December 26, 2018--Swing Vote

Occasionally, one of my predictions comes true. For example, my suggesting in early October that with swing man Anthony Kennedy no longer on the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would assume that role.

I noted that Supreme Courts are referred to by historians after whomever is the Chief. Thus there is the Warren Court and the Rehnquist Court and the Berger Court or, for that matter, the John Marshall Court.

Knowing this, I wondered, with Trump appointing far-right judges, how the current Chief Justice, John Roberts, was feeling about his name being associated with a court that has descended into full-bore partisanship. 

It appears that he is now thinking that unless he becomes the swing vote, replacing Kennedy, the Roberts Court will forever after be dominated by ideological lightweights such as Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. And though he does not appoint his colleagues, he will still be perceived as responsible for their actions.

Does Roberts want to go down in history rafted up with this crew?

Apparently not, which is good news to progressives and America as the Supreme Court is likely over the next year to be called on to decide if a sitting president (Trump) can be indicted or if the Mueller Report, when it is completed, can be withheld from public view by Trump's small-minded Justice Department.

The latest evidence that Roberts has become the court's swing man was his vote last week to join the four liberal-leaning justices in rejecting an appeal from the Trump administration that would, if approved, have overturned many decades of asylum policy. To severely restrict the rules by which fleeing refuges can seek the protection of the United States. 

Earlier, he again joined the liberals in overruling a lower court decision that would have restricted federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Thomas and his comrades cried foul. But there was Roberts guided by the Constitution, not partisan reflex.

In even bigger picture terms Roberts' behavior and leadership is of great consequence because, if it persists, it will mean that at least one of the three branches of our otherwise dysfunctional government might again begin to function as envisaged by the Founders and thus will be guided by the Constitution they bequeathed to us.

Then there is the open spat that has been festering since 2015 between Trump and Roberts. All initiated by Trump's intemperate criticism of what he claimed to be the ideological bias of federal judges.

During the election campaign Trump frequently spoke out against what he asserted were liberal federal judges who acted as political partisans. Those in the 9th circuit, for example.

Two days before Thanksgiving Trump attacked an "Obama judge" for ruling against him on immigration. In an unusual public rebuke Rogers shot back, claiming that there are no "Obama judges, Bush Judges, or Clinton judges." Just independent ones.

Actually, there are highly partisan federal judges who are guided more by their beliefs than by precedent or the Constitution. Conservatives as well as liberals. Supreme Court justice Anton Scalia is a powerful example of the former. 

But Roberts is articulating his aspirations for the judiciary and is modeling independent-minded behavior that he hopes will become the standard. He should be commended for that.

October 9, 2018--Swing Time At the Supreme Court

Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for the New York Times, in a postmortem after the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that with the departure of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court is now left without a swing vote. Expect, he says, very conservative decisions, among others, about abortion (severely restrict or end them), affirmative action (sack it), redistricting (what states are doing is OK), and voting rights (not to worry too much about them).

While I'm not so sure Kennedy did all that much swinging, it is true that on subjects such as gay rights he usually voted with the liberal minority. Mainly, though, he joined conservatives on the court in a series of 5-4 decisions about presidential power, corporate reach, and the funding of political campaigns.

There may be, though, another way to think about this. Even with Kavanaugh seated, instead of a predictable suite of conservative 5-4 decisions, we may find a surprising number, sill 5-4s, tipped in a surprisingly liberal direction. 

We could see more moderate and even occasional progressive judgements then anticipated with someone other than Kennedy or, God help us, Kavanaugh agreeing with the four-member liberal wing of the court.

I see the strong possibility that Chief Justice John Roberts may turn out to be an occasional swing vote, especially when issues are of such magnitude that he does not want his court to be perceived as acting too regressively or with too much partisanship.

Case in point, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) where Roberts struggled to find a way, a rationale that would work for him and allow him to vote to uphold it. Which he did. (Swingman Kennedy voted with the other three conservative judges and argued vigorously to get Roberts to join them.)

Stretching the language of the actual Obamacare legislation, he saw the individual mandate of the ACA to be funded by a tax and not by either subsides or penalties. And, thus, constitutional. A stretch but revealing--he was so eager to find the ACA upholdable that he became inventive when it came to finding a way to sustain it.

Why might that be? Judicial rationalization trumping ideology and even belief?

Because it's his court. Robert's court. Forever in history, whatever the court does or does not do, finds constitutional or lacking in precedent will be attributable to the Robert's Court.

It wasn't the Scalia Court, nor was it the Thomas Court, or for that matter the Ginsberg Court. It's the Robert's Court as it was the Warren Court, the Burger Court, or the Rehnquist Court.

History-minded, as all chief justices are, Roberts may not want his court to be known ever after as heartless and insensitive to the lives of Americans and our institutions. For him to be perceived that way.

I may be indulging in wishful thinking. But, then again, let's wait and see. Stranger things have happened with the Supreme Court.

June 29, 2018--The Supremes

Fret not. At least not yet. 

Yes, Anthony Kennedy is stepping down from the Supreme Court, and liberals and moderates (if there are any of these left) are concerned that his so-called "swing vote" and moderating presence will depart with him. 

And so if Trump nominates and the Senate confirms (as they will--leave that to Mitch McConnell) a stealth arch-conservative similar to Clarence Thomas' new best friend, associate justice Neil Gorsuch, say goodbye to any hope that on key occasions justice Kennedy will join the four progressives on the court and things will be at least a little right with the world.

I hate to sound cynical, but Kennedy isn't so moderate and hasn't often, in truth, been that swinging a Supreme. 

With the exception of gay rights and in limited ways abortion rights, where as a libertarian he has been supportive (after all he's from Northern California) he has almost always been the dependable fifth vote, joining the four knee-jerk conservatives.

This year, for example, on all but one occasion he joined the right-wing four. So if he swings, almost all the time he swings to the right.

Thus his leaving the court will not change that much.

But here's what to fret about--

RBG. Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

She seems still to be vital, but at 85, the court's oldest justice, a pancreatic cancer surviver, how much longer can she schlepp herself to her chambers?

(With Kennedy retired--he is 81--the next oldest justice is liberal Stephen Breyer, who is 79.)

I'm no doctor, but though RBG could make it through the remainder of Trump's (first?) term, what are the odds of her being around for the four years after that? I'm not a betting person but . . .

I hate myself for saying this, but considering her medical history, if RBG genuinely cared about the issues she has devoted her life to--like the various rights of women--why didn't she step down during the first half of Barak Obama's first term when the Democrats controlled not only the White House but both houses of Congress? It would have been possible for him to nominate and ram a moderate through the Senate confirmation process.

Then we would have little to fret about. But now we need to do more than fret but to worry and I mean worry profoundly.

More than anything else we need to vote in November and work hard between now and then to increase turnout.