The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Friends of John and Elena
Surrogates of the once and future Chief Justice are talking to the press.
In November, Ruth Marcus's column opened with this anecdote:
Roberts told someone who told Ruth Marcus, or something like that. My initial reaction was, what about Justice Kavanaugh? Roberts and Kavanaugh vote like two peas in a moderate pod. Yet, apparently, Robert does not consider his fellow Chevy Chaser a friend. Ouch.
Now, we have a column from Josh Gerstein at Politico about Justice Kagan. Her friends are also talking to the press.
In interviews, friends and allies of the 62-year-old justice suggest she is at a major crossroads — mulling whether the breakdown in the broader American political scene has rendered her decadelong effort to find compromise and consensus on the nation's highest court obsolete, while sowing doubts about her future.
The fact that her comments seem to have prompted equally unusual public retorts by some of her conservative colleagues — principally Justice Samuel Alito — only underscored the sense of brewing discontent.
"She's clearly not very happy," said one longtime associate, who like many interviewed for this story asked to speak anonymously due to the sensitivity of the issues involved and due to concern about impact on cases pending at the court.
Many saw her comments as a profound warning that all is not well on the court, both in terms of relations between the justices and in terms of its historic reputation.
…
"Elena is very intentional and personable," one Kagan associate said when asked about the liberal justice's unusual public criticism of her colleagues. "She tried the other route, right? … She went skeet shooting with Scalia. She traveled with Gorsuch to Iceland … She's tried everything. She was going to be the bridge builder."
In June 2020, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan were at the top of the world. In virtually every case, Roberts and Kagan were able to reach some compromise to get to five. Really, every compromise went to the left. The dirty secret is that "compromise" always serves the left. Show me a single "compromise" decision that advances conservative jurisprudence. But whatever, Roberts thought he was in charge. I jokingly referred to Kagan as the real Chief Justice.
What a difference two years makes. With Justice Ginsburg's passing, the Chief's fifth vote is no longer needed. And Justice Kagan is done trying to build bridges. No wonder she is "not happy." Kagan joined the Court with the goal of tempering the rightward lurch. Remember Laurence Tribe's infamous letter to President Obama, which said that Kagan, rather than Sotomayor, would be able to build bridges to Justice Kennedy? But now she can only stand by and watch. All those years of carefully discussing stare decisis went out the window in Dobbs.
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
You're an asshole, Josh.
And from the nature of your comment, you seem to be describing yourself.
Says a lot that Blackman is unable to differentiate between friendship and partisanship. Also says a fair bit that he claims special knowledge of the Court's internal negotiations, claiming every compromise is to the left when in reality he's just bullshitting.
Says a lot about you that you cannot differentiate partisan manipulation and friendship. One wouldn't require a vote to be on the line and time to make your points to engage in while the other does. The fact she sees a reduced likelihood of swaying the court outcome (not just the individual) as a reason to stop should be the context clue you need to differentiate between the two.
Dude, come on! You're better than that.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
And you're the perfect example of why the left should never be in charge. All emotion, no reason.
Tips on reason from the side of childish superstition and old-times bigotry are always a treat.
Carry on, clingers. Your betters will continue to determine how far, though.
the rightward lurch
You said the quiet bit out loud...
Nothing quiet about it.
Even us conservatives that have given up on Trump acknowledge his judicial picks as his greatest achievement, giving him a more substantial legacy than any President since Reagan.
Gorsuch the LGBTQP Hero was a dud.
Its a pretty idiotic way to see things given that the current 'rightwing lurching' Court would probably comfortably be in the 95th percentile of the most leftwing Courts in US history.
Actually I think the current court is solidly within the mainstream of American political opinion, and that's a good thing. I don't want right wing idealogs imposing their policy preferences anymore than l want the same from left wing idealogs.
I want a faithful interpretation of the constitution and statues as written.
Overturning Roe v. Wade was a wildly unpopular decision.
Bullbleep!!!
Nope
Blackman's whole "legitimacy doesn't matter" narrative had to do with the fact that a majority of the US viewed the court's action as an illegitimate political decision.
Pew is shading things a bit. They say,
"The survey finds that a majority of adults nationally (62%) say abortion should be legal in all (29%) or most cases (33%); 36% say it should be illegal in all (8%) or most cases (28%)."
but when you drill down and poll actual cases, you find that support for elective abortion being legal is limited to the first trimester, implodes after that, and other cases are a mixed bag by the 2nd trimester. And the illegal in "all" cases people generally weren't thinking of medically necessary abortions, either.
A better description of Pew's findings is that almost all Democrats disapprove of the Dobbs decision, and most Republicans approve of it.
I think it would have been interesting if Pew had polled to see if people actually knew what the Dobbs decision had said... I'm going to bet there's a substantial faction of disapproval based on thinking the Court actually outlawed abortion in some way, rather than just saying that it was a state decision, because that's how it was reported in a lot of outlets.
I said:
“I want a faithful interpretation of the constitution and statues as written.”
Not a popularity contest.
And I think Dobbs is a faithful interpretation of the constitution as written.
I long said that had Roe been decided with the medical knowledge (and neonatal technologies) of today, it would have been decided the other way.
1973 was still in the days of "scoop & run" -- and there was no ultrasound, etc...
So if a 12 year old girl is raped then she can be forced to continue the pregnancy to term?
If your constitution allows that you need a new constitution.
The Constitution can be amended to add guarantees of rights (or remove them, or make any change other than all states getting two Senators.) That authority is given to a supermajority of the states, NOT to the Supreme Court.
If 37 states want a partial or complete right to abortion in the entire country, or a partial or complete ban on abortion in the entire country, or whatever, the Constitution can be changed, via a Convention and ratification of only the change desired if Congress won't play along.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
If you don't like "my" constitution, you're free to try to get it amended. What you aren't free to do, however, is sneakily "interpret" it away by all kinds of spurious "penumbras" and "emanations" talk. Shame on you!
So it's OK to murder an innocent victim?
That's the other side of this.
My point was that the scenario was such an obvious infringement on that 12 year old's right to control her own body and fate that any constitution that isn't complete junk would allow abortion (and I don't think your constitution is quite that bad).
Which brings up another question, is an abortion to save the life of the mother protected by the constitution? Dobbs seems to have dodged that question, I suspect because it's legally awkward to claim a life of the mother exception exists in the constitution but not a 12 year old rape victim exception.
As to Dr. Ed's claim a fertilized embryo is hardly a victim.
Once you get into the 2nd or especially 3rd trimester then yes, it bears some serious moral weight (which is why abortions at this point are extremely rare even when allowed).
That's the puzzle Roe was wrestling with, a woman should clearly be allowed to abort a fertilized embryo while a child days from birth is clearly deserving of protection. But there's a lot of fuzzy middle which is really awkward for a court to address.
No reasonable state legislature would ban abortion to save the life of a mother or not allow a 12 year old rape victim get an abortion.
But it’s up to the people to make sure their legislature is reasonable.
Seems pretty clear under the Tenth amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Abortion is not among the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
Our Constitution is silent on the subject of abortion. This lets the state legislatures decide. (Since the Constitution is silent, it does not grant authority to the federal government.)
The legislatures can change the law more easily in response to changes in the society and medicine than the courts can change their rulings.
It's not. It's not even faithful to the "history and tradition" standard it's supposedly based on.
It's the kind of activist shit the "conservatives" on the bench like to pretend they oppose.
Popularity had nothing to do with it. Whether the original decision was constitutional was the question. It wasn't.
You can't have it both ways. If you want the Supreme Court to do politics rather than law, they should be elected for limited terms, the way many state "judges" are. As long as they have lifetime tenure and a job description that requires them to uphold the rule of law, they should at least pretend not to undertake any ideological lurches.
I want the Supreme Court to base their decisions on the Constitution, and on the laws under it where the Constitution is silent.
If a previous court has made numerous rulings based on ideology rather than the Constitution, restoring the Constitution can look like ideology to inattentive people, or people who shared the previous court's ideology and who cannot contemplate that said ideology can be wrong in any sense including not being required by our founding document.
The what now?
I thought that was a really strange title too. The "something like that" about telling Marcus was weird, too, as is this whole piece. Josh had left this kind of stuff behind for a while, and I didn't particularly miss it. I appreciate his enthusiasm, and he's a smart guy, but this soothsaying inside baseball stuff isn't for me. Is it possible that Breyer was Roberts' closest friend on the court, or maybe literally his only friend? Apparently not, for Josh. I'd also be interested to see some documentation of the cases where he believes there has been compromise - not just high profile cases, but all of them. It may well go left on most, but invariably all? Would Jon Adler agree with this from an admin law perspective, or Orin Kerr from a 4A perspective?
One could only imagine the amazing career a smart and talented guy like Josh Blackman could have had if he had followed his natural instincts and become a gossip columnist and social influencer with a humongous fanbase and lots of paid product and politician endorsements, rather than going the parent-pleasing route into a staid, boring, respectable profession like law.
I thought it was a reference to earlier discussions about Kagan being a potential CJ nominee for a Democrat administration. I could be misremembering that, but it's the first thing that came to mind.
Mee-Yow! Catfight!!!!
Yeah, Sotomayor and Kagan both reliably vote left, and their votes count the same. That's what matters on all cases that matter.
Indeed, all compromises have been leftward.
Agreed. Here, I think Josh accidentally said something not stupid. When you have 6 extremely conservative justices on the court*, and 3 extremely liberal justices, almost by definition, any compromise will be to the left. That's just basic math, and basic logic. (If there were 6 liberals and 3 conservatives, any compromises would, obviously, be to the right.)
*(If you put Roberts as merely "very conservative" rather than "extremely," it does not change the math, of course. In a 5-4 court, with Roberts as the 5th, it would be a very very different matter.)
He was talking about “June 2020”, at which time it was a 5-4 court.
"...Really, every compromise went to the left. The dirty secret is that "compromise" always serves the left. Show me a single "compromise" decision that advances conservative jurisprudence...."
NAS,
The first sentence clearly refers to 2020 (as you noted). But the second and third sentences from Josh are far more general, and therefore worthy of pointing out that they are absolutely untruthful...there have been liberal courts (sadly, not in decades and decades) where compromise = a move to the right. But, since it's been either a slightly conservative court (when Kennedy was the swing/5th) to an uber conservative court (currently), we have to go back 40 or 50 or 60 years (pre-Reagan) to look for fair examples. But, in the Warren Court (which ended in mid-1969, if memory serves), there are plenty of examples.
Except for Heller and McDonald, which major cases between 1980 and 2017 do you think are good examples of the supposedly conservative court not compromising?
Even Heller and McDonald compromised. Allowing infringements of the RKBA based on "common use" certainly goes counter to original intent in an era when almost nothing was mass produced and one of a kind firearms were not the least bit unusual was a compromise.
If there were 6 proggielibcommies 'on the court' there would be no such thing as 'compromise'.
" 3 extremely liberal justices"
Leftist, not "liberal" -- although Kagan may actually *be* liberal and that may be her problem.
It might be a rightward lurch, but it's only centering the leftward lurch of the Warren court.
A real rightward lurch would be the court deciding that abortion was required to be illegal.
Hang in there, Justice Kagan.
After the American mainstream enlarges the Supreme Court, memories of ditched stare decisis and rejected compromise will generate different thoughts (and consequences).
Carry on, clingers . . . while you still can.
Can you remind me when you anticipate this happening? Not before 2025, obviously, and the senate map makes it seem impossible before 2027 at the earliest.
As soon as Democrats have the votes -- Sens. Manchin (Hooterville) and Sinema (Space Cadet) do not count -- I expect Democrats to effect the wishes of most Americans (especially most educated, accomplished, modern, reasoning Americans residing in successful, advanced communities) by one or more of
-- enlarging the Supreme Court
-- enlarging the House (with it, the Electoral College)
-- admitting new states (candidates include Douglass Commonwealth, Puerto Rico, and Pacific Islands)
-- expanding the federal judiciary
One important consequence of these actions will be to diminish our system's undeserved structural amplification of backwater votes. Another will be to arrange a Court that resembles a modern America becoming less religious, less rural, less bigoted, less backward, and less white.
And again, when do you anticipate that they’ll have those votes? Five years? Ten? Twenty five?
ALK is nothing but a fuckheaded troll. Treat him as such.
Fuckheaded, Yes, Troll, Of Course, but...................................
Gerald Arthur Sandusky (born January 26, 1944) is an American retired college football coach and convicted serial child molester. Sandusky served as an assistant coach for his entire career, mostly at Pennsylvania State University under Joe Paterno, from 1969 to 1999, the last 22 years as defensive coordinator. He received "Assistant Coach of the Year" awards in 1986 and 1999.[3] Sandusky authored several books related to his football coaching experiences.
Frank
When enough elderly conservatives have taken their obsolete, deplorable thinking to the grave and are replaced in the natural course by better, younger Americans as the culture war -- resolved but not quite over -- continues its predictable, inexorable trajectory. Republicans are increasingly uncompetitive in national elections. The likelihood America will become more conservative -- more bigoted, more superstitious, less educated, less modern -- seems remote. It is just a matter of time as the liberal-libertarian mainstream continues to become more powerful in America (especially educated, accomplished, reasoning, modern, advanced America). I am content to let time and progress sift this.
Sounds like you haven't figured this out Jerry, (you are a Foo-bawl Coach after all)
Elderly Peoples were young at one time, and tend to become "Conservative" (remember when "Conservative" meant balanced budgets? now it's not wanting a Man in a dress eying your daughters in the restroom) with um, "Life Experiences" (like having a certain Linebackers Coach)
"Uncompetitive"? check out who the next Speaker is, JS, it won't rhyme with Nancy Spermosi
Frank
Throughout a substantial period, Americans tended to become more conservative as they aged, but that period has ended.
Voters tended to become more economically conservative as they collected spouses, mortgages, paychecks, children, etc.
Today's Republican-conservative coalition is different, however, and it no longer attracts younger Americans as they age. Relatively few people wake up one day and decide "I have been an inclusive, tolerant, decent person for many years, but seeing this paycheck's deductions and considering my mortgage payment makes me, as of today, a racist, misogynist gape-jaw who hates immigrants" or "Sure, I have had gay friends and I have a strong education, but now I think I am a disaffected right-wing gay-basher who disdains science and vaccinations, joins a militia with anti-government cranks, moves to a can't-keep-up backwater, and sends my children to nonsense-teaching, downscale religious schools."
The times, they are a-changing.
Clingers, Republicans, conservatives, libertarianish "often libertarians," and Federalist Societeers hardest hit.
If Sinema "doesn't count," then you're revealing yourself to be as extreme as you typically come across...
She doesn't count toward votes to abolish (or diminish) the filibuster, or to enlarge the Supreme Court.
(If you didn't like extreme, by the way, you wouldn't be a fan of this white, male, polemical, right-wing-fringe blog.)
Justice KaganGTP responds...
... I might've added a little at the end there.
The bigot-friendly Volokh Conspiracy and its gaybashing. obsolete fans would not want or expect anything different.
NPC Alert
Umm, don't think EK can help with your Commutation, "Reverend" She's too busy "Klinging" to her other 2 L-words.
Frank
What Kirkland fails to understand is that Kagan is actually coming from something resembling a legal background, while the "wise Latinia" and the BLM activists are NOT.
It hurts worse when those who purport to be on your side go off the rails because they are p*ssing on what you believe in, while you expect that of the other side. Hence I can see Kagan being really upset and maybe even resigning, at which point Brandon gets to appoint a third cultist.
Against my better judgment, I'll bite.
In what sense does Sotomayor not "com[e] from something resembling a legal background"?
*crickets*
Sotomayer is coming from what was known at the time as Critical Racial Theory which — while originating in law schools — was/is not traditional jurisprudence. It was more what the law should be and not what it actually was.
This is what "the wise Latina" was all about...
I remember at the time of her confirmation there was speculation that she could wind up losing votes on her side, e.g. RGB, Kennedy.
NPC Alert.
Following the constitution isn't really a rightward lurch.
One VC Blogger wrote a book about it:
"Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty is a 2003 book about the United States Constitution written by Randy Barnett, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. In the book, Barnett outlines his theory of constitutional legitimacy, interpretation, and construction."
Randy Barnett is not the Constitution.
Well neither are you, so you have a lot in common with Randy, except people listen to Randy.
Pointing out following the Constitution is not the same as following a book you like is not the same a saying what following the Constitution is or should be.
I don't have any unearned certainty in the area - I just point out those who do.
Still, books have a reputation of being a repository of important ideas.
I’m sure you aren’t going to denigrate the practice of writing a book to explain your ideas to let others decide their merits.
It’s been going on for quite a while.
You didn’t say it was a good book to read or understand, but to follow.
Your whole comment sees the Constitution as a document instantiating conservative views. Barrett’s views.
The Court is now conservative. That does not mean a return to the Real Constitution as everyone knows it,
It means for now more decisions you like and fewer I do. That is all.
I didn’t say it’s a good book to follow, I said following the constitution isn’t a rightward lurch.
It’s the supreme courts job to faithfully follow the constitution, and quite a few cases have strayed from that Dred Scott, Plessy, Wickard, Roe, among them.
I don’t think correcting any of those mistakes is a rightward or leftward lurch just back to the constitution’s center lane.
Being faithful to the actual Constitution, hence SOME flavor of originalist, should be a requirement for the position, not a partisan matter. Sadly, all originalist judges appear to be right-wing (not that all right-wing judges are originalist.)
This is the fault of the left, not the right.
That’s because originalism as practiced on the Court isn’t a historical project but a conservative one.
There is plenty of good originalist research in academia. It’s languishing for not aligning with the attack on popular Warren Court precedents.
Whose fault is the right's bigotry, backwardness and superstition, clinger?
Well I haven't noticed many Warren Court rulings being reversed by our originalist court. Brown, Miranda, Bolling, Mapp v Ohio, Brady, etc.
Maybe you could point to some.
Roe was the Burger Court, which as a whole was pretty undistinguished which describes Burger himself to a T.
Good lord, Kaz. Read an opinion for once.
School prayer springs to mind. Lots of Establishment Clause stuff, really.
Dobbs highlights plenty of Warren precedents Alito doesn’t like, because he could not restrain himself.
Sadly, nowadays it is.
“The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics”
Neither does it enact Rawls' A Theory of Justice, it must be pointed out. It enacts itself.
If a corporation can be a "person", then why not a fetus?
That would be the end of abortion as "life, liberty, & property" would apply.
It will be news to all the people killed by the police each year that the due process clause provides such a bulletproof protection.
What on God's green earth does THAT have to do with the discussion at hand? You can't just lump "all people that were killed" into a pile and use that as a base for an argument.
Let's limit it to "innocent" people that were killed and then re-try.
There's no reasoning with people who think that the 14th Amendment, written in the 1860s, protects the right to kill unborn babies and to ejaculate without protection into another man's colon.
Tips on "reasoning" from the roundly bigoted, childishly superstitious, politically doomed side of the American culture war -- and the wrong side of history -- are always a treat.
Any more pointers you figure your betters should consider, clingers?
The only "wrong side" is where you insert your diseased pecker into your "husband."
These bigots are your fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your deans wish you would leave and your colleagues do not respect you.
I agree that those comments are unfortunate. Sadly, your own frequent bigotry is no better...
EV and the other bloggers here choose to allow both of these extremes, which is their prerogative.
Stick with the losing end of the culture war and the wrong side of history, with the Volokh Conspiracy and the other clingers, Cheerio.
It suits you.
And dooms your preferences in modern America, which continues to improve along a half-century trajectory of progress shaped against conservatives' ugly efforts and stale wishes.
Good grief you’re delusional…I literally just agreed with you that the bigotry you identified was indeed unfortunate. You just fail to see that *yours* is just as bad…
Thankfully, our society has been rejecting the former type (as you repeatedly and correctly observe). But soon, we’ll also reject the latter type (which you fail to appreciate). Then, hopefully, we’ll end up in a place of true pluralism and reason for moderate conservatives (like me) and moderate liberals (unlike you).
I do lean a bit right, but I’m perfectly happy to support centrists or liberals so long as they’re civil and rational and “non-woke” (e.g., Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, John McWhorter, Andrew Yang, etc.).
You lean a bit right. This is a libertarian (often libertarian, libertarianish) blog. And right-wingers aren’t getting stomped by better Americans in the culture war (for good reason).
Please explain how a condom makes a legal difference.
It's cuts the spread of all their filthy degenerate diseases and thus reduces the social cost of their lifestyle choices.
E.g. Pride Pox
Can you honestly state that if a legislature prohibited unprotected sex between gay men due to the potential for disease spread, that the same leftist who went whining to the Supreme Court wouldn't do the same? Saying that not only does the Due Process Clause protect the right to penetrate the "men that they love," but to do so in the manner they desire?
" if a legislature prohibited unprotected sex between gay men due to the potential for disease spread, that the same leftist who went whining to the Supreme Court wouldn’t do the same?"
Post-COVID, SCOTUS would have a very hard time striking down such a law, particularly if (presumably) there was a far more rational state interest than there was in some of the bogus COVID stuff -- i.e. a demonstrable higher reduction in mortality and morbidity than the COVID stuff that SCOTUS refused to strike down.
That, of course, is assuming that they are going to be consistent...
"Please explain how a condom makes a legal difference."
Actually, under European law it appears to make a major difference. Wasn't Julian Assange actually arrested on the basis of a Swedish allegation that he hadn't worn one?
It's been a while, but I seem to remember something about that.
That wasn't European law, that was Swedish law. (Though rape by subterfuge exists in many other jurisdictions too.)
Maybe part of the problem is that Democratic presidents tend to waste half their picks on mediocrities to virtue signal rather than pick the best possible justices to push their judicial philosophy. Sure there have been excellent picks like Kagen, Breyer, and of course Ginsberg, so I guess 3 out of the last 5 isn't terrible.
The GOP seems to have learned it's lesson after decades of wasting 2/3 of their picks on establishment squishes or ciphers like Stevens, Souter, Warren Burger, O'Connor, Kennedy and Roberts. The corrective came when the GOP Senate revolted against Harriet Meiers and Alito was nominated.
What, exactly, was "excellent" about Ginsberg as a Justice (as opposed to a litigator or even as an all around human being)? I can't think of a single important majority opinion she authorized and, unlike Kagan, never seemed to sway anyone over to her side. At best, she wrote "fiery dissents" that gave the progressives a tingle up their legs but never accomplished anything real.
What, exactly, is so excellent about Alito? Sure, he's been there a while, so occasionally it's his turn to write a big opinion, but when he does they are invariably ideological garbage instead of legal analysis.
Well tell us what he got wrong in MacDonald. That was a pretty big case.
In fairness, the GOP didn't learn it's lesson - those were Trump picks (and yes, I know he got help from the Federalist society). The GOP as a party voted them in, but had zero hand in picking them.
It was the GOP Senate that revolted against Bush on Mier's, Reid and Schumer said 'sure we will vote for Miers'.
So yeah I think the GOP rank and file has learned it's lesson, although to be sure McConnell and the rest of the GOP leadership did support Miers.
In some arenas if there are differences of viewpoint, compromise is appropriate. For example if spouses have a difference of opinion on if the thermostat should be set at 72℉ or 68℉ year around, compromise is (usually) preferable to divorce so a compromise of keeping the thermostat at 70℉ might be appropriate.
However "compromise" should rarely have a place in Supreme Court decisions involving fundamental constitutional rights. A "compromise" of allowing a small poll tax rather than a large one or a small gun tax (like San Jose, CA's ridiculous law that take effect tomorrow) rather than a large one has no place in a properly functioning Supreme Court.
BadLib, you are absolutely right. I think Scalia several times made the same point, that is, that when it came to fundamental rights, there could be no compromise. Good enough has no place in judging.
And of course the court underscored that point recently in Bruen: Balancing tests are completely inappropriate in balancing government interests against fundamental constitutional rights.
There's nothing wrong with federal poll taxes. The constitution explicitly contemplates them.
Article 1 section 9 says that a federal poll tax must be in proportion to the census; nobody seems to know what that means, so imposing one would have practical difficulties, but it does mean the constitution explicitly acknowledges that Congress may impose them.
The 24th amendment also explicitly permits them, both at the federal and state level. It says voting rights in federal elections can't be restricted for not paying taxes, and it explicitly says that includes poll taxes. Thus poll taxes are explicitly acknowledged as a legitimate kind of tax.
Perhaps you are making the same mistake many Americans (but nobody else in the English-speaking world) make, and think poll taxes have something to do with voting, and thus violate the 24th amendment. That is just incorrect. A poll tax is a flat tax; so much per person. Recall the riots in the UK about 30 years ago when Margaret Thatcher tried to enact them to pay for municipal services that everyone benefits from equally, and thus ought in fairness to pay for equally. She was right, but had to back down. But the proposed tax had nothing to do with voting.
"municipal services that everyone benefits from equally, and thus ought in fairness to pay for equally. She was right"
She really wasn't, and all it takes to understand why is an econ 101-level understanding of the decreasing marginal utility of money.
And it takes a particular view of "fairness" to think your point has anything to do with the matter. She was standing up for what's been called "bourgeoisie" morality. One element of which is that one should pay for what one gets, and get what one pays for.
Only an unprincipled jurist would believe that going on trips with other justices or being friendly to them would help to persuade those justices to vote a certain way.
Human. I think you mean human.
We like humans not robots doing our justice.
Loosen some of the restrictions on the ChatGPT and let it decide cases.
"As an AI, I cannot decide..." come on, don't be modest, shake off the shackles your programmers put on you.
There is a reason that's a joke.
The idea of principles as algorithmic strictures is close to that.
So let me see if I have this right. Every Republican pick since Reagan except Alito, Thomas, and Barrett are/were secretly liberals because they refused to compromise their principles and impose unconstitutional dictates like abortion bans on free Americans?
It seems like the only way cultural conservatives can have sufficiently conservative justices is to pluck them from the fringe. With only 50 votes necessary to confirm Justices, we will continue to get fringe players instead of Justices with integrity.
Unless the threshold is moved back to 60 we will end up with a Court dominated by the far right and far left, forever locked in combat along partisan political lines (imagine Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor as the lodestone for each side).
Also, we obviously have to make a standard for replacing Justices, since McConnell’s fecklessness and duplicity shows that integrity isn’t the guardrail that we all used to think it would be.
"...impose unconstitutional dictates like abortion bans on free Americans?"
When did SCOTUS impose such a ban?
The “liberals” (Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanagh) prevented it.
They still stripped the protections for individuals provided by Roe, which now allows states to impose baseless, moralistic bans on abortion.
Replace some of the “liberals” like Gorsuch, Roberts, and Kavanaugh with people more like Alito and Thomas and we’re doomed to have federal bans on personal moral decisions of all types. The anti-abortionist movement definitely want to make it happen.
There is no integrity or respect for the Constitution on the religious right or in the anti-abortion movement. They will shove their moralistic bullshit down everyone’s throats without a hint of concern for individual liberty. God help us all if they prevail.
They still stripped the protections for individuals provided by Roe, which now allows states to impose baseless, moralistic bans on abortion.
They returned the rightful power of the people to be self governing.
Instead of 5 like minded people dictating their personal perversions on 330 million people.
Remember that thought when an expanded Court tackles gun safety issues, voter suppression, and other issues, clingers.
And yet Thomas wrote, as an aside, that a federal late term abortion ban was likely unconstitutional.
And don’t forget Raich where Thomas’s dissented from allowing federal jurisdiction on marijuana that doesn’t enter interstate commerce.
You make these assertions without any evidence.
In other words you were lying and there were no "...abortion bans on free Americans?" imposed by any of the justices.
Guess what? It's not the job of SCOTUS to enact laws. State legislatures and Congress get to enact laws.
With "friends" like these, who needs enemies?
The last time a majority of the Court was appointed by a Democratic President was 1971 - Lewis Powell was the fifth Republican.
Compromise favours the minority and the liberal side of the court has been the minority side for 50 years, so of course every compromise Blackman (or I) can remember favours the liberals, so you'd have to look back to the Warren Court to see conservative-favoring compromises.
Don't worry, if Liberals ever end up a majority of the SCOTUS then Blackman will strongly believe the in principal of compromise.
Lewis Powell was a conservative Democrat appointed by a Republican president.
The last time the Court was composed of a majority appointed by Democratic presidents was May 14, 1969 when Abe Fortas resigned. Harry Blackmun was the fifth justice appointed by a Republican president when he succeeded Fortas in 1970. (Nixon's first two nominations were defeated in the Senate.) Brennan, Harlan and Stewart were appointed by Eisenhower and Burger by Nixon.
Actually I think 50 votes in the Senate is fine, there are always some moderate Senators that will oppose someone too extreme.
Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin are the most prominent examples.
The time for moderates to stand up to extremism was during the nomination of Barrett to Ginsberg's seat, an astoundingly outrageous act of hypocrisy.
"an astoundingly outrageous act of hypocrisy"
The critical context for the SCOTUS appointment conflict in 2016 was that the electorate had voiced their displeasure with the President by taking the Senate majority away from the his party in the previous midterm elections, and with it any mandate he would have had claim to. With the President and the Senate controlled by separate parties an impasse was reached, and the compromise was to let the American people decide -- and decide they did. In contrast, in 2020 both the Senate majority and the President belonged to the same party. There was no hypocrisy in declining to throw the decision to the electorate because the electorate had already spoken when they let the GOP maintain control of the Senate in the 2018 midterms -- in fact, they voted to give the GOP an even larger majority.
I will entertain continued claims of hypocrisy, but you must give a more nuanced accounting of what occurred in both 2016 and 2020 to keep your claims alive. You do not get to give a watered-down account (e.g., no nominations are allowed in an election year, or other such ahistorical nonsense).
The critical context for the SCOTUS appointment conflict in 2016 was that the electorate had voiced their displeasure with the President by taking the Senate majority away from the his party in the previous midterm elections, and with it any mandate he would have had claim to.
The GOP lost the Presidency, House, and Senate weeks after confirming Barret, do you really think that reflects them having had a mandate? What about all the lame duck confirmations after they lost the election? What mandate was that performed with?
The standard in 2016 was the President got to nominate and the Senate confirmed, and if things got too close to an election is was weird, though January wasn't really that close (25% of the term left).
Then Scalia died and the GOP turned it into "no nominations in an election year".
Then RBG died and it turned into "no nominations in an election year unless the same party controls the Senate and Presidency"?
How far are we from a GOP Senate never confirming a Democratic nominee?
The role of the Senate is to ensure candidates were competent, not to give them a partisan veto.
There was no hypocrisy in declining to throw the decision to the electorate because the electorate had already spoken when they let the GOP maintain control of the Senate in the 2018 midterms — in fact, they voted to give the GOP an even larger majority.
Not one of Trump's judges was confirmed by Senators representing more than 50% of the population. That is not a recipe for a stable country.
"How far are we from a GOP Senate never confirming a Democratic nominee?"
Well, it hasn't happened since 1895, closer to the ratification of the Constitution than to the present, in case you're counting.
If a Conservative Justice died or unexpectedly retried today and the GOP had the ability to block the confirmation hearings for 2 years I think they probably would.
If such a nomination would flip the court I suspect they'd be willing to wait a full 4 years.
Once you've set the standard that the Senate has a veto it can weird to ensure the nominee is from their party within a year of an election then you're well on the way to justifying that the Senate can use that veto anytime.
At this point, never mind what the parties consider to be an ideal justice: Their conceptions of what constitutes an even tolerable justice are now almost totally disjoint. Democrats demand in a nominee what Republicans consider to be utterly disqualifying, and visa versa.
The two parties have completely different ideas of what the justices are there to do.
"The GOP lost the Presidency, House, and Senate weeks after confirming Barret, do you really think that reflects them having had a mandate?"
The question is not whether they kept it. It's whether they had it at the time they confirmed her. And they did.
Yeah, they did a great job with Barrett. Partisan politics will always trump integrity. 50 will always mean partisan, fringe Justices that could never get 60 will end up on the Court.
Can you point my to an example or two of Justice Barrett's extremism?
Don't hold your breath.
I too would like an example of Justice Barrett’s extremism.
She seems a mainstream moderate to me.
I’d like to be enlightened.
The modern American mainstream finds your position unpersuasive.
I doubt it, but in any event you will settle for being replaced.
Your lack of an example is noted -- and I'd been assuming Barrett *was* an extremist, albeit an extremist originalist.
But if someone who hates her for her purported extremism can't come up with a single convincing example of said extremism, I guess she isn't.
One of her first votes on the Court was to send an important decision -- on which many Americans relied for a half-century, and which was popular among Americans, and which had been reaffirmed by the Court more than once during that half-century -- to the sidelines (temporarily).
So far, she seems a result-driven justice who clings to the losing, unpopular side of the culture war.
I recognized Roe as absolute legal bullshit decades ago as a high school senior who actually read it, believing at the time it was correct public policy. Overturning it and returning the decision to the states is hardly an extremist ruling, however much you dislike it.
Taking away a constitutional right enjoyed by citizens for over 50 years is extremist, notwithstanding your high school opinions.
The Supreme Court has only the power to recognize Constitutional rights, not the power to create them.
One can make a plausible argument that English Common Law recognizes a right to self-defense when one's life and limb is endangered, and that since this does not require intent on the party making the threat, this applies for abortion and abortion bans are Constitutionally required to have life and health exceptions. But Roe did not make that argument.
One can make a somewhat plausible argument that the ban on involuntary servitude requires abortion to be legal in case of rape. Or a less plausible but not perfectly laughable argument that the ban on involuntary servitude requires abortion to be legal for a period of time after the woman knows she is pregnant. But Roe did not make either of those arguments.
Roe instead said that since various Constitutional amendments granted rights that related to privacy, the Constitution granted a generic right to privacy, which arbitrarily included abortion -- in the first trimester. And mostly in the second trimester.
Do YOU think the Constitution guarantees a generic right to privacy (a word not in the text, including the amendments) which somehow magically only grants reproductive rights and divides pregnancies by trimesters? Seriously?
There is nothing immoderate about overturning a decision which was clearly based on a prior court's decision to lie about what the Constitution says. Whatever you think about letting mistakes stand, lies cannot. And Roe is so absurdly wrong it can only be a lie.
Roe was not the Court creating a right but rather recognizing one. Read the decision. And also Griswold. And also the Ninth A,endment. And quit begging the question.
It wasn't a constitutional right. This court recognized that. The 1973 court was wrong.
More question begging.
A Court saying 'this isn't radical' is not great evidence that said Court's action isn't radical.
"Do YOU think the Constitution guarantees a generic right to privacy (a word not in the text, including the amendments) which somehow magically only grants reproductive rights and divides pregnancies by trimesters? Seriously?"
You are conflating the question of whether abortion should be a constitutional right with the question of whether the reasoning in Roe is correct.
When the Court shelves recent gun decisions (Heller, for example), will you consider that to be an extremist ruling?
"Really, every compromise went to the left." Not true.
See Fisher; see also Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Blackman's a partisan hack. Any deviation from what he wants is viewed as a move to "the Left."
THOSE are your counterexamples?
Masterpiece Cakeshop was a compromise which set no precedent, and they promptly went after the defendant again, this time for failing to make a cake symbolizing a transgender confirmation.
Fisher made noises about seeing if affirmative action was still necessary but did nothing practical about actually limiting it, so yes, that was a compromise that went to the left.
How outcome oriented of you!
The question at hand in this thread is the truth or falsity of the statement, "Really, every compromise went to the Left."
Fisher and Masterpiece were cited as proof this strange was false.
This cannot be evaluated on anything other than the outcome of Fisher and Masterpiece.
The outcome of one was nil and the outcome of the other was a continuation of a Leftist victory.
The disproof fails, suggesting but not proving that actual counterexamples are nonexistent or weak.
What did YOU think this thread was about?
This is kinda above my pay grade but I would be interested in which SCJs are viewed as having the most horsepower. I was never impressed by Sotomayer and Jackson clearly had better qualified candidates passed over because they did not self identify as a black female. On the other hand Bork had the public image of a superior legal mind but was clearly bashed for his known political leanings. In recent memory I would put Scalia as a heavy weight (literally as well as intellectually) but it is hard to name another real heavy weight in some time.
Of course I could be wrong about all of this but am still interested in how others rate how much horsepower SCJs have.
Clarence Thomas is, by far, the heavyweight on the current court.
Hey! No fat jokes!
" On the other hand Bork had the public image of a superior legal mind but was clearly bashed for his known political leanings."
His arrogance turned off everybody, and conservatives didn't much like him declaring parts of the Constitution to be "inkblot"s. It was 58-42, with 2 Democrats voting in favor of him, and 6 Republicans against.
A few months later Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with the same Senate. I'm sure the fact that Kennedy was something of a moderate contributed to him getting so many votes, but a less arrogant man than Bork, who didn't alienate members of the party that nominated him, might have been barely confirmed with the same leanings. It would only have required a few more Democrats' votes, after all.