SCOTUS Watch

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released its calendar for the October argument session, which lasts from Monday, Oct. 5, to Wednesday, Oct. 14. 

The beat goes on. A notable environmental case is one of the first big cases. 

The link goes to a conservative who signed a letter in 2016 explaining why it was essential for conservatives to be against the election of Trump. 

He has been praised as a fair conservative mind. 

I have found him generally so (he had his bad moments), though I am annoyed at how little he responds to Trump shenanigans. 

This is a theme on that website, which has a few Trump loyalists (Josh Blackman), but many who don't care for him much. Other than one person (and one person who sometimes pops up), they rarely say anything.

This is not an appropriate response to the times. 

==

BJC has a podcast discussing religion and the Supreme Court. It was on hiatus until the new term. They had a special SCOTUS preview and announced a co-host is leaving.

==

Precedent and Personnel: When the Justices Change so Does the Constitution

Prof. Eric Segall is a liberal law professor. 

I disagree with him from time to time, including on some of his hobbyhorses. This one, which he has been on for decades, is rather tedious.

He LOVES the Legal Tender Cases example. It's not a normal one. The Chief Justice ill-advisedly decided a significant case on a short bench. 

He was on notice and did so anyway. When two new justices joined, the cases went the other way.  

Compare this to what John Marshall and Warren Burger did. Marshall held cases over in the 1830s when the justices divided, and a new membership might change the result. 

The Burger Court had a special committee when they had seven justices to decide what to hold over if the two might change the result. 

What does ES want? Abraham Lincoln in his first presidential inaugural address argued:

At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

The justices on a short bench by a closely divided vote held one way. The majority arguably was quite off base on an important constitutional issue. 

A single case should not be the immediate end of the line. Stare decisis is important. But the issue wasn't firmly established. New justices, selected by people we elect (if indirectly, especially pre-17th Amendment), will factor into this equation.

This case is a rather incomplete example to examine the wider question. It might have been wrong. It might have been right. It still is a special case.

New justices over time do change the law. It is a significant way the law changes over time. Likewise, legislatures and executives change over time. Their view of what the Constitution means also changes. 

Justices, even the current bunch, also don't simply ignore precedent. It would be tedious to list the number of things, including some things of importance, that are basically the same now.

We can also list a bunch of things the current majority has done that significantly disrespect precedent. I find many of these cases dead wrong. 

Nonetheless, the fact they are making new law alone isn't the problem. The way they are doing it, both procedurally and substantively, is the problem. The problem here is the merits. 

What happens, imagine with me, if the Supreme Court eventually is ideologically reasonable? Liberals and moderates have a supermajority. This happens because of new membership. Look at the early 1960s.

A nuanced approach can result in liberals cautioning courts to be conservative. At some point, a conservative approach is ill-advised. But that would at least make more sense than this simplistic take. 

The law is not obtained by looking at the sky, entrails, or original understanding. I repeat myself. It is a value judgment that significantly depends on the judges.

We should be open about this. We should carefully handle the situation. Judges should still act like judges. And, yes, ES, life tenure and so forth give the justices much more power to act arbitrarily.

This warrants special attention. I still don't accept simplistic cant. With respect, #JustSaying. 

===

On my Substack ... comments on a pending Massachusetts abortion bill.