Courting
With so much going on, it was easy enough to ignore what would normally have been last week's big story--the major cases handed down by the Supreme Court. Not that they weren't covered. They just didn't create the excitement they normally would. Though some conservatives (including some on the court) suggest that's the problem--that the court, under John Roberts, avoids controversial decisions. (Controversial to certain people, that is.)
Thus the sexual orientation case and the DACA case. Conservative critics find it absurd that Gorsuch, allegedly a textualist, could find the Civil Rights Act of 1964 means things its signers couldn't possible have meant. And the same critics find it even more bizarre that the Chief Justice says one President can make an executive decision that the next President can't rescind. Both opinions, they say, are results-oriented jurisprudence.
What got to me, though, is how it was assumed--correctly--that all four liberal justices would vote the same way. Can't they ever surprise us? Looked at a matter of principle, rather than politics, it doesn't seem like these cases are slam dunks for their side. Just now and then, can't one of them go a little off the reservation?
posted by LAGuy @ 2:00 AM
4 Comments:
Ginsburg and Breyer voted with the 5 non-liberals to allow the National Forest to permit a pipeline under the Appalachian Trail. Of course, this should have been a 9-0 vote, as it is insane to think Congress intended the Appalachian trail to be in impassable wall paralleling the east coast.
I understand in secondary cases the lineup can be more uncertain, but in the highest profile cases, the liberal bloc is all too predictable.
All too predictable for those desiring illiberal outcomes
Anon, I think you're missing my point, and, in fact, are demonstrating the exact sort of politicization of the process that I find troubling.
I didn't even take any sides. I was just noting these are supposed to be legal decisions, not political ones (at least I think so--others may believe the Court should be political). The right and left desire certain outcomes and then interpret the law to get to the desired result, which is not how legal reasoning is supposed to work. While the conservative justices surprised people in recent cases, the liberals voted along predictable political lines. I find it hard to believe if the justices were simply deciding cases based on legal principles, and didn't know which results were desired, that the results would be the same.
Post a Comment
<< Home