On the following, I’d like to note that a Democratic president already has appointed a liberal-leaning justice to the Supreme Court. It’s just that the Republicans refuse to grant Merrick Garland a hearing or a confirmation vote.
Still, this is an interesting point.
If a Democratic president appoints a liberal-leaning justice, [Chief Justice John] Roberts would become the first chief in decades to preside over a court on which the majority holds an opposite ideology.
I can’t imagine that this would be very fun for Roberts. How does he react?
the note is more important than the question IMO, because without a Senate majority a Democratic president will not be allowed to have a justice confirmed.
Unless it becomes very obvious that obstructionism will be punished, that seems the likely scenario.
How will Chief Justice Roberts react to being in the minority ideology on the Court?
It appears we’re going to find out.
I view few Americans with more contempt. Citizens United and Shelby County are among many highly consequential decisions with broad findings which John helped jam through 5-4, in direct contravention of his claim during his Senate hearing that he would be looking to craft narrow rulings with unanimous or near-unanimous majorities.
himself to “calling balls and strikes”, either, as he lied he would do at those confirmation hearings.
He would either do the job or resign. I would look forward to his resignation myself.
I can’t see Roberts sitting on the court writing minority opinions for the small defined audience. He will jump out into that free market and do his best to get rich quick.
jump into is the negotiations among justices to craft majority opinions, shaping them to whatever extent he can.
I know it’s not widely publicized, but the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) have become very rich via entirely legal bribery. Speaking gigs, conference deals, etc. Not just them – their family members are given high-paying gigs where they do little. Staying on the SCOTUS is a very lucrative gig for Roberts.
And, by the way, anyone who thinks that the owners of the GOP purse strings actually wanted Obamacare declared unconstitutional wasn’t paying attention. Roberts took a bullet for the team when he allowed himself to be seen as the scapegoat for changing that decision at the literal last hour.
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark
As a journalist/journalism professor, I am VERY concerned about how narratives around the Dallas shootings are being framed.
10:56 AM – 10 Jul 2016
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
To our knowledge, a single person exploited a peaceful protest for the purpose of exacting his own “revenge.”
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
How many THOUSANDS of people have marched/protest/lobbied peacefully under the banner of #BlackLivesMatter since 2014?
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
Mass media has the ability to cast all Black people as a faceless, violent mass. The actions of a single man, amplified by media +
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
give credence to this false narrative that #BlackLivesMatter is a “terrorist” organization.
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
Micah X. Johnson may have been a terrorist, but #BlackLivesMatter is two things: a movement calling America into accountability and +
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
An organization committed to the liberation of Black people. It is not a terrorist group.
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
ISIS is a terrorist group. Boko Haram is a terrorist group. Al Shabab is a terrorist group. The KKK is a terrorist group.
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
That protest & disruption of daily activities is now called “terrorism” in the U.S. shows exactly how privilege creates dissonance.
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
We do not have to accept these false narratives. We can be sources. We can be critics. There are many levels to this fight.
Meredith Clark, PhD @meredithclark 3h3 hours ago
That’s my challenge to anyone who sees these tweets today. When you see bias in the news this week, call it out.
TBH, I could care less. I just want the Dems to get the majority. Let everyday of work after that happens SUCK for him.
Those 3-2 losses will be tough to take.
LOL
My guess (good as anyone else’s here) is that Roberts hangs on, hunkers down, waits for better days. 2020 is a lifetime away and a lot of things can change. He could find himself in a position where he can rebuild. On the other hand if he bails early the whole right-wing position on the Court implodes.
Furthermore, USSC is the main game but it’s not the only one. The right wing has spent decades building up conservative strength at lower levels of the judiciary as well. Not clear at all what happens to that investment if Roberts bails — one of USSC’s jobs is to supervise the rest of the judiciary as well as handle its own cases.
The conservative movement is losing control of the Federal judiciary after holding the Presidency for only 8 of the last 24 years. Senate obstruction is limited in its efficacy.
I’m always complaining that US voters don’t have a basic knowledge of civics, but this exposes my own ignorance on how the system works.
What powers does the Chief Justice actually have?
If SCOTUS were 5-4 or 6-3 liberal, what if anything could Roberts do as CJ to obstruct the will of the majority? Could he single-handedly block the court from hearing certain cases? Are we heading towards a McConnell/Boehner/Obama-style clusterf**k in the Judicial branch??
“what if anything could Roberts do as CJ to obstruct the will of the majority?”
Answer: not much.
“Despite the seniority and added prestige, the Chief Justice’s vote carries the same legal weight as each of the other eight justices. In any decision, he has no legal authority to overrule the verdicts or interpretations of the other eight judges or tamper with them. The task of assigning who shall write the opinion for the majority falls to the most senior justice in the majority. Thus, when the Chief Justice is in the majority, he always assigns the opinion.”
The chief justice does set the agenda for for the weekly meetings where the justices review the petitions for certiorari, but associate justices can append cases if they wish.
Oddly, he appoints the members of the FISA court with no oversight from anyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Appointment_proc
ess
My guess would be that Roberts would try to revert to what he said he would do in his nomination hearings – basically, try and craft opinions that are as narrow as possible, but since he will vote himself into the majority, he will get to assign the opinions to himself – and thus go for incrementalist opinions. It will be up to Ginsberg (as the leader of the liberal wing) to forcefully push back on this and go for maximalist opinions that Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and whomever ends up getting Scalia’s seat will support.
