Today in Supreme Court History: November 10, 1975

11/10/1975: Buckley v. Valeo argued.

Senator James Buckley

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

In other news....It appears that the US Senate has come to it's senses. The gov't will reopen soon (hopefully) with the latest bipartisan vote.

This for that; it was always the political bargain. It was only a question of time.

My life, and the lives of those around me were unaffected by the 40 day shutdown. That tells me we can live with less Fed Gov't, going forward. It will be interesting to see what gets permanently axed, post shutdown.

[wvattorney13]

Looks like the Dems completely caved. They got nothing except a vote on extending the ACA subsidies, which will not: a) get 60 votes, b) pass the House, or c) survive a Trump veto. So that's a swing and a miss.

They got the laid off government employees reinstated. Well, that's a win for the employees but it does nothing for most voters and the party as a whole.

They shut down the government for this?

[Michael P]

I read that they also got a moratorium on further layoffs until Jan 30 -- but that mostly gives the Trump admin time to get ducks in a row.

Dems weren't guaranteed that in the absence of a deal, but I have to think they could have gotten the same deal in late September.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't want to call it 'cave'; I much prefer to say a bipartisan agreement was reached, and part of that agreement is funding the fed govt.

[Frank Drackman]

That sound you heard was Senator Buckley rolling over in his grave after a Ugandan Citizen is elected to be Mayor of New York.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Steve Vladeck noted in an earlier Substack entry:

Third, there was a surge in media discussion about the pending cert. petition by Kim Davis, and what it means for the future of the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling recognizing constitutional protection for same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. (The surge seems to have been caused by the fact that the Court ordered the respondents to file a response to Davis’s cert. petition after they had waived their right to file such a brief. But such a move requires a request from only a single justice, and is in no way predictive of a grant of certiorari.)

linked here: https://substack.com/inbox/post/178430000

Prof. Vladeck was concerned with some of the responses because it was based largely on a nothingburger. The concern was there was a real chance that the same sex marriage cases were at risk.

A range of legal commentators, including people like him who are strong supporters of the SSM cases & critics of SCOTUS, argued the Kim Davis case would not be used as such a vehicle. This included Chris Geider (gay) and Mark Joseph Stern (gay and married to a man). Also, Leah Litman of Strict Scrutiny Podcast.

Given the stakes, it is understandable that people were concerned. Likewise, many people are not familiar with the typical SCOTUS procedure. It turned down review today for many cases, including this one, and that is standard.

They only take around 60 cases and reject thousands of cases for review. Their not taking the other cases for review had limited legal effect, except to the degree the specific parties are concerned.

It doesn't mean they decided the underlying legal question. Media coverage regularly implies otherwise.

I don't disdain the concern of people here, or those who might have had hopes they would overturn the SSM cases using this case. It's an understandable misunderstanding while also being a possible learning opportunity.

When simple constitutional principles are not followed by each branch of government these days, some confusion by ordinary Americans is quite forgivable.

==

The justices did take an election case for review. Gorsuch (with Thomas) would have taken another case involving Native Americans to re-examine a 19th-century precedent.

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/watson-v-republican-national-committee/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111025zor_bqmc.pdf

No justice wrote anything about the Davis case.

[David Nieporent]

The election case is probably another example of the 5th circuit going of the rails and needing to be reined in by SCOTUS.

Many states have laws that allow ballots postmarked by, but received after, election day to be counted. The Fifth Circuit cobbled together a bunch of random things that did not address that issue to claim that this state law conflicts with federal law and is therefore preempted. I don't think it's a big deal practically, and I think the cleanest policy is probably to say that only ballots received by election day should be counted. But states are free to make other choices. Mississippi did.

[F.D. Wolf]

James Buckley was the most recent individual to serve in all three branches of the federal government.

He served as a United States Senator for New York from 1971-1977; he served as Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance from 1981–1982 and as President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty from 1982–1985; and he served as a Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from 1985-1996, and as a Senior Judge from 1996-2023.