Supreme Court

  • November 14, 2014

    by Jeremy Leaming

    First, the attack on Obamacare found in King v. Burwell is one the Supreme Court did not need to hear, as put well in a recent piece by Linda Greenhouse, a contributing columnist for The New York Times. Second the argument being advanced against the Affordable Care Act is one that only the high court’s seemingly unmovable conservatives could or would buy into. It’s a politically driven case, of course, like the other attempts by the right-wing political movement to destroy health-care reform. The right-wing movement instead calls for coddling the privileged and works to make life exceedingly difficult for the vast majority of Americans. If we really need another example of the Supreme Court acting in the worst interests of the nation, we have one – in its decision to hear King v. Burwell. If you need more examples of the high court acting against the interests of the nation time and again, see Erwin Chemerinsky’s new book, The Case Against The Supreme Court.

    On King v. Burwell, see the following spot-on pieces about how argument in the case is ridiculous:

    Greenhouse’s “Law in the Raw,” from The New York Times’ opinion pages, where she writes that it “would take an agenda-driven act of judicial will” for the court to ignore long-held precedent – Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc. – to uphold the argument in King v. Burwell.

    E.J. Dionne Jr.’s “Will Obamacare separate Scalia from his principles?” from The Washington Post, where he notes even “many neutral legal analysts” were stunned that four justices would even “take up an absurd legal challenge to the health-care law,” and especially before seeing if a circuit split would stand.

    Timothy S. Jost's "The Truth and Myth Behind Latest Challenge to Health Care Law" from ACSblog, where the Washington and Lee University School of Law professor writes that Supreme Court justices might ignore congressional intent, but "cannot ignore the text" of Obamacare.

    And Yale Law School professor Abbe R. Gluck’s piece at SCOTUSblog, “The grant in King – Obamacare subsidies as textualism’s big test.”
     

  • November 10, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    In the Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage and Timothy M. Phelps argue that President Obama is unlikely to change the ideology of the Supreme Court with the new Republican Senate. ACS President Caroline Fredrickson is quoted in the article.

    Noah Feldman examines the newest challenge to the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court this term in Bloomberg View.

    In the Detroit Free Press, David H. Gans argues against the decision of U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Sutton that upheld same-sex marriage bands in four states.

    Jessica Eaglin writes at the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice on California’s Proposition 47 and the attempt to slow mass incarceration.

    At The Atlantic¸ Matt Ford explains why the Supreme Court may not have to rule on same-sexmarriage. 

  • November 4, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Justice Watch, the blog for Alliance for Justice, explains why a Republican-controlled Senate does not necessarily doom the judicial confirmation process for Obama-nominated judges.

    Jeffrey Rosen has a less optimistic view, and argues in The New Republic that the death of a justice during a Republican Congress would lead to disaster.

    Russel Berman reports in The Atlantic that a challenge to the filibuster survived a recent Supreme Court challenge.

    At SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe discusses Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Jerusalem passport case, and what yesterday’s oral argument signals about how the Supreme Court will decide the case.

    Irin Carmon of MSNBC reports on the numerous ballot measures that challenge reproductive rights throughout the country.

  • November 3, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Atiba R. Ellis, Associate Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law. Follow Professor Ellis on Twitter @atibaellis

    The debate over voter identification laws in this election season has shown once again that the voter fraud debate has shaped the right to vote over the last decade.  Recently, voter identification laws in Wisconsin, North Carolina and Texas – passed on the belief that the integrity of elections must be defended against the imminent threat of voters who will impersonate other voters and otherwise commit fraud—has spurred substantial litigation and, most recently, generated a hotly contested denial of a stay of the Texas voter ID law over a scathing dissent from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

    Scholars like Lorraine Minnite, Richard Hasen, Justin Levitt and others, have shown that this voter fraud claim is a myth. Yet, right-leaning pundits like Hans von Spakofsky and Mona Charen have argued that voter fraud will likely occur in the 2014 election. Thus, some pundits, politicians and grassroots organizations like True the Vote see rampant voter fraud as real and looming, despite all research to the contrary.

    This voter fraud claim is often seen as partisan-motivated propaganda or a means perpetuating racial subordination – some call it the return of Jim Crow. Yet, as I argue in an article recently published in the Catholic University Law Review, these claims must be connected to the long saga of voter suppression in the United States. In The Meme of Voter Fraud (also available here), I explain that the voter fraud myth is the latest step in the evolution of the American ideology of exclusion – the belief that “unworthy” citizens should be excluded from the electorate. 

    A meme (an idea based on evolutionary theory) is any idea, belief, concept or behavior that spreads and replicates in the culture. Memes replicate through, among other ways, the sharing of narratives, teaching, or posting on the Internet (think cat videos!). Memes are appealing because they play into a person’s experiences, and on some level people identify with them. This fact prompts a person to share the idea, and the most attractive memes spread virally. As a meme spreads, people often modify it to attract a broader audience.  The new recipients will in turn transform the meme again and replicate it, causing it to evolve (and the changes that fail cause that particular meme to die off). A meme’s appeal and its ability to meet our psychological needs – for instance, for political or social power – causes people to spread memes, not the truth or falsity of the meme.

    People can connect one meme with other memes to develop a complex set of ideas – an ideology – which we use to view the world. And, as scholar J.M. Balkin has observed, ideologies that spur us to action to subjugate the rights of others inevitably result in injustice. Memes can enable power plays, and those most invested in maintaining that power maintain the meme to this end, despite any oppression that might occur.

  • October 23, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Jason Steed, Associate at Bell Nunnally, and president of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Lawyer Chapter

    In part 1, I tried to briefly explain why the argument for term limits should be focused on the nonpartisan value of increased apolitical predictability in the Court’s appointment process. Justices shouldn’t be tempted to base their retirement decisions on partisan politics, and we shouldn’t be left to speculate wildly about when the next justice might retire—or about how many appointments the next president might get.

    But once we agree term limits are a good idea (and 70% of the public agrees on this), we must shift to the practical concerns that surround the actual implementation of term limits. Right off the bat, at least four questions (or problems) arise:

    1.  How long should the term limits be?

    2.  What about the filibuster and other attempts to deprive a president of an appointment?

    3.  What about the role of Chief Justice—how does that work in a fixed-term system?

    4.  How do we transition? That is, how do we impose fixed terms on nine sitting justices who everyone expected to have lifetime appointments?

    Now, I’m no scholar on these matters, and I assume others have addressed them already, in one way or another. But here are my thoughts: