Notatypewriter's Blog

Umm… what?

Posts Tagged ‘scotus

On Stevens’ Retirement

leave a comment »

Everybody’s been talking about the latest interview from Justice Stevens about his retirement. It’s been one of the hot topics of discussion for the professor for the Bill of Rights course I’m taking. (Then again, she’s a lawyer and she’s the only one in the class who really participates in this kind of court gossiping. I guess it’s a lawyer thing. I know my friends and I talk about the latest squabbles between technology giants.)

In any case, I think the Court, like many other arenas of American society, has become way too polarized and political. The Court, having no financial or military power, can only rely on the strength of its argument to convince people of the rightness of their decisions. For that reason, it’s probably the best branch of the government and the one I most respect. They also have the luxury of not having to live with the decisions they make and the luxury of not having to listen to whatever the public says about their decisions. It’s a huge positive but also a huge negative. Since they’re not forced to be in touch with the public mood, they can ignore it and in some cases might not even realize it, and become this polarized body.

Once the Court becomes political, their arguments become tainted. It’s hard for a Democrat to read an opinion that seems to give the Republicans everything they want and feel that it’s okay, even if the arguments are all factually correct and logically consistent. One side trumpets a decision as the savior of the republic and the other side will denounce it as the final nail in the American coffin. When you see these 5-4 decisions split along party lines, it just becomes really easy to dismiss it as those nutty conservatives taking the Court over again.

I hope the Court realizes this and issues less 5-4 decisions that are split between what’s seen as the conservative side and the liberal side of the court. Larger majorities would go a long way to putting away the perception of the court as yet another arena for political squabbling. Creating larger majorities would make it hard for somebody to dismiss a decision as a political split, but instead force people to examine the arguments of the justices they perceive as on their side. This would probably conflict with being absolutely right or wrong according to the Constitution, but the perception of the Court is so intrinsic to their power that I feel they need to compromise a little on the absolutism in order to regain the public’s respect.

I also hope the news media covers the Court’s decisions less as a political horse-race in that one party gained and the other party lost (see Citizens United), but perhaps in a more measured and analytical fashion. (Don’t hold your breath.)

So whoever Obama chooses, I hope it’s somebody who can help persuade the majority to narrow their opinions to create larger majorities to help heal the deep rift between the right and the left of this country. (Though honestly, this is Chief Justice Roberts’ job. Based on his talk at the University of Alabama, he recognizes that the Court is becoming kind of political, but I don’t think he’s done anything to help it.)

What I don’t want is for Obama to choose somebody for the sake of creating a larger conservative majority. Marginalizing one side or the other only creates resentment and deepens the rift.

In the worst case, Obama would retain the current split so nothing too terrible will come about. But he has a chance to help heal a battered institution and I hope he takes it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by notatypewriter

2010 April 3 at 6:14 pm

Posted in Thoughts

Tagged with ,

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

leave a comment »

What the fuck? This decision is messed up. I only wrote it here so I can make some sense of it. There are five separate opinions.

  • Majority opinion by Rhenquist (joined in parts to be described later)
  • Concurrence by O’Connor
  • Concurrence by Scalia
  • Concurrence/Dissent by Blackmun, joined by Brennan and Marshall
  • Concurrence/Dissent by Stevens

Rhenquist’s opinion has parts I, II-A, II-B, II-C, II-D, III.

  • Part I: controlling, joined by White, O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. (5)
  • Part II-A: controlling, joined by White, O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. (5)
  • Part II-B: controlling, joined by White, O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. (5)
  • Part II-C: controlling, joined by everybody (9)
  • Part II-D: joined by White and Kennedy, concurred in judgment by O’Connor and Scalia (5)
  • Part III: joined by White and Kennedy (3)

I think this is right. If I made a mistake, please leave a comment.

Written by notatypewriter

2010 March 18 at 8:36 pm

Posted in Thoughts

Tagged with , , ,

%d bloggers like this: