More On SCOTUS

I was upset that the Presidential SCOTUS Commission is not getting more attention, including in lieu of the same old, same old.  So, it was nice to see that Jamelle Bouie has an op-ed concerning the body and notes how it is "interesting, illuminating and worthy of your attention." For instance, it flags the testimony of Vicki Jackson (who was an amicus in the DOMA case):

"It is an unstable situation for a party supported by a minority of the population to be able to control the Senate, frequently the presidency, and the Supreme Court,” she writes, “If citizens cannot look to elections, nor to the Courts, nor to the amending process, to achieve a federal government that is in broad terms responsive to democratic views, what remains are methods that should trouble all who believe in the rule of law.”

Her testimony did not just support (like many) term limits, but flagged specific problems (not just, as some witnesses spun, the idea this is all about one side being upset at results of cases) and the state of recent nominations:

In 2016, the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s nominee to the Court, asserting that it was doing so because he was in the last year of a two-term presidency. This was a novel claim and decried as illegitimate by many at the time. More recently, the head of the Republicans in the Senate announced thatif Republicans regained a majority in the 2022 elections, no nominees of the President--in the last two years of his first term--would be confirmed.

She is not the only person who did this either, showing this is not all above the fray type of testimony. Jackson does not support court expansion particularly, but realizes there are problems behind such talk, problems that should influence any reforms proposed. The op-ed finds chances of reform in the short time unlikely, but it worthwhile to bring this all out.

I agree. Just what will come out of this in the short term is unclear. But, for instance, calling into question (with vague details in the coverage) the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh is appropriate. There should generally been a value to openness and providing a better understanding of what happened. Likewise, it causes a shadow to be put on those involved, which helps in some fashion the possibility of change and a better path forward.  

Someone was annoyed at my use of slow old fashioned techniques etc. It is unclear what special techniques was desired.  And, I support adding people to the Supreme Court, ending the filibuster and so forth.  You can scream about that only so much.  Change is a long process and "softening them up" helps.  The witnesses also at times suggested certain reforms, such as ethics or more openness of the courts, are possible.  These things make it more possible, since they aren't so sacrosanct or "not able to be touched."

Plus, while Sen. Whitehouse et. al. does things (including getting media coverage), others can do "less politically correct" stuff too. For instance, during the Kavanaugh hearings, protesters sought out senators in elevators and the like.  The more attention given here, the more chance of this happening too.  This includes even something many deem forgettable, that is, hearings and reports.  This nuts and bolts stuff has value.

===

A former clerk of Justice Thurgood Marshall (not Kagan) has a good long discussion of him that provides various insights.  

Also, for the sake of completeness, I see yet another edited (dated 7/23) to Supreme Court opinions.  Other than a challenged citation in an opinion related to an order early in the term, I am not aware of anything really substantive in these corrections.  They appear -- though I have not looked at every last one -- to all be of a typo variety.  The latest cited the wrong place regarding a historical reference.  Often it is a matter of a typo in a citation.