In a challenging pop test of compassion for lefty news readers, Chief Justice John Roberts suffers a seizure at his vacation home in Maine. (He previously experienced a similar seizure in 1993.) Roberts has ‘fully recovered from the incident,’ and a neurological evaluation ‘revealed no cause for concern,’ the Supreme Court said in a statement.” (Well, I, for one, will admit to breathing a sigh of relief when I found it was Roberts, and not Justice Stevens, who suffered the scrape. In any case, it sounds like the Chief Justice is fine.)
Tag: John Roberts
Backcourt Violations.
“‘Conservatives got everything they could reasonably have hoped for out of the term,’ said Thomas C. Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who specializes in Supreme Court litigation.” Proving the crucial importance of the Alito-O’Connor switch (and, I’ll continue to maintain as my answer to Emily Bazelon’s line of questioning, the 2004 election), the Roberts Court flexed its muscle in depressing fashion this week, voting 5-4 (as feared) not only to gut the McCain-Feingold act in the name of “free speech” but also — seriously, no lie — to partially roll back Brown v. Board