It will also be interesting to see if Kennedy does something similar, and they end up working very closely (as the two most senior jurists on SCOTUS) to ‘contain’, if you will, the ‘damage’ they would view coming from liberal rulings from the court.
I think you’ve nailed it here. The thing to understand about a wingnut SCOTUS justice role is that it is very lucrative (see my comment below), and you get invited to all the best parties and vacation spots, and you can keep doing it until you tire of letting of the job of showing up for a few hours per workday a few months of the year (and letting your hired law clerks do the real work). However, you have to keep producing for the benefits to keep rolling in, otherwise they’ll leave you to your government salary. After you’ve been given every perk imaginable for a while, it’s really hard to give that up.
So, in order to keep producing he’ll want to do more than just be on the short end of 5-4 decisions. Oh, he’ll still get the bucks just keeping a conservative seat warm during a Democratic presidency, but the added perks come from doing more than that. As you point out, as Chief Justice he can best attempt to undermine the will of the majority by pretending to agree and then undercutting the decision by writing it himself.
Assuming Hillary appoints a Liberal rather than a neo-Liberal, which I consider a Peter Pan assumption, he might do what Burger did and change his position on individual cases so he could be in the majority and assign the position to himself, so he could at least salvage a rationale/limit the scope.
I would bet he would move over to the majority, probably slowly but eventually. He doesn’t strike me as someone who likes to scream into the darkness.
He does seem to be somewhat pragmatic and by siding with the majority could shape some of those decisions.
ot: from your other publication, but something that you alerted us too:
Conservatives Just Lost the War to Privatize the VA
by Paul Glastris
July 8, 2016
………………………………………..
Second, the law empaneled an independent Commission on Care to study the VA and recommend sweeping reforms, with privatization very much on the agenda. Indeed, representatives from two Koch brothers-allied pro-privatization groups were given seats on the commission, as were several executives from major medical centers that stand to profit from outsourcing VA care. The fix, it seemed, was in.
Neither the Choice Program’s implementation nor the Commission on Care’s deliberations has gotten much coverage in the mainstream media. But as regular Washington Monthly readers know, we’ve been watching both very closely indeed.
Among other things, we reported that research commissioned by Congress and ratified by the Commission concluded that while the VA has major problems, such as severe shortages of some doctors, VA health care nevertheless performs as well or better than the private sector on nearly every metric of quality, including average wait times to see doctors.
Meanwhile, the presidential candidates also took positions on the VA issue. Donald Trump’s campaign backed aggressive privatization. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, announced her opposition to privatization but support for expanding existing “purchased care” programs wherein the VA contracts with outside providers to alleviate care shortages but maintains tight oversight to guarantee information-sharing, care integration, and quality and cost controls.
On Wednesday, the Commission released its final report. To the surprise of most observers, the commission rejected privatization as the solution. While detailing a host of serious failings with the VA, the report notes that “care delivered by VA is in many ways comparable or better in clinical quality to that generally available in the private sector.” It concludes that the new Choice Program was “flawed” in both its design and execution, adding that “the program has aggravated wait times and frustrated veterans, private-sector health care providers participating in networks, and V.H.A. alike.” Rather than wholesale outsourcing, the report recommends addressing issues of access by “standing up integrated veteran-centric, community-based delivery networks,” a plan roughly similar to the one Hillary Clinton had called for.
Trump backer says he’s running `as a racial healer’
07/11/16 08:00 AM–UPDATED 07/11/16 08:49 AM
By Steve Benen
Donald Trump has been called all sorts of things over the course of his controversial presidential campaign, but yesterday was probably the first time anyone, anywhere, said he’s positioned to play the role of “racial healer.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper interviewed Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R), a vice presidential contender, and the host noted that he’s heard from “a number of Latino-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Native-Americans, Jewish-Americans, African-Americans, all expressing concerns about some of the things Donald Trump has said.” The Republican governor insisted most Americans have the same security concerns, regardless of who wins the election.
It led to this amazing exchange.
In case you’re curious, the governor said this with a straight face.
How Bernie Sanders lost black voters
Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic primary in large part because he failed to win the hearts of black progressives.
It didn’t have to be that way. But his campaign never explained how black people fit into his vision of a radically changed America. And, according to a series of Fusion interviews with former staff members, campaign leadership didn’t really see the point in trying.
Those former staffers described a campaign that failed to give its black outreach teams the resources they needed, that never figured out how to connect to black audiences, and that marginalized black media.
In the process, the campaign missed a chance to capitalize on a revolutionary message that otherwise might have appealed to black voters frustrated with the current political order.
Instead, Sanders was clobbered by Hillary Clinton among black voters in state after state after state, including some where Sanders either won white voters or lost them narrowly. The gap made it all but impossible for him to win the nomination.
Well, fortunate for all of us that some of his more popular positions like college education and broadened access to low cost health care might be a subject of future discussion in the party.
How does he react?
Hopefully by jumping off of a tall building or onto the Interstate at rush hour.