Supreme Court

  • 22 Dec

    Supreme Knowledge

    If there were a channel that aired behind-the-scenes shows about the Supreme Court, I would need a bigger DVR.  The little things about the court fascinate me, just as the day-to-day work draws my interest.

    My latest read, Jeffrey Toobin’s “The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court,” naturally fed every bit of that.  It follows, as the name suggests, the work of the Court during the Obama administration, particularly the influence of Chief Justice John Roberts.

    The book is a companion to Toobin’s earlier work “The Nine,” which I read a few years ago (during a period in which I was not posting about every book.  But I did note it in the 2009 records.)

    The great thing about Toobin’s writing is that he tells a larger arc story — in this case, the influences that led up to the landmark health care and campaign finance decisions — while also dropping in personal details about the justices that you don’t get from their written opinions.

    Before reading this book I certainly didn’t know that Roberts played Peppermint Patty in his high school drama club’s production of “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.”  Same goes for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s past as a high school cheerleader or the fact that Justice Antonin Scalia has nine kids.

    Toobin also points out how ardently former Chief Justice William Rehnquist insisted people call him “chief justice” while Roberts is more lenient in demanding the title.  In a world of immense coincidences, the day after I read this section of the book,  Roberts had an exchange with a lawyer at the court (as reported in the New York Times) illuminating just that point:

    “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Ms. Gilley for her position, and she responded with a discussion of an opinion by ‘Justice Rehnquist.’  Chief Justice Roberts corrected her reference to his predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. ‘He was the chief justice, by the way,’ Chief Justice Roberts said. ‘It matters to one of us.'”

    You may recall that during President Obama’s first inauguration, there was a little confusion about the oath, leading to Roberts administering it a second time.  Toobin gives a background of the legal discussions surrounding whether it was technically necessary for a president to say the oath at all, but also includes the interesting detail of where the mulligan oath was performed at the White House:

    “Presidents had long used the Map Room as a kind of hybrid, for occasions that they didn’t want to recognize as presidential business but that weren’t personal either.   A decade earlier, for that reason, Bill Clinton gave his grand jury testimony to the Kenneth Starr investigation in the Map Room.”

    Clearly we need a section in each room of the White House that tells the history of everything that happened there.  I’m sure there is a wealth of fascinating juxtapositions.

    If you follow the court at all, you know that Justice Anthony Kennedy has often been the swing vote that clinches a 5-4 majority.  But Toobin perfectly describes the way in which Kennedy sides with liberals on some issues and conservatives on others:

    “Kennedy was not a moderate but an extremist — of varied enthusiasms.”

    Easily the most interesting background section in the book for me though is about former Justice John Paul Stevens.  You’ll remember him as the guy who always wore a bow tie.  Toobin writes about how Stevens’s family opened a hotel in Chicago in 1927, then known as the Stevens Hotel.  It’s still there, now the Chicago Hilton.  I just checked, and you can stay there tonight for $119.

    Toobin’s insight to the interpersonal relationships between the justices is truly fascinating.  Justices you would think of as mortal enemies because of their polar opposite positions on cases are great friends outside of their work.  They even have fun with each other inside the seemingly boring text of their opinions.  He writes about how Stevens did a clerkship with former Justice Wiley B. Rutledge, “an FDR appointee Stevens always revered.”

    “When Stevens’s colleagues wanted to needle him, they would cite one of Rutledge’s opinions against him. (Kennedy referred to Rutledge three times in his Citizens United [v. Federal Election Commission] opinion.)”

    That anecdote is why I enjoy Toobin’s work so much.  Here, in one of the biggest decisions in years, a hotly anticipated case that was actually argued a rare two times, Kennedy couldn’t help but cite the decisions of Stevens’s mentor.  Who doesn’t have co-workers like that?

  • 14 Jun

    Remaking the Supreme Court

    The U.S. Supreme Court is easily the most interesting piece of the government. The historic nature of their opinions, the secretive nature of their deliberations and the appointment process all give the court a different feeling than other entities.

    But it’s time to shake things up. Well, maybe just a small change. We need to get rid of associate justice John Paul Stevens.

    He hasn’t committed any grand crimes against America (that I know of), nor have his opinion offended me beliefs. Rather, I just can’t remember the man. Whenever I read a story about the court, I always try to then name the nine justices to see if I can remember.

    Back in the day, roughly 2005, I could do that in my sleep. I was taking multiple classes where that was useful, everyday information and had no problem reeling them off. I could tell you which five were the conservatives and which were the liberals.

    Now things are a little fuzzy. Last night I read a story about the importance of this election, since five of the justices will be at least 70 years old on election day (a sixth being 69). That means a two term president would have a great chance at nominating several justices, with 88-year-old John Paul Stevens high on the list of possible retirees.

    So why not grease the wheels a bit and announce your retirement in August? There’s no way a new justice could be nominated and confirmed before the new president takes office. And that way I could just remember the new guy’s name, which will already be drilled into my head by the aforementioned confirmation process. Everybody wins. Well maybe just I do, but whatever.

    Supreme Court fun fact of the day: In the last 40 years, all but two appointments to the court have been made by Republican presidents.

    *Editor’s note: The Supreme Court fun fact of the day is a one-time occurrence and will not be seen again unless I come across another fun fact and feel the need to share it, thus necessitating the return of the Supreme Court fun fact of the day for another post that will feature yet another disclaimer letting you know that I don’t intend to keep up with such a thing since I’m pretty much lazy but if you know me then you already knew that.

  • 17 Aug

    Padilla, not Vick, is True Sports Loss

    While Michael Vick considers pleading guilty to federal charges concerning dog fighting, columnists, pundits and sports fans across the country are talking about what that means for his NFL future. Also at stake is the future of the Atlanta Falcons who will probably one way or another lose their star quarterback through imprisonment or having had enough of the Vick experience.

    It’s always sad to see a person throw their livelihood away for making bad choices, especially when you’re in a position that so many other people would give anything for. It’s also sad when the fallout from those actions affects so many other people, which in Vick’s case includes the franchise that has reinvented itself solely to fit his style of play.

    But today came news that an even bigger star has lost his freedom to excel on the field and carry his team to glory. That’s the story of Jose Padilla, also known as Justice Jose Padilla.

    Maybe you’ve heard the name. He was detained by the government as an enemy combatant in the war on terror. He was held under that status without a lawyer for several years in solitary confinement. He took his case–just to get access to the legal system–all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which said he should be tried in South Carolina. Ultimately, the United States changed tactics, dropping his original charges of planning to detonate a dirty bomb and instead going after new charges in federal court of conspiring to support jihad overseas.

    Yesterday he was convicted of those charges and faces life in prison.

    That is bad new for the Washington Nationals baseball team. Two years ago Padilla became their starting catcher. Not only is he the premier defensive catcher in the league, he’s also a top hitting talent. After seeing the Nats to several titles and leading the on-field charge for the outfitting of a brilliant new stadium, Padilla now faces an eternity of bars and concrete.

    Of couse, this didn’t happen in real life. Rather, it happened in the XBOX version of MVP baseball in a franchise created by my roommates and myself. We had some wonderful players named after ourselves, but also included players like Juan Rocker and Justice Padilla to put our talent over the top.

    Prior to living in that apartment, the three of us had lived together at lovely Susquehanna University. It was there that Jason and I took a class our senior year called Law & Politics. We discussed things like the Padilla case from the legal standpoint and how that affected, and was affected, by politics. Absolutely fascinating.

    The fall after taking the class there was an opening on the Supreme Court. While most people interested in the debate talked about real candidates, we instead went with more unconventional options. Our two favorite were George W. Bush and Jose Padilla–hence, Justice Padilla.

