Tag: Supreme Court

Member Post

 

#HereToStay , indeed. Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Friedrichs Decision Is a Blow Against Educational Excellence

 
rebecca_friedrichs
Rebecca Friedrichs, a veteran Orange County, Calif., public school teacher.

Today, an evenly divided Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association to permit unions to continue charging nonmembers “agency fees” to cover collective-bargaining activities that the union supposedly engages in on their behalf. About half the states require agency fees from public-sector workers who choose not to join a union.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Obama to Announce Supreme Court Nominee at 11:00

 

President Obama will announce his choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy at 11:00 a.m. today, reports The New York Times.

The president, in a move that could shape the nation’s highest court for a generation, will present his nominee during a Rose Garden ceremony at the White House, officials said. It is expected to kick off a monthslong political stalemate and become a searing issue on the campaign trail. …

Member Post

 

Earlier today, I published what I believe to be an ironclad argument as to why I should be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The argument can be summarized thusly: 1. There are no real requirements for the Court, and so I am not disqualified. And I am, in […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Libertarians Should Help Save the Most Libertarian Part of Government

 
640px-US_Supreme_Court_Building
SCOTUS by Duncan Lock, Dflock – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Libertarians rarely get many outright victories in our political system. The median voter is a moderate socialist statist and Congress is filled with law-makers, not law-repealers. The president and Congress are — more often than not — in a symbiotic rather than an adversarial relationship, with calls of “bipartisanship” almost always working against freedom.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Occam’s Razor and Scalia Conspiracy Theories

 

hand-of-conspiracy2Justice Scalia’s funeral is scheduled for Saturday, but the man was hardly declared dead before conspiracy theories started circulating to the effect that he was assassinated. There’s no point in addressing specific claims because we’re still in the innuendo stage. But more importantly, any hint of a conspiracy collapses with the slightest application of skepticism.

In order for any assassination conspiracy to work, the first question is “Cui bono? Who benefits? Who would go to the trouble of murdering a Supreme Court justice? When you’re playing the election-year conspiracy innuendo game, there’s only two choices: red team or blue.

What would be the point of a Republican conspiracy to murder Justice Scalia? The only suggestion I’ve heard is that it would be a rallying point for Republicans. They must, must, must win the White House back to be able to pick a replacement Supreme Court justice.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Antonin Scalia, a Most Memorable Friend

 

scalia0001The sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia has elicited many tributes about his achievements. It has also sparked extensive reviews of his judicial body of work—and raised some questions about how filling his spot will affect the 2016 presidential election and the future direction of the Supreme Court. Like many others, I shall have more to say about these weighty issues going forward. But for now, I’d like to write about some of my personal interactions with Justice Scalia prior to his appointment to the Court in 1986.

Scalia graduated in the exceptional Harvard Law School class of 1960 along with the late David Currie, for many years my colleague at University of Chicago Law School. Currie helped arrange for Scalia to interview for a potential faculty position at the University of Chicago in early 1977. By that point, the election of Jimmy Carter as President had ended Scalia’s term as head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, to which Gerald Ford had appointed him in August 1974.

When Scalia appeared for his Chicago job talk, he cut a large figure. The topic of the session was executive privilege vis-à-vis the Congress, an issue on which Scalia had sparred with Congress repeatedly as head of OLC. For Scalia, there was no middle ground on this question. He was a passionate and articulate defender of executive privilege, and noted, correctly in my view, that this was an issue that was not defined by party, but by role. Repeatedly, he stressed that every president of both parties had taken this view, which he thought that the constitutional system of separation of powers required.

Member Post

 

There is much consternation in the right-o-sphere on what the consequences of Scalia no longer being able to intervene on behalf on the constitution means, and rightfully so. Sen. McConnell has since declared rather forcefully that the Senate will not confirm another Obama appointment to the Supreme Court, to which I can only respond that […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

Now, I usually enjoy The Federalist website, but this piece by Gabriel Malor is simply awful. I hope that I see the senate display some backbone and block any Obama appointment to fill Scalia’s seat. We owe it to his legacy to ensure that Obama is not able to name his successor. However, the article by Malor would […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

I caught some of the dumpster-fire of a debate tonight, but I’m still more concerned about the up coming nomination fight. I’m assuming (I know it’s a big assumption) that the Republicans will hold and the next president will pick the nominee. The only name I’ve heard put forward by any of the candidates was […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

A wonderful thing about Scalia was that even especially when he was on the outside of a majority on the court, he could be a host unto himself–or more accurately, he had the strength of character to know that no matter how outnumbered he was on the court or in the nation as a whole, […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

Before the usual outlets have an opportunity to sully the memory of the greatest legal mind of my lifetime, I wanted to say a word about Justice Antonin Scalia. I had the opportunity to hear him speak when I was in law school, and he was exactly as you would expect: Incredibly sharp, able to […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. An Age Limit for Supreme Court Justices?

 

GinsburgNoted Supreme Court scholar David Garrow argues that the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts specifically, should take action to address the increasing age of judges. He raises an important problem: the Supreme Court should not be a comfortable retirement home. Garrow proposes that judges undergo mental health checkups and that new judges agree to a retirement age.

But I do not think there is any way that a law could do constitutionally. The Constitution does not permit removal of a judge from office except in limited circumstances, and only through the process of impeachment. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “the judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.”

While the Constitution does not define “good behavior,” our historical practice has. Judges who have committed violations of federal criminal law, such as Judge Walter Nixon, can be impeached. During the Jefferson administration, Congress impeached and removed a judge who was apparently a drunkard on the bench (and this before the day of the breathalyzer). But Jefferson’s effort to impeach Justice Samuel Chase, on the claim that he was injudicious in his behavior (but was really a not-so-veiled effort to remove a Federalist from the bench), failed to win conviction in the Senate. I believe that age alone could not be grounds for impeachment and removal, and perhaps not even mental illness, unless it truly incapacitated a judge from the job.

Member Post

 

Or is he simply saying that to get elected? If he does get elected and the 11+ million stay in America and Trump caves and advocates a path to citizenship for them like he expressed only a few years ago, will Trump supporters feel betrayed? If he nominates liberal Supreme Court justices, will Trump supporters feel […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear Immigration Case

 

shutterstock_216196921From the NYT:

Fourteen months ago, Mr. Obama ordered the creation of a program intended to allow as many as five million illegal immigrants who are the parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program sparing them from deportation and providing them work permits. The program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. The president has said the program was the result of years of frustration with Republicans in Congress who had repeatedly refused to support bipartisan Senate legislation to update immigration laws. In an Oval Office address just before Thanksgiving in 2014, Mr. Obama excoriated Republicans for refusing to cooperate and told millions of illegal immigrants, “You can come out of the shadows.”

But the president’s promise has gone unfulfilled. A coalition of 26 states, led by the attorney general in Texas, a Republican, quickly filed a lawsuit accusing the president of ignoring federal procedures for changing rules and of abusing the power of his office by sidestepping Congress. In February, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville, Tex., entered a preliminary injunction shutting down the program while the legal case proceeded. The government appealed, and on Nov. 9 a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed the injunction.

Member Post

 

I’m a college professor in a school with a unionized faculty, in a non-right-to-work state. So the union thugs get to seize a few hundred dollars from my salary, but according to a 1976 Supreme Court case, they can’t make me pay the costs of their “political” activities. Still, the old case says I have […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. End the ‘Agency Shop’

 
rebecca_friedrichs
Rebecca Friedrichs, lead plaintiff in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.

On Monday, January 11, the United States Supreme Court will address in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association two long-standing issues about the status of public unions that have vexed the Court for at least 60 years.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Our Affirmative Action Mess

 

5946827025_3102160df9Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the much-mooted case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. At issue in the case was whether the University of Texas at Austin’s affirmative action program complied with the stringent legal test the Court set out in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). Grutter held that the University of Michigan had a sufficiently “compelling state interest” in fostering a diverse student body that it could take race into account in the university admissions process, even if race-based decisions are widely unacceptable in other contexts.

In 2013, when the Supreme Court first considered UTA’s admissions program in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, it did not immediately deliver a judgment; rather, it ratcheted up the pressure on UTA by asking the school to come up with strong empirical support for its diversity plan. Little has been done since that time on remand, except to keep in place the admissions program now under attack. In the 2013 case, the Court imposed the strict scrutiny test on UTA, which generally requires an exacting review of the program to see if it falls within the narrow exception to the colorblind tests developed by the court in other cases.

The UTA program has two parts. The first part allows for 75 percent of an entering class at UTA to be composed of students who finish in the top-ten percent of their high-school class. The second part of the program allocates the other 25 percent of the slots to students on a “holistic basis,” in which race can be taken into account along with other non-academic factors.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Distortion in Service of Progressivism Is No Vice

 

640px-Antonin_Scalia_2010It’s as fascinating as it is frustrating to watch the media spin a story to suit its preferred narrative. For this week’s example, look no further than the controversy surrounding oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, the latest affirmative action case to reach the Supreme Court of the United States.

An MSNBC reporter named Irin Carmon — who also co-authored a laudatory biography of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg entitled The Notorious RBG — seized on a question raised by Justice Antonin Scalia during oral arguments. The question dealt with the assertion (raised by one of the briefs) that promising students from poor or minority schools would generally be better served by attending good-but-non-prestigious colleges than elite schools through affirmative action. In other words, these students face a more daunting adjustment than either they or the colleges realize, which unnecessarily dooms them to failure at prestigious schools when they would likely have prospered at other schools. There has been legitimate research into this idea that dates back over a decade.

That context was absent from a tweet Carmon sent out, and the response via social media has been sadly predictable: