The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Why Are Constitutional Law Professors Angry at the Supreme Court?
Because it's solidly conservative, and they are overwhelminglt liberal and further left.
At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern writes that constitutional law professors are "giving up on the Supreme Court:"
The problem, it's worth emphasizing, is not that the Supreme Court is issuing decisions with which left-leaning professors disagree. It's that the court seems to be reaching many of these conclusions in defiance of centuries of standards, rejecting precedent and moderation in favor of aggressive, partisan-tinged motivated reasoning. Plenty of progressive professors have long viewed the court with skepticism, and many professors, right- and left-leaning, have criticized the reasoning behind certain opinions for decades. But it's only in recent years—with the manipulation of the justice selection process combined with clear, results-oriented cynicism in decisions—that the problem has seemed so acute that they feel it affects their ability to teach constitutional law.
Actually, the fact that the Court is solidly conservative, and the constitutional law professoriate overwhelmingly liberal or further left, is exactly the problem. In the past, the left could count on the Court for sporadic big victories: same-sex marriage, affirmative action, abortion. Now they can't, so they have turned against the Court. We all know that left-learning lawprofs would be dancing in the streets if SCOTUS were equally aggressive to the left. And indeed, while Stern portrays discontent with the Court as a question of professional standards rather than ideology, he does not manage to find a single right-leaning professor to quote in his article.
[Cross-posted at Instapundit]
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 seems to be reaching many of these conclusions in defiance of centuries of standards”
I thought violating old standards was a *good* thing.
I mean, opposite-sex marriage was based on centuries of standards.
So was male-only military training.
So was the idea of rights derived from God.
He meant the procedural standards that are the "how" of how decisions are reached, not the substantive answers to the questions themselves. The same-sex marriage and male-only military issues may be matters on which you disagree with the outcome, but those policies were implemented based on deference to centuries of procedural precedent.
If you want a specific example, there is a rule that says the court should rule as narrowly as possible; it comes from Article III of the Constitution itself. The question before the Court in Dobbs was whether a 15-week abortion ban is constitutional. It was not necessary to overturn Roe to answer that question, and the Court should therefore have issued a narrow ruling giving a yes or no to the question of whether a 15 week ban is constitutional. But that's not what they did. They issued a broad, sweeping ruling that went much further than the question directly in front of them. And that's what's at issue. It's not so much that they're issuing conservative rulings; it's that they're ignoring procedural rules that exist for good reason in order to do it.
" it comes from Article III of the Constitution itself."
What exact words in Article III state this rule?
Article III says federal courts have jurisdiction to decide cases and controversies. Anything not necessary to decide the actual case in front of it is an advisory opinion, and therefore neither a case nor a controversy.
And believe me, you want that to be the rule when the liberals have a majority on the court.
Jurisdiction is not the same as "says the court should rule as narrowly as possible".
You can decide a controversy broadly or narrowly.
I'm in the middle of trial prep and don't have time to look them up, but there are a number of Supreme Court cases holding that anything beyond the most narrow grounds is an advisory opinion on a case or controversy not beyond the court.
It's perfectly clear to everyone that you want rulings to be as narrow as possible only when they go against your preferences.
Roe was wrongly decided and it was the business of SCOTUS to say so.
So you're now speaking for everyone? Maybe it's perfectly clear to you.
OK, I will amend "everyone". Some are no doubt to dumb or delusional to see what is going on, and others too dishonest to admit the obvious. But it IS obvious.
* too dumb"Edit" button not working.
Was Roe decided as narrowly as possible? Or was it just an advisory opinion too?
(I think Roe was good policy, but that's Congress's job, not the courts).
Citing prior SCOTUS decisions as the foundational basis for constraining SCOTUS decisions? I hope you don't employ the same circular reasoning in defense of your current client's positions.
If there's a question about whether some law violates the constitutional right to abortion, the first question is what, if any thing, this constitutional right to abortion consists of, so the law can be measured against the right it supposedly violates.
As for centuries of tradition on stare decisis, there are 200 precedents of the Supreme Court overruling its own decisions, if you believe the rock-ribbed reactionaries at CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/supreme-court-cases-overturned-history-constitution-trnd/index.html
The courts are not required to reinvent the wheel every time an issue comes up. The constitutional right to abortion is (or was, before Dobbs) articulated in Roe v. Wade. That issue should only be revisited when a case comes to the court in which it is impossible to issue a more narrow ruling than that. Say, for example, state passes a complete ban on all abortions.
Assuming Dobbs violated procedural traditions (though I doubt it), I don't see how procedural traditions can be sacred while at the same time traditions like man/woman marriage and male-only military training are negotiable.
(Incidentally if we arbitrarily limit ourselves to procedural traditions, there's a tradition against female justices. And is it OK for the crier to ask God to save the U. S. and the Court?)
Relying on precedent is not some rando tradition of recent vintage.
What is a bit nuts to me about Dobbs is that it could have relied on precedent - cases have been narrowing the right to privacy since Casey,
But Alito chose to go full ‘Making new law here’ in his opinion.
Going back up to the top of this thread, they said “the court seems to be reaching many of these conclusions in defiance of centuries of standards”.
It's interesting to see when "centuries of standards" matter and when they don't.
Engaging with precedent is a pretty old standard. We know how to overrule cases, and this was not how to do it.
OK, granted all that (for the sake of discussion), in what other situations should we defer to “centuries of standards”?
“…cases have been narrowing the right to privacy since Casey…”
And each narrowing was in defiance of the precedent that established the former, wider, scope of the right. Back to Roe, which massively ignored precedent.
You want the ratchet to move only in your direction. Too bad. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Roe ignored which precedents? It was a case of first impression, and came out well before the tin pan historianism Alito used was a thing.
EVERY case where the Court just pulls out of its ass some ruling nobody every had thought plausible before is going to be a case of first impression.
You claim dogs can be elected to public office? Nobody was crazy enough to claim that before? Case of first impression. Doesn't mean you have a remotely colorable argument on your side. You're just the first crazy to make it to the Court.
Sure, sometimes you're going to get real issues that people never considered before, where the reason it's a case of first impression isn't that nobody previously had the cast iron gall to litigate some crazy claim. Like, Schaffer v. Clinton, predicated on an amendment that had just been ratified.
But a lot of cases of first impression ARE just because nobody previously was crazy enough to argue a position.
Gandydancer, what precedent(s) did Roe v. Wade ignore? Please provide citations.
I respectfully differ with Sarcastr0's suggestion that Roe was a question of first impression. In fact, it was a logical extension of the recognition in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972), that "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
Fair not guilty. Roe did have precedents it built ion.
The courts are not required to reinvent the wheel every time an issue comes up
A philosophy the USSC DIDN'T follow back in 1973.
Maybe you should blame the solicitor general who's brief in Dobbs stated that the court couldn't uphold Dobbs without overruling Roe.
They must have found the Biden Administrations argument persuasive.
"The same-sex marriage and male-only military issues may be matters on which you disagree with the outcome, but those policies were implemented based on deference to centuries of procedural precedent."
That seems to be slicing the salami pretty thin, if you don't think those decisions were "in defiance of centuries of standards."
For that matter, if you take a narrow view of things, how do you justify the court taking a broad approach in Roe, opining on Roe's right to abort a baby who had already been born? Where are the "centuries of standards" in favor of *that* approach?
Claiming that same-sex marriage and females in military academies can be mentioned in the same breath as "centuries of standards" just show parodic levels of compartmentalization.
There is another legal doctrine that says that when a case is "capable of repetition yet evading review" the court can decide it. What that means is that given that it takes years to get a case to the Supreme Court, no abortion case will get there before the fetus involved has either been born or aborted, so there will never be a live case or controversy. However, the issue will continue to come up repeatedly any time a woman wants an abortion. So, because the issue will continue to come up, it's deemed a live case or controversy.
And again, the "centuries of standards" applies to the procedural rules, not the merits of what you think the final answer should be.
Does the capable of repetition yet evading review stuff go back centuries? That's the claim - centuries of tradition.
“And again, the “centuries of standards” applies to the procedural rules, not the merits of what you think the final answer should be.”
And again, *why* are centuries of standards important for procedural rules but not for substantive rules?
Does the capable of repetition yet evading review stuff go back centuries? That’s the claim – centuries of tradition.
To me, "centuries of tradition" is largely irrelevant when the people seeking relief have not had much political power on that issue for all of those centuries. Marriage was traditionally one man and one woman for centuries, but then same sex couples were vilified as perverted by an overwhelming majority of virtually every Western society until quite recently. Abortion was practiced, but was neither explicitly legal nor criminal at the Founding, from what I can tell (prior to "quickening", at least). It wasn't until the mid-to-late 1800's that it started to become criminalized. That is still a fairly long tradition, but given that women weren't even guaranteed a right to vote until 1920, that doesn't sway me, either.
There's a statement of what I had understood to be the progressive position.
So it would seem curious that these progressive professors would become so enamored of "centuries of standards" set by white, male judges who probably beat their wives.
The Supreme Court doesn't just answer a question yes or no. It gives reasons. If the reason a 15-week abortion ban was constitutionally permissible is because Roe was a constitutionally indefensible decision that invented a constitutional right to an abortion out of whole cloth, it's the Court's job to say so.
That is quite rare to do, especially when the case is as old as Roe. You generally talk about the trajectory of precedents. Or new facts. See the post-Lochner cases, Brown, cases that site Korematsu, Loving, Lawrence.
None of them just go at a single case and say ‘that was bad’ and then just rule.
It’s allowed, but it is a frustrating and shitty precedent.
Which makes for a weaker precedent, so I am kinds for it, except I’m an institutional it’s and this is awful for the Court.
"when the case is as old as Roe"
Cruikshank held in 1876 that 1A was not incorporated, De Jonge v. Oregon reversing that was in 1937. That's a longer period than Roe to Dobbs.
Plessy was in 1896, Brown in 1953. Longer than Roe to Dobbs too.
I take it you agree that 1A was not incorporated and separate but equal is ok?
Did you not read my post? I defiantly said nothing about Stare being inviolate. The opposite in fact.
Your examples are not on point.
Read better.
Write better.
Thank you, this is one of the clearer and more persuasive explanations I've seen of the faults with the current court and their Roe decision.
If Dobbs was overbroad, then Roe was overbroad... and should therefore be struck down.
It's useful to keep pointing these things out, but it's also dog-bites-man stuff at this point. Lefties in academia are absolutely consistent in pushing out gaslighting articles written in a high-minded style while blatantly saying this or that institution is illegitimate when things don't go their way. It's like a 12-year-old arguing about their bedtime. And granted, some righties elsewhere do the same thing, but the point is they're elsewhere--not teaching Constitutional law in a slanted way to the next generation of judges and lawyers.
Exactly. These left extremists that have so thoroughly subverted truth in academia absolutely can't stand it when intellectual consistency prevails. Per usual, they are only projecting their own corruption that is the actual and very real threat to democracy.
What do you think gaslighting is?
Stern isn't in academia, he's just a writer for Slate.
No comment on the “It’s that the court seems to be reaching many of these conclusions in defiance of centuries of standards, rejecting precedent and moderation in favor of aggressive, partisan-tinged motivated reasoning” part I see. Bah, details…
To (most of) my liberal colleagues I'd say, "physician, heal thyself."
That is quite diplomatic. Others would say 'off' (you can fill in the blank). Have not seen you post at TOI for a while.
I get that “YOU guys rejected precedent and moderation in favor of aggressive, partisan-tinged motivated reasoning to recognize rights, so it’s only fair that WE reject precedent and moderation in favor of aggressive, partisan-tinged motivated reasoning to take those rights away” is a *satisfying* argument. It’s just not a *good* argument.
It wasn't "recognize". It was "invent". And, no, exactly no one is saying what you say they are saying. It doesn't require aggressive, partisan-tinged motivated reasoning to reverse aggressive, partisan-tinged motivated reasoning.
Except the current "aggressive rulings" are just reversing the previous aggressive partisan driven rulings you seem to hold inviolate.
Hypocrisy doesn’t mean you are wrong.
Thinking that you are right is no excuse for hypocrisy.
The Volokh Conspiracy is going to be fun to watch when the Court is enlarged.
It's going to be even more fun when half the states say they are no longer bound by their decisions.
Could we identify those states by checking the bottom half of the "states ranked by educational attainment" chart?
The can't-keep-up states have resisted before. This latest bunch of losers seems nothing special.
All "educational achievement" is not crated equal. Those of you who believe that it's "educated" and "enlightened" to be believe in anthropogenic global warming, that a woman can say she's a man, or that a gay man can erupt in another man's rear end and say he's "in a loving marriage" with that man, don't know any of the classical forms of education.
This is your target audience, Volokh Conspirators.
And the reason your stale, ugly thinking is doomed at the modern American marketplace of ideas.
Why do you think a man who likes to penetrate another man's hairy rear is a hero?
Why do you think most of the Volokh Conspirators' employers wish they would find other jobs?
Arthur, not to put too fine of a point on it, but you predicted SCOTUS expansion 1.5 years ago. What gives?
The Democrats did not have the votes — Manchin (R-Hooterville) and Sinema (?-Space Force) sided with investment banker loopholes, sketchy coal interests, and the depleted human residue currently known as West Virginia.
When that changes, I expect Democrats to enlarge the Court.
For now, conservatives should use their running-on-fumes power as they wish, and enjoy it. Then I hope they keep the whining and insurrection to a minimum when better Americans — positioned by the predictable trajectory of the modern American culture war — have the votes to arrange even more of this damnable progress, science, education, reason, modernity, and inclusiveness.
(On second thought it is unfair to call Manchin a Republican after the way Republicans turned on him. His designation is more E-I-E-I-O.)
Arthur...You made me laugh with Hooterville and Space Force. That was inspired. 🙂
Thank you. It’s nice that someone liked it. Many, if not most, readers will ask ‘what’s a Hooterville?’ One of the casualties of an advanced life is that people don’t get your references (and may be cranky about it).
Another is that when someone asks for help in another state or at some obscure agency and I think ‘no problem, I’ll call so-and-so, who worked with me on something and owes me a favor,’ I call so-and-so the person at the other end asks me to repeat the name, asks someone a question muffled at my end by a hand over the mouthpiece, and comes back with, ‘sir, so-and-so hasn’t worked here for at least four years’ or ‘so-and-so died about a year ago.’
(One of Jethro's kinfolk died last week. He was chief judge of a state supreme court. I was at his house once. It had no cement pond.)
One can't always say that legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Some Court decisions were objectively illegitimate in that they were poorly reasoned, disregarded clear precedent, disallowed necessary parties from participating, or based on arguments not being made or granted relief not being sought. This is a short list but I'm sure people from both sides can think of other reasons.
Roe v. Wade includes almost all of those, other than disallowing necessary parties from pariticipating. But disregarding clear precedent is only "illegitimate" if the precedent is not acknowledged. If it's acknowledged and discarded as being wrong, that's entirely legitimate.
"If it’s acknowledged and discarded as being wrong, that’s entirely legitimate."
Even if it is beyond the scope of the question presented?
In general, I'd say if the Court is going beyond the scope of the question presented, it should ask for additional briefing--which is what Roberts should have done in NFIB v. Sebelius.
And they should have done in Dobbs, right?
Dobbs was within the scope of the question though.
No it wasn't. The question in Dobbs is whether a 15 week ban is constitutional. The court could have answered that question without overturning Roe.
The question presented by the petitioners, and the one granted cert, was "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional"
The court found that pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.
But that question wasn't necessary to decide if the Mississippi statute is constitutional. True, the Court invited the parties to ask questions not necessary to rule on the MS statute. But since the statute could have been decided without answer the pre-viability question presented, it was an advisory opinion, and the Court should have resisted the temptation to go there.
But regardless, that was in fact the question presented, so your gripe isn’t that the court went outside the question presented, but rather that they didn’t limit the question to your liking.
In any case, its clear that even if they had limited to the 15 week question, they simply would have had to hear a 12, or a 6 week question in the following term(s). They chose to settle the issue entirely (or at least until another court sees fit to revisit)
My point is that the question presented was for an unconstitutional advisory opinion that didn't need to be decided. And no, they wouldn't have needed multiple more cases; if any single state had passed a law that flatly banned all abortions from the moment of conception, the court would then have had to re-visit Roe. Not until then, though.
The Mississippi Attorney General's own petition for certiorari in Dobbs posited at page 5 that "the questions presented in this petition do not require the Court to overturn Roe or Casey. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/145658/20200615170733513_FINAL%20Petition.pdf
What's more, even if the question were limited to a 15 week ban, overturning Roe would still be on the table since Roe explicitly prohibits bans before 24 weeks (that's the whole reason the case was being litigated in the first place)
Maybe you need to go reread Roe? Allowing any pre-viability abortion restrictions requires overturning Roe, because that's where Roe drew the line.
So either the Court has to draw a new line, or say there is no line.
Just saying '15 weeks is fine' overturns Roe. But that means there is no line at all. Surely proposing a new line would also be unnecessary to decide the instant case, and just advisory. But without a new line, there is no line (since Roe's line has been overruled). At which point, if that's what SCOTUS intends, they might as well say so.
Shame Congress for failing to act for 50 years.
Um, Planned Parenthood v. Casey threw out the Roe trimester framework 30 years ago.
Yes yes, and the viability framework is from Casey. You still can’t permit a 15-week ban under a viability framework, because fetuses aren’t viable at 15-weeks (at least not today). (Technically Casey already overturned Roe insofar as specific legal findings).
The exact same logic applies. You can’t uphold a 15-week ban without either having no line (and thus all abortion prohibitions are valid) or specifying a new line.
"Just saying ’15 weeks is fine’ overturns Roe."
Not true. SCOTUS could easily have modified Roe and Casey to move the line of demarcation from viability to quickening while maintaining a fundamental constitutional right to choose abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Some reporting suggests that Justice Blackmun in Roe initially contemplated quickening as the point beyond which states could lawfully prohibit abortions.
Except that’s still functionally overturning Roe and Casey.
The actual decision that addressed the injury to plaintiff was that states could only prohibit abortions after the third trimester started. If you can prohibit earlier, Roe is overturned.
Casey overturned that and moved it to ‘viability’. If ‘viability’ is no longer the line, Casey is overturned.
So if the court is going to say 15 weeks is okay (rightly or wrongly) they have to overturn Casey, because that’s before viability.
At which point, just saying it’s overturned is the *least* they can decide. Choosing some other arbitrary line is deciding more than they need to in the instant case, and would arguably be dicta. (Because there’s no case or controversy before them that would require that new line to be drawn).
The line isn't some minor thing that can be 'modified'. That line *is the primary holding*.
Additional briefing on what NFIB v. Sebelius issue? If you're thinking of the Tax Power justification for the individual mandate, that was fully briefed. If you're thinking of remedies, remember that the only thing the plurality found unconstitutionally coercive was the mandatoriness of the Medicaid expansion, and the severability issue there was a fairly simple one that had been partially briefed.
Roe did not disregard precedent; there was no precedent. It was an entirely new issue. Nor did it accept arguments not being made or grant relief not being sought.
I'd have to go back and look at Roe's brief, but I doubt that Roe either asked for, in essence, the abortion laws of all 50 states to be declared unconstitutional when the only real issue in the case was whether an abortion ban that didn't include a rape exemption was constitutional, and I'm quite sure her brief did not suggest the trimester concept. Also, the case was actually moot but the Court (at its discretion) chose to resolve it anyway. As for their being no precedent, the Court had stated explicitly in 1963 that it was no longer going to use the due process clause to resolve controversial social and economic issues. Which is why Griswold relied on "penumbras and emanations" from other amendments.
That's kind of tricky. Pick almost any case where somebody pulls a notion out of their ass that nobody had the nerve before to litigate, and you'll have a lack of precedent. Say somebody says they identify as a dog, so they're entitled to run for President when they're 35 in dog years.
If the Court said they could, they wouldn't be overturning precedent, now, would they?
Hypothetical hypocrisy is the worst hypocrisy!
Leftists sure seem to think so.
This complaint, whether genuine or disingenuous, seems limited to professors of Constitutional law. A professor that specializes in other subjects (contracts, torts, corporate law, intellectual property, evidence) would seem little affected by what is described here. Maybe these professors should find another specialty if theirs so frustrating.
I've met professors who went into Con Law back in the early 70s because they thought it was a good route to being on the forefront of social change. But the Court has been far to their right on most issues ever since. It's a bit sad, though for obvious reasons my empathy is limited.
I was taught by those liberal law professors. Class was an exercise in crafting justifications for bad conservative decisions at every turn.
Shelby County for instance was taught as if the "congruent and proportional" test and "equal dignity of states" doctrine were solid legal rules with a long pedigree instead of made-up rules designed to give the Court more power at the expense of Congress taking the lead in civil rights issues. (The idea that the Reconstruction amendments contemplate an equal dignity of states is absurd if you have ever thought about Reconstruction for more than ten seconds).
They pretended that the major questions doctrine wasn't a judicial power grab. And that Morrison v. Olson was the real law of the land instead of a lone dissent. I mean they pretended Scalia was some genius instead of simply a guy who could occasionally turn a phrase.
I feel like the only time professors didn't paper over conservative decision-making was in criminal procedure when some conservative decisions were so obviously stupid there wasn't much to say about it. (Specifically thinking about Berghuis v. Thompkins holding that you can't "invoke" your right to remain silent....by remaining silent.)
Basically if they're losing law professors they have gone too far too fast because legal academia's entire MO was supporting the work of the Court.
Anyone who tries to teach constitutional law as if it's a regular law class, without due attention to the historical and political context of Supreme Court decisions, the Court's political constraints, and especially the fact that the Court has (so far) successfully decreed without textual warrant that the Constitution means whatever it says it means, and so on, is on a fool's errand. That said, I think you are confusing "explaining the Court's rationale so that you can use it on the exam and in real life" with "papering over" the Court's decisions. Professors can complain about decisions they don't like, but ultimately our job is to relay what the opinions say and their reasoning.
But the very process of explaining the reasoning for the purpose of passing an exam involves papering over horrible decision making and the professor giving the Court the pretense of legitimacy.
No, explaining the reasoning for the purpose of passing the exam (AND knowing the current state of constitutional law doctrine) is just imparting needed knowledge. SCOTUS does not need your professor's stamp of legitimacy, and if your professor told you that the decision is illegitimate so he's not going to teach it to you, i don't see what useful purpose that would serve.
A biology teacher being forced to teach intelligent design so students can pass a state-mandated exam lends the "theory" legitimacy. Even if they announce publicly that they disagree and such a theory has no basis in science.
"SCOTUS does not need your professor’s stamp of legitimacy."
Maybe not that of a single professor but it does need the stamp of legitimacy from the public as a whole to continue to function as it does and the stamp from legal academia is a key part of that.
Also, she taught us, not he.
That’s a really terrible analogy, and obviously so. Teaching existing Supreme court precedent, even that you think mistaken, has enormous utility beyond just passing the test: It lets you predict how cases will turn out, barring appeal to the Supreme court and the precedent being overturned, which is fairly rare. And maybe gives you some guide to how to go about accomplishing that overturn, if that’s your aim.
Indeed, from a conservative standpoint, that was exactly how precedents like Roe ought to have been taught: As mistakes with the force of law, that were worth knowing because they DID have the force of law regardless.
Intelligent design, even if it happened to be a true account of how life came about, lacks any predictive value.
You can predict it based on ideology usually.
You've lost me in analogizing Supreme Court opinions to scientific propositions. You're professor wasn't telling you what the Constitution means in some objective scientific sense, but instead was just making sure you understood what the Supreme Court said it means and their reasoning in doing so. That would still be useful information even if the opinion and its reasoning and the Court itself were properly seen as entirely illegitimate. Becaus no matter how the Court is "seen," it's opinion are still treated by the most relevant actors as the law of the land.
People treat the law as an objective and scientific process all the time though. That’s a key part of legal mythology that is used to distinguish it from pure politics.
One can say that there are "right answers" based on precedent in the vast majority of legal disputes that arise. But given that the Supreme Court is only bound by precedent to the extent it chooses to be, there is (obviously) no such thing as the Court being incorrect or illegitimate because it deviated from precedent. One can argue that sometimes the Court claims to be relying on precedent, but it misinterprets precedent. Or that the Court announces a legal standard, and then in practice fails to apply it (like O'Connor in Grutter.) Even then, that makes the Court "wrong" rather than calling its legitimacy into question.
Why put "wrong" in scare quotes? The Court is often wrong, full stop. And when it is wrong too often that absolutely calls its legitimacy into question.
That's interesting about precedent. What do you make of it when the Court announces reliance on history and tradition, and then lies about them? Nothing says they can't lie about history, I suppose. Should future constitutional law classes teach the lies about history as historical fact?
If you are relying on the Supreme Court, in any era, for accurate history, you are out of luck. Unfortunately, the same is true of professional historians, to a much greater extent than I would have imagined before I started doing my own historical research. But I think it's rare in all cases for these actors to be "lying" about history, as opposed to misunderstanding history, engaging in lawyers' history, starting with a conclusion and working backwards, and so on.
Professor Bernstein — What is the answer to my question about teaching made-up history as historical fact? Is that how constitutional law classes must work? Or should constitutional law professors take pains to learn the accurate history and tradition of, for instance, abortion in America? That would enable them to teach that the plain wording of Dobbs shows that it was written to circumvent a verifiable historical record. But should they do that, or does the structure of American constitutional jurisprudence demand that the professors mislead their students?
Note also, your critique of the historical profession seems to depend on the quality of your own historical research. Unless you have graduate training in historical methods, and professional-level erudition regarding context from the entire historical record of a particular era, that may prove a dubious yardstick.
Nevertheless, I concede the point that some historical professionals fall short, and others excel. The obvious advice to take from that—if circumstances somehow make accurate history seem important for present legal business—is to consult only the best historians.
You will have no trouble finding them. They teach from elite chairs at the nation's most prestigious universities. The ones at the very peak of the profession all enjoy consensus acclaim from their peers, including peers with varying interpretations of the same subject matter. At the top of the profession, focus on reliable methods gets higher priority than it does lower down.
Ask around. But do not be surprised if a wise historian advises a lawyer looking for evidence relevant to present-day outcomes that he has undertaken an impossible mission.
Contrary to impressions right wingers especially seem to have formed regarding the historical profession, its better practitioners, at least, are in their professional work mostly indifferent to present-day issues. They instead tend to insist that connecting the past to the present in that way is an intellectual impossibility. Note that I do not say it is forbidden to make that connection, but that it is impossible to do it. That is a principal lesson the study of history gradually instills in its more-alert practitioners.
Ostensible historians willing to undertake that kind of connection may be showing by that willingness that they have not yet learned the lesson. If so, they are less worthy of reliance, no matter how convenient it is to chose one of those readily available types instead of a more-balky alternative. If the argument you want to make really is impossible to do without self-contradictory assertions, and paradoxes created willy-nilly, don't you want to know that?
For a better explanation, with more insight, study historiography. I recommend Oakeshott's extended essay, On History. It is not an easy text to begin with, but it will serve at least to disabuse naive expectations that intellectually legitimate historical methods are simply understood and intuitively obvious.
As opposed to the professor urging his students to grab some torches and pitchforks and march on the Supreme Court?
Who are YOU to say they're "horrible"?
He's entitled to that opinion without needing a credential.
We ought not accept it, even provisionally, based on HIS asserting it, of course. Given his track record that's not the way to bet.
My impression is that the left were OK with the right winning in Court occasionally as long as their own victories were treated as irreversible. The ratchet didn't have to click over on every case, as long as that pawl was there keeping things from ever going backwards.
What's got them horrified now is the idea that they can lose ground, as well as gain it.
"Occasionally" is really underselling the right-wing nature of American jurisprudence.
Really, you mean the left wasn't advancing it's causes with every case that came before the Court? Outrageous!
No I mean that overall right-wing thought dominates American jurisprudence.
Don't you know that "Progress" and "Right Side of History" are defined in the dictionary as "LawTalkingGuy's preferred substantive outcomes"?!
You’re talking at Brett, a person who will never admit the law is anything other than what he says it ought to be at any one time.
I'm not sure why you think that; I happen to think that the 16th and 17th amendments were terrible mistakes, for instance, but I'd never deny they're legitimately binding parts of the Constitution.
Brett you once tried to tell me that laches weren’t part of the law.
They're parts of cabinets, obviously.
You have a take in what the law is that takes just about every ambiguity and resolves it as you thinks it ought to go. And anyone who disagrees with your take is at best being irrational at best and often clearly lying to further their leftist agenda.
Reasonable people cannot differ in your world.
To be fair, originalists in the 1990s taught that to you, you just apply it more assiduously than they,
What would YOU know about "reasonable people"?
You’re boring.
You're a jackass.
My con law professor back in 1982-83 was a radical lesbian feminist who spent a large percentage of the course focusing on the right to abortion while giving short shrift to search and seizure, free speech, and right to counsel.
I was so disappointed that I signed up for a third year class in political and civil rights taught by David Goldberger...the Jewish ACLU attorney who represented the NAZIs at Skokie. Goldberger was brilliant. He never abused his position and authority to discourage students from presenting opposing arguments. He made it clear that terrible people need representation. He made it clear that the quality of your argument and your procedures is important.
