The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New Op-Ed: Conservative Justices Warn Kavanaugh and Barrett Lack 'Fortitude'
"Twice this term, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch warned that Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett lack backbone."
The Supreme Court's Term has now drawn to a close. So far, we don't have any leaks about internal struggles on the Supreme Court. Yet, on at least two occasions this Term, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have expressed concern about the two newest members of the Court. Specifically, the Thomas-3 allege that Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett lack backbone. Blink, and you'll miss these serious allegations. But parse the Court's cases carefully--especially the shadow docket--and the red flags are unmistakeable.
Newsweek has published my new op-ed, titled Conservative Justices Warn Kavanaugh and Barrett Lack 'Fortitude.'
Here is the introduction:
For the first time in a generation, there are six conservative justices on the Supreme Court. In time, this sextet will incrementally push the Court to the right. Yet, three of them are already sounding an alarm. Twice this term, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch warned that Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett lack backbone.
In an excessive force case, the conservative trio wrote that the two newest Justices were "unwilling to…bear[] the criticism that" denying the prisoner's appeal "would inevitably elicit." And in a religious liberty case, the Thomas-3 charged that Kavanaugh and Barrett lacked the "fortitude" to overrule a controversial precedent. The conservatives implied a similar fissure in several other cases.
It is fairly common for justices to criticize their colleagues' legal judgments. But it is rare for justices to claim that their colleagues are motivated by cowardice. The putative 6-3 conservative majority is, in fact, far from monolithic. At present, we have a 3-3-3 Court. There are three progressives, three conservatives and three members in the middle. Only time will tell whether Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett will sidle up to Chief Justice John Roberts' P.R.-based jurisprudence, or whether they will stand on their constitutional principles.
These warnings came in two cases. First, Fulton:
Gorsuch charged that the majority "dodg[ed] the question today." In a not-so-subtle warning to the other two Trump appointees, Gorsuch wrote that "these cases will keep coming until the Court musters the fortitude to supply an answer." Gorsuch thus called out Kavanaugh and Barrett for lacking "fortitude" in the present moment. This personal attack no doubt reflects simmering tensions within the Court, and those tensions have now spilled into public view.
Second, Lombardo v. City of St. Louis:
Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented. Based on the process of elimination, Kavanaugh and Barrett agreed with the Court's strange punt. Alito savaged his colleagues. He wrote that the Court was "unwilling to…bear[] the criticism that" denying the appeal "would inevitably elicit." In all likelihood, this punt merely delayed the government's inevitable victory. But, in the meantime, the Supreme Court gets credit for keeping the case alive. Once again, the Court aired its dirty laundry in public. The three conservatives alleged that Kavanaugh and Barrett were afraid of public criticism, and instead chose to virtue-signal.
The 3-3-3 dynamic was evident in other cases, including South Bay II, Arlene's Flowers, Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid, and others.
We should take these warnings seriously.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They are all the same. Barrett not Ivy indoctrinated, from the common sense Midwest. Even she will acculturate to the DC rent seeking, big government culture within 2 years. Hang 'Em High Scalia led the charge against the mandatory sentencing guidelines after they caused lawyer unemployment. He did so across a series of cases. Result? Surges in the murder of black males in our urban centers, immediately. No one can overcome their local culture. No lawyer can beat the rent. That is why the public is on its own. This toxic occupation adds no value to our nation. All remedies must be in self help. Political affiliations are a joke.
We *should* take these warnings seriously, as clear indicators that Barrett and Kavanaugh may turn out to be justices who take their duty to the country more seriously than their duty to ideology (whether interpretive or political). That would be a very good thing. Not surprising if Barrett turns out to be such a Justice. Shocking if Kavanaugh does.
Being criticized by Alito (probably the most overtly political justice since Douglas) is a positive point on anyone's resume.
"duty to the country"
"Duty" is always left wing to libs.
Their "duty" is to mitigate [and reverse] 60 years of dangerous left wing jurisprudence.
Lol. “Dangerous.”
2000 dead babies a day for starters.
End white supremacy!
Government must fund any BIPOC who wants an abortion, and white women must be prohibited from receiving them.
Only if you hallucinate that a fetus is a baby.
If a single cell of bacteria was found on Mars by a probe, and it was confirmed that it was not transported there from Earth, would you consider that "alien life"?
Of course it would be life, but it would not be a person, and person is the relevant distinction. Of course a fetus is alive. So are the cells you kill every time you scratch your nose. But they're not persons.
Biologically, a zygote is nearly indistinguishable from any other single celled organism.
"zygote "
That's not being aborted.
"The zygote phase is brief, lasting only about four days."
You call babies a "zygote" or "fetus" to deny their humanity so you can sleep better.
You really lean into being pro-life so can sleep better. Classic moral balancing. Be pro-life, which requires you to exercise any responsibility, and then use that to justify being heartless and cruel in all other aspects of life.
See, your problem is that I am not "heartless and cruel".
Thinking the Constitution does not support "free" lawyers is neither heartless nor cruel. Its bad for everyone when we let judges just invent things.
Legislatures are free to fund it if they want, just like other things. There is no evidence that it provides better results. It just gives lawyers jobs.
My preferred policies will be better for more people than yours.
No. That is heartless and cruel. Your choice of interpretive method says something about your character. You choose to interpret the Constitution in a way that will lead to cruel results: a person with less than a high school education flailing while experienced lawyers from the state try to put them in prison for life. This is a monstrous cruelty.
And lets not forget how earlier you mocked me with "need a tissue" after detailing the facts of cases where QI prevented recovery.
You mocked me for having empathy for victims of dog attacks, shootings, and sexual assault by officers, and believing the law should give them recompense. Only someone cruel, heartless, and utterly sadistic, would say "need a tissue" when someone lays those facts bare. That's you Bob. Deal with it.
It's worse than that.
To my knowledge I've never met Bob, so I could be wrong, but here's the impression he's left me with: It is one thing to acknowledge that occasionally the law produces cruel and heartless results; any legal system run by humans will. It's another thing entirely to take pleasure in cruel and heartless results, or even to choose cruel and heartless results when there's a viable alternative. That's a moral failing.
Then get down to brass tacks, at what point is the admittedly living mass of cells, quite alive, a person?
What distinguishes a human person from other living things? Why can I ethically decapitate a chicken and have it for supper, but not do the same to you?
The answer is consciousness, self awareness and moral agency. Once the fetus has acquired those, it's probably a person.
If self-awareness and moral agency are your line, then what's wrong with killing newborn babies? What evidence do we have that a baby, but not 2nd or 3d trimester fetus, has self-awareness or agency.
I ask because this entire thread shows that it's just a line-drawing fight. But no side has some perfect way to draw said line. It's all a bit arbitrary at some point. So there's no use in accusing one another of bad faith; you're both just arguing on where to draw the line based upon personal morals or guesses about what constitutes humanity.
David, not all lines are created equal. There is one type of line that is drawn between no abortions from the time of conception versus abortion on demand until the baby's head enters the birth canal. There is a different kind of line entirely that acknowledges that the fetus becomes a person some time between those two extreme points, but it's not entirely crystal clear when it is, so we'll do our best to come up with a legitimate line but it probably won't be a perfect fit in all circumstances.
I don't think there's any real dispute that once it's been born, it's a person. (Yes, I am aware of some extremist fringe nuts who would allow infanticide after birth, but they are just that; the lunatic fringe.) We do have evidence that even newborns can recognize themselves in mirrors, recognize their mother's voice, and learn right away what their name is.
My comment wasn't to suggest that all lines are equal; just that they are all lines drawn by someone for some reason important to them. So when people just argue back and forth about those reasons, it isn't particularly helpful.
If someone truly believes that human life begins a conception, at which point it is a "person," then comparing it to sloughing off skin cells or calling it a "hallucination" isn't helpful. (Nor for that matter is treating every pro-choice person supportive of murder or suggesting they deny humanity to "sleep better" at night.)
But few to actually have the argument over where to draw the line. It's all absolutists accusing one another of bad faith.
David, point taken. I said "hallucinating" specifically because I was talking to someone who has argued here in the past that his religious views define things for everybody. I probably shouldn't have.
If someone argues that human personhood begins at conception, they are arguing in the face of pretty much everything that science has learned about fetal development. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to their own science. And I would say the same thing to the person who thinks abortion should be allowed right up until birth (or even after): That's not a very scientific approach either. And if either one of them wants to convince me that I'm wrong, they're going to need to show me some science. Until then, I try to be more diplomatic than I've been today, but I really don't have a great deal of respect for fact-free belief systems.
"The answer is consciousness, self awareness and moral agency."
No, that's not the answer. And you admit that it's not the answer in your very next post. Newborn babies have no self-awareness or moral agency.
Your abortion argumentation gets an F. Poor show.
Babies in the womb recognize their mother's voice and even begin to learn language while in the womb.
"If someone argues that human personhood begins at conception, they are arguing in the face of pretty much everything that science has learned about fetal development. "
Let me fix this for you.
If someone argues that an unborn baby is not a full, living human being, they are arguing in the face of everything that "science has learned." (Smart cookie that science).
OR
If someone argues that human personhood begins at conception, they are arguing in the face of pretty much everything that unelected SCOTUS has imposed upon the nation contrary to the Constitution. (Personhood is a legal status only, not determined by science).
Oh, but newborn babies do have self awareness and moral agency. They may have limited capacity to demonstrate it, but it's there.
Because Smart People go out of their way to interpret it being present at that stage, but don't go out of their way to do so prior to the water bursting? That's pretty thin gruel.
Circular reasoning 101.
"Person" means a legal entity that has rights.
Why should unborn humans (who are nothing at all like skin cells) have no rights?
Krycheck says the answer is because they are not persons. QED
In other words, they shouldn't be persons because they're not persons. Or, they shouldn't have legal rights because they don't have legal rights.
No, they don't have legal rights because they are not persons. Just because you can't follow a train of thought doesn't mean no one else can either.
Yes and they are not persons because SCOTUS decided so. Personhood is a legal status not a scientific status.
“[A fetus is] not be a person, and person is the relevant distinction. Of course a fetus is alive. So are the cells you kill every time you scratch your nose. But they’re not persons.”
Only a childless, nihilistic loser could espouse such sophomoric and illiterate garbage. Responsible adults can support women’s autonomy over their bodies while still recognizing the terrible consequences of abortion. Demagogic cowards obviously can’t.
"Only if you hallucinate that a fetus is a baby."
You think a man can become a woman by getting castrated, speaking of hallicinations.
You seem cranky. And disaffected. And superstitious. And defeated.
When did I say a man could become a woman by being castrated?
They also think a man erupting in another man's rear end is engaging in an "act of love."
For someone who claims to be straight, you sure are obsessed with gay sex.
Few people at this blog are what they claim to be. It starts at the flag ("often libertarian," but no mention of "movement conservative").
Krycheck
The fetus is a baby. That is an undisputable fact of linguistics. You are trying to deny a fact that is undeniable.
No, a fetus is not a baby, any more than an acorn is an oak tree or an egg is a chicken. Give it up.
I mean lets be real though: once the kid is born you wouldn't give a crap if they were facing an un-counseled felony trial for stealing from the mine they have to work in to support their family.
Argumentation by strawman.
More of an inference.
We know you don't believe in Gideon. You have pretty well-established views on the need for draconian punishment of juveniles.
And then, since you are a conservative and a general heartlessness, it is pretty easy to assume that you find child labor regulation, food stamps, housing assistance, and SCHIP distasteful.
Care to dispute this?
"have a"
Not agreeing with your political positions is not cruel.
Government dependency is bad for people in the long run.
It is if my political positions are not cruel and yours are. I listed policies that enable children to have food, shelter, and healthcare. You denigrate it as "government dependency." We are talking about the lives of children and you are talking about "government dependency." Only one of us is cruel here, and it ain't me. Be better.
So the ends justify the means?
If you're so "compassionate," do so with your own resources.
Aktenberg, it depends on the ends and the means. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. The world is far more complex than you seem to let on.
You mean strawman like claiming I think a man can become a woman by being castrated?
So, what is your position on "transgenders"?
You mean what should you have found out about my position on transgenders before your announced what you think it is?
I think it's a little like religion: There is an objective definition for who is, and who is not, Jewish. But to a certain extent it's also a matter of self identification. There are people who are Jewish because their mothers were Jewish, but who do not think of themselves as Jewish, and I'm not going to insist that they're Jews if they believe differently.
By the same token, if someone born Gentile for some reason identifies as a Jew, begins attending synagogue, thinks of himself as Jewish, keeps a kosher kitchen, introduces himself to others as Jewish, observes the high holy days, well, who are you to tell him he's not?
So, I'm probably more open to the concept of transgender than you are, but it's far more complicated than saying that a man who castrates himself is a woman. That's not even good parody.
So you are saying the press lynch mobs during confirmation worked?
"We should take these warnings seriously."
Seriously, what are you going to do?
What can you do?
I know. . .pack the court!
BTW, this is all on YOU GUYS!
Can't blame this on us lefties.
The right wing’s grabbiness, lack of patience, and sense of entitlement do not speak well of them.
Even when I agree with them on the merits, which I by no means always do.
Being on the right does not mean you don’t have to be an adult in the room. Or on the Court.
"lack of patience"
Good lord. GOP nominated justices have been a majority for 50 years.
That's plenty of patience. Time for results.
Yeah! Bob won’t rest until poor juveniles can be arrested for homosexual activity based on a warrantless wiretap, then sentenced to death without a lawyer. He wants results dammit.
Bob will get what his betters permit.
He gets to mutter and sputter, rail and flail, whine and whimper about it as much as he likes.
So long as he continues to toe the line established by better Americans.
What more results could you possibly hope for? At no point since the 1930s have the rich and powerful been less accountable under the law than they are now. Just last week, the court made it even easier for rich donors to buy political influence. These are the "results" the conservative legal movement has always sought. How does victory taste - is it ashen in your mouth? Good. Maybe time to reevaluate your loyalties.
"easier for rich donors to buy political influence."
You know that such reactionary groups like the NAACP and ACLU supported the court's position.
It protects people from mau mau-ing by people like you.
Well at least the court vindicated the anti-mau mauing clause of the constitution. Is that not enough "results" for you?
The thing that comes across loud and clear is the massive sense of entitlement the right seems to have. They really believe that they are entitled to power, despite having policies majorities of Americans don't support. They don't even think they should have to win fair elections.
Well, guys, no, you're not entitled to power.
Yes they are. They are at the top of the natural
social and cultural hierarchy, therefore it follows that they are entitled to all political power.
There's also a separate point I'd make about the entitlement they feel about JUDGES.
I realize that there's a huge political component to law and that this is taken into account in appointments, but still, the point of the job is to exercise independent judgment. These folks AREN'T supposed to be like politicians, beholden to the voters. They may have ideologies, but are supposed to look at the cases and the arguments honestly and try to come to the right conclusion even if their side doesn't like it.
So when people whine that "their" judges lack fortitude, really, they are expressing an entitlement to results in specific cases. But you aren't entitled to that. You can pick a judge that philosophically agrees with you, but you aren't entitled to the result in every case.
These folks AREN’T supposed to be like politicians, beholden to the voters.
Tell that to all the states that have elected "judges"...
2 comments on elected judges:
1. It's a bad idea precisely because of that point. For instance, the California Supreme Court has become liberal in a bunch of other areas, but still affirms a ton of death sentences, even as the Governor has announced he isn't even going to carry them out. What's obviously going on is they don't want to lose retention elections like Rose Bird and 2 others did, not because they think all of these death penalty cases are worthy of affirmance. So elections of judges do warp the judiciary.
2. Having said that, as a matter of legal theory, even in a system of elected judges, the voters still aren't entitled to a specific result. They can remove the judge in the next retention election, but removing the judge doesn't reverse the decision. All those death sentences Rose Bird reversed were never carried out.
The entitlement is in thinking the judge is beholden to you (whether "you" is a voter or a politician). The judge, as a practical matter, may sometimes have to satisfy you, but he or she does not owe you any result in any case, even in jurisdictions where judges are elected.
Only if you include worthless third worlders who immigrated against the will of Americans via the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act as "Americans."
I enjoy how Josh takes it as self-evident that his is the correct conservative position, and thus that any conservative who doesn't follow him there is a coward.
It is not his most endearing trait.
I vote 'let Blackman be Blackman.'
(I blame my libertarianism.)
Two more duds from the GOP.
But remember, just keep voting in national elections! That'll fix it.
What would you suggest instead?
