Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Yesterday, a Washington Post review of Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, by Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe and his former student Joshua Matz, ended with this observation:
[T]here is one place where Tribe and Matz find real clarity [in the current Court]: the shrinking availability of judicial relief. “One of the defining features of the Roberts Court,” they write, is “its willingness to leave plaintiffs and criminal defendants to whatever justice they can find beyond its doors.”
Setting aside the liberal morality play rhetoric, a number of commentators agree that the Court has been passing on cases that it once would have taken — and not just on Tribe and Matz’s chew toys. For example, some conservatives lament that the current Court has declined to hear one Second Amendment case after another, leaving conflict and confusion in judicial ranks. Then again, business interests are confused that this year the justices declined to hear a class action certification case that seemed to scream out for high court attention. There was intense conflict among the circuits. The judges who authored the appealed decisions seemed, in their written opinions, to be thumbing their noses at very recent high court precedents. What is going on here?