I love this piece in the Atlantic by Garrett Epps. I particularly love the way he concludes it:
And then came Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. In its aftermath, the Senate Republican leadership dropped once and for all any pretense that law is anything but the crassest of partisan politics. Senate Judiciary Chair Charles Grassley told the world that no justice would be confirmed who did not toe the line—a line that the chief justice, a confirmed Reaganite, was now too “moderate” to be trusted with. The Court, Grassley and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told the Republican base, was and would remain the GOP firewall; its job is to strike down Democratic programs and rubber-stamp Republican ones—nothing more and nothing less. Justices are in effect elected at the polls; Donald Trump could possibly select the next name.
How did this cynicism sound to Kennedy, who considers the majesty of the Court the defining virtue of the American system? O’Connor was once a loyal GOP foot soldier, who did her duty in Bush v. Gore. By the time she left the Court, according to Jeffery Toobin’s book, The Oath, she told a colleague, “It’s my party that’s destroying the country.”
Has that same realization begun to insinuate itself into Kennedy’s opaque mind? Has he had an O’Connor moment? This is just speculation on my part. But Kennedy really has shifted. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case, the states opposing marriage equality discovered that it is unwise to question Kennedy’s central dogma of “dignity” as the aim of constitutional law. Perhaps McConnell, Grassley, et al., should now resolve never again to treat the Sphinx of Sacramento as if he were Reince Priebus’s errand boy.
What’s probably most interesting about Epps’s article is his speculation about the influence Sonia Sotomayor may be having on Justice Kennedy. It’s a subject that was also recently tackled by Ian Millhiser. It appears that Kennedy was about to gut affirmative action in college admissions back in 2012 but was dissuaded when he read Sotomayor’s blistering draft dissent. He decided to punt by sending the case back down to the lower court and asking them to be more hard-ass in their assessment of universities’ diversity admission programs. And then something odd happened.
The lower court looked again—and upheld the affirmative-action program again.
When the case came back, there was little reason to expect anything but a brisk reversal. Yet during the intervening terms, Kennedy may have begun to move on race questions…
…The opinion Kennedy wrote was really not a narrow one. It strongly endorses the Lewis Powell-Sandra Day O’Connor view of affirmative action as a quest for racial diversity, and it goes out of its way to say that courts must defer to educational authorities when assessing race-conscious admissions plans.
As Epps explains in detail, this is a fundamental reversal of Kennedy’s thinking, and it amounts to apostasy in conservative circles.
I don’t know if Sotomayor deserves most of the credit or if it’s more a matter of Kennedy just getting disgusted by the extremism of the Conservative Movement, or some combination. But taken together with his support of gay marriage and his joining the majority in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt abortion case, Kennedy has recently presided over a scorched earth decimation of the core of the Conservative Movement’s judicial order of battle.
Epps says he can’t discern any consistent, ideological guidepost to Kennedy’s thinking, but maybe he found one despite himself. Maybe Kennedy is still a very conservative Justice, but one who is no longer a part of the Movement or even particularly sympathetic to its causes.
The last thing we need is another conservative or neoliberal Justice. I don’t care if the ninth seat is ever filled. The eight person court is doing better than the nine person court.
Neither Trump nor Clinton will appoint a pro-people Justice and even if Obama were to appoint one, today’s Senate would never confirm them, so let it stay at eight until 2025, if there still is an American government then and foreign businesses haven’t sued it out of existence via TPP kangaroo courts.
you missed the snark tag
Tell that to the 3+ million affected by the recent 4-4 indecision.
You’re assuming that a fifth justice would have led to overturning the lower court decision. Had Scalia still been with us, that decision could have been strengthened and quite possibly expanded.
Uh, VoiceInTheWilderness literally assumed, in writing, that a 4-4 deadlocked Supreme Court is better than a 5-4 Supreme Court with 5 liberal justices.
How do I know? Because he literally said so.
I am making the argument that a 4-4 Supreme Court, literally, had a negative effect on millions of people. You know, because it literally did, in objective, observable reality.
Are we discussing pretend scenarios, or objective observable reality?
You’re bitching about a hypothetical that only entered the realm of possibility because Scalia died unexpectedly a few months ago. Is there any doubt in your mind what the topline decision would have been if he hadn’t died? And that would have been a SC precedent decision and we know how difficult it is to get a second shot at those. Plus, that majority could have expanded the decision beyond the narrow parameters of the case which would have made it a wide-ranging precedent.
So, the 4 to 4 outcome is definitely preferable to what was expected a few days months ago.
wrt Garland, at this point only a SC nominee (and not all SC nominees are confirmed), if he were on the court, none of us know what his decision would have been in this case. His record indicates that he sides with regulatory agencies and against criminal defendants. That could suggest that he’d favor the administration. OTOH, he’s a by the books sort of guy and may be reluctant to go along with what could be a temporary change.
In punting, the preliminary injunction remains in force as the lawsuits proceed in the lower courts. One (more likely more than one) of these cases will back in the SC in the near future. (It’s similar to when Newsome ordered the SF City/Co clerk to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. A lawsuit challenging that was quickly filed and a court issued a preliminary injunction stopping the issuance of those licenses. If SF appealed the preliminary injunction to the State Supreme Court that court ruled against SF, but a CA court had yet to hear and decide on the case. When it made it to the CA SC, like several other state Supreme Courts, they ruled that the prohibitions on same-sex marriage is a violation of the CA constitution.)
No.
I’m pointing out that the 4-4 decision by the USSC wasn’t a positive one for millions of people, some of whom have lived here their entire lives.
I’m pointing out that having a 4-4 court until 2025 is going to result in a lot of less-than-progressive results than if Hitlery Clinton, the most evil woman in the galaxy, happens to appoint 2-3 Supreme Court justices.
Again, the parent comment that I responded to is apt here.
No. In objective, observable reality, it isn’t preferable to keep the Supreme Court at 8 until 2025. Bad decisions can come out of a 4-4 decision…like the one that just happened.
It’s better that Scalia is dead (in every possible way) and didn’t get to vote on the matter, but it doesn’t change the fact that from now until 2025, the Supreme Court can become much more progressive.
Am I really having to defend the notion that 5 or more progressive justices on the Supreme Court is better than 4, or even less?
“I’m pointing out that having a 4-4 court until 2025 is going to result in a lot of less-than-progressive results than if Hitlery Clinton, the most evil woman in the galaxy, happens to appoint 2-3 Supreme Court justices.”
nails, heads, True Scotsmen, REAL progressives … and so forth.
Others are pointing out that a 5-4 decision (had Scalia not suddenly died) would have been far worse for the millions of people impacted by the decision than the 4-4 punt. And that you seem to be stuck on the idea that had Obama succeeded in replacing Scalia that the court would have changed the decision to 4-5. That’s a hypothetical on your part because had Garland been confirmed, it’s unknown if he could even have participated in this decision and if he could how he would have ruled.
We Americans are accustomed to games with a winner and a loser and have so little tolerance for ties that our games include means to break those ties. Having an odd number of SC Justices makes for a tidier judicial system, but that doesn’t mean that it’s inherently better. Consider two cases: Bush v. Gore and Citizen’s United v. FEC. What would have been the practical outcome if the SC had split 4-4 (IOW punted) on those two cases?
btw, no indication that Garland is progressive. And without a super-majority in the Senate it’s totally irrational to expect that Scalia could be replaced by a progressive. Garland is about the limits of what could be expected and that was too far for the GOP Senate. (Note: Obama chose Kagan to replace JP Stevens and she is more conservative than Stevens. I’m going to guess that you didn’t object to that nomination and doubt that you recognized that slight shift to the right.)
The 4-4 decision was a 4-4 decision because Scalia is thankfully dead.
It is irrelevant to the fact that the court will become more liberal if Garland or just about any justice replaces Scalia, as appointed by Obama or Hillary.
And Kagan, who is more conservative than Stevens, should be considered a conservative justice because of that?
