The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump Agree On One Thing: Judges Should Have Courage
Both of the leading presidential candidates understand what makes a successful Supreme Court pick.
At a recent rally, former-President Trump talked about the Supreme Court:
And by the way, how courageous were our justices of the United States Supreme Court?
What they did — they're saving our country. They're actually saving our country. What they've done is — I mean, they've passed things that were so important, and they did it for the right, not for the wrong. They did it for — they did the right thing. They did the right thing.
Here, Trump was likely talking about Dobbs. He understands, intrinsically, that it took an act of judicial courage for those five Justices to cast that vote. I'll give Roberts some courage points for NFIB, but not for his lonely, failed saving construction in Dobbs.
In this regard, Trump is on the same page with Kamala Harris who favored the "bold" Ketanji Brown Jackson over the "cautious" Leondra Kruger.
Make no mistake, both of the leading presidential candidates understand what makes a successful Supreme Court pick: judicial courage.
Trump, in his unique way, demonstrates a keen grasp of how the courts work. He analogized "working the refs" in sports to "working the Justices":
And I just have such respect for the job they've done against — and, you know, the radical left plays the ref. You know the great Bobby Knight? He supported me. He used to fight with the referees all the time. Scream at him, "Bobby, Bobby, please, don't do that." It's not going to work. He said, "You're right. It's not going to work now."
It's going to work for the next one. And the next call, there'd be a flagrant foul, and they wouldn't call it. They didn't want to get screamed at. The radical left harasses our judges and harasses our justices. They scream at them. They call them names.
They say they're incompetent, they're horrible, they're this, they're that, they should be impeached. They're constantly saying they should be impeached. But they're screaming. And you know what? It has an effect on some people. But so far, they've been very strong. It's really horrible. I believe it's illegal what they do. And it's a — I'm trying to give you things that you've never heard before, and this is true. I believe they are playing the ref. They're constantly criticizing our great — some of our greatest justices and a lot of great judges.
It sure does have an effect on some people. Here, I would flag Judge Ho's Story Lecture, which discusses the fear of being booed.
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
Lol trump does not care one iota about "judicial courage". He only cares about judges ruling in favor of him.
He could not care about the result in Dobbs, Bruen, et al. He cares about one thing and one thing only: The welfare of Donald Trump.
You're confessing through projection, as the left always does.
The whole reason civil discourse has broken down is that leftists never argue in good faith any more. They always work to bias and corrupt all branches in the system until the system cannot be trusted. Look at the openly biased persecutors who indicted Trump on nearly 100 bogus charges, usually with open conflicts of interest.
This is why we have become a banana republiic.
For the record, that would be "successful" in the sense of "doing politics the way the speaker wants the justice to do it".
What about candidates? Should a candidate have the courage to answer a few questions from the press? Maybe, someday soon, a “journalist” will appear and get to ask something other than “How do you feel”?
It's hilarious how much this bothers MAGA trolls. "It's unfair that she's employing a campaign strategy that maximizes her chances! Waah!" I did not see quite the same level of outrage about Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, though. Apparently some norms are important and other norms are less so.
A candidate’s personal decision to release tax documents is quite a different matter than a candidate who refuses to answer basic questions about her policies. Has this ever happened? Even Joe held a few interviews from his basement in the 2020 campaign. And with Kamala, we have a candidate who never competed in the primary process and was installed by the party after the ouster of the primary winner.
And I don’t think you really want to start an argument on the sufficiency of financial disclosures in light of the complicated scheme of LLCs and business arrangements surrounding the Big Guy. But your call.
They asked JD Vance what makes him happy and he screwed that one up. So apparently stuff like that is a tough question.
Uh, I don’t think it’s favorable for your side to compare the openness of the Trump Vance team to Kamala’s conspicuous cowardly silence but I guess you know better.
It is actually favorable to compare her being a normal person to Trump and Vance’s weirdness. She might not be interviewing with legacy media but she has plenty of clips of her being normal around regular people. Vance and Trump, not so much!
Compare: Harris giving advice to a young girl on public speaking vs Vance at a donut shop.
Did she take any policy questions from the little girl or was she also too afraid to take a question even from a child?
Who cares? It’s not like when Trump answers these things they’re consistent or coherent. I mean you know what her policies are that’s what you’re not voting for her.
When you bobble a donut order so hard your base pushes for brain worms guy to replace you on the ticket.