“Fentanyl Floyd”
Have you ever considered not being a bad person?
I didn't support her purely based on her having adopted non-white children.
I knew she would be a disappointment when I read that she got hard nips when George Wu Bush slaughtered the innocents during “shock and awe”…Republicans are now anti-warmonger in 2021.
I’m not the one making juvenile nicknames about murder victims. So I have at least crossed that threshold of pro-social behavior.
LOL More moral policing.
Branching out from me though I see.
Such a tiresome scold you are.
You're free too. And I'm free to call you a bad person for it. Be better.
But on the other hand, Fentanyl Floyd contributed to society through his stint as an adult film actor.
Better to be metaphorical than literal? That you couldn't think of a counter example that happened in the last, oh, 12 months is .... something.
"wishy-washy"
JB complaints are just so much whining. The 3-3-3 complexion during Mr Biden's commission improves the chances that that court packing will be repudiated, a result that JB and friends should be happy with. Instead they grouse that BK and AB are trying to do a conscientious job rather than doing the bidding of the extremes.
Kalak, I remember both 2010 and 2016. I do not recall a mob of Democrats storming the Capitol either time. Or Hillary refusing to concede (IIRC she conceded within 24 hours). Or either Obama or Hillary rallying the base with claims of a stolen election. If you're going to engage in what aboutism, try to find some that's actually an apples to apples comparison.
And you're a tiresome vice signaler.
Well I manage basic empathy for people and don't celebrate violence. You should try it sometime.
" Maybe you give more to charity than I do and you rescued some stranded whales once or something."
Unlikely, he is more into wearing hair shirts and being a Karen.
No. I give to charity, and the homeless, and generously to friends when asked. I also always try to tip over 30% no matter the service quality.
Tenderness leads to gas chambers?
JFC, that is messed up. Caring about other people doesn't lead to the Holocaust.
"Some kinds of violence should totally be celebrated."
Yeah, that's a moral failure. It might be necessary in limited circumstances , but it shouldn't be celebrated. Celebrating it makes it a moral good and people tend to do more of it.
"Violence is endemic to the human condition."
Doesn't have to be.
Wow that's a dark worldview. But it really just sounds like you want an excuse for you to continue being heartless on a regular basis. "I can't care about other people, because if I do, it'll lead to bad things!"
"Celebrating it makes it a moral good and people tend to do more of it."
That would be a good thing, as to the defense and protection of innocents.
Uhhhh, didn't those people feel entitled to stop the legal transition of power in a democracy based on a bunch of lies told by a known liar and some conspiracy theorists? I mean that's pretty freaking entitled.
And here's where your position becomes truly ridiculous. Take a look at the progression.
First Trump loses the popular vote, so we are told that it's the electoral vote that counts.
Then Trump also loses the electoral vote, so Trump and his allies say that GOP state legislatures should change the law so that GOP governors can just appoint electors who will vote for Trump.
Then the GOP legislatures show that they have a bit more integrity than that, so that doesn't work out. So, Trump supporters say that Congress, with help from Mike Pence, should refuse to certify the results.
Then, when it's apparent that that's not happening either, they storm the capitol. How many ways does Trump have to lose before he and his supporters finally admit defeat?
I have seen Democrats pull some fairly nasty stunts over the years too. But not like this.
"improves the chances that that court packing will be repudiated"
So you agree it was cowardice. Fear of being less important.
no, instead, they just had the media and leftist thugs on the federal bench masquerading as judges do their dirty work for them.
He only "lost the popular vote" if you start from the premise that worthless 85 IQ non-whites are just as American as descendants of the Pilgrims.
Without agreeing to your wording, that is a premise that decent Americans would start from, yes.
America fought a civil war about whether or not non-whites should be considered Americans (and that 85 IQ stuff is ....woof. Who thinks things like that?). America won (the Confederacy lost, in case that wasn't clear). Constitutional amendments were passed. Turns out, they are just as American as the descendants of the Pilgrims.
By the way, guess which side of the above war the descendants of the Pilgrims were on? Hint: They lived in a place that had already outlawed slavery.
That was prior to what is now settled science, settled science that blacks and mestizos adults have the mental capacity of children.
Don't you trust science?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
This is what blacks are about.
Tucker Carlson is sock puppeting again