Too many progressives are lazy when they craft their arguments. Briefs in opposition to capital punishment are often cut and past jobs that keep getting longer and longer with each new case (and frequently, the writers forget to cut out irrelevant passages). They got lazy during the years when there was a liberal majority on the court. Their arguments were no longer engaging, compelling, and well written. They counted on getting one Republican nominated justice to change their mind...hence the importance of O'Connor and Kennedy.
“while giving short shrift to search and seizure, free speech, and right to counsel.”
Maybe because it was a con law class and not crim pro?
I attended some con law classes with my older sister a few years before. Her con law class spent more time covering the 1st amendment and 4th amendment than my prof did.
Was con law really this disjointed back in the day? Are you sure your memory is good? Because even in the late 70s and early 80s criminal procedure should have been addressed in criminal procedure not con law. Trying to squeeze the fourth amendment and first amendment (let alone fifth amendment and sixth amendment jurisprudence) into a class also dealing with structural issues seems insane?
Today I think the general trend is for First Amendment law to be it’s own class and “Con law” to focus on structural issues and substantive non criminal rights directly derived from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.
Obviously it varies, depending on the tastes of the professor. My Con Law course (Berzerkley 1982-83) covered primarily federalism, First Amendment, civil rights (i.e., Fourteenth Amendment and issues of race) and substantive due process (first Lochner et al., then Griswold and Roe). I never heard of a Con Law course spending much time on Fourth Amendment issues; those are usually part of a Crim Pro course. The professor (Ira Lupu, visiting) wasn't necessarily that enthusiastic about Roe.
Free speech is not crimpro.
Neither are the race cases, which my ConLaw classes spent a lot of time on.
And the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.
Separation of Powers.
Commerce Clause.
Incorporation of rights in the 14th Amendment.
If memory serves, all these were covered in my ConLaw class, and they are neither abortion nor criminal procedure.
First Amendment is typically carved out into its own class because the field is so vast (of course it could be different in the 1980s). And criminal rights are really not covered in con law and I would be surprised if they were covering the right to counsel or search and seizure even in the 1980s. That would be incredibly disjointed class if they tried to cram that into class as well.
I had a nasty dyke law professor too. I waited until after I graduated and told her she was a piece of shit.
Assuming this story is true, why would you want everyone to know you’re a bad person?
Maybe he is just trying to arrange some right-wing credibility with the Volokh Conspiracy to avoid being muzzled or banned here.
Or maybe he just is that level of obsolete, deplorable bigot.
At the Volokh Conspiracy, either explanation fits.
Why are you reflexively siding with someone who is "nasty"?
Birds of a feather stick together,
The OP is an unreliable narrator if I ever saw one.
"Assuming this story is true" is the opposite of "unreliable narrator".
Nasty is an opinion. Not really part of the action.
And why are you defending such an open piece of crap?
A question isn’t a defense.
Why prefer people being nasty? What’s wrong with telling them off for their nasty behavior? Nasty people shouldn’t face any pushback?
A question like that sure is taking sides.
With a pretty awful person. But hey, libs are getting owned I guess, so what's a little befellowing with a racist asshole?
My class was about 55% female and 45% male. We were divided into three Sections: A, B, and C. But for some strange reason, for Con Law (and only for Con Law) there was a Section D that consisted of 37 women and 3 men. When we were taking our final exam (for 100% of our grade) I remember being confused by the questions. I can’t remember the content of the questions now (it’s been 39 years), but I remember that they were odd and they assumed that the person answering was female.
Con Law was my lowest grade in law school. During my third year, I learned that there had been a law suit involving that course; apparently the three lowest grades went to the three male students. The whole dispute was swept under the rug.
That prof now has a sinecure position with New York City working on women’s issues.
I'm curious as to what law school in the early 80s was 55% female.
Too many progressives are lazy when they craft their arguments.
Not conservative lawyers, of course, who are invariably diligent and methodical, and lavish attention on every detail.
Give me a frigging break. Congress acknowledged in the VRA that the preclearance list was outdated, but that there wasn't the political will to create one that actually made sense.
The Constitution required such laws be "appropriate." Using an obviously outdated formula that Congress ACKNOWLEDGES is outdated because you can't pass something better is not appropriate, under any definition of the word.
Yeah it lets Congress decide what is appropriate. Not the court. And they decided it was appropriate to use the data. Letting a court decide what is “appropriate,” a term complete devoid of cognizable legal meaning, is simply a judicial power grab to prevent Congress from legislating.
If "appropriate" merely means "whatever Congress says is a appropriate," then why bother having that qualifier at all? Why not just have it read:
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by legislation."
You aren't willing to give Congress carte blanche to decide what's appropriate when they decided, through the Defense of Marriage Act, to not recognize the relationship you're in with your "husband." Why do you give them unlimited deference with the VRA?
You excluded the middle and ignored the vagueness argument LTG made. I’d add the lack of precedent for such a finding and such a remedy, and the pretty scanty laying of the groundwork for this to be a de novo question.
Narrowly tailored, unexpectedly novel ruling with sweeping effect? That’s my ‘one day will be in the anti-cannon’ bingo!
I'm really curious how you think the major questions doctrine was "a judicial power grab". Yes, that doctrine reins in the power of the executive branch but it does so entirely by pushing that power back to Congress.
Rossami — Back to a congress where the right-wing partisan majority on the Court know there is a right-wing partisan roadblock in the Senate. So whatever the Court overturns as a major question, stays overturned as an unaddressed question. That's how.
That's some serious conspiracy-theorist thinking. Among other logical errors, it requires the Court to think that control of the Senate is a permanent state of being rather than something up for change at every election.
Not a logical error. The conspiracy in question is the one which empowered per-state voting in the senate as a minoritarian barrier to constitutional reform. That one does look damn near permanent. And it is a force multiplier to enable senate control at the behest of a minority of voters nationwide.
Yes, that doctrine reins in the power of the executive branch but it does so entirely by pushing that power back to Congress.
Not really. Congress always has the power to change the statutes any way it likes. It doesn't need to get permission from the judiciary.
What the major questions doctrine does is let the judiciary stop the executive from acting on whatever the judge thinks is a "major question." Sounds like a power grab to me.
Really? Congress has the unilateral power to tell the Executive Branch that "we didn't authorize that so stop what you're doing"? How does that work?
Congress has multiple hurdles they must jump before they can even intervene in existing lawsuits. Are you really saying all that work and worry was wasted because they can just arbitrarily stop the Executive Branch whenever they like?
Yes, Congress can pass a new law overturning an Executive Branch decision. However, that generally can't be retroactive (which, unlike the court case, means existing evils go uncorrected) and it flies in the face of human nature that you think the Chief Executive wouldn't try to veto the attempt to rein him in. Requiring veto-proof supermajorities is not the appropriate balance for controlling executive overreach.
Alito violated standards and long held traditions by overturning a ruling which violated standards and long held traditions!
"In the past, the left could count on the Court for sporadic big victories"
past?
Bostock v. Clayton County was just in 2020. Even with substitution for Ginsburg, it would still be 5-4
Not to mention that conservative "victories" are never full victories. Ever.
" Not to mention that conservative “victories” are never full victories. "
Yeah, women can execute contracts without spousal sign-off, non-landowners still get to vote, gays are treated like human beings, Jesus no longer has veto power over legislation and executive actions, Muslims get to run around like regular people, and Blacks can get as uppity as they like (most of the time), even in the south!
For conservatives, modern America is a flaming hellscape and clustermuck. Fortunately, replacement will solve all of their problems.
As soon as the white man's shoe came off the black man's neck, they started behaving badly. Your idea of "progress" is regressive.
That comment will stand. But if I were to call this guy a "sl_ck-j_w" I would be censored or banned.
Free speech, Federalist Society style.
You are a slack-jawed tedious shit complaining about censorship that you would not suffer, though the atmosphere here would absolutely improve if you WERE booted again.
Prof. Volokh banned Artie Ray and has not rescinded that ban. Prof. Volokh has told me not to use certain words ("sl_ck-j_w," "c_p s_ccor." "p_ssy") to describe conservatives. In each case I respect his wishes. In each case the censorship continues to be imposed to this day.
The Conspirators' playground, the Conspirators' rules. Faux libertarian hypocrites have rights, too.
Garbage. I am confident that you could use those words and not suffer a ban because if such behavior would actually have that result your general tedious repetitive crapulousness would long ago have resulted in another ban.
But I urge EV to ban you, right now. It would at least give your next incarnation new material and maybe make you a smidgen less boring. Probably not, but it's worth a try.
Reminds me of my Virginian father's youthful take on the Great Seal of Virginia. It depicts an armored figure with a sword, standing atop a prone victim. The motto, "Sic Semper Tyrannis," appears.
My father's reported translation, "Get off my neck."
Because victories require more than victims to be victories.
Dynamic interpretation of a statute. Sigh. Liberals got a big victory because they were able to win over Gorsuch and Roberts. Now we are seeing thousands of confused teenagers getting chemically sterilized and surgically mutilated...and any therapist or physician who tries to counsel the patient with watchful waiting could be condemned for engaging in "conversion therapy" and lose their license. Transition surgery is the new lobotomy. Thank you Supreme Court.
What is it about the Bostock opinion that you feel is enabling these practices?
Super right wing SCOTUS decides the civil rights act prohibits discrimination against "transgender" all across the land.
Yeah, okay, sure. "Solidly conservative" indeed.
Some liberal professors, like David Goldberger, are brilliant because they want their students to understand Constitutional law and to be able to make good, compelling arguments. Others just assume that their positions are the correct ones and anyone disagreeing with them does not deserve to be heard.
I believe conservatives deserve to be heard -- bigots have rights, too.
Talk about lazy arguments seems silly from the side of the aisle that brings superstition-based arguments -- nonsense -- to reasoned debate among ostensibly competent adults and figures 'just because' can be a compelling argument.
Nothing like starting a discussion by calling your opponents "bigots'.
Everyone is free to enable conservatives and Republicans to hide behind euphemisms such as “conservative values” and “traditional values.” People are welcome to wallow in political correctness.
I have lost my taste for it. I call racists, gay-bashers, white nationalists, immigrant-haters, misogynists, Islamophobes, white supremacists, race-targeting vote suppressors, Confederacy-huggers, and Trump fans bigots.
Accuracy is a virtue.
Your calling that U. of Tennessee volleyball player a racist for resisting abuse by her woke coaches was the final straw for me. True accuracy is referring to you as a turd.
I do not recall a Tennessee volleyball player-coach dispute.
I do.
Are you as old and decrepit as Biden?
"Others just assume that their positions are the correct ones and anyone disagreeing with them does not deserve to be heard."
…or get a good grade.
Least surprising post ever. DB is as good a legal practitioner as he is a historian.
The head rots from the top. The issue isn't the substance of the rulings- with a 6 justice majority, Roe was going to be overruled. The issue is the procedure, and the stability. Lower courts (the appellate courts and the district courts) see what the Supreme Court does, and they get it. Procedure? Rules? Precedent? That's for suckers. Do whatever you can get away with.
This attitude isn't an affront to "the libs." It's an affront to any good practitioner or (small-c) conservative. As I've stated before, this free-for-all is beginning to take hold in the entire legal profession. To say this is just "con law" is a joke. Over and over in the past few years I've seen things that previously were unthinkable in the federal courts- because why not? You get the right judge, appointed recently ... ask for whatever you want. You might get it.
There is a certain irony that people who argued so vociferously against legal realism were the ones that ushered in the apotheosis. Good job, you!
There's so many abuses in the legal system, the court's gracious permission to states to protect the unborn should appear as a fairly minor "abuse," even to a small-p progressive.
the court’s gracious permission to states to protect the unborn
What, exactly, is the state interest in protecting the "unborn"? At least, as a separate issue from the desire of a pregnant woman to protect it?
If, as the pro-life position generally presents itself, you use the term "unborn" because you think that an embryo or fetus has value as a living being equal to that of a newborn infant, then that would make sense. But that is not even close to being a universally accepted belief. In truth, I don't think many on the pro-life side really go that far, though they won't admit it.
I once saw someone frame the question in a really simple way. Imagine being faced with a choice: protect and save the life of a young child or allow a woman's pregnancy to continue. You can't do both; it is a completely binary choice. One or the other will die. I can't imagine anyone choosing to make sure that a woman's pregnancy could continue and let the child die.
"that is not even close to being a universally accepted belief"
Neither was black citizenship in 1857.
Neither was black citizenship in 1857.
That is a total distraction that does not address the point.
It's not and it does.
Yes, it is, and no, it doesn't. You aren't making any kind of argument. You are just throwing a provocative statement out there as response, and I am supposed to make assumptions about what you mean by it. I can't engage with it, because of that, so it serves only as a distraction from what I said. And it doesn't actually answer the point, because it doesn't consist of any kind of argument.
If you aren't going to bother to elaborate and form a coherent argument, then you are only wasting everyone's time.
You would measure a human being's value based on public opinion and consensus.
"you think that an embryo or fetus has value as a living being equal to that of a newborn infant....But that is not even close to being a universally accepted belief"
OK, then, who else gets their value as a human being measured based on public opinion or consensus? Black people? The disabled? The elderly? Jews?
OK, then, who else gets their value as a human being measured based on public opinion or consensus? Black people? The disabled? The elderly? Jews?
Like in Rossomi's Trolley problem framing, you are begging the question with this comparison. You have to first establish that a fetus or embryo is "a human being" according to the same definition that Black people, the disabled, the elderly, and Jews are before that is even valid.
It is certainly true that various people throughout history have considered members of those groups to be less than fully human, and that they have tried or even succeeded in implementing their beliefs into law. But arguing against that kind of bigotry is different, because there is no significant biological distinction between those groups. Skin color and religion don't have nearly enough biological basis to argue that people of certain groups aren't human beings with the same rights. It always came down to cultural biases, even when they tried to make it seem based in reason or facts. But an embryo doesn't even look like a human being, and it would generally need to be a biologist that specializes in embryonic development to distinguish between a human embryo and that of other mammals.
A fetus (8 weeks or later) starts to look like an infant, but it is still far too small and its brain far from being developed enough to have the same capacity for happiness, suffering, hope, or love that we use to distinguish the value of human life from that of other animals.
This is what I have been getting at this whole time. Public opinion matters in the sense that laws require majority support in a democratic republic. And if you want to convince enough people that an embryo has the same right to life that a newborn or adult human being has, then you need more than your assertion that it is so.
My specific criticism was addressed to your invocation of public opinion.
If a fetus isn't worthy of protection, public opinion won't make it so.
If it is worthy of protection, public opinion won't make it unworthy.
This is why I’m having such a hard time debating with you. If you know of a way to determine whether a fetus is “worthy” of protection that doesn’t depend on people’s opinions, please share. I’ve laid out just about every aspect of how I think about abortion here in this thread. You just don’t seem willing to commit to any argument of your own, and instead only find things to pick at in mine that avoid the main theses.
What species is a fetus?
Is it alive?
Those are the key points for me, not whether public opinion supports human rights or not.
"If . . you think that an embryo or fetus has value as a living being equal to that of a newborn infant, then that would make sense."
Actually, the unborn living human only has to have a non-zero value for it to make sense.
"Imagine . . . One or the other will die."
This is a big ol' red herring, since the life/health of the mother is not even purported to be related to over 99% of abortions. There are typically exceptions for this. Moreover, abortion is not actually ever necessary to save the life of the mother. This is just conflating of abortion with procedures like early delivery for treatment of issues like ectopic pregnancy. Activists depend on conflating these things but they are very, very different. Planned Parenthood even admits on their website that treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is different from an abortion.
Actually, the unborn living human only has to have a non-zero value for it to make sense.
For there to be an "interest" of the state, I suppose so. But whether it is an equal interest is important. Sarcastr0 doesn't seem to like trying to quantify value here as a moral paradigm, but I think it is important to address before judging whether the state interest in protecting fetal life is sufficient to justify laws requiring a woman to remain pregnant against her will.
This is a big ol’ red herring, since the life/health of the mother is not even purported to be related to over 99% of abortions.
This is not what I am getting at with the thought experiment, but it is an important issue. It is not a red herring to talk about the risks of pregnancy, because even one woman being forced into that risk against her will violates her rights. The thought experiment I pose here is meant to illustrate the issue. I cannot think of any circumstance when one person is legally required to take even a small risk to themselves in order to try and save the life of another person. We might think a person would be a coward for not running into a burning building to save a trapped child, or at least celebrate someone that did as being a hero, but that does not mean that we attach legal consequences for a person's failure to take a risk for another. As far as I know, people are only legally required to do things like seek other help (such as calling 911) that involve no risk at all.
Thus, if we do not impose legal consequences upon someone for not acting to save another person, even a helpless child, if it involves any risks to one's health or life, then if the "unborn" is not equal to a child, then we certainly should not be imposing any such consequences in that case.
And it isn't just about risk, either. Pregnancy involves substantial burdens and limitations on a woman's ability to live as she chooses for several months. Again, I can't think of any situations where a person can be legally required to take on such burdens to benefit someone else. People can't be required even to give blood.
Being against legal abortion is being willing to impose legal burdens upon pregnant women at a level that are not imposed on people in any other circumstance. In my view, that would require extraordinary justification. (And certainly such justification would need to be independent of religious beliefs.)
Well stated, but the law does impose a burden on parents and anyone else in custody of children, to clothe, feed, nurture and protect that child. That is a significant burden on your body. Failure to do so is criminal neglect and similar crimes. There are constant examples in your local crime reports, but I can't forget the recent one where a baby was left sitting in a swing and basically died of diaper rash as its flesh started rotting while the druggie parents were inattentive. While the burden to care for children is significant, it is temporary, for example at the extremes, safe haven laws allow anyone to drop off unwanted babies at the fire department or some designated place, no questions asked.
While the burden to care for children is significant, it is temporary, for example at the extremes, safe haven laws allow anyone to drop off unwanted babies at the fire department or some designated place, no questions asked.
This makes it different then. Having to be the one to take on the physical responsibilities of parenting (changing diapers, feeding, being present to watch over the child, etc.) is voluntary, given these safe haven laws. Men can only be legally required to pay child support regardless of their wishes, which is only a financial burden, not a physical one. Also, only breast feeding could really be described as being a burden on one's body in close to the same what that having something growing inside you would be.
This is just conflating of abortion with procedures like early delivery for treatment of issues like ectopic pregnancy. Activists depend on conflating these things but they are very, very different. Planned Parenthood even admits on their website that treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is different from an abortion.
The problem here is that the laws surrounding the exceptions to abortion bans or restrictions left on the books or passed recently are not always specific enough. Reporting since the decision have included cases where medical providers delayed or denied care that they previously would have given right away because of concerns that some prosecutor might decide that the procedure violated the law.
Treatment for miscarriages can often involve the same medications and procedures as are used in some abortions, further adding unnecessary fears for patients and doctors. Estimates are hard, since women do not always report miscarriages to medical professionals, but miscarriages are quite a bit more common than most people think. 10-20% is a range I regularly see when I look, but it is likely higher if you include miscarriages that occur very early in pregnancy that might not need any treatment.
These abortion restrictions active since Dobbs have been having real, negative consequences for women, including many that had wanted to have a child.
Seriously, ML, you think if Planned Parenthood said, "Don't worry, it wasn't an abortion, it was treatment for an ectopic pregnancy!" that Abbot's going to care? Asking for an exception for the life of the mother means making sure treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is distinguished from that which is banned. Your semantic games are just mentalbation.
The state's interest in protecting the "unborn" is precisely the same as the state's interest in protecting the "born". There is no question or reasonable argument against the state's interest in protecting people from murder. Contrary to your assertion, the pro-life position does consider that the life of an embryo or fetus has value as a living being equivalent to a newborn infant. It is not necessary for the value to be precisely equal.
Consider the trolley problem - trolley out of control and you can only throw the switch sending it either down the track to kill a young child or a senior citizen. Statistics show that almost everyone will make the same choice - yet murder is illegal against both of them.
If the value is not the same, why is the interest exactly the same?
In general I don’t like utilitarian quantitative arguments like this because they end up comparing values of life. Which I, at least, don’t like as a moral paradigm.
The interest is "exactly the same" in that is the same category of interest - prevention of murder - not necessarily the identical magnitude of interest. You may not like applying quantitative reasoning to moral arguments but as humans, we all do. And doing so is entirely constitutional. See, for example, the many precedents holding that frauds committed against the defenseless are more worthy of greater punishments than the same crimes committed against the mature and capable.
I’d quibble prevention of murder isn’t the category, but rather preservation of human life, but OK. You sure seemed to be making a quantum argument above, but beyond those who think there is no state interest at all, not many would disagree on that point.
The trolley problem is about how we don’t actually use numbers as much as we’d think.
Different levels of punishment being chosen does not mean different levels of some hidden variable is at work. We can order acts morally without quantizing them.
Consider the trolley problem – trolley out of control and you can only throw the switch sending it either down the track to kill a young child or a senior citizen. Statistics show that almost everyone will make the same choice – yet murder is illegal against both of them.
This is begging the question though. You are asserting, without justification, that an embryo or fetus has equivalent value to an infant. You then jump right to analogies that speak to two individuals that no one disputes as being people with a right to live.
Take the trolley problem using the relevant facts here. The out of control trolley is headed toward a young child on one track, and toward a car carrying embryos ready for IVF implantation on the other. (assume that the car had been stuck and the driver is already safe) Would anyone think it reasonable to choose the embryos? Would it even register in anyone's mind as a choice that needs to be made? Would anyone think that the destruction of the car and thus the embryos was as tragic as the death of a person? Is anyone rushing to pass laws making the destruction of embryos punishable as murder, like in the child vs. elderly person you describe?
Alternatively, there is an irony that those who argued for legal realism somehow can't bear to acknowledge the law when they don't like it.
Those who argued for the will to power, like Mark Tushnet, are possibly in a worse position. Although once upon a time, he said that abortion was a stupid, trivial issue compared to the ownership of the means of production, so maybe the last S.C. term doesn't matter on that metric.
Thing is - if you have to practice law, or you are a regular person who is a client of a practitioner ... you don't give a flying eff about "legal realism." For that matter, you also don't care about the culture warrior hotpoints that people are arguing about here.
Do you know what you care about? How the system works. And while we might get a lot of "ooh, blogviews" about whatever Aileen Cannon is up to, or the latest bizarre opinion out of the 5th, or the weird way that SCOTUS has been dealing with routine procedural matters over the last few years ... this has an effect on real law.
Used to be that the crazy culture warrior cases and "real law" were mostly separate, but the combination of screwing around with procedure and the influx of judges has really caused uncertainty in all sorts of cases- and that's one thing you don't want.
(By the way, I'm not saying that the massive number of new judges during the Trump administration were all bad. But the combination of youth, inexperience, and extreme partisanship meant that there are a fair number of them that are more interested in scoring points than in the day-to-day business of judging. If you put on a bunch of 30- and young 40-somethings to the Federal Bench, and all of them think they are auditioning for other positions, then you quickly find that even the most routine contract dispute becomes fodder for their resume. Which is not good.)
Yeah. That just started with Trump. Orange man bad!
Op says political/philosophical stuff like legal realism doesn’t matter to practitioners.
You come back with this piece of right-wing unthinkery.
What was your plan here?
Whatever his plan is, it will end in replacement.
By his betters.
His claim that “screwing around with procedure and the influx of judges has really caused uncertainty” not present before Trump was obvious bullshit and I needed no plan beyond pointing that out to point that out.
Your pose of incomprehension is beyond tedious. Almost to Artie's level.
And indeed, while Stern portrays discontent with the Court as a question of professional standards rather than ideology, he does not manage to find a single right-leaning professor to quote in his article.
Yes, and this seals the illegitimate deal. It was only a few short decades ago that the right were the ones whining about results-oriented "activist judges" and illegitimate modes of reasoning. Now that they're the activists, of course, it's all just business as usual.
The main new thing is that the last three justices were appointed with specific instructions on how to rule, and two of the three got in via McConnell's partisan shenanigans. So the place smells of taint to begin with.
Then we get a string of not just poorly reasoned but silly decisions, in manufactured cases that they didn't need to take in the first place. They're clearly on a crusade to stick their noses into hot-button culture issues. That only amplifies their appearance as a partisan body.
The Supreme Court has been fully enmeshed in partisan politics, first by one side and then the other, if you like. So now what? There's no route back to legitimacy. These justices seem bent on burning the place down, and you can be sure that when the left gets its chance, it's going to respond in kind. Overturn everything and start again every time the pendulum swings. That's what the academics are complaining about. That's a legislature, not a court.
Yes, one hypothesis is that all those right-leaning professors are hypocrites. The alternate hypothesis, however, is that the court only looks to be suddenly right-wing-results-oriented because you've moved so far out on the left that you don't even recognize the middle anymore.
Yes, one hypothesis is that all those left-leaning professors and myself have moved so far out on the left that none of us can recognize the middle anymore. The alternate hypothesis, however, is that three partisan, results-oriented conservatives have been recently appointed to the court to join the two who were already there.
The first option seems more plausible to me.
Hint: they're both true. The thing is, once everyone moves to the left, the middle moves too.
But it's not an "everyone moves" thing. You've got multiple institutions moving left relative to the general population. When that happens, you can fairly say that the middle didn't move, using the general population as a reference.
That would be true if it were, but the population as a whole has moved left over the years.
That's what's gotten conservatives so pissed off. We feel like we've given a lot of ground already, but progressives always want more more more.
Roissami — None of that has anything to do with butchering history in Bruen and Dobbs. The awful thing about it was that it clearly was not mere historical incompetence. They way Thomas and Alito did it showed they knew a fair amount of history accurately, but found it did not support the conclusions they were after, so they made up shabby reasoning to exclude the parts they disliked. That is all right out in the open in both decisions, and it is illegitimate as hell.
Now that they’re the activists, of course, it’s all just business as usual.
How was overturning Roe "activism"?
The main new thing is that the last three justices were appointed with specific instructions on how to rule, and two of the three got in via McConnell’s partisan shenanigans. So the place smells of taint to begin with.
Just an opinion. As worthy (or worthless) as anyone else's. Has no basis in fact or law.
I could go on, but your comment is a reminder that for the left, the law means ONLY what they want it to mean; nothing more, nothing less. If anything goes against that, the knee-jerking competition begins.
How was overturning Roe “activism”?
You know, it didn't have to be. Looking at just the outcomes of recent cases, Dobbs is not high on the "activist" meter. I think of Bruen, Kennedy, and Carson as being the posterchildren for that list.
But of course, Alito couldn't resist writing a poorly researched political screed into an opinion, where a mechanical takedown of Roe and Casey would've sufficed.
And, Dobbs didn't happen in a vacuum. It was the explicit goal of Trump's selections and McConnell's chicanery. If it had happened organically and surgically, the public's reaction may not have been much different, but the legal and political communities' reactions would have been. Instead we got partisan maneuvering and a political opinion.
I could go on, but your comment is a reminder that for the left, the law means ONLY what they want it to mean; nothing more, nothing less.
Perhaps. I'm not arguing against that here or above. Merely pointing out that the same is true of the right and has been for much longer. Now, at best, we're all in the same boat.
Notice that all these recent, politically tinged decisions haven't helped boost the perceived legitimacy of the court among Republicans much. They gave up on the place long ago and can see that these opinions, although offering outcomes they agree with, are nonetheless political and do nothing to repair the integrity of the court. Now, everyone can see it for what it is.
"Now, everyone can see it for what it is."
Good. The myth of a non-political court should die.
It can't die if it's already dead and stinking.
Can you elaborate?
Asked on Fox News what one thing he would do to "protect the sanctity of life," Trump told host Bill O'Reilly, "I will protect it, and the biggest way you can protect it is through the Supreme Court and putting people on the court. Actually, the biggest way you can protect it, I guess, is by electing me president."
Do you feel that quotation supports your claim that even a single justice was given "specific instructions on how to rule"?
Obviously I feel that way. That's called discourse.
Okay, let’s clarify. That statement by Trump on Fox News does not provide the slightest scintilla of evidence in support of your thesis that “the last three justices were appointed with specific instructions on how to rule”.
It’s certainly not direct evidence. It’s not even circumstantial evidence. It might be sufficient to raise an inference to justify looking for evidence but that’s as far as that statement can go.
I'll quote myself from further down:
When the person who nominates you tells you and the world “you’re being nominated to overturn Roe,” that’s an instruction on how to rule. It’s not binding, but it is an instruction from the person who nominated you that all three were certainly aware of.
I wouldn't take Trump's campaign promises as evidence that he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. (After all, he also promised to build the wall, but didn't make a serious effort until after Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 elections.) What Trump actually did was to rely on Federalist Society members like Donald McGahn when making judicial nominations, so I think that the Supreme Court nominees could be reasonably certain that they would not have been nominated if they weren't expected to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I think, though, we can distinguish between,
1) Picking candidates who would be expected to overturn Roe v. Wade.
and
2) Giving the candidates you pick orders to overturn Roe v. Wade.
They're not at all the same thing, if you pick the right people, you don't HAVE to give them orders.
He may not have had to, but he did.
Of course they were expected to overturn Casey/Roe. Casey/Roe was execrable Constitutional law and Trump presumably didn't intend to nominate Justices who were bad on issues important to a significant portion of his base. Not seeing the alleged problem here.
The problem, as alleged above, is the odor of taint:
The main new thing is that the last three justices were appointed with specific instructions on how to rule, and two of the three got in via McConnell’s partisan shenanigans. So the place smells of taint to begin with.
Smelling bad isn't illegal or even necessarily unethical, but it is a political problem. Trump and McConnell played politics with the court, and that's contributing to the deterioration of its image.
Whether they were "instructed" or not is not relevant. The fact is they were selected based on the extremely solid expectations as to how they would rule.
Do you think Leonard Leo didn't know whet he was doing?
Do you think they approached Dobbs and the other cases with open minds?
Well, Randal certainly seems to think it's relevant.
I agree that conservatives encouraged Trump to appoint justices that they would agree with. How else should they have made the appointments?
I think their minds were almost exactly as open as Breyer's, Kagan's, and Sotomayor's.
(NB: This last point is not intended as criticism of Breyer, Kagan, or Sotomayor.)
When the person who nominates you tells you and the world "you're being nominated to overturn Roe," that's an instruction on how to rule. It's not binding, but it is an instruction from the person who nominated you that all three were certainly aware of.
And as bernard said, the point isn't so much the effect on the justices as on the perception of the court. These people were put on the court for a political purpose and they delivered. That's just the fact of what happened.
Now, you could say, like Bob, that that's always how the court has operated and Trump was just more ham-fisted about it than usual. There's some truth to that for sure, but I don't think it's entirely true. Nominations seem to have become more results-oriented over time, especially from the right, who felt "betrayed" by the likes of Souter and even Roberts!
If you want evidence of how a political faction expects outcomes rather than accurate umpiring of balls and strikes, you need look no further than the right's ostracism of Roberts.
Just to stick with the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton said
Was that a "specific instruction"?
Essentially yes. It's less explicit than Trump's because she doesn't say she's going to nominate justices with the express purpose and expectation that they'll overturn Citizen's United, but it's reasonably implied.
Now imagine if she had won and nominated three liberals under dubious procedures, who got pounded with Citizen's United questions during their confirmations and answered with platitudes about respecting precedent, and then immediately overturned Citizen's United by making up a new Egregiously Wrong Doctrine accompanied with a bunch of cherry-picked historical anecdotes.
Citizen's United is nowhere near as popular as Roe, but you'd certainly be getting the same accusations of partisanship and illegitimacy from the right that Dobbs is getting from the left.
N one with any semblance of a clue imagines that Roberts is engaged in the accurate umpiring of balls and strikes.
Of course, because when you're outcome-oriented, any time the umpire rules against you it means they're wrong.
I had already seen Mark Joseph Stern's article, and found it laugh-out-loud funny. "The problem, it's worth emphasizing, is not that the Supreme Court is issuing decisions with which left-leaning professors disagree"? Seriously? That's entirely the problem.
"It's that the court seems to be reaching many of these conclusions in defiance of centuries of standards, rejecting precedent and moderation in favor of aggressive, partisan-tinged motivated reasoning."? OK, then, how many major Supreme Court decisions that are celebrated by progressives are best characterized by their "moderation" and acceptance of precedents?
In fairness, Stern's article has an interesting alternative view: "Cohen added that “what this version of the court is doing is not really any different than past courts”; it’s just more conservative."
“ As soon as the white man’s shoe came off the black man’s neck, they started behaving badly.”
This guy sucks.
I gotta ask you, Sarcastr0 ... why are you still here? I literally can't even wade through the comments section most of the time. The amount of law-like substance is close to zero.
I’m not hear as much as this past Spring. But it is a habit. And still the best comments section on this stuff I’ve found, be it ever so crappy.
Ugh. The best? I just can't.
I can tick off the names of a lot of people that aren't here anymore. And I think that there's a reason for that. Just like I think that there's a reason that you don't see a lot of posts from some of the VC that used to post here regularly (*cough* OK *cough*).
And you. And I’m fading. Though part of that is just other priorities.
Yes, and disappointing that there has not been a bit more notice of that particular post.
That guy is nothing extraordinary. Not around here.
As noted above the court is not "solidly conservative." They are middle of the road at best, which of course is shocking to today's unhinged left. Donald Trump is to the left of Bill Clinton and they are ready to imprison him.
It is good that some modicum of legitimacy was restored to constitutional law via Dobbs, though.
Naw dude you are just so far in the fringe your perspective is off.
Not believing in incorporation is not conservative, it’s nuts.
Sarcastro,
You are talking to a neo-Confederate.
Yep. I remember when he was a moderate conservative youngster new on the scene who liked to do a good exhaustive statutory breakdown.
Really sad way his life has gone.
Hello my lefty friends, I really appreciate your taking an interest and concern in my political or legal views! No, I'm not a "neo-Confederate" and I'm fairly moderate on many topics. No, SCOTUS Justices from 1865-1925 and many after that were not "nuts"; Raoul Berger and Robert Bork and many others today were/are not "nuts"; I'm not an expert on the topic but there are good reasons to be skeptical of whether and to what degree original meaning included incorporation.
On second thought, nevermind.
ML,
you're talking to an open racist and his lying defender.
No, I’m not a “neo-Confederate”
Well, you have a history of expressing sympathy for the Confederate cause.
So call that what you will.
I’m fairly moderate on many topics.
As noted above the court is not “solidly conservative.” They are middle of the road at best, which of course is shocking to today’s unhinged left. Donald Trump is to the left of Bill Clinton and they are ready to imprison him.
Everyone should draw their own conclusions here.
ML, you former youngster, you've disappointed Bernard and Sarcasto.
He hasn't disappointed me.
So sad!
Actually, the fact that the Court is solidly conservative, and the constitutional law professoriate overwhelming liberal or further left, is exactly the problem. In the past, the left could count on the Court for sporadic big victories: same-sex marriage, affirmative action, abortion. Now they can't, so they have turned against the Court. We all know that left-learning lawprofs would be dancing in the streets if SCOTUS were equally aggressive to the left.
Do you also think that the conservative criticisms of more liberal courts was largely a matter of disliking the results?
Or do you believe that those criticisms were justified on neutral grounds, but these aren't?
Well, John Ely dedicated a book to Earl Warren, for whom he had clerked, so I don't think he counts as a conservative. And he described Roe as "not just bad Constitutional law, it isn't even trying to be Constitutional law."
So that's a non-conservative criticism of one case.
It tells us nothing about the sincerity or integrity of conservative criticisms of Warren Court decisions in general.
Here is Andrew Koppelman on the Kennedy decision:
So consider a case that the Court described thus: “Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks.” It declared that his rights had been violated, and directed the trial court to order his reinstatement. It took the opportunity to upend some major rules of establishment clause law, notably relaxing the rule against teacher-led school prayer.
Everything in the sentence I just quoted was false, and the Court knew or should have known that it was false. He didn’t lose his job: he was offered an “accommodation that would allow him to pray after games away from his players,” which he rejected; he was put on paid leave; when his contract expired in the spring, he “did not reapply to coach the following year.” He did not “pray quietly by himself” on the field. He was surrounded by a crowd that he had brought there. He pressured his players to join him, leading some parents to complain.
Kennedy’s attorney, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, made an extraordinary misrepresentation of the facts when he stated, at the very beginning of his argument, that “The record is clear that Coach Kennedy was fired for that midfield prayer.” Justice Samuel Alito repeated that claim six times, until the school’s lawyer corrected him: “It’s not a question of firing, and in fact, he was put on paid leave.”
Is this simply a results-based criticism, or was there a legitimate problem with the decision that should concern, say, you?
Well, since this is potentially a case of government speech – how else does the government speak if not through its employees? – then getting the facts right ought to be considered important.
If it’s the government (via the coach) doing the praying and encouraging others to do likewise, that would seem to be an establishment of religion as that concept is understood by today’s judges.
On the other hand, if this is private speech by someone who happens to work for the government, and isn’t invoking government authority to get others to follow his example, then the other part of the 1st Amendment – free exercise – applies.
But assuming the worst – that a government employee, while on the clock, is praying as an example to be followed by his team and by others, then he’s in the wrong, like a professor preaching racism during class instruction time.
What are you relitigating? The issue is about the factual record.
It really is telling when the thesis is about procedure and the righties here keep coming in with substantive outcomes they want to argue for.
A telling inability to distinguish.
You’re a really sore winner. You can’t take yes for an answer.
Maybe you were confused because I departed from your script and said something potentially damaging to “my side”?
I just tried to explain that if the facts show the coach was speaking for the government and encouraging people to pray, he’s in the wrong.
So I’m quite open to the view that the Supreme Court’s righties are wrong. That would depend on…the facts.
Not having studied the record, I can’t say for sure if the court was right or if Koppelman was right. Is that my sin – not knowing whose version of the facts is right?
Or should I have omitted my parting shot about hypothetical academics teaching racism in the classroom? Was that triggering?
Yes, I see you arguing that even if the facts were wrong, the outcome was still correct.
The issue is the Court accepting incorrect facts, slanted as they would like.
Talking about collateral issues a whole bunch is irrelevant.
"Yes, I see you arguing that" [straw-man silliness omitted]
No, I'm saying it depends on the facts - is he praying privately (which would make him correct) or in his capacity as a government employee (which would make him wrong)?
And I said I was open to the possibility that the court was wrong.
But your script says I support the righties all the time, so anything I say has to meet the script.
Talk about getting the facts wrong.
So to be clear, in the wrong means barred by the Constitution?
To be clear:
"...I’m saying it depends on the facts – is he praying privately (which would make him correct) or in his capacity as a government employee (which would make him wrong)?"
As to your question, what other *possible* interpreation of my remarks is reasonably possible in this context? My comment isn't a clause in the tax code, requiring legal analysis, it was a plain English statement and you had to go out of your way to make it seem unclear. Because as I said you simply cannot take yes for an answer.
Let me ask *you* a question: when you said "the," do you mean the definite article "used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class"?
Because you're not clear on that point. /sarc
Well, if Andrew Koppelman said so in an opinion piece, it must be true.
Who is Andrew Koppelman?
Does it matter who he is if what he says is true?
If
Andrew Koppelman
It's hard to put this nicely, but I guess the best way of putting it is that he really thinks people who disagree with the left are bad people, generally. Not people who disagree about legitimate means, but who actually want bad outcomes.
If you don't want bad outcomes, you don't argue about the legitimacy of means to obtain good outcomes, after all! Nobody but racists object to affirmative action, for instance.
And he views libertarians as the worst of the worst.
It's an over-simplification, of course, but less and less as his views evolve.
Are the statements I quoted false?
Was Kennedy fired? Was he prevented from praying privately?
Did he race back to his job, as he swore he would, when he was offered a contract?
re: "Are the statements I quoted false?"
Yes, actually, some of them are. Not your fault. You faithfully quoted Koppelman. Koppelman, on the other hand, distorted the facts rather severely. For a single example, Koppelman entirely ignores the concept of constructive discharge in support of his anti-Gorsuch narrative.
And, I suppose you agree that some aren't.
It is undisputed, to take an important one, that Kennedy was offered the option of returning to the field and praying after everyone had left. He wanted to make a show of it. And of course if Kennedy or anyone else one wants to pray privately there is no shortage of places to do so.
Also, Rossami, if you’re going to argue “constructive discharge,” you have to say what you think the discharge was about. SCOTUS went out of their way to completely ignore the actual concerns of the district (disruption, coercion, etc.) and focused on a single quote about trying to avoid liability.
So, of course, the decision has no application to reality other than, you know, as a warning to districts not to use the liability language going forward. So in some sense, no harm no foul. But you have to ask yourself: why is SCOTUS taking these cases and twisting them to fit a culture war narrative that they want to opine on? That’s just pure politics. Like, they’re not really supposed to talk about their political opinions in public, but they just can’t resist, so they manufacture cases that let them talk about their political opinions in public.
I don't see how the concept of constructive discharge would be applicable to this case. Are you seriously suggesting that no reasonable person would remain in a coaching job where they were prohibited from engaging in public prayer at the end of a game? When Kennedy failed to reapply when his contract expired, the school hired someone else. This was while the case was pending, and thus the school's policy against employees engaging in public prayer while on the job was still in effect. If this rule creates an intolerable working conditions for employees, how was the school able to find anyone willing to accept the position?
OK, that's a silly understanding of constructive discharge. It's not premised on bad job conditions generally, but on specific retaliation. The fact that somebody you weren't targeting for retaliation would be willing to take the job isn't relevant.
Like, say you, knowing an employee wears a beard, institute for no good reason a policy mandating all employees be clean shaven. Nobody who's already clean shaven would mind, but it could still be retaliation against that one employee.
In this case, according to the accounts I've heard, though he was ordered reinstated, the school district wasn't responsive to his contacts in that regard.
Actually, he was offered reinstatement and refused it, despite repeatedly claiming in public that he was eager to return.
And, JFTR, from the appeals court decision, not Koppelman, concerning the communication with Kennedy (bolding added):
The District reiterated that it “can and will” accommodate “religious exercise that would not be perceived as District endorsement, and which does not otherwise interfere with the performance of job duties.” To that end, it suggested that “a private location within the school building, athletic facility or press box could be made available to [Kennedy] for brief religious exercise before and after games.” Kennedy, of course, could also resume his prior practice of praying on the fifty-yard line after the stadium had emptied. Because the “[d]evelopment of accommodations is an interactive process,” the District invited Kennedy to offer his own suggestions. The District also reminded Kennedy that “[w]hile on duty for the District as an assistant coach, you may not engage in demonstrative religious activity, readily observable to (if not intended to be observed by) students and the attending public.”
Kennedy’s legal representatives responded to the District’s letter by informing the media that the only acceptable outcome would be for the District to permit Kennedy to pray on the fifty-yard line immediately after games.
So much for “he just wanted to pray privately.”
"Sure you can pray/be gay/protest, as long as no one can see you do it" is not the ringing endorsement of freedom you seem to think it is.
You also seem to be confused over the difference between "private" as in no one can see you, and "private" as in does not involved the public.
Leaving aside "be gay" (which exposes you as a terrible person, although we already knew that), you're comparing prayer with protest... which is also a pretty dumb comparison. You think it would be ok to conduct a protest on school property while on duty? It is not ok. You get fired for that.
Where is all this craziness coming from? It's all the lead that the red states allow in the water, isn't it.
Ugh, why are you always wrong. Constructive discharge isn't premised on specific retaliation, that's called retaliation.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has provided a 3-part test to determine whether or not a constructive discharge has occurred: (1) a reasonable person in the complainant's position would have found the working conditions intolerable; (2) conduct that constituted discrimination against the complainant created the intolerable working conditions; and (3) the complainant's involuntary resignation resulted from the intolerable working conditions.
Kennedy fails #1 and arguably #2.
As for what you "heard," you got it backwards, naturally. He was not responsive to the school district's contacts regarding reinstatement.
On this one ... if you've done much appellate work, you know that the majority opinion will always make the case sound a bit different than it actually was. That is to be expected .... to some extent. You present (and omit) facts differently depending on how you want the facts to fit the ruling.
But this was different in kind. This was the first time I remember a dissent at SCOTUS putting in actual pictures to say, "Hey, the majority isn't just taking some liberties with characterizing the record. The majority is just straight-up lying."
It's a truly strange opinion, because the record is so transparently misrepresented. Normally, even with a results-oriented opinion, you'll just get the facts elided. Bong Hits 4 Jesus is an example of that. But this was just straight-up .... making up stuff.
On the plus side — as I've noted in other instances over the years — when the court makes a decision based on expressly stated but wrong facts, the decision only screws up the case for those parties, rather than the rest of us.
If the court had said, "Yeah, we realize he was holding big prayer rallies on the job and coercing students to join him… but that's okay; it's perfectly constitutional for him to do that," that would've been far worse than making up more innocuous facts and saying that those facts were okay.
That's true, and a good point. That's why I'm usually not that bothered with appellate courts taking some liberties with the record.
I do think this is beyond the usual liberties, however. Which is why I think some of us were a little bothered by it; it really seemed like certain justices on the Court wanted a specific holding, and they weren't going to let those pesky facts get in the way.
All of which wraps back into the main issue- are the Federal Courts going to care about procedure, and facts, or are they transmogrifying into another results-oriented political branch?
I don't know what it looks like in your neck of the woods, but as I wrote above, I've seen a distressing and depressing trend the last few years.
So, was he actually coercing the students to join him? I mean, coercion coercion, not "it would be awkward not to".
Were there any threats of penalties for non-joiners, or a history of discriminating against students who hadn't previously joined? Or just an assumption he would have punished them?
It doesn't matter.
Then why do you, and others that object to the ruling, keep insisting it was coercion?
I don't think you made the point you think you made
With all due respect, David-Cross-Posting-at-Instapundit, I question whether you're a neutral broker on matters of partisanship.
When you have to resort to:
"We all know that left-learning lawprofs would be dancing in the streets if SCOTUS were equally aggressive to the left..."
you probably aren't making a very good argument. And again, the writer of the article to which you are replying isn't a lawprof. He is a writer. For Slate.
That these law professors have exactly the credibility of some hack at Slate isn't an "argument", it's an observation about reality.
When researching any given constitutional issue, there's a necessary reduction: Go through (a copy of) your notes and strike out everything on the given issue that hasn't actually been said by the Supreme Court. Can be quite enlightening.
Mr. D.
Let’s look at just a couple of things:
1.. Going beyond what the case before them requires - Dobbs
2. Using the shadow docket to overturn precedent without briefimg or oral argument - Merrill v. Milligan and religion cases.
These are the sorts of things a new legislative majority fearful of losing the next election and eager to make its mark and ram through as much as possible before then tends to do. They are not judicial things.
Sure, liberals did things like this when they were eager to make their mark and thought constitutional law a great field for people whose real main interest was social change. But conservatives are not supposed to display the same eagerness to use the forms of constitutional law and the powers of their judicial positions to stamp society into the frame they think best for it.
"Sure, liberals did things like this" etc.
So it's not that only one side is violating centuries of standards, it's that one side is doing it legitimately and the other is doing it illegitimately.
Not at all. They were illegitimate when liberals did it.
OK, but the quote in the post said it was the "right" which was violating centuries of standards.
So my objection is to the constitutional law professors cited in the post, and their newfound commitment to "centuries of standards."
Generally (see JasonT20 above), progressives are quite skeptical of centuries of standards, standards established by straight white males to oppress everyone else.
Now these constitutional law professors show up to say that centuries of standards are a good thing. This strikes me as insincere.
Nor will I simply take their word that procedures convenient to them have centuries of history to back them up. I'd like some evidence.
The Republicans on SCOTUS discussing individual liberty have about as much credibility as Herschel Walker propounding "family values". https://www.thedailybeast.com/pro-life-herschel-walker-paid-for-girlfriends-abortion-georgia-senate?ref=scroll
Daily Beast publishes the report and includes the corroborating documentation and witness reports.
Walker declares it is a damnable lie and mumbles something about the press being evil.
Erick Erickson says 'everybody knew this, and people can change.'
Walker's son says 'it is true, and this guy is a pathetic loser who abused my mother in various ways and is a fraud.'
That's just the first day.
Let's hope Warnock's campaign has photographs of Walker holding a gun to his wife's head and a knife to her throat. That, coupled with the abortion story, would probably knock the percentage of knuckle-dragging, character-deprived, deplorable Republicans from Georgia who would vote for Walker to just 80 percent.
I think I commented, before this came out, about the existence of GOP politicians who wanted abortion legal so they could get abortions for their adulterous lovers. They only pretend to be prolife for political benefit.
Of course, the behavior of these politicians reflects no discredit to the unborn and doesn’t affect their right to life, any more than Benedict Arnold’s treason reflected on the justice of the American Revolution.
What lesson do prochoicers draw from this? That abortion should be legal? By the same “reasoning” adultery should be acceptable. Though I wouldn’t put it past politicians to support this.
What lesson do prochoicers draw from this?
That Walker is an even bigger POS than we knew.