    Sadly, neither were nominated nor confirmed. I still think Bush would have been a great option. At least give it a shot. You’re in the second, and last possible, term as president. You are the guy who nominates candidates to the court. It’s a lifetime appointment with a good salary. Why not try?

    Of course after discussing the issue with the professor of Law & Politics, it became clear that President Bush is not a great candidate. To be confirmed he would need a huge supporting cast in the Senate (which was eroding at the time), and behind that would need a populous willing to support that decision. Oh and the whole giving up the presidency thing. But hey, there’s always hope for a future very popular president in the waning days of his term right?

  • 20 Oct

    Clinton Prepares for Return to White House…YES!

    Last summer I wrote about the prospects of President Bush nominating himself to serve on the Supreme Court. There’s a limited time left for his governing term, and with a lifetime appointment, it seems like a pretty good gig.

    In today’s Washington Post, there’s an article about a former president skirting around normal Constitutional thinking and getting back into the White House. That president is William Jefferson Clinton. You might know him as Bill.

    The plan works out like this: Bill runs as vice president on someone’s ticket (Post had him naturally with Hillary, though I think Gore/Clinton would be far more interesting). The 12th Amendment says you can’t be vice president if you aren’t eligible to be president. The 22nd Amendment says you can’t be elected president more than twice.

    But as the Post points out through interviews with former White House lawyers, Clinton wouldn’t be elected president. He would ascend to the presidency, thus making a third term for him legal, even though a fourth would be out of the question because of the necessity for reelection.

    I was totally with them at this point and ready to start printing campaign flyers for Candidate X/Clinton ’08.

    Until I ran into my old buddy Richard Posner. Judge Posner sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals and was the subject of a research paper when I was in grad school.

    He’s also the man responsible for crushing my dreams. He says in the Post, “Electing a vice president means electing a vice president and contingently electing him as president,” which would prohibit Clinton from making such a run.

    Maybe Clinton is getting bored these days and will try to stir things up. After all, if he can get a Gore/Clinton ticket going and manage to get elected, the Supreme Court would once again be asked to make a huge ruling involving the presidency. Imagine the legal arguments raining down from both sides as former justices, White House lawyers, Ally McBeal and someone with a powdered wig weigh in on cable news shows. University classes will grind to a halt as students debate the merits of each sideā€¦and then have to write a 20-page paper defending their position.

    Did I mention I have the Constitution on my iPod?

  • 20 Jul

    Supreme Court…Bush?

    So during what can only be categorized as “thinking time,” the following question came up in my mind: Could our wonderful president (I use the term wonderful in the loosest and most sarcastic forms possible, I promise) nominate himself to fill the pending Supreme Court vacancy left by Sandra Day O’Connor?

    Think about it. He can only be president for a few more years, which has its perks, but as a Supreme Court justice he’s set for life. That’s a guaranteed sweet paycheck with no possibility of being fired no matter how little people agree with you or your job performance. Is there a better gig in America? I think not. So if you are a lame duck president, why not put yourself up for the court? Even if you suck as a president, why not at least give it a shot?

    In reality, there is the slimmest of chances of this actually working since you would need to be so immensely popular with the fine folks in the Senate, (and those American people folks who might punish those Senators when reelection time rolls around) that such a thing will never reach history books.

    And also, if you are going to make a big announcement in prime time of your nomination, at least make it entertaining. Maybe have a sense of humor? Mr. Bush, (pronounced Mr. Rove), you run the greatest PR machine on the planet right now, (including diverting attention away from your own *gulp* mistakes), so why not make this fun for everyone? Why not start the announcement with a fake choice to see who is really paying attention.

    My fellow Americans, I’d like to announce Mr. Jose Padilla as my nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. He’s a minority, and knows firsthand many of the pressing issues of our day including holding captives for long periods without any sort of judicial proceeding, and for that reason alone I think he’d be great. pause. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5….Oh just kidding, I hope that sucker fries some day (shoots off gun, chokes on pretzel)…I nominate…I nominate…(who did you…I mean I…choose again?) I nominate this guy…

Archives