Okay, I’m back from my vacation. Where were we? Oh, yes, we were discussing the delicious spectacle of conservative superhero Richard Posner’s interview with NPR in which he referred to the modern GOP as a bunch of goofs and seemed to call the three amigos of the Supreme Court backstabbing lunatic crackpots. He also said that he was becoming less conservative as a result of having to witness the sad spectacle of the Republican Party over the last ten years. Here’s his quote about the way Chief Justice John Roberts has been treated by conservatives, including his fellow conservatives on the Court:
“Because if you put [yourself] in his position … what’s he supposed to think? That he finds his allies to be a bunch of crackpots? Does that help the conservative movement? I mean, what would you do if you were Roberts? All the sudden you find out that the people you thought were your friends have turned against you, they despise you, they mistreat you, they leak to the press. What do you do? Do you become more conservative? Or do you say, ‘What am I doing with this crowd of lunatics?’ Right? Maybe you have to re-examine your position.”
Judge Posner has been on the 7th Circuit of Appeals since 1981, serving as its chief judge during the entirety of Bill Clinton’s presidency. While he has never been a down-the-line orthodox conservative, he has been the premier conservative legal thinker for more than thirty years. The right is responding to his comments by insisting that he was never much of a conservative in the first place, which is a defensible position up to a point. The problem is that he’s not discussing the war on drugs or marijuana; he’s discussing the Republican Party and the hostility of Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy towards their Chief Justice.
It’s worth remembering that when the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, Breyer and Ginsberg were the only two Justices on the Court who had been appointed by a Democrat. Yet, in a totally politically-motivated ruling, the Court ruled 5-4 to shut down the Florida recount and hand the presidency to George W. Bush. Both David Souter and John Paul Stevens voted with Gore.
The reason I cite that particular case is because it wasn’t really about judicial philosophy. It was about picking the president, which is a political act. And two Republicans voted, in effect, for a Democratic president. John Roberts definitely started his career on the Court to the right of Souter and Stevens, but that doesn’t mean he can’t drift in their direction. Just as Posner is feeling less and less conservative as time goes on, Roberts could feel the same way. To have one of the other conservative Justices leaking to the press is a serious violation of trust, probably made worse by Roberts’ uncertainty about the culprit. Judges are supposed to be dispassionate, but you can’t discredit the personal aspect of this. Roberts has been cast out of the conservative movement, and the only question is how he will respond.
Possner may indeed be the tip of the judicial iceberg bench so to speak. Across America there had to be fireworks at the country clubs and backyards of members of the Bar for the 4th as members relitigated the arguments.
To abandon a Supreme who has been so hero worshipped may be easy for Rush and even Mitt, but not so much for lawyers and judges. Roberts gave them a strong decision to debate; unlike Scalia and Kennedy who turned couch potato and left their legal minds rest.
You’re all over the map with this one.
I’m not sure why you bring up FL.
Yes, what happened in FL was bad, but using the football analogy you don’t put all of the blame for losing a poorly managed, bad strategy game on the field goal kicker who misses the kick at the end of the game.
The 2000 election should have never have gotten to the point where the SCOTUS had to be brought in to look at one state’s election results.
Is it really so hard to understand? The Bush v. Gore would have been decided 7-2 instead of 5-4 if the GOP hadn’t alienated two of their justices over the years. But, by making them not feel welcome on the Team, they voted for their new team. That was just the most political case on record, but it also translated to many other non-political cases. What should have been a 7-2 court was a 5-4 court, because the conservatives were too radical.
The point IS I don’t care about the SCOTUS breakdown on this fiasco.
FL is just one state.
Do you understand that?
What kind of political “strategy” allows the race to get to the point where the SCOTUS has to step in and make a decision?
You appear to be implying this is a normal occurrence in presidential races– it’s not
I’m not talking about who won in 2000 and why. I am talking about how Justices appointed by Republicans can wind up voting with the liberal bloc.
I agree with your main point. The only place I differ is in thinking Souter and Stevens would have voted the other way had they not been (presumably) alienated by the right. Both of those men had the character to vote their conscience. I think they voted to allow the recount to continue because there was no basis in law to shut it down.
Well, it’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
Jan Crawford keeps pushing the envelope.
Ok, now knowing her history with Genie and Clarence Thomas, I’m inclined to believe those who say that Thomas is the leak
What in holy hell is the point of leaking stuff like this? Who does it help? If I was Roberts, I’d be throughly PO’d.
It’s either Thomas or Fat Tony. It’s obvious that the two of them, and the Con movement, are dumb MF’ers. Roberts’ bosses are the Chamber of Commerce(aka big business). And they wanted the mandate, though they’ll never admit it publicly.
Without any evidence whatsoever, I have always thought the reason Obama appointed Kagen to the court was so she could be Robert’s friend and ally.
As a WASP in good standing, he isn’t going to ally with Sotomayor. Ginsberg is too old for him, Kennedy too ornery, Breyer too snooty. Alito and Scalia are too New Jersey, while Thomas’s wife is a scandal waiting to happen.
Roberts has always been basically a toady personality, thinking he is a leader while actually needing someone to tell him what to do. Initially he went along with Scalia as the strongest personality on the court, but Kagen is exactly the kind of person that Roberts can respect and now they are allies in the biggest case of his career.
I think we’ll see her capacity for persuasive legal reasoning and her non-threatening but confident manner are going to sway him to her side again and again.
I have one problem with this line of thinking: If it took this for Roberts to notice that his allies were hacks and cranks, then it must follow that he has replaced Doug Feith as the stupidest fucking guy on the face of the earth.
This may be the case, but it’s pretty cold comfort if it is.
Not really about Roberts, but TPM is saying that over a million could be disenfranchised in PA. What is the feeling on the ground? What can be done about it? Does this really risk the state falling to Romney?
I told my law professor wife once the Court decision was made that Roberts had his “Souter Moment.”