Justice Antonin Scalia

  • March 26, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Even before today’s oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, some pundits urged the Supreme Court to go slow on same-sex marriage, essentially arguing marriage should be for the states to hash out and declaring that a Supreme Court decision that all states must recognize same-sex marriage could result in a backlash, thereby setting back efforts to advance equality for the LGBT community.

    After reading the oral argument transcript, it seems that may be what happens since it did not appear a majority of justices were anywhere close to declaring that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed. That’s disconcerting since national polls and polls in California, birth of Proposition 8, reveal strong support for same-sex marriage. That’s not terribly surprising since marriage is about committed couples taking responsibility for each other and why should government officials want to discourage such responsibility.

    Instead, the high court may be ready to dismiss the Prop 8 case on a technicality for it appeared that the high court’s left-of-center justices and possibly Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy were not convinced that a few proponents of California’s anti-gay law are the proper people to be before the court.

    Before Charles J. Cooper, attorney for the proponents of Prop 8, could delve into the substantive argument against same-sex marriage, he was asked by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. to address the “standing issue.”

    Cooper said the proponents of Prop 8 “have standing to defend the measure before this Court as representatives of the people and the State of California to defend the validity of a measure that they brought forward.” (As noted in this interview with Columbia Law School Professor Suzanne Goldberg it is a bit odd for the Prop 8 proponents to insist they are representing the interests of the state of California, for the state’s governor and attorney general have both said the law should be invalidated as unconstitutional.)

    Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger saying it made a “strong argument” that the Prop 8 proponents “are really no more than a group of five people who feel really strongly” that they should vindicate the law.

    The Dellinger brief, in part, argues that the proponents of Prop 8 have “noting more than a generalized interest in” enforcement of the law.  Citing high court precedent, the brief continues, that “the generalized interest a party shares with all members of the public in proper enforcement of the laws is not sufficient” to establish standing.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the while the California Attorney General has “no personal interest” in defending Prop 8, she does have “a fiduciary obligation,” to which Cooper agreed.

    The standing question, as the Dellinger brief persuasively argues, could prove to be the winning argument, giving the Court a way to avoid tackling the substantive question of whether gay couples have a constitutional right to wed.

    The substantive argument from Cooper and many of the groups lodging friend-of-the-court briefs centered on an alleged overriding governmental interest in marriage as a tool primarily for promoting procreation.

    Cooper said that Prop 8 proponents are arguing that the States' interest in marraige is about promoting procreation. He told Justice Elena Kagan that the “essential thrust of our position” is that the states have a really strong interest in regulating procreation.

    Justice Stephen Breyer asked Cooper, “What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? I mean there are lots of people who get married who can’t have children.”

     

  • March 7, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Atiba R. Ellis, Associate Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law

    In my earlier guest blog on Shelby County, AL v. Holder, I suggested that the conservative justices of the Supreme Court would be tempted to offer a post-racialist narrative concerning the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. 

    The justices did not disappoint. Justice Anthony Kennedy asked whether Alabama should remain “under the trusteeship of the United States government.” Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether “the citizens in the South are more racist than the citizens in the North.” Both of these comments implicitly ask whether the long history of race has been atoned for once and for all.

    And then there was Justice Antonin Scalia’s statement on the Voting Rights Act. In explaining the almost unanimous consensus for the 2006 reauthorization of Section 5, Scalia said:

    Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

    On one level, this quote fits the post-racial narrative. Yet Justice Scalia intended a deeper message by invoking the rhetoric of “racial entitlement.” That message is the ahistorical belief that race-conscious analysis is immoral and leads to corrupt outcomes. Establishing this concept is part of a larger post-racial agenda (as we have seen already in the affirmative action debates), and the Voting Rights Act is the latest battleground. Yet, if applied to the right to vote, it will fly in the face of the plain text of the Constitution and our democratic consensus to insure equality in voting.

  • March 1, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Following oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder several court-watchers, to the consternation of some, wrote that the Voting Rights Act’s integral enforcement provision, Section 5, looked to be on the chopping block largely based on courtroom theatrics.

    But many of those court-watchers, such as The New York Times’ Adam Liptak, noted that it was indeed risky to make  predications based only on oral argument, while nonetheless pointing out that in 2009 in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, Chief Justice John Roberts and other members of the high court’s right-wing bloc made it rather clear that Congress should revisit the formula used to determine what states are covered by Section 5.

    As Liptak noted, Congress did not revisit the formula. And what happened during oral argument earlier this week? You had the Court’s right-wing justices grousing over the same things they did in Northwest. So it doesn’t take much of a leap to figure Justice Anthony Kennedy, who asked how much longer must Alabama remain under U.S. “trusteeship” is ready to join Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in striking Section 5, by ending the use of the formula. (Section 5 requires states and localities, mostly in the South, to get “preclearance” of any proposed changes to their voting laws and procedures to ensure that they do not have the effect of discriminating against voters. The Constitution’s 14th and 15th Amendments provide Congress the power to take appropriate action to ensure that states do not deprive people of liberty or discriminate against voters because of their race.)

    The Brennan Center’s Myrna Pérez writes that the “arguments themselves do not provide much predictive value,” and that little was discussed during oral argument “over what exactly Congress needed to do differently to have appropriately fulfilled its duties.”

    ACS President Caroline Fredrickson also told TPM’s Sahil Kapur that the “silver lining is ultimately oral arguments are rarely a predictor of outcomes of the case.”

    Yep, lots of folks were predicating Kennedy would save the day for the Obama administration’s landmark health care reform law the Affordable Care Act. And of course we know how that turned out.

    As noted on this blog numerous times, Section 5 is the power behind the Voting Rights Act and Congress has the constitutional authority to combat racial discrimination in voting. Section 5, reauthorized in 2006, has helped prevent states bent on suppressing the votes of minorities from doing so, including Alabama, South Carolina, Texas and Florida. Without Section 5, those states will have great leeway in pursuing schemes to dilute the minority vote.

     

  • February 27, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing bloc appears ready to seriously weaken the integral enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    During oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, all of the court’s conservative justices as SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein reported appeared “committed to invalidating Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and requiring Congress to revisit the formula for requiring preclearance of voting changes.” (Section 5 requires certain states and towns, mostly in the South, to obtain “preclearance” for any changes to their voting laws and procedures to ensure they do not harm minority voters.)

    The New York Times’ Adam Liptak in a piece on today’s oral argument noted that Justice Anthony Kennedy asked attorneys arguing in favor of Section 5, how much longer states like Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the United States government.” Liptak also noted that Justice Antonin Scalia took a shot at Section 5 saying it produces a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” The Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly expounded on Scalia's commentary, noting that the justice flippantly said Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 because, who could vote against a bill with  such a "wonderful" name.

    Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr also noted Kennedy’s skepticism of Section 5, saying the justice chided Congress for relying on a supposedly outdated formula for deciding what states should be covered.

    Chief Justice John Roberts asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether the Obama administration believes people in the South “are more racist than citizens in the North.” The Associated Press reported that Verrilli said no.

    As Liptak noted in a piece earlier this morning, it has long been clear that the Court’s conservative wing views with great skepticism the formula Congress has used in determining what states should be covered by Section 5. He noted the 2009 opinion in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, in which Roberts said Congress should revisit the formula. Congress, however, took no action. Liptak continued that the conservative justices “could stop short of striking down Section 5 itself.” Instead, Liptak said the high court could call for an end to the use of the formula, meaning Congress would need to revise it for “preclearance” to continue to be useful. (During the 2012 elections cycle, Section 5 was used by the Department of Justice to halt potentially discriminatory voting procedures from taking effect in several of the covered jurisdictions, such as Texas, Florida and South Carolina.)

    Goldstein also wrote that it appears “unlikely that the Court will write an opinion forbidding a preclearance regime. But it may be difficult politically for Congress to enact a new measure.”

    Supporters of Section 5 argued in a slew of briefs before the high court that Congress via the 14th and 15th Amendments has great discretion in crafting proper legislation to ensure that states do not violate the rights of minorities, including particularly the right to ensure states do not discriminate in voting. It appeared during oral argument that the court’s five right-wing justices believed Congress has not done its job properly.

    ACS President Caroline Fredrickson said, “With so many recent efforts to suppress the vote, it should be clear that the law remains relevant and necessary. This Court should refrain from deciding unilaterally that Congress has completed its job of ensuring the promise of the 14th and 15th Amendments.”

  • November 19, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    It’s not where he said it; it’s what Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito had to say about the ruling in Citizens United and the role of the federal government that warrants any kind of notice.

    Alito has long been defensive of the high court’s handiwork in a decision that gave more power to corporate interests to spend their expenditures on politicking. That 2010 high court opinion in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding court precedent allowing for some regulation of campaign financing by corporations. During the 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama blasted the Court for trampling that precedent and added that it would become a boon for special interests, including foreign ones, and Alito was caught on camera uttering, “Not true.”

    Recently the severely conservative judge (he was far right as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) again sounded a defensive note on Citizens United before the Federalist Society’s 2012 National Lawyers Convention. Alito, as reported by the Associated Press, said all kinds of newspapers and television news and opinion broadcasts, many owned by vast corporate interests, sound off on and provide endorsements of candidates.

    “The question is whether speech that goes to the very heart of government should be limited to certain preferred corporations; namely media corporations,” Alito said during a keynote address at the group’s 30th Anniversary Gala Dinner on Nov. 15. “Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech.”

    Beyond defending the opinion, and shooting a few asides at critics of the opinion, Alito sounded what is a frequent Tea Party or rightwing talking point about ever-expanding powers of the federal government, saying that the views advanced by the administration in several cases before the high court revealed a vision of a society dominated by a towering federal government.