The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New in Newsweek: Dobbs "nullified Justice Souter's linkage of stare decisis and legitimacy"
"A new generation of law students, lawyers, and judges must internalize the Dobbs conception of "legitimacy."
Newsweek has published my new op-ed on Dobbs and legitimacy. In short, Dobbs overruled Casey's linkage of stare decisis and legitimacy, and indeed redefined legitimacy altogether. Finally, the Supreme Court can escape David Souter's shadow.
Here is the introduction:
Three decades ago, three Republican Supreme Court appointees reaffirmed Roe v. Wade because of three words: "stare decisis" and "legitimacy." In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter saved the landmark abortion precedent to ensure that people would not view the Court as a political institution.
Three decades later, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, five Republican Supreme Court appointees found that stare decisis did not justify saving Roe v. Wade. But equally significant was that the majority rejected Casey's conception of "legitimacy." No longer would the Court's legitimacy be tied to public opinion. To the contrary, a legitimate Court must decide, and even overrule cases without regard for popular sentiments. This monumental shift—far more than any new jurisprudence on abortion—will define how far this new conservative Court will have the fortitude to go.
And the conclusion:
This redefined conception of legitimacy upsets long-standing views about the Court. But more importantly, Dobbs compels a recalibration by the Court's critics. In the past, progressives repeatedly warned that overruling a precedent like Roe would undermine the Court's legitimacy. If Dobbs is any indication, these barbs will be met with a collective yawn. Indeed, if Dobbs was unable to trigger a critical mass of support for Court "reform"—a euphemism for imposing term limits or expanding the number of seats—it is doubtful that anything would.
Justice Alito's opinion makes clear that public attacks will have no effect. Future precedents will turn on this emboldened conservative Court looking inward, not outward. Now, a new generation of law students, lawyers, and judges must internalize the Dobbs conception of "legitimacy."
The concept of "legitimacy" is not monolithic. The Supreme Court has now adopted a new conception of "legitimacy." And critics will have to internalize this concept, whether they like it or not. Alternatively, the Souter-esque notion of legitimacy, like Casey itself, can be relegated to what I'm calling the living Constitution in exile. Yes, conservatives (apparently) had a Constitution in exile for generations. Progressives, it's your turn.
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
The Court disagrees with me- we must find other cases!
The Court agrees with me- The Law is settled and, can never go back!
One-way ratchet effect.
Standard technique by School Boards and tax increases, as well.
Tax increase passed- The People have spoken!
Tax increase denied- We need to educate the voters and try again!
The sole legitimacy of these scumbag Justices is men with guns. None has made the effort to go through the steps required by modern social science. First, show the idea is reliable, can be repeated. Then show it is valid, that it is safe and effective to achieve its purpose.
I would love a single counterexample of a legal decision of even the most trivial nature that has that kind of modern legitimacy.
Legitimacy can only come from results. When the Supreme Court makes laws, like legalizing butt banging, 20 million die of AIDS. Now the monkey is here. Congress is on the best position to validate laws, and then to change them if the results are bad.
What other practice legitimizes its practice by saying, that is the way it was done in the past? We never wash our hands between deliveries of babies in the hospital. That is how we build auto engines or toilets in 1940. You stink, you losers. Any other practitioner pulling your stunts, would not only lose the license, he would be arrested.
Great new tool in self help.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-712601?_ga=2.20391344.900809630.1658134705-1229034299.1617710680&vgo_ee=tTylYmtffw60DozhllsNfEzkASpiHornD%2Fz2wZTd1jg%3D
Crime is updating, this profession is sticking to stare decisis.
Why does this profession suck so much? They are taking our $trillion and returning nothing of value. And, they have men with guns. That's it, for this garbage criminal enterprise.
Wow! That is monumentally stupid. The Court has no troops.
No longer would the Court's legitimacy be tied to public opinion. To the contrary, a legitimate Court must decide, and even overrule cases without regard for popular sentiments. This monumental shift—far more than any new jurisprudence on abortion—will define how far this new conservative Court will have the fortitude to go.
Popular opinion would not have written Brown vs Board, of course. Only a reliance on the plain language of the C. To have it otherwise makes the law a meaningless shifting public opinion poll. No gay marriage either.
Public opinion, that’s Congress’ job, not the Court.
Stare decisis - is how egregious Kelo opinion came to be. Each reliance on stare decisis allows constitutional jurisprudence to morph slightly further away from the constitution each time and eventually results in decisions fully supported by prior case law yet completely afoul of the constitution. Kelo fits exactly in that pattern - same with gamble
I compare it to a Drunkard's Walk away from the actual written Constitution. Each decision takes you in some random direction a short ways from the previous decision. Unless you're continually correcting by referring back to the written Constitution, on average you keep getting further and further from it.
I have questioned stare decisis for a long time and from your comment, it looks like you do as well. A huge issue for me is the outcome, were it ever eliminated/abolished/whatever. I think that concern stops me from just considering its elimination vs theorizing about it.
With that said, I would appreciate other opinions. Is there anything you can add?
they is just calling the balls & strikes.
even if the ball game ended 50 years ago, if the call was mistaken, they have to overturn the call, declare a new winner, and take away any ill-gotten rights.
another advantage of being an umpire is being able to redefine the illegitimate as legitimate. that way, the court is always legitimate. just so things are on the up and up.
it doesn't matter if "popular sentiment" regards the court as illegitimate, because the court has already defined itself as legitimate, and part of that legitimacy is ignoring popular sentiment. you can see how nicely this all works out.
If you are an umpire, you get the slow motion video to validate your dumbass decision. Where is the validation by the idiot decision of these thievin', rent seekin' Mafia criminals?
Couple that with the GOP locking in voter-proof majorities in over half of US states and you've built quite a wall to prevent the public from reversing the decision through legislative processes.
Gerrymandering for the win!
Quite the poor analogy, considering that baseball does not work in that manner whatsoever.
See also:
We love democracy! Until we don't.
We love fed uniformity forced on states. Until we don't.
We love states as 50 experiments on issues. Until we don't.
So why not? We love stare decisis. Until we don't.
For those who dabble in politics, this is the difference between the real definitions of Liberal and Conservative.
Conservatism: Belief in established traditions as hard-wrought wisdom. Conservatives don't say it shouldn't be changed, but it should only after much pondering and debate and consideration.
Liberalism: Belief there must be large breaks with the past to save society from itself.
Many have pointed out liberals are now conservative with things like social security, welfare, and abortion.
And that conservatives are liberal, in wanting to overturn abortion.
Illegal abortion is solidly, social conservatism. As is making same-sex marriage, adult sexual relationships, and contraceptives illegal. It doesn't matter if these things are a legal change, they're still conservative in nature because they increase the potential price of engaging in non-traditional, male/female relationships. The goal isn't "pro life" as much as it is improving the chances that someone with social conservative attitudes towards relationships will be able to attract and retain a partner without having to worry about someone else looking like a more interesting alternative.
This is why exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother aren't popular among conservatives; these are intended results meant to scare women into celibacy before marriage. This is why "traditional marriage" is a big deal for them as it theoretically increases the social pressure on bi- and homosexual persons to live a conservative, heterosexual lifestyle.
The negatives we liberals and centrists are upset over regarding anti-abortion laws and threats to marriage equality are a feature and not a bug.
Why do you think there's a role for a man to finish into another man's colon?
I never thought of it that way. Huh.
I've always thought of it from the perspective of liberty.
Why do you think there's a role for government to invade private, consensual, adult relationships?
Government has a moral right to prohibit actions that damage the nation's collective ethos and moral fiber. A man spraying HIV infected fluids into another man's intestine qualifies as that.
How would the availability vel non of abortion for rape victims scare women into celibacy?
I'm pretty sure rapists don't care if women have chosen celibacy.
legitimacy for SCOTUS is fidelity to the constitution
- NOTHING ELSE
Yes, but which one? The "living" or the "dead"?
Living, for rights. Dead as a doornail for new powers for government. Changes in attitudes create new, real rights, though by definition unenumerated.
Just like "that word sounds made up!" "All words are made up." Concepts of rights can expand.
This is in keeping with the design of the Constitution, that recognizes the supremacy of The People, and their rights. No amendment is needed, because government doesn't have power over it until granted.
The same cannot be said for a "living constitution", where weasel power hungry lawyers want to work around the Constitution's protections against those in power expanding their power at their own whim. There is a way to do this: propose a change, where the people and the states will ponder it, and, if they find it wise, adopt it.
It is the exact opposite of the weasel's power hungry behavior through all tragic human history. Indeed, it avoids a second pitfall: the charismatic demagogue's ability to blow the winds of political passion in their favor. The deliberately laborious amendment process not only makes sure most, not a bare majority, agree to a fundamental change to government, but the delays ensure political passions have cooled, and a more rational analysis can proceed.
We have seen politicians say, "Never let a good emergency go to waste!" And in the context of getting laws passed, slimy enough. But for amendments? No way. Because blowing the winds of political passion is the only real existing superpower, which tyrants have as their skill, and they will whip you up until Jar Jar says, "Dellow felegates! Let's give this sweet chancellor emergency powers!"
And you will, clappingband cheering. Because yousa idiots.
People only have to learn the new rules for politically charged issues that are likely to draw the attention of the Supreme Court. Most precedent, even precedent judges don't like, will remain untouched.
The "new rule" is not that "precedent never matters", anyway.
Just that "precedent doesn't matter more than what the Constitution actually says".
Sigivald, "Says," or "Said," according to whom?
According to the actual words of the Constitution.
"As part of a well-regulated militia" are actual words of the Constitution that are ignored by the court.
Except that you added words between the quotation marks that aren't actually there. Presumably deliberately, in order to deceive casual readers into thinking your textual argument is stronger than it is.
Bellmore, if you purport to read texts from the Constitution and give them an interpretation which seems sensible to you, it is nearly certain that you will alter meanings created by historical context of which you are unaware. Context and syntax are more influential determinants of meaning than are dictionary definitions. Every historical text which survives had when it was made a unique context which does not match, and usually cannot match, present-minded context.
Too much of present-minded context is the product of occurrences which lay in the unknowable future of the founders. Nothing of that influenced them. All of that influences you. You are guaranteed to get it wrong. You do not even suspect the problem, which makes it worse. Arrogance to assume a modern reader can know without historical study what the Constitution originally meant is widespread. With you, it comes up again and again.
Word!!
Notwithstanding Alto's and Kava laugh's caveats, the substantive due process analysis of Dobbs places every unenumerated individual liberty right at risk. Clarence Thomas said the quiet part out loud.
De jure segregation in the District of Columbia was outlawed on substantive due process grounds in Bolling v. Sharpe -- a decision that Thomas has disagreed with. Should the Chief Justice order installation of white and colored water fountains in the Supreme Court building?
Josh's gloat level is up to eleven.
Which is about five higher than the number of American law schools ranked lower than South Texas College Of Law Houston (among roughly 200 contenders).
I genuinely wonder how such shitty law schools attract a new batch of gullible customers every year.
but aren't you glad they go, Jerry?
We all think it's very decent of you to use this blog to send messages to your incarcerated Penn State locker-room buddy, Jerry Sandusky. Or maybe you met him while the two of you were serving time in one of Pennsylvania's fine prisons. Did you have to get special permission to share the shower room with your buddy?
Rev. Please, tell the class the law school you attended. You deliver such well reasoned legal analyses, and do so consistently. Good job.
Josh, you never cease to amaze me with your blatant and oblivious ignorance of even the simplest jurisprudential principles.
The idea that the Court can somehow define for itself the conditions of its "legitimacy" is laughable on its face. Law hangs together through principled conventions where officials recognize one another's lawmaking authority. No one is obliged to accept that the Court's decisions are "legitimate" when it dispenses with the rule of its own law. The Court can in no way unilaterally impose that requirement on people. Respect for the Court's holdings is a convention that other legal officials have adopted, after decades and centuries of established practice justifying that convention.
At some point, the Court risks breaking the bonds that give it its power. In the wake of Dobbs, you see that happening as state attorneys general and governors refuse to enforce now-constitutional abortion bans. The next step will be jury nullification of criminal charges against abortion providers and attempts at subversion by district and circuit court judges. If it gets bad enough, the Court will again have to step in and try to discipline the lower courts - one can imagine a ruling finding some abortion ban to be so draconian as to fail "rational basis" review, for instance - which will just further undermine respect for its holdings.
That's what will happen as the Court tries to roll back constitutional protection of broadly-favored civil rights. When it comes to attempts to push against popular opinion by barring attempts to address climate change or gun violence, you'll see states and the executive branch push the limits of their own authority to address those issues. At some point there will be enough consensus among legal officials that the Court's opinions are just null and void. It will take time for that consensus to emerge, but when the people charged with enforcing the Court's rulings no longer feel the need to go along - then you will see the Court's "legitimacy" fully crumble.
Josh, you're an idiot and a hack, so you can't see that the Court's legitimacy is being eroded by its political hackery, but that is a phenomenon that is playing out before our eyes. It's not a doctrinal question that can be resolved by parsing the Court's own self-estimation in its opinions. It's a descriptive question about the level of deference other legal officials are giving the Court's rulings.
The Court understood the balance that it had to strike between ruling according to its will and ruling in a way that was likely to garner institutional support from the other branches and the states way back in Marbury. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch clearly do not understand that balance, and are pushing their agenda to the detriment of the Court's actual "legitimacy" - and the rule of law.
Law professors should know better.
Those don't come to the supreme court. After all, these are state laws. State laws that are legitimate, passed by our elected representatives. Representatives that can be convinced or replaced. I predict after a few election cycles, each state will settle down with a law that their people generally agree and can work with.
Pretending that this overturns or threatens the legitimacy of the court ignores the actual meaning of the decision to give the decision to the states.
What threatens the legitimacy of the Court, in Dobbs, is its abandonment of stare decisis principles and completely specious distinction of abortion rights from other privacy rights.
What threatens the legitimacy of the Court, in West Virginia v. EPA, is its taking up of a matter that was not ripe in order to issue an advisory opinion broadening the "major question" doctrine as an end-run around conventional Chevron analysis.
What threatens the legitimacy of the Court, in Bruen, is its disposing of a reasonable framework for regulating firearm licensing/possession, in the midst of a gun violence crisis.
Your comment about Dobbs just "returning the decision to the states" is completely beside the point and just typically moronic for this place. I perfectly well understand that all the Court has done is withdrawn federal constitutional protection for a fundamental privacy right. What I am saying is that people will continue to regard abortion rights as fundamental and will act accordingly, even as some state legislatures and governors try to strip it away. That is the part of the legitimacy problem.
Simpn P "What threatens the legitimacy of the Court, in Bruen, is its disposing of a reasonable framework for regulating firearm licensing/possession, in the midst of a gun violence crisis."
The NY state gun Control regulations were never a reasonable framework
Thomas's opinion in Bruen threw out a reasonable framework for evaluating gun restrictions that was being developed in the lower courts. That's what I'm talking about, not the NY statute that was held unconstitutional.
That the framework being developed in the lower courts was "reasonable" is something that is in dispute.
Fascinating insight.
The framework for evaluating gun restrictions developed in the lower courts was never reasonable
You can feel that way about it, but I think you will find few people in this country who agree that gun rights - while protected - should receive anything like the kind of constitutional protection we grant to speech and religious exercise. The "framework" that Thomas threw out means that our only guidance now on what kinds of steps we can take to try to control gun violence is some dicta from Heller, which is attracting exactly the same kind of abuse that one might expect when the Court gets over its skis.
Simon p - Try reading Alito's concurrence in Bruen . you will notice that nothing written in support of gun control as stated in the dissent as reasons in support gun control will have any positive effect on actually controlling gun violence.
I have next to no reason to think that anything in an Alito concurrence is worthy of the time, apart from knowing what claptrap he felt necessary to enter into the record.
SimonP
July.20.2022 at 11:43 am
Flag Comment Mute User
I have next to no reason to think that anything in an Alito concurrence is worthy of the time, apart from knowing what claptrap he felt necessary to enter into the record."
That is because you have displayed the lack of any rational comprehension of cause and effect /
Nonsense. The framework that developed in the lower courts, being the "two-step" analysis was a sham. All the legislatures had to do is claim that they were trying to reduce gun crime and that they had decided that their laws would do that for the courts to rubberstamp it. No analysis was needed, nor was the state required to put forth any evidence at all that the laws would be effective.
That's not a framework for Constitution law, that's a kangaroo court.
Simon P - What threatens the legitimacy of the Court, in West Virginia v. EPA, is its taking up of a matter that was not ripe in order to issue an advisory opinion broadening the "major question" doctrine as an end-run around conventional Chevron analysis."
Congress never granted the executive branch that the EPA was claiming -
What really threatens the legitimacy of the court is for the court to rule in favor or against a party based on the justices; preferred policy - See kagan's dissent in EPA v WV - That line of constitutional reasoning is what threatens the legitimacy of the Court.
Congress never granted the executive branch that the EPA was claiming...
According to the now-amped up "major questions" doctrine. Thanks for reading the holding to me again.
I agree that holdings driven by the policy preferences of the justices will further undermine their legitimacy. We'll see that if they ever decide that the EPA can't regulate carbon dioxide emissions at all (i.e., reversing their earlier holding otherwise).
epa v mass was wrongly decided
I think you mean "egregiously wrong," which is apparently how the Court gets to overrule precedents now.
Great point, and with Kagan add Sotomayor and probably Jackson who have no regards for what is written. Itis a desired outcome regardless of what the constitution says. Its how we got Roe in the first place.
"I predict after a few election cycles, each state will settle down with a law that their extreme primary voters generally agree and can work with."
Fixed that for you..
While it's true that the Supreme court can't just arbitrarily declare what it's doing "legitimate", that's actually a better description of Roe than Dobbs.
What assures the Court 'legitimacy' is if it can point to some defensible, neutral principle that it is acting according to. Dobbs and Bruen can be defended on that basis: "Is it actually in the Constitution" is a pretty defensible, neutral principle, even if Democrats often don't like where it takes you. Abortion wasn't, guns were.
Brett, the question is clearly above your grasp, but the problem with your "defensible, neutral principle" is precisely the same. Most people think the Constitution exists to protect their rights and freedoms. For most people, that includes the freedom of movement, the freedom to raise their children as they deem fit, the freedom to do what they please within their own homes, the freedom from excessive entanglement of religious institutions in government. It also includes the freedom to use deadly force in defense of one's person, family, or home, despite that right not being literally anywhere in the Constitution, either.
They don't really give a shit whether the Constitution literally, by its actual terms, protects those rights and freedoms. They have become accustomed to a suite of rights and freedoms that, for much or all of their adult lives, defined their public personhood. They expect the Court to protect those rights and freedoms. If the Court strips those rights and freedoms away - regardless of whatever stupid argument you might make in favor of doing so - it undermines its legitimacy.
Maybe YOU don't really give a shit whether the Constitution literally, by its actual terms, protects or doesn't protect something. You're not looking for legitimate court rulings, you're just looking to win, and judging the legitimacy by whether you win. But you're a lost cause, the only way to get YOU to declare the Court legitimate is to just give you whatever you want.
You don't need "legitimacy" to get people to accept rulings they LIKE. Damned few people are principled enough to find a ruling in their own favor objectionable.
What "legitimacy" gets you, the only point of it, is people accepting rulings they DON'T like. "Sure, my team lost, but I have to admit that really was a foul ball." Maybe you can't do that, but most people can.
So the Court that wants legitimacy must be able to defend its rulings in terms even people who don't like the outcome will admit is reasonable. "That's what the Constitution does/doesn't say is a pretty good basis for that sort of legitimacy. Somebody can just pick up a copy of the Constitution, and see that the 2nd amendment IS in there, and abortion ISN'T mentioned.
You're not looking for legitimate court rulings, you're just looking to win, and judging the legitimacy by whether you win.
That's awful rich, coming from a fascist.
Just because you can imagine some standard by which people could regard the Court's holdings as "legitimate" doesn't mean that's the standard they hold. You're just reiterating the same error that Josh and the Court are making.
I'm talking about what people, and other legal officials, actually believe the Constitution should and does protect, and what they view the Court as actually doing with its opinions. That there is some narrower way of reading the Constitution that justifies the Court's actions - that just-so-conveniently has extensions for your favored policy mix - doesn't mean that they, or anyone, is obliged to now adopt that narrower view.
People still believe that the Constitution protects their privacy rights. They are going to continue believing it no matter how much fascists like you try to argue that the "original public meaning" of the Constitutional text means that you can talk as much as you like about how the Bible blesses using an AR-15 to shoot faggot Muslims from Mexico and pregnant nigger trans teens in public schools in Texas.
"fascists like you try to argue that the "original public meaning" of the Constitutional text means that you can talk as much as you like about how the Bible blesses using an AR-15 to shoot faggot Muslims from Mexico and pregnant nigger trans teens in public schools in Texas."
I do love calm, reasoned opinion.
Brett gets only a short rope from me. He's a bad faith actor, I know it, and he should know by now that I know it.
Same with you. You get even less from me, because you don't even pretend not to be a troll.
How will I sleep knowing you don't like me?
And how will I bear continuing to engage on this site, knowing that I'm sure to be subjected to your repetitive and not even very clever abuse?
Standard left-wing definition of "fascist", too: "Anybody who disagrees with me!"
No, I think you're a fascist because I believe you're an "ends justify the means", "might makes right" racist, sexist, and likely Christian authoritarian who supports fake populists like Trump and DeSantis. You support just about everything they do and will concoct ridiculous conspiracy theories to weasel out of any situation where they're clearly shown to be bad actors.
It's not just about the fact that I disagree with you on most things. It's that any attempt to actually explore or resolve that disagreement has made clear that your priors are such that no agreement is possible. Because, for you, the logic is never the point. The evidence is not relevant. It's about power, grievance, revenge.
Yeah, wanting all victimless crime laws repealed, standard fascist stance. And, of course, everybody knows that the fascists were famous military isolationists and freemarketeers.
You noticed I disagree with you about something, and after that you just swapped in your cardboard cutout of Mussolini. That's all that's going on here.
In fact, "the end justifies the means" is the precise opposite of my position, and my chief complaint about the left's approach to everything. I think "the means justify the end"; That people are entitled to pursue any end whatsoever so long as they restrict themselves to peaceful means.
Yeah, wanting all victimless crime laws repealed, standard fascist stance.
While you want to use state power to create new victims.
And, of course, everybody knows that the fascists were famous military isolationists...
"The fascists were..." I'm not making any specific historical parallel, Brett. There are fascists all over the place nowadays, many of them perfectly "isolationist." Familiar with Victor Orban? The AfD in Germany? Nigel Farage?
...and freemarketeers.
You're in favor of the "free market" only to the extent that participants of the "free market" stay out of politics, by which you mean, support your particular political agenda.
That people are entitled to pursue any end whatsoever so long as they restrict themselves to peaceful means.
Including, I'd suppose, overturning the 2020 election. As long as it was done with fake elector slates, a colorable interpretation of the ECA, a fortuitous absence by the vice president at a crucial point, etc. - without the messy violent bit - you'd be in favor. Right?
"While you want to use state power to create new victims."
You seem to have trouble grasping an important point here. A lot of them, really.
The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, by people with different values and ideas from our own. You can't expect to like the whole thing. I'd write a significantly different constitution, myself, if given the opportunity.
But the Court isn't given the job of writing a new Constitution. They're given the job of upholding the one we actually have, warts and all. You want a job of wart removal done, it's not THEIR job, that's what Article V is for.
I want the Court doing the job they were given, and if the Constitution being actually upheld is unpleasant, let's change the Constitution. Not have judges lie about what it means.
You hire liars to be judges, why the hell do you expect them to only tell good lies? You think you can set things up systematically to base a government on lying about what it's highest law means, and get honest government? That's stupid. You can't build a honest government out of dishonest people.
What the Constitution means, and what I'd like it to mean, are two different things, and often enough I think what it means is a bad idea. But not as bad an idea as lying about what it means.
It's ironic that somebody defending Roe/Casey (and I assume Obergefell), which do not bother relying on what the Constitution literally says, would label somebody a fascist for being an "ends justify the means" person.
Those decisions were all ends justifying the means exercise of raw judicial power.
You're the whole package, labeling anybody who disagrees with you
1. fascist
2. bad-faith actor
3. troll
Motivated by:
4. power
5. grievance
6. revenge
Man that's really something. No mirrors in your house I guess.
Which raises the irrelevant question, how was Bela Lugosi clean-shaven in all his vampire movies (except the one where you can clearly see his reflection in a mirror)?
Well, duh: He was clean shaven for his burial, and as a vampire he's dead, his hair wasn't growing. Very convenient if you're undead, and aren't trying to grow a beard.
Ha nice opening ad hominem. You lost
SimonP has operated for
ZERO (0) DAYS
without using a vile racial slur.