[the narrative of Vance as weird seems to have formed. Like Al Gore being a liar, or W being dumb, or Kerry being a flip-flopper, it's going to be hard to shake regardless of whether it has anything to do with reality.]
Donut orders? WTF? Kamala the installed candidate of the democrat coup refuses to hold a press conference or unscripted interview but donuts? Do donuts and presidential campaigns even intersect on Kamala’s Venn diagrams? Sounds like you’ve got some more google searches to do punky.
The political news cycle doesn't always focus on the thing you want it to focus on.
It helps to have a sense of humor on this stuff, lest you bust a gasket.
But cast no shade in liking a good Venn diagram. That's some prime geeky stuff.
It gets less funny with each passing day without a press conference. And it wasn't funny in the first place.
Best settle in; you gonna be fucking that chicken for a while.
I like how the only people calling it a coup are people who supported an actual coup attempt in 2021. The people who should care, democrats, not only do not think it’s a coup: they are energized and ready to go. I mean the whole thing is you guys are mad you don’t win by forfeit. Big “but a dog can’t play basketball” energy.
We could note that 2021 was not a coup, attempted or otherwise, I guess. But even more striking is that the democrat’s latest coup was actually successful and all those ranting about President Trump being a threat to democracy cheer on those who ousted old Joe. And they don't even care that the installed puppet will not answer any questions.
You could “note” that but it would be wrong. Trump and the GOP used fake fraud allegations to support outlandish legal theories to stay in power after losing an election and it let to a root. That’s a coup attempt. The only people who deny it are the ones who support.
By contest Harris broke ZERO rules. You can tell this is the case by the fact they can’t even make up a lie or a fake legal theory to support their claims in court
If Biden received terminal diagnosis and stepped down before the convention would you have a problem with it? If not what’s different?
No little leftist. That you disagree with President Trump’s legal theories and the events of 2020 does not make his election challenges a coup.
Now with Kamala, what we have is the actual ouster of the winner of the democratic primary process and the installation of the party’s choice. Kamala was the only choice on the Democratic ballot. The DNC restricted delegates from considering other candidates or submitting write-ins. Nothing to do with democracy, at least as it's practiced on this planet. In fact, rather authoritatively coup-ish.
It seems that “courage” in these sorts of opinions always seems to be the courage to do exactly what the opiner wants and will praise, never the courage to risk the opiner’s dissapproval.
A very safe sort of courage. Risk-free.
Now you're stealing Orin's shtick.
It's not a shtick. Orin just has the courage to say the things I agree with and dispute the ones I don't.
Trump's statement should be taken in context of the deal he made with the conservative wing of the Republican Party back in 2016: vote for me, and I'll appoint the conservative judges you want. That's where the "I'll pick from a list vetted by the Federalist Society" came from.
Trump is giving his voters a subtle reminder that he kept his promise and a not-so-subtle reminder that if Harris wins, Democrats will undo all of it by packing the courts.
This is a limited view of courage.
Why not give Roberts points for a principled judicial minimalism in Dobbs, even though personally it appears he is strongly against abortion? The professor’s potshots at Justice Barrett when she votes in ways he doesn’t like (not conservative enough) too.
Courage is a multitude of things, including not going all the way or where your heart leads, because you know on principle it is bad. This includes supporting people or positions that ideologically you have some difficulties with but you make a courageous stand.
See, e.g., Michael Luttig’s courage.
There was nothing courageous about Dobbs. It was five people doing what they always wanted to do and then getting praised for it by everyone they hang out with. And they’ll never ever have to deal with the real world effects of the decision. Not one of those justices or their clerks or their supporters is ever going to have to tell a ten year old they have to give birth or a woman that they’re not close enough to death to terminate the pregnancy. They’ll never do it. They’ll never have to look someone in the eye and give them the news. They never have to take responsibility for it. They just get the praise. Or they whine when someone DARES criticize them. It’s the most cowardly thing imaginable.
Dobbs did not ban abortions, it just ruled that there is no federal Constitutional right to one. If your imaginary heart rending scenarios are enough to amend that document, I've got some of my own.
Dobbs let very strict bans go into place and the results were immediate and obvious.
Also please continue to insist that the terrible
situations are “imaginary” and call child rape victims, women with major pregnancy complications, and their doctors liars. It’s absolutely a winning strategy.
In fact you should go volunteer at an emergency room in Texas or Boise and do just that. Let me know how it goes.
Just about every other Conspirator pushed back on this whole 'judicial courage' formulation.
Blackman is so brave.
Hahahaha that’s actually, no joke, sort of true. Sticking to your theory when everyone you associate with is clowning on you is actually courageous. Definitely more so than being a judge who makes a ruling everyone they hang out with loves and is otherwise unaccountable for it.
It's courageous if going against your colleagues means you will face a consequence of some sort.
Lacking any shame isn't really a profile in courage.
It is kind of a superpower, though, as Trump regularly demonstrates.
Derision by respected colleagues is sort of a consequence, especially if you’re obsessed with academic prestige.
Again, not if you're shameless.
Keen grasp of his bravery!
One more time, I will note that it made sense strategically for President Biden to choose Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson given the state of the Supreme Court. That is not the only thing that went into selecting her but it is likely a factor.
A 6-3 conservative supermajority was a different situation than when Kagan came in & there was a closely divided Court with more ability to craft a liberal majority in certain cases.
Trump's choices [or those of the people who were most involved] arose from the situation. Kavanaugh was not a "courageous" choice in various ways. Nonetheless, he checked certain boxes.
President Biden used various criteria when selecting lower court judges, including being concerned about diversity. A judge's "courage" was not a leading concern in many cases.
The term seems to be used here to mean a strong ideological consistency. Using that criteria, the above also holds.
If Trump wins, will Biden and Senate Democrats (with at most one defector) have the courage to replace Sotomayor (assuming she has the courage to step down) during the lame-duck period? You know Republicans under Mitch would.
If Trump wins, I would expect that the Senate is handed over to a GOP majority on January 3rd, 2025 (This is probably going to happen regardless of a Trump win, but it is nearly assured if Trump wins).
Between the calling of the election for Trump at some point in November and Jan 3rd, are there enough business days on the Senate calendar to push a nominee through?
I don’t think there are.
The time from RBG's death to Barrett being confirmed was 29 days. The Senate can set any schedule it wants to get it done.
It’s unlikely that Senators will give up Thanksgiving and Christmas just to push a confirmation through from a lame-duck President. It’s doubly unlikely that Dem Senators are going to be willing to burn down the Senate over something so trivial (presuming that Sotomayor is huddling with Democrats).
Republicans have many procedural tools to slow down the confirmation in both the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor to draw things out and run out the clock.
I don’t think that Democrats will willingly play with fire here. Even if it’s possible, if anything goes wrong the nomination will fail on Jan 3rd. One Trump is confirmed later in January, he will have a golden opportunity to turn the 6-3 Supreme Court into a 7-2 Court.
It is more certain than the sun rising in the east that Democrats will push a confirmation through if the opportunity/need arises. Again: the GOP did it with RBG's replacement. Do you think Dems are going to unilaterally disarm and say, "Nah, not for us. We'll let Trump have this extra seat"?
Democrats may not have much of a choice in this.
Even assuming that most of the caucus is willing to burn down the Senate rules, if anything disrupts the timetable in a closely controlled Senate then that's the ball game.
Like if Manchin and Sinema decide to slow roll this.
Trivial?
Trivial is replacing a left-wing Justice with another left-wing Justice prematurely- meaning that Sotomayor is not in bad health, is willing to continue serving, and is able to do so for at least the next Presidential term.
By waiting until after the election is called for Trump, the implication is that everything on the Democratic side has to be planned well in advance of the actual nomination: Sotomayor's departure, vetting a replacement, a nomination from Biden, swift action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then a swift passage on the Senate floor.
This is a high risk, low reward play, and you only do it if you have no other choice.
If there is a choice- and the implication in your hypothetical is that there is- then it's a dumb thing to do.
However, the calculus changes if Sotomayor is in ill health and/or wants to leave. If that's the case, she should announce her departure right now. That leaves plenty of time left before the election, and even if they run over past the election Senate Democrats can push through a confirmation before January.
Again, it's not courage if everybody you hang out with praises you for doing it.
Taking a rambling and bizarre paragraph during a Trump stump speech and anecdote and attaching it to a behind the scenes anecdote about Harris during the Biden SC nomination vetting and using the two to conclude your broader theory about "judicial courage" seems like extremely thin gruel to me.
You'll note that he failed to address Trump's claim that it's "illegal" to discuss impeaching a judge who makes bad rulings.