Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
Mr. Perry’s is an invitation I would run from fast. If a statute needs repair, there’s a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It’s called legislation. To be sure, the demands of bicameralism and presentment are real and the process can be protracted. But the difficulty of making new laws isn’t some bug in the constitutional design: it’s the point of the design, the better to preserve liberty.”
Judge Gorsuch's first dissent. OTOH, seven justices, including Roberts and Alito, joined RBG's majority opinion that said certain "legislation" required something. The "process" brought forth it. etc. Now, it is not that I am fully sure one way or the other of the correctness of the majority here, but do generally think that the seven justices at worst are merely interpreting the law wrongly. They are not legislating from the bench. In fact, repeatedly, RBG and Breyer are are the ones who are promoting restraint here. This sort of patronizing b.s. will be in place for decades though.
There are six opinions left and all that will be handed down will be done on Monday. So, it might be the case that we will have a couple 4-4 opinions, which might be held over for re-argument so the Trump judge can decide. Meanwhile, the ones handed down today in a mild way advanced good results. The one cited upheld an employee right to bring his claim in a certain forum. Another, 7-2, continued the Roberts Courts at least mild tempering of the excesses of immigration law.* Here, the chance of staying in country, even in prison, was seen as reasonable judgment for plea reasons. And, Kennedy led a 5-3 Court for a reasonable regulatory takings case. So, nothing profound, but overall okay.
Things might be a bit more complicated on Monday. Shall see.
* This opinion might only marginally help the person, but the principle is appreciated and might in another case do more. Also, as one summary notes, we get a sense of the type of people affected by such laws:
Jae Lee, the defendant in the case decided on Friday, moved from South Korea to the United States at age 13. He has lived here for nearly three decades and runs a lawful business; his parents became citizens, but he remains a lawful permanent resident.
This ultimately is going to turn on policy, but the courts, including in applying the laws on the books, have a role. And, Gorsuch's patronizing (condescending?) platitudes aside, there is play in the joints and room for debate there. Aim for as much justice as possible.