what does the text say and what did it mean when it was written ?” game.

        But Thomas is not an ideologue as to political ideology – he does not decide cases simply on the basis of his own political preferences. If you wish to abuse one of the conservative justices for the strange coincidence betwee his judicial conclusions and his political policy preferences, that would be Alito.

        1. “But Thomas is not an ideologue as to political ideology – he does not decide cases simply on the basis of his own political preferences. ”

          Where do you keep this version of Thomas? He doesn’t seem to make many public appearances.
          He tends to pick his winner, then find a way to explain why his winner should win. Sometimes he goes with other justices, and often he does not, now that Scalia has joined the bench invisible.

      2. Lee Moore’s take was pretty dumb, but I see you were able to match it in vapidity without much effort.

  5. “ Chief Justice Roberts plays the ‘long game’ of ‘scorekeeping’ on a macro level. For every X conservative rulings, there should be Y liberal rulings.”

    Agreed, but the sheets don’t balance out. It’s more of a “One for you; one for me. Two for you; one, two for me…” kind of deal.

  6. Is your comment directed against yourself? Blackman’s usage here seems completely understandable — he and they reach the same result via completely opposite reasoning.

  7. I again take issue with the criticism of Kavanaugh here.

    Expressing sympathy with the losing side is a standard way judges have of signaling that they are simply following the law, are not biased, and are not personally invested in the winning side’s winning. I think judges definitely should do this from time to fine. To characterize this as a partisan move strikes me as perverse. Since judges’ capital largely consists of public perception that they are neutral arbiters of the law, I suppose that such behavior could be said to “bank capital.” But then again, if that’s what’s meant, not taking bribes also banks capital. If banking capital is just doing ones job and letting the public know one is doing it, thus contributing to the public perception that one is, it is hard to see how banking capital can be criticised.

  8. “Like the myopic “long game,” the checkbook approach to judging is premised on an unrealistic understanding of how the Court perceives popular opinion.”

    If you don’t like this strategy that you’ve strawmanned, why did you make it up?

  9. Imagine living in Josh’s head, where addressing the arguments you’re ruling against is considered virtue signaling.

Please to post comments