After a bit of break, the Supreme Court is back in action with orders and oral arguments. Also, over at Oyez.com (Slate recently had Kagan's partisan gerrymander dissent from the bench), the opinion announcements (including dissents from the bench; RBG has one in the cross display case) from last term are available. Again, why can't SCOTUS provide this on its own website? The fact it is going to be released anyway just adds to the stupidity.
===
It turns out that "Beto" O'Rourke deciding to end his presidential campaign (who is the next "B" level candidate to do this? Booker? Klobuchar?) is not the only federal government news from Friday. The Supreme Court released a stand alone order to grant review to a case as it sometimes does, this time before an official day to release orders. I'm somewhat curious about the dynamics of their decision-making here since it seems that they are sort of telling you something by singling things out. Along with extending oral argument in the DACA cases, this was taken up:
===
Meanwhile, the impartiality of the justices was questioned by meeting with a conservative marriage group that were involved as amici in recent cases. Kagan also spoke at a law school who signed an amicus brief in the DACA cases. The link pushes for ethics rules that apply in both cases though Alito and Kavanaugh speaking at some law school probably would look somewhat less bad. I don't know how far to take that rule though as a matter of good policy can see the concern. The wider issue of having clear consistent ethical rules that apply to the Supreme Court is an important aspect of government ethics generally. There is some lack of clarity there and repeated matters of public concern.
===
Also, this article is getting some attention, including a concern for a celebrity case. As is often the case, the novelty is a matter of degree, the "good old days" often a fiction. For instance, over history, multiple justices had political ambitions and more than one resigned to actually try or obtain political office. Kavanaugh shows about the usage of politics in confirmation hearings, but do not know about someone that directly involved at least since Scalia and Cheney being friends. Justices in the past also had public roles off the Court, including as professors, writers and so forth. Plus, it is a reflection of the times, even if only state judges ethically are allowed to publicly be on social media like Twitter.
The increase of a "celebrity justice" concept does suggest a need to address the matter but the ethical rules touched upon above to me is the way to go. Her per curiam opinion approach to me is dubious. The use of gratuitous (allegedly) concurrences and the like is surely not new. Was she upset when liberals did it in the past? The tendency went back to the later days of the Marshall Court. And, unless you simply stop the justices from having a public role, would this not just encourage them even more to have off court ideological moments in person and writing? Plus, she realizes that hiding the ball will lack transparency. Chief Justice Marshall only sounded above the fray. Ignorance is not bliss.
I think RBG has been overexposed here and certain justices have shown up at some dubious ideologically inclined events but up to a point public appearances that will likely lead to some "fan bases" are acceptable. Sotomayor and Breyer in their own ways done a lot to promote their views though Sotomayor has a more "celebrity" role as seen in her autobiographical writings. Would she stop that sort of thing if her quota of writings on the bench are anonymous? I think even anonymous writings there have touches that suggest who wrote them, and if they all were, we would then have more people trying to parse.
To the extent the public are wary about the Supreme Court, this is a too cute way of addressing the problem. A major issue lately is the nature of the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations and the ideological push to fill lower courts. Anonymous opinions will not change that sort of thing. Judges are not fungible and cases that reach the Supreme Court repeatedly will be tough divisive subjects and hiding dissents there to me is dubious at best. The felt belief that judges are not all above the fray types is a result largely of reality. I do think judges, though this is FAR from new, at times argue in a too pointed fashion, but Marshall did so too in a fashion. Including in off Court writings.
Anonymous opinions -- I find doing away with any sort of dissenting opinion rather dubious -- might have limited value. But, to address the wider concerns, it seems not likely to do much. It might even worsen the situation somewhat, since water wants an outlet. If being a "celebrity" is the problem, there are various ways to do that and maybe address that instead. Ethical rules would be a way to go there, for instance, and if we do not even label opinions, transparency there will be even worse.
===
The justices will hear some cases this week with somewhat interesting facts and you can read about them at SCOTUSBlog. The Supreme Court followed its sometime habit of dropping a grant on Friday while using the Order List today to do basic things. Still has a few little things that make one go "huh." What is this case under seal? Why did Gorsuch and Roberts not take part in the consideration of one case each? What are the rules for being allowed to file "out of time"? I think the Supreme Court should have an "Order List Explainer" that will cover such basic things. Even normal legal coverage doesn't deal with this stuff.
===
It turns out that "Beto" O'Rourke deciding to end his presidential campaign (who is the next "B" level candidate to do this? Booker? Klobuchar?) is not the only federal government news from Friday. The Supreme Court released a stand alone order to grant review to a case as it sometimes does, this time before an official day to release orders. I'm somewhat curious about the dynamics of their decision-making here since it seems that they are sort of telling you something by singling things out. Along with extending oral argument in the DACA cases, this was taken up:
A ruling for Liu and Wang could have a significant impact on the SEC’s enforcement efforts: In their petition for review, they told the justices that in 2018 the SEC collected $2.51 billion through disgorgement – over a billion dollars more than it collected in civil penalties. The case will likely be scheduled for argument early next year, with a decision to follow by summer.In a term with various hot button cases, this might be lost, but sounds like it can be a serious matter especially given the interests of a President Warren. The grant is interesting in part because the solicitor general opposed it, asking for the two courts below upholding the practice to stand. The plaintiffs argue that the enforcement is in effect a penal measure that was not authorized by Congress. I do not know how strong their case is but it does sound like an important case to keep an eye on.
===
Meanwhile, the impartiality of the justices was questioned by meeting with a conservative marriage group that were involved as amici in recent cases. Kagan also spoke at a law school who signed an amicus brief in the DACA cases. The link pushes for ethics rules that apply in both cases though Alito and Kavanaugh speaking at some law school probably would look somewhat less bad. I don't know how far to take that rule though as a matter of good policy can see the concern. The wider issue of having clear consistent ethical rules that apply to the Supreme Court is an important aspect of government ethics generally. There is some lack of clarity there and repeated matters of public concern.
===
Also, this article is getting some attention, including a concern for a celebrity case. As is often the case, the novelty is a matter of degree, the "good old days" often a fiction. For instance, over history, multiple justices had political ambitions and more than one resigned to actually try or obtain political office. Kavanaugh shows about the usage of politics in confirmation hearings, but do not know about someone that directly involved at least since Scalia and Cheney being friends. Justices in the past also had public roles off the Court, including as professors, writers and so forth. Plus, it is a reflection of the times, even if only state judges ethically are allowed to publicly be on social media like Twitter.
The increase of a "celebrity justice" concept does suggest a need to address the matter but the ethical rules touched upon above to me is the way to go. Her per curiam opinion approach to me is dubious. The use of gratuitous (allegedly) concurrences and the like is surely not new. Was she upset when liberals did it in the past? The tendency went back to the later days of the Marshall Court. And, unless you simply stop the justices from having a public role, would this not just encourage them even more to have off court ideological moments in person and writing? Plus, she realizes that hiding the ball will lack transparency. Chief Justice Marshall only sounded above the fray. Ignorance is not bliss.
I think RBG has been overexposed here and certain justices have shown up at some dubious ideologically inclined events but up to a point public appearances that will likely lead to some "fan bases" are acceptable. Sotomayor and Breyer in their own ways done a lot to promote their views though Sotomayor has a more "celebrity" role as seen in her autobiographical writings. Would she stop that sort of thing if her quota of writings on the bench are anonymous? I think even anonymous writings there have touches that suggest who wrote them, and if they all were, we would then have more people trying to parse.
To the extent the public are wary about the Supreme Court, this is a too cute way of addressing the problem. A major issue lately is the nature of the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations and the ideological push to fill lower courts. Anonymous opinions will not change that sort of thing. Judges are not fungible and cases that reach the Supreme Court repeatedly will be tough divisive subjects and hiding dissents there to me is dubious at best. The felt belief that judges are not all above the fray types is a result largely of reality. I do think judges, though this is FAR from new, at times argue in a too pointed fashion, but Marshall did so too in a fashion. Including in off Court writings.
Anonymous opinions -- I find doing away with any sort of dissenting opinion rather dubious -- might have limited value. But, to address the wider concerns, it seems not likely to do much. It might even worsen the situation somewhat, since water wants an outlet. If being a "celebrity" is the problem, there are various ways to do that and maybe address that instead. Ethical rules would be a way to go there, for instance, and if we do not even label opinions, transparency there will be even worse.
===
The justices will hear some cases this week with somewhat interesting facts and you can read about them at SCOTUSBlog. The Supreme Court followed its sometime habit of dropping a grant on Friday while using the Order List today to do basic things. Still has a few little things that make one go "huh." What is this case under seal? Why did Gorsuch and Roberts not take part in the consideration of one case each? What are the rules for being allowed to file "out of time"? I think the Supreme Court should have an "Order List Explainer" that will cover such basic things. Even normal legal coverage doesn't deal with this stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!