No. SimonP is correct. The notion of legitimacy in governance invariably refers to judgments made by those who get governed. Illegitimacy amounts to generalized refusal to be governed by the practices in question.
For instance, various notions affecting legitimacy in government:
Sovereignty — Is defined solely by absolute power within geographic boundaries. The power to make a government at pleasure, constrained by nothing, is the test of whether sovereignty exists.
Sovereign Legitimacy — A different concept. The subjects governed make the sovereign legitimate when they adopt the sovereign's principles of government as their own, and work together to achieve the sovereign's ends. Absent that collective assent and confirming activity, the sovereign may retain sovereignty, but will rule by power alone, illegitimately.
Likewise with government legitimacy. A government is legitimate in one sense, so long as it does the will of the sovereign. That is all that government legitimacy strictly requires, so far as the sovereign is concerned. But if the government loses the assent of the sovereign's subjects, the government becomes illegitimate in a different sense. That creates a situation in which the sovereign itself must correct government, or risk a legitimacy crisis of its own. The alternative would be a tyranny, with a government without popular support, controlled by a sovereign exercising absolute power in disregard of public welfare.
The Supreme Court cannot establish any standard for its own legitimacy. That standard will be established by others using a two-fold process: first, by the judgment of the People acting jointly as the nation's sovereign, to which the Court owes unwavering allegiance; second, by the aggregate individual judgments of the people in their capacity as citizens and subjects.
Deference to stare decisis is thus incorrectly seen by Blackman as a court-authored standard for its own legitimacy. It was, while it lasted, an estimate shared among justices that stare decisis would encourage belief in the Court's legitimacy among citizens—whose judgments in turn would determine the question of the Court's legitimacy.
Blackman obviously does not understand that, and in that error may find himself in company with Alito and perhaps others on the Court. If so, the court's future is in peril, and to the extent the nation depends on a legitimate court, the nation too is in peril.
"No. SimonP is correct. "
Ah, now we know SimonP is egregiously wrong.
I'll certainly grant that, when it seems that I'm on Martinned and Stephen's side on a question, and opposed to Bored Lawyer and Brett (and you), I'm inclined to think I'm making a valid point.
Your mockery is only vindication, really.
Stephen is one of the few here who writes even more long winded things than you do. No wonder you agree with him, he's pompous just like you.
Time for lunch so write anther billion words.
You consider all of your betters pompous, Bob.
That's a natural part of being one of the disaffected, hopeless, obsolete lessers.
"You are too long-winded" is up there with "Your words are too fancy" and "Your ideas are too complex" as self-owning internet complaints.
I write at length because I read at length. When people complain about how I go on, I wonder whether they read anything at all.
"I write at length because I read at length."
Almost all long winded writers think they are being profound. You are not an exception.
(snort) LOL. They really do not see it, do they? = Almost all long winded writers think they are being profound.
Sometimes "Lesser" is better, "Reverend"
OJ Simpson molested many "lesser" boys than "Reverend" Arthur T. Kirtland, AKA Jerry Sandusky.
Keep writing Frank. Every comment you make confirms (1) your ignorance and (2) your obsession with Jerry Sandusky, your shower-room buddy.
Court legitimacy is not and should not be dependent on popularity. Brown v. Bd of Education was deeply unpopular in large parts of the country, but was still correct. That you don't like a ruling does not make it illegitimate.
And your understanding of the Court's role in the abortion issue is so poor as to be risible. Nothing in Dobbs requires states or any state actor to outlaw abortion. If a state AG decides he doesn't want to enforce that state's law, then SCOTUS has nothing to say about it. The voters of that state do.
Court legitimacy is not and should not be dependent on popularity.
Which, of course, I never said.
Brown v. Bd of Education was deeply unpopular in large parts of the country, but was still correct.
And the point I'm making about the Court's "legitimacy" can be considered counterfactually here. Imagine what the Court's "legitimacy" might have looked like, after Brown, if state and federal officials didn't take it upon themselves to follow its direction. It took time, and a developing consensus among legal officials that official racial segregation should be regarded as unconstitutional, for that opinion to have full effect. The Court couldn't compel anyone directly to do that.
And your understanding of the Court's role in the abortion issue is so poor as to be risible.
No, I perfectly well understand what the Court has done, and I'm all too familiar with this stupid talking point. Feel free to read my comment again, as I'm not typing it out for you another way.
God save me from this idiocy.
"God save me from this idiocy."
You are of course, referring to your own idiocy. Right?
How oxygen-deprived do you have to be to think this is even a good insult? Am I debating fifth-graders?
...and yet you respond. Dipwad.
...so yes, you are an oxygen-deprived fifth grader?
How long do you want to play last word?
Dipwad.
don't have a dog in this fight, but pretty sure it's "Dick-wad"
Dipwad:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dipwad
Dick-wad:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dick%20wad
Court legitimacy is not and should not be dependent on popularity.
"Which, of course, I never said."
Yes, you did. The fact that others agree or disagree with SCOTUS is not the basis of legitimacy. Your take makes it so. That you are too silly and belligerent to realize it simply illustrates how poor your reasoning is.
"No, I perfectly well understand what the Court has done, and I'm all too familiar with this stupid talking point."
I read your comment. You seem to think the Court's role is to enforce its view of abortion. It isn't. And the reality is that after Dobbs, aboriton will be legal in large parts of the country, in some places right up to the moment of birth. In a few years, only a small minority will care about Dobbs, as they will realize its affect on their lives is minimal.
The fact that others agree or disagree with SCOTUS is not the basis of legitimacy. Your take makes it so.
All that I am trying to do is describe our current legal situation, and what we seem to mean by judicial "legitimacy," in Hartian terms. If you do not understand what I mean by that, then this discussion is beyond you. If you do, then that should clarify that I am not saying that judicial "legitimacy" depends on "popularity."
You seem to think the Court's role is to enforce its view of abortion.
Nothing in my comment employs the Court in such a role. I described actions of other legal officials that would treat Dobbs as essentially null because they would disregard anti-abortion laws as though Roe was still good law.
It is admittedly difficult to conceptualize how a Court ruling that rolls back constitutional protections of civil rights might be "disregarded." It is easier to conceptualize instances where a Court direction to do something is ignored. But my comment lays out how we can expect Dobbs to play out, among legal officials who regard it as an "illegitimate" holding.
"It is admittedly difficult to conceptualize how a Court ruling that rolls back constitutional protections of civil rights might be "disregarded.""
THere, you stumbled into it.
"among legal officials who regard it as an "illegitimate" holding."
Those officials will tend to be in states where abortion is legal anyway. The AG of New York, for example, can hate Dobbs till she is blue in the face, but their is nothing she can do to "ignore" it in New York, given the state of the law there.
If you are talking about federal judges, there likely will be a few who will try it. They will be smacked down quickly.
Those officials will tend to be in states where abortion is legal anyway.
Some may not have much to do. But there are plenty of "purple" states where state-wide offices are not subject to the distorting effects of gerrymandering and you can get a Democratic governor/AG despite legislative majorities for Republicans. Places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and so on.
If you are talking about federal judges, there likely will be a few who will try it. They will be smacked down quickly.
You seem to think that "smacking down" a district court judge is something that is self-executing. Do you understand how a reversal is actually given effect?
I responded to your state official scenario. That's up to the voters or the legislature to deal with officials who refuse to enforce state law. (The DA in Manhattan who recently was forced by public opinion to drop a murder charge against a bodega owner who was defending his life might give you some tips about how that works.)
As for federal officials, having litigated in federal courts for a quarter century, I think I do know how reversals work. Let me spell it out for you.
The Hon. Johnny Rogue, USDJ, enjoins a state abortion law.
Court of Appeals reverses it and vacates the injunction.
State officials ignore the injunction which was just vacated by the Court of Appeals.
What is the Hon. Johnny going to do? Hold the state officials in contempt?
Brown v. Board was also a legitimacy crisis. The reason why the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the South ultimately survived is because the political branches backed it up by adopting the Civil Rights Act 1964, by sending the National Guard to Little Rock, etc
Brown v. Bd of Education was deeply unpopular in large parts of the country, but was still correct.
Yes. But it was also ignored in many of those places were it was unpopular. I'm not sure when my southern public high school was integrated, but it was no earlier than the mid-1960's. This delay was not uncommon.
So what are state actors going to do to "ignore" Dobbs, exactly? Nothing in Dobbs requires states to outlaw abortion, and as I said, in many places it will remain legal.
even in Mississippi, just gotta get it quick
Obvious point but the pro-abortion fanatics just don't get it. Dobbs returns the issue to the states. It doesn't outlaw abortion. In fact the states could decide to have no abortion law at all if they wish. Then it would be up to the people.
Verbatim 10A
The fanatics want to force all 50 states to comply with their view. They got their way with a vote of 9 robes in 1972. Thats the best they could muster. Because their view is not popular enough to ratify an amendment.
Some prosecutors are signaling that they won't prosecute abortions in their districts, even where there's some form of anti-abortion law in effect. There are numerous ways officials can resist these laws in their jurisdictions.
Civil disobedience isn't new.
True, but they aren't ignoring Dobbs. They're ignoring their state legislatures, which is something completely different.
I don't know, exactly.
I was merely pointing out that in areas where Brown was considered illegitimate it was not enforced.
In the case of Dobbs I suppose local DA's in blue areas might decline to prosecute some cases.
"At some point there will be enough consensus among legal officials that the Court's opinions are just null and void."
Well good. Marbury was egregiously wrong when decided after all.
I do find it humorous that there was no "crisis of legitimacy" when the Warren Court overturned cases left and right or Roe came down or gay marriage was imposed. Just when a few liberal causes were negatively affected.
Well good. Marbury was egregiously wrong when decided after all.
I get the sense that this is based less on what Marbury actually held than in what it has come to represent.
I do find it humorous that there was no "crisis of legitimacy" when...
Who says there wasn't? There have been points in our Court's history where there was some question about how widely respected its holdings would be. While there was some hyper-local resistance to the Obergefell holding, you might ask yourself why state officials didn't (then) take a stronger stance against it - and in that, you might find wherein judicial "legitimacy" truly lies.
But never fear - there are opportunities to push back on Obergefell yet to come! I'm sure we'll start seeing challenges that try to limit it to its precise facts. Those might emerge from efforts by state agencies to disregard same-sex marriages in various administrative contexts, and we'll have the kind of "crisis of legitimacy" you wish we'd see on the issue.
"We don't have to obey the civil rights act because it's not popular here and OUR legal officials think it's bad" - the South, 1964.
Your argument, applied to things you don't want it to apply to.
Too bad you don't get to say "but my logic only applies to NICE causes and RIGHT", because THAT iS NOT HOW LOGIC WORKS.
Tiresome.
I'm not saying that popularity is properly considered a rule of legal validity. But I am saying that our rules of legal validity are determined, in a complex way, according to the conventions more-or-less articulated by our legal officials and more-or-less observed by them, which ultimately derives from popular support.
That's just how it is. I'm not saying anything about what laws should or should not be followed, or what holding should or should not respected. I am saying that the Court's power to act contrary to consensus is limited, and extends only so far as other legal officials are willing to cooperate. The fact that we've seen legal officials almost always comply does not mean that it was inevitable that they do so, or that the Court cannot do anything to change that.
Simon. You were triggered by Dobbs, a return to constitutional principle, back from the just made up shit in Roe.
Neither of those two acts flouts the Court's legitimacy; both of those are consistent with Dobbs. There's no constitutional crisis unless Congress passes a nationwide ban and SCOTUS upholds it, and then states refuse to cooperate.
But your whole argument in this thread is premised on the idea that your personal preferences are wildly popular. I think you overestimate yourself. (And also you aren't being very logical; I mean, you posit a state where the governor AND AG are pro-choice. Why does this state even have an abortion ban for them to refuse to enforce, then? (Although I should note that governors and state AGs generally don't enforce criminal law; local DAs do.))
Although I should note that governors and state AGs generally don't enforce criminal law; local DAs do.
Not always. AG's, if determined, can go after an industry. I could see a state AG bringing a RICO claim against Planned Parenthood.
Neither of those two acts flouts the Court's legitimacy;
The "crisis of legitimacy" occurs when and if legal officials begin to disregard the Court's putatively "illegitimate" holdings. The steps I've described are just the beginning of that process. A further step, as I outlined, would be a district or circuit court judge holding that some abortion ban fails "rational basis" review. The more the Court pushes, the more other legal officials will seek to subvert it.
But your whole argument in this thread is premised on the idea that your personal preferences are wildly popular. I think you overestimate yourself.
When have I ever said anything about my "personal preferences?"
And also you aren't being very logical; I mean, you posit a state where the governor AND AG are pro-choice. Why does this state even have an abortion ban for them to refuse to enforce, then?
Not following the news?
A state AG refusing to enforce a state law is answerable to his voters, or the governor who appointed him/her. That is not the business of SCOTUS.
No different than when the US AG decided that he would not enforce certain federal laws against marijuana. The only recourse to that is the voting booth. That SCOTUS upheld federal marijuana laws (wrongly, in my opinion) has nothing to do with it.
You don't think law enforcement officials independently deciding not to enforce duly enacted laws that they personally feel to be unconstitutional undermines the Court's authority and/or legitimacy?
Look, per Dobbs abortion is a state matter. The court isn't going to be striking down state laws outside of egregious circumstances we've yet to see, and it isn't in the business of policing state enforcement of state laws.
So how exactly is the Court's legitimacy implicated in a fight between local DAs and state legislators?
Now, on gun control you could see some conflict between states and the Supreme court, in fact certainly will, because the Court didn't say, "This is none of our business." like they did with abortion. And you're going to have some states and localities fighting for gun control the same way they fought to maintain Jim Crow years ago.
I expect it will take some time for the Court to bring all the circuits in line on this, because some of them, such as the 9th, are extremely hostile to the 2nd amendment, and they're not going to just roll over. They're going to go all Reinhardt on the Court, spam it with rulings contrary to Supreme court precedent, on the assumption the Court just doesn't have enough time to reverse them all.
Well, at some point Section 242 of Title 18 will have to be invoked, I suspect.
Fortunately, Heller made up a bunch of garbage that's not in the Constitution, so when the time comes, it and Bruen (its Casey) will be even easier than Roe to overturn (since now we have the Egregiously Wrong Doctrine to make use of).
No. Law enforcement acts or doesn't act based on their own calculations, mostly political and partially moral. They don't hold a symposium on the Constitutionality of a law.
How is this different from law enforcement deciding not to enforce marijuana laws because they think they are stupid, or or other laws for all kinds of reasons. How many DAs and AGs have refused to seek the death penalty because they view it is immoral, even though the legislature has authorized it?
As I have now said repeatedly, the voters in their state are the ultimate authority. If they want laws enforced, then they will put into power someone who will do it.
No? Do you think that, say, George Gascon's refusal to seek penalties under the Three Strikes law has that effect?
What does that have to do with SCOTUS?
I undermines the rule of law. The law passed by the CA legislature.
Just like the abortion laws that SimonP is worried about were passed by their respective legislatures.
Yes, that's my point.
So... you don't personally oppose the abortion restrictions that have taken effect post-Dobbs?
imonP
July.20.2022 at 12:16 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
The "crisis of legitimacy" occurs when and if legal officials begin to disregard the Court's putatively "illegitimate" holdings. "
Simon - you have yet to provide an example of a SC "illegitimate Holding". Nor have you provided an explanation as to why any of the SC holdings you dont like are illegitimate - at least not a constitutionally coherent explanation.
It's simpler than that.
The Legitimacy Blackman cares about isn't legitimacy in the eyes of the public, it's legitimacy in the eyes of their core supporters like the Federalist society and CPAC.
It's the same form of legitimacy favoured by dictators and autocrats everywhere, and it's the form of legitimacy that ultimately destroys their countries and leads to the downfall of those same leaders because it translates into an excuse for ignoring your critics. It's easy to deliver wins when you don't have to accommodate critics, but the longer you go the worse your decisions get.
A wiser staunchly Conservative court that still looked to the public for legitimacy would have moved back the deadline for abortion and possibly even allowed bans on some classes of abortion (but still allowed exceptions for health, rape, and incest). They would have seen how that played out in the real world before going further.
Instead, this court simply ditched Roe and left people scrambling to figure out what it meant with respect to interstate abortions and whether abortion can banned even if it would kill the mother.
It's a huge error as we're already seeing the absurdity in the fact that it's supposedly constitutional to force a 10 year old rape victim to go through with a pregnancy. And it's exactly the kind of error that one expects with Blackman's views of legitimacy.
You'll note that it was the abortionists who decided that the state law would insist on that, the state AG said it didn't.
The State AG (aside from fueling the false claim the victim never existed) based that on the idea that Ohio has a health of the mother exception.
But the medical evidence isn't clear enough to ensure that would hold up as a legal defense. And even if a 10 year old rape victim is young enough to use the health exemption what about the victim who is 12? 14? 16? At some point the loophole goes away.
The AG was basically saying that a prosecutor would find some excuse not to prosecute because the idea of not allowing the abortion was so absurd, but relying on prosecutorial discretion is not a good way to avoid injustice.
You're complaining because a health of the mother exception isn't the same as abortion on demand, basically; At some point the loophole goes away because carrying the baby to term isn't a threat to life and health, it's just something she doesn't want to do.
And, yeah, there will always be edge cases. There are ALWAYS edge cases if there's an edge.
Look, I understand you don't like this law. There are a lot of laws, a ridiculous number of laws, I don't like. But not everything we don't like involves a constitutional right being violated! Sometimes, most of the time, the answer to a law you don't like is winning elections, not having five Platonic guardians in black robes swoop in to save the day.
Well no.
I'm complaining that you waived away the "10 year old rape victim couldn't get an abortion" situation with the State AG's very dubious assertion that the health of the mother exception would have applied.
But the idea if a 12 or 14 year old getting pregnant through rape isn't much less morally abhorrent, and the "health" exception would almost certainly be out the window.
So you still need to deal with the fact that the SCOTUS is claiming constitutional a law that the vast majority of people would perceive as an egregious violation of that girl's human rights.
Not understanding why pro-choice people want so badly to believe the State AG is going to act more harshly than he says. It seems they're less interested in the availability of the abortion than in proving opponents are bad people? Or is it some belief that they have a better chance of winning if the issue is presented as all abortions versus zero abortions?
As far as the "vast majority" thinking something is an egregious violation, you're going to need to address the fact that these were laws passed by elected legislatures, and that the State AG is also an elected official. And if you respond that they didn't intend it to deny an abortion to a 10 year old rape victim, then why are you claiming they now intend to deny it?
The Stage AG is fairly clearly trying to dodge responsibility for the scenario that the law as written describes. Just like he also tried to dodge responsibility by implying the girl didn't exist.
The fact is the entire pretext for not prosecuting was the "health of the mother" claim which a judge or prosecutor may not have accepted.
And we don't know if he, or another prosecutor, wouldn't have prosecuted the doctor in question if they performed the abortion. Again, he's proven himself disingenuous (a great quality to have in a justice official!!!). Both Barret and Kavanaugh assured Senators that Roe was safe, but overruled it when they had the chance. Why would the AG take the hit for admitting the extremely unpopular consequence of the law if he didn't have to?
As for the "vast majority" the elected legislature is 64% GOP despite them winning only 54.5% of the vote. Not to mention primaries often produce candidates far more partisan than the districts they represent.
Every poll shows that Roe was fairly popular, I'm sure if you found a poll in Ohio they'd want a far more permissive abortion law than they currently have.
Brett,
If I were you I wouldn't be repeating what the OH AG said. You've already beclowned yourself once on this issue by believing him.
And then again by believing Rokita, the Indiana AG, when he claimed the Indiana doctor had a record of not reporting, etc. That's earned him a defamation suit and possible bar discipline - well-deserved.
I'd think you'd be cautious about taking red state AG's at their word on abortion matters.
I'm always ready to believe elected officials are liars, if there is any motivation to lie. Having said that, and assuming the Ohio AG is lying, what game do you think he is playing here? What would be the motivation to say the 10 year old abortion could get an Ohio abortion while secretly intending the opposite?
The story got widespread attention, of course, and reflects very badly on Ohio's ban and of course those in other states as well.
I think he was trying to push back against the criticism, and give uncritical types some "fake news" to help them do the same.
You know, these bans were ill-considered, ideologically motivated laws. The fact that we are even talking about the problems with miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other problems, tells you that the legislators simply were uninterested in hearing about any complexities before passing the bans.
That is a legitimate source of criticism that even a sensible abortion opponent might raise.
The AG was simply trying to make things not look as stupid as they are being revealed to be.
Just to be clear, I think purely elective abortions ought to be legal at least in the early stages. And a lot of laws, especially ones passed when everyone thought it was purely symbolic, are going to be poorly thought out.
But it seems to me the Ohio AG, regardless of motivations, is clarifying an ambiguous law. Unless you believe he actually intends to enforce it on the next pre-teen rape victim, in which case he'll need to publicly reverse himself.
The funny thing is that unless I'm mistaken, the Supreme's court power of judicial review is an "implied right" never explicitly spelled out in the constitution. In fact, it only exists because the court is considered legitimate. Using it not deny another right that was implied but not explicitly spelled out in the constituion seem very ironic to me. If that decision were to erode the court's legitimacy to the point that other courts did not feel bound by it, that would be a quite interesting consequence.
The Court is inherently illegitimate atm anyway, what with McConnell stealing two seats.
I think you give the Turtle too much credit. At least with Gorsuch he was upholding the "Biden Rule".
the "Biden Rule".
The mark of a troll.
The mark of a troll is saying that McConnell "stole" SCOTUS seats when he did nothing other than what is thoroughly ordinary historical practice.
eh... no.
If you mean the historical practice of making shit up and acting however you want in the pursuit of naked political power, sure.
But McConnel made up a rule one year to ensure he could prevent a Democrat president from nominating a replacement and then turned around and broke that rule and made up a new rule shortly after in order to also prevent a Democrat president from nominating a replacement. It paid off, certainly, but that doesn't wipe away the stench of illegitimacy.
During a long Senate tenure, Joe Biden never denied a Judiciary Committee hearing and an up or down full Senate vote to any nominee who wanted them. Reference to any "Biden Rule" is sheer claptrap.
Sincere question....is there that much practical difference between not holding the vote, and holding a vote that would have come out against the confirmation anyway?
I understand that it's a good outrage point, and that a "no" vote could be used against certain Republican senators in Democratic leaning states. But saying that the SC is illegitimate because the side that lost was denied a campaign talking point seems like a stretch.
Or do you believe that somehow five Republicans would have voted for Garland?
One. You can argue about Garland's seat or ACB's, but not both. It's only the juxtaposition of the two that creates such a bad look.
Same result, if Trump had nominated ACB only after he had clearly lost the election?
I think one could consistently and coherently take the position that some window exists within which an incumbent president should not be able to fill a Supreme Court seat, without agreeing that it extends as far back as the Garland nomination. That might be election day, it might be once the general election candidates have been selected, it might be some other point. But certainly it's hard to take the position that constitutional pedantry takes precedence when we're talking about a coup-plotting president selecting the justices who will hear any legal challenges to his efforts to overturn an election.
Well, you can construct hypotheticals, but he nominated ACB in September (and she was confirmed in October), so that's not at issue.
Certainly personally I would look askance at any SCOTUS nomination by a losing (or retiring) president after Election Day.
I doubt you will look askance at the nominees who enlarge the Court, at least not for that reason.
I definitely agree with you that the Democrats will not enlarge the court and nominate justices to the new seats after a Democrat loses a presidential election.
The Court will expand when a Democratic president has enough votes in the Senate and House to effect enlargement, in my judgment.
Can anyone identify a sound reason Democrats would not or should not arrange a Court that resembles modern America when they have the opportunity to do so?
That does seem likely, if a bit tautological.
And you can fight hypotheticals, but it doesn't evade the point. If Election Day represents a line, in your view - why? Why wouldn't the line make sense, drawn a bit earlier?
I am not sure that I would draw it any earlier than Election Day, myself - I can't find a good principled basis for doing so - but my point was just that you could consistently take the position that "voters should decide" is a good rule to apply at some point after Garland but before ACB. The party nomination conventions, for instance.
Still there’s no logically consistent case to make that says both the presumptive Garland seat and the Barrett seat were stolen. Trump would have nominated two under any set of consistent rules. Ergo only one seat was “stolen”.
Neither seat was stolen, because the Senate isn't obligated to confirm nominees, and historically has simply ignored many nominations.
The only rule here is that Presidents always nominate somebody if there's a vacancy on the Court, and the Senate usually confirms if controlled by the same party as the President.
The Senate similarly is not obligated to maintain the Supreme Court at any particular number of seats, let alone the current nine.
Remember that when you are inclined to whine about enlargement, clingers.
"The only rule here is that Presidents always nominate somebody if there's a vacancy on the Court, and the Senate usually confirms if controlled by the same party as the President."
Since World War II, Democratic controlled Senates have confirmed a plethora of justices nominated by Republican presidents: Brennan, Whittaker, Stewart, Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist as Associate Justice, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter and Thomas.
And that doesn't violate the rule, now, does it?
Sure there is.
Scalia died in early February, primaries were underway but for the most part parties hadn't even nominated candidates for the general election. If you use the primary campaigns as a 'no nomination' zone then the President isn't allowed to nominate anyone in the 4th year of a term.
RBG died when the general election was not only in full swing, but actual votes had been cast in that same general election.
There's any number of reasonable standards that allow the Garland nomination while disallowing the Barret nomination.
Allowing Barret but not Garland on the other hand, the only possible standard there is the extremely self-serving "Senate majority (structurally biased towards GOP) can refuse nomination for simple partisanship".
"Senate majority (structurally biased towards GOP)"
Its not "structurally biased". Its goes in cycles.
After 2008, Dems had 60 and kept their majority a whole Senate cycle until 2014. GOP has not had 60 senators since the 1920s, the Dems have had multiple 60+ majorities.
GOP then lost its much smaller majority after 6 years too.
Dems used to have multiple Mountain West seats, now they don't. Maybe the Dems should try not to run on every fad of the Harvard faculty lounge.
Well the senate is structurally biased towards less populous states.
Currently, that translates into a pro-GOP bias.
"structurally biased towards less populous states"
The 10 smallest states have 10 Democratic senators and 10 GOP senators.
While the ten smallest states are split 10-10, the next ten smallest are 13-7 R, and the next 5 smallest (bringing us up to half the states) are 6-4 R. So, that's 29-21 R for the smaller half of the states. See more analysis here.
The 10 smallest states have 10 Democratic senators and 10 GOP senators.
So what?
Why does the situation in the ten smallest states settle things?
Nationwide, Senate Democrats represent about 56% of the population.
"Senate Democrats represent about 56% of the population."
You know full well that any population advantage exists because there are 2 Dem senators from California.
So the Senate is "structurally biased" because of one seat. Genius level reasoning.
Your comment about California shows why we should be looking at the median value rather than the mean. And as my link showed, the median state is about 7 percentage points redder than the country as a whole and there are about 30 redder-than-the-country states.
"Maybe the Dems should try not to run on every fad of the Harvard faculty lounge."
Maybe they should have let Dems who ran on not voting for every fad of the Harvard faculty actually do so, instead of enforcing party discipline to the point where voters would rightfully disregard any Democrat's promise to be different?
Manchin is currently doing the Democrats a huge favor, by demonstrating that it's possible to vote for Manchin and not get Bernie Sanders. And does that favor ever piss the Democrats off...
That “Harvard faculty fad” crack comes from a birther.
These clingers can’t be replaced fast enough.
Sure, there are any number of reasonable standards that would allow one, and disallow the other, and none of them are actual rules. The actual rules are, "The President nominates if there's a vacancy, and the Senate confirms or not as the majority prefers." Nothing more than that.
You want something better than that? Fine, so do I, but it's going to take a constitutional amendment, because one Senate can't bind another, or else the nuclear option wouldn't have been an option, right?
But stop pretending that a process that followed the actual rules was "stealing the seat". Nothing got stolen.
So basically anything goes if it's not explicitly banned by the constitution as interpreted by a set of partisan judges?
If, in 2020, the GOP had controlled the house I suppose you would have been fine with them simply acclaiming Trump as President? After all, the Constitution gives them the power to count the electoral votes and adjudicate disputes, so they can just adjudicate any result they want.
Similarly, the constitution says what the SCOTUS says it does... so they can proclaim pretty much whatever they want.
If you want a functioning country there are standards beyond the most literal bounds of the rules you need to adhere to.
You don't seem to be able to distinguish between actually following the rules, and acting arbitrarily. The Senate is not constitutionally obligated to approve nominations, or even give them a vote. I would change that, if I had the opportunity to amend the Constitution, and put in something mandating an up down vote on all nominees within some reasonable time interval.
But the Constitution as it is now doesn't obligate them to give a nominee the time of day, so nothing was stolen.
"There's any number of reasonable standards that allow the Garland nomination while disallowing the Barret nomination."
Bullshit. You're applying the "what's best for my side" standard. You know, like McConnell did.
I'm not saying the correct position is "2 seats were stolen". I'm saying that many plausible standards exist that would have allowed the Garland nomination while disallowing Barret.
To put it another way, the timing of the Garland nomination was awkward since the election season was starting. The timing of the Barret nomination was absurd since the election itself was already underway.
McConnell cooked a "plausible" standard after the fact. A neutral observer would conclude the standard he used is "what's best for my side," aka hardball politics.
Which is the same as what myself is doing. “Just starting” and “well in progress” are pretty subjective. And it’s a meaningless distinction anyway.
Obama had the power to nominate when he nominated Garland and Trump had the power to nominate when he nominated Barrett. Neither was even a lame duck. It’s the same.
There’s no logically consistent way to complain about two stolen seats.
"should not be able to"
Sure, one can easily take such a position.
But "should not be able to" is not the same thing as "is not able to."
SRG. That was not stealing, Hon.
McConnell just outsmarted Obama and pre-empted Biden.
He didn't outsmart Obama - that didn't enter into it. He invented a rule and had the Senate votes to enforce it.
You can’t count. To the extent it qualifies as seat stealing, McConnell only stole one.
By your rules that made what he did stealing, Trump would have gotten two justices. Gorsuch and whichever of Kavanaugh or Barrett that he would have chosen when RBG died.
If you’re going to whine, at least whine accurately.
The first time the Senate refused to vote on a Supreme Court nomination in hopes that the dominant party would win the Presidential election was in the 1840s. They did it twice back then, in fact.
You may not like it, but it's been done for roughly three quarters of the US's history. Pretending it was something new - or criminal - is either ignorant, or stupid, or both.
I expect mainstream America to decline this Court's invitation to accept a roundly bigoted, superstition-driven, old-timey, partisan Republican Court and to instead enlarge the Court to arrange an institution that resembles modern America -- the educated, productive, inclusive, successful, reality-based communities in particular.
Unless conservatives persuade more Americans to embrace racism, voter suppression, gay-bashing, science-flouting ignorance, xenophobia, misogyny, and fundamentalist religion, they should expect to continue to lose the culture war, including in the federal courts.
"The Supreme Court has now adopted a new conception of "legitimacy." And critics will have to internalize this concept, whether they like it or not."
Reminds me a lot of this famous quote from Karl Rove: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."
Zealots always fall prey to their own hubris - they can't help themselves. Reality and material conditions have a nasty way of interfering with dogma. Less than twenty years after Rove said this, the US empire is crumbling, and will be in freefall soon. I'd wager that this court doesn't survive with its public legitimacy intact for half that time.
Let's say you're right. What does that mean -- people will just ignore SCOTUS rulings? Doubtful.
People — America’s better people — will continue to shape our national progress over the objections of conservatives, in part by expanding the Court.
Zealots didn't invent a right out of thin air. That would be the Roe folks.
"US empire is crumbling,"
No its not. Our problems pale compared to those of our rivals.
We understand you hate AmeriKa but facts are facts.
The UK just managed to oust Boris "Mini-Trump" Johnson without an attempted coup or even a riot. There will be a peaceful transfer of power to a new PM in the next week or two. Neither the Liberals nor the Tories in the UK are accommodating an authoritarian, anti-democratic wing in their parties.
Remember when we could do that too?
For those who consider Josh Blackman a legitimate or even adequate scholar -- how do you explain his downscale career trajectory? Why has no legitimate law school -- let alone a strong one -- hired him?
Still working on that inferiority complex, I see. Let me know when you have something substantive to say.
The quality of opinion is based on the quality and rigor of thought, not the name on the letterhead of the institution which is meaningless at best.
Backwater folk love to cling to that idea . . . until they need good medical care, at which point they drive past every rural clinic to get to a medical facility staffed by their credentialed, experienced, betters in an educated, advanced community.
how's the medical care at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
"Reverend" Jerry???
It doesn't seem possible, but each comment of yours is stupider than the one before. You may think you're clever and making sense, but no one reading your inane comments believes you ever made it beyond Sixth Grade.
In the case of Blackman, though, the quality and rigor of his output and the prestige of his institution are equivalent.
I would have paid thousands of dollars to see the look on the UCLA dean’s face when a faculty member suggested UCLA test drive a promising young scholar from South Texas College of Law Houston.
Same with Georgetown.
What makes Dobbs illegitimate, aside from its clear, unexplained and unapologetic rejection of precedent, it that it stridently and with declared finality takes the minority view on a nationally contentious issue with no attempt to accommodate the long-held Constitutional view of the majority. The only other S.Ct. decision I can think of that fits that description is Dred Scott.
captcrisis — Do not forget that it also purports basis on history and tradition, while outrageously distorting the history, apparently on purpose.
More generally, history and tradition will be a recurrent legitimacy stumbling block, so long as self-proclaimed, "originalists," who lack historical training and insight, keep introducing as evidence their own historical fantasies.
"lack historical training"
The same as you! Yet you comment about such things.
One is debating on anonymous message board, the other is exercising the power of the federal government. A minor distinction, perhaps, but I think an important one.
Not speaking about Dobbs specifically, and I know this is judicial heresy, but Stare Decisis was a horrible way to judge cases from day one. If a prior decision was bad, or Constitutionally unsound, why would you build on it just because "Well, that's what we said before"? Each and every case before the Court should be judged by it's induvial unique merits without being influenced by prior decisions, a Tabula Rasa if you will.
Secondly, without regard to ideology, public opinion should have no role in judging cases. The only question before the Court is "What does the Constitution say about this?" If a Decision is popular, great, if not so be it; we promised you a Constitutional government, not a popularity contest.
The whole point of our system is the rules remain the same, and are not subject to popular whim, no matter how overwhelming the support of the moment is.
People have to know what the law is. Otherwise they won't know how to act. If you're going to change it, it should be only when necessary and for a good reason, and with awareness of the consequences.
And determining that is the job of the Court based upon the Constitution and the individual merits of each and every case it hears.
"Well that's the way we've always done it before" has no place in a Constitutionally governed society. That's quite literally doubling down on stupid or like driving 100 miles down the road before realizing you made a wrong turn and deciding you've come too far now to turn around.
Where would be be had Stare Decisis been applied to Brown v. Board for example?
Obviously precedent is important because it represents what exists. You can't just have blinders on though. Precedent has been wrong many times and here is another example,
I think these bad precedent instances are very much based on pre-determined outcome type rulings. Brown was pre-determined in that states and apparently a majority of the court wanted to find a reason to allow segregation. That was the desired outcome and they searched for a rationale.
Same with Roe. The pre-determined outcome was a right to abortion and they made stuff up to get there.
"Not speaking about Dobbs specifically, and I know this is judicial heresy, but Stare Decisis was a horrible way to judge cases from day one. . . . The whole point of our system is the rules remain the same, and are not subject to popular whim, no matter how overwhelming the support of the moment is."
That is the level of legal insight for which the Volokh Conspiracy has come to be known . . . and precisely the type of thinking that causes one to wind up at least an hour's drive from a modern, educated, cultured, successful community.
how's your "Gated" Community at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
"Reverend"
And you continue -- over and over again -- to reveal your idiocy.
And yet, the Courts agreed with me and you are here making inane comments on a blog. Imagine that.
Can you point me to the portion of the opinion that, in your view, concluded that "Each and every case before the Court should be judged by it's induvial unique merits without being influenced by prior decisions, a Tabula Rasa if you will"?
What inclines you to believe. or causes you to contend, the courts (or Courts, if you are referring to more than one Supreme Court or are just illiterate) agree with your assertions concerning stare decisis?
You should stick to thinking about events that occur in counties with more deer than people.
. . . and more Confederate flags and Trump signs than college degrees.
Secondly, without regard to ideology, public opinion should have no role in judging cases. The only question before the Court is "What does the Constitution say about this?"
What happens to legitimacy after it becomes apparent that a self-proclaimed, "originalist," Court majority is intellectually incompetent to discern what the Constitution said, then or now? If you rely on stare decisis, that question comes up only rarely. Use your system, and it becomes a problem in every case.
No snark intended, but I see that as a failure in proper education of Civics, particularly in the role of the Court, and the text of the Constitution. I don't see the need to distort the role of a Institution due to the lack of education and knowledge of the general public.
This probably doesn't happen any longer but I recall spending a half of my senior year of high school, so before I ever set foot in a college classroom, studying and debating key decisions of the USSC, along with the body of the Constitution and the Amendments. The other half was devoted to learning about the various branches of government on the Federal, State, and Local levels, their various roles, and the importance of the system of Checks and Balances between them.
What I'm trying to say is this knowledge that should be on a basic level for every American to be a responsible Citizen, not something esoteric to be reserved for higher learning. Everyone should know the role of the Court is to interpret the Constitution not be an instrument of popular opinion.
Don't like what the Constitution says? There is a method to change it and it ain't the Court.
Don't like what the Constitution says? There is a method to change it and it ain't the Court.
Do you assert that as fact based on experience, or on some other basis?
Dobbs is great in that it reaffirms 10A. That is if it's not in the constitution it reverts to the states or the people.
Roe was a complete invention of the court out of thin air. If you want to add a right amend the constitution.
Notice how court decisions and elections are only "illegitimate" if a certain political side doesn't get their way? And if it does go their way disputing it is outright treason!
Remember when that black guy who got elected president wasn't legitimate because he was totally born in Africa and was secretly Muslim?
What was that about not getting one's way again?!
You mean the mixed race guy that was raised by his white grandparents. Yea I remember him. Has nothing to do with this conversation though.
What about the "stare decisis" of
_ Dred Scott v. Sandford (60 U.S. 393 (1857))*
_ U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542 (1876))**
Can we finally put a nail in the coffins of two decisions often cited by gun prohibitionists? Gun control advocates (Brady, HCI, National Coalition to Ban Handguns) are especially wedded to Cruikshank in unholy matrimony.
Democrats are fans of "bad" stare decisis only if it is goring someone else's sacred ox, like gun rights. Hillary Clinton ran on her claim that D.C. v Heller 2008 and McDonald v Chicago 2010 were wrongly decided and she would work to get them overturned. No respect for stare decisis with the Democrat machine presidential candidate. Why should a lesser being (such as I) blindly accept stare decisis?
* Dred Scott Stare Decisis: Blacks, whether slave or free, were excluded from American citizenship in a penumbra of an emanation of some words in the Constitution (but neither the light nor its shadow are clear to me from the words in the Constitution).
** Cruikshank Stare Decisis: U.S. Bill of Rights did not limit the power of private actors or state governments despite 14A. Cruikshank gutted the post-Civil War Civil Rights Act. States and private actors (most notably the KKK) could violate BoR rights of all citizens with impunity.
"Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt to protect black citizens by punishing violators of their civil rights and, in effect, shaped the Constitution to the advantage of the Ku Klux Klan. ...
"... until 1966 (United States v. Price; United States v. Guest), when the Court vitiated Cruikshank." -- Leonard W. Levy in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution
Hey, maybe EV should package up this thread and send it to the justices for Summer reading.
In more sane times the headlines would have read, "Supreme Court Ends 50 Years of Oligarchy Control Over Abortion Returning Question to The People...."
IMHO the legitimacy of the Supreme Court hinges on the extent which they eschew considering popular sentiment - the more they ignore popular sentiment, the more legitimate they are likely to be.
The democratic legislative process is the arena in which public sentiment should be considered - not within the walls of 1 First St NE.
Just checking. Does your rule on popular sentiment extend to excluding popular sentiment about the Supreme Court itself?
It is striking to see Blackman's manifestation of ideological reasoning invoked as a justification for . . . ideological reasoning. The notable thing with political ideologues is their preference for starting with axioms, with an eye to reasoning their way to facts. That method breaks down whenever it encounters experience which the axioms did not anticipate, which happens pretty much always.
Blackman here thinks he has invented a way to install into his ideology a mechanism for bypassing experience altogether, and reaching all conclusions on the basis of pure ideology. You just announce in so many words, in the ideology, that contrary experience does not count. That way your ideology disproves all claims made against it.
Remarkable. It is doubtful that this creation is the first original thought which Blackman ever had. Undisciplined thinking comes with the gift of originality built in. But this may be the first original thought of Blackman's worth anyone's trouble to remember. It is perhaps a new kind of meta-fallacy. It is a shame it is unlikely to catch on; if it did Blackman could attach his name to it and be remembered.