The court is ALREADY more liberal with 8 justices and potential for ties than it was before Scalia bought it.
Yeah, subtracting one of the more conservative justices make the court more liberal.
This doesn’t address the fact that adding another liberal justice to make 4-4 left-right deadlocks disappear makes the court more liberal than it is as a 4-4 left-right deadlocked court.
It also doesn’t answer my question of just how “conservative” Kagan is simply because she’s more conservative than Stevens, who was one of the more liberal judges. Is Kagan a “conservative”, or just “more conservative than Stevens”, because the difference between those to phrases are substantive to just how “conservative” Kagan is.
No, Kagan isn’t a conservative. And she has time to grow while she’s on the court. Some do. Most don’t. Some may even become more conservative.
You seem to have lost your original complaint which was that Voice wouldn’t mind an eight member SC for many years to come. When I offered examples of cases where a 4-4 tie would have resulted if one of conservative justices had suddenly died, and that tie vote would have been preferable to the 5-4 decisions that came down, you refuse to acknowledge that eight justices instead of nine wouldn’t always be inferior. You’re hung up on one case that you’re hung up on one case that resulted in a tie as if this is the only time it has ever happened. And you don’t even seem to be informed about the case which has yet to be heard in federal court.
Appointing a Roberts clone to replace Scalia would make the court more liberal, but would change the outcome of very few decisions.
What you seem to miss is that the Senate is not going to confirm a liberal to replace Scalia. That’s not how it works because GOP Senators aren’t as spineless as Dem Senators. What I mean by that is that Dem Senators should have stood tall and said no way to confirming some like Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall. The same applied to replacing O’Connor with Alito.
More progressives on the court will be a good thing, not a bad thing.
A court sitting at 4-4 until 2025 will be less progressive.
You can keep saying I’m hung up on one case, but I’m counting the hundreds of cases that will be decided over the next 9 years as being more progressively decided with…you guessed it…more progressives on the court, rather than 4-4 deadlock.
Only 6.9% of cases so far would have needed a 9th justice. That doesnt mean its ideal to have evens, but its not a catastrophe.
Besides in that particular case wluldnt Scalia have made it 5-4 against the admin?
no but Garland would likely have made it 5-4 in favor of the administration
But you can’t get Garland. Maybe the Senate would confirm someone to the Right of Garland. IMO they would require someone Right of Scalia.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing for here, the court can’t exist with an even number. There is a nomination right now that isn’t even getting a hearing.
There’s a difference in saying that we can’t get someone because the Senate isn’t voting on anyone and not even having 9 Justices at all which long term is a catastrophe.
Only 1 case with a 4-4 tie has personally affected millions of people.
Repeat that 6.9% all week if you think it means something, I guess.
Sure, but it doesn’t mean the country or judicial system is grinding to a halt because there are 8 justices.
He was in the minority in the Obamacare case.
So the answer is no, he has not left the conservative movement.
True. He’s still a GOP corporatist.
Curious, I think Garland is a “law and order” guy, but any notion of his economic outlook?
Wasn’t covered in thisScotusBlog review. From this, doesn’t appear that he revealed any personal proclivities in his writings. Unlike Alito did iirc. Leans pro-law enforcement and pro-regulatory agencies. That would be consistent for one that defers to authority.
If a judge doesn’t reveal personal biases while serving on a appeals court, his/her record mostly reflects judicial competence based on existing law. In the Whole Women’s Health v. Texas abortion case, the appeals court judges may have legally been more right than wrong, leaving it up to the SC to check it out.
Wasn’t Sotomayor touted as a “law and order” judge when she was nominated to the SC?
If we were still in the era of robust regulatory actions and oversight for the good of the people, wouldn’t Garland have been viewed favorably by liberals? OTOH, he would likely have been favorable to the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Overall, a mixed bag, but an improvement over Scalia.
Thanks. That seems fair description.
that was prior to Scalia’s death, though
So you’re saying that Kennedy feared Scalia? Too funny.
More, I think, that he may have been persuaded by Scalia. Scalia was far and away the best “persuader” on the conservative side, and without him I don’t think any of the remaining three are good at keeping Kennedy with them when they’re pushing for something particularly nuts (which is often). Add in the fact that Kennedy can participate in writing law with a 5-3 or write something on a 4-4 split that goes in the circular file as soon as a 9th get confirmed, and he’s going to be prone to side with the moderates.
I’m not sure persuader would be the word I’d use. I’d be more inclined to suspect intellectual bully.
From his public persona, Scalia wasn’t into persuading pretty much anyone to his view. He was adamant that his view was the only logical, LEGAL way to look at the world (including Originalism).
Kennedy in “fear” would also be too strong a word. Say rather “conflict avoidance”.
Not seen evidence that Scalia was effective in persuading Roberts. Their reasoning often differed when they were on the same side of a decision.
My guess is that O’Connor was Kennedy’s persuasive buddy and it was likely mutual. Had Roberts replaced O’Connor, he and Kennedy may have become close. As Chief Justice, Roberts is less well positioned to persuade Kennedy. I’m further convincing myself that there’s something real to the conjecture of a Sotomayor and Kennedy relationship (strictly professional, but he may be a little bit in love with her).
This really misconceives who Supreme Court Judges are.
First, they are to a PERSON incredibly accomplished (with the exception of possible of Thomas). They come from the absolute top of the legal profession.
Second, they are incredibly egotistical. These are not people who fall under the sway of another justice.
So I found the speculation on Sontomeyer ludicrous.
Like O’Connor before him, on substantive due process cases Kennedy sides with the liberals. He has done that most of his term.
If you read his personal history, you find that his leadership of the gay rights cases (no other word for it) isn’t a surprise, particularly given his view on substantive due process generally.
On economic issues Kennedy was and always will be a hard right appointment.
Understanding an individual justice requires a far more granular understanding that “liberal” or “conservative”. The issues that come before the court are so varied that virtually every justice violates their supposed label.
Disclosure: I have argued before the Courts of Appeals – but never before the Supreme Court so take my opinion for what it is worth.
You left something out. Some of them are REALLY old. And there is no doubt that some people start to ‘slip’ after a certain age. Supreme Court justices are not immune from the mental effects of old age.
.
no just pointing out that the crux of this article is post-Scalia and the Obamacare decision was prior to that
In the interests of full disclosure there have been two major SC decisions on the ACA. Kennedy was in the minority on the first one, but in King v. Burwell (2015) he was part of the 6 to 3 majority.
Lawrence v. Texas was a big shift for Kennedy. Stevens, Ginsberg, and Breyer may have cracked Kennedy’s conservative worldview, but wouldn’t be surprised if Sotomayor broke it open.
How can Kennedy not look at Thomas (a twenty-five year lump on the court) and Alito (a retread from the 12th century) and compare then to a powerhouse like Sotomayor?
This sort of dynamic (older, stodgy, competent, and secure man and younger highly qualified, skilled, and thought provoking younger woman) in the workplace wasn’t rare in the first phase of affirmative action. Many great working relationships were forged during those years that may the individuals more and improved the operation.
Kennedy has long been sympathetic on LGBT issues but he’s still a wildcard and always has been. I don’t consider him a hack. He follows his own principles but it’s hard to predict his vote on many issues. Always has been.
Thomas and Alito are hacks. They’ll find a pretext to vote the way you know they’re gonna vote. Scalia was the same although he feigned to have a principled “originalist” view of the Constitution. All smoke screen. Tony was an ideologue.
I’d like to see a few more decisions before I’d say he’s turned but the early signs this term are good.
“It’s my party that’s destroying the country
…destroying the country
…destroying the country.
You would cry too if it happened too-oo yours! [da da dunh duh, da DUH]”
Can’t you just hear Lesley?
Dunno.
I read his reasoning in Citizens United. Phuck him. He’d have to vote ‘the good way’ for another 30 years to make up for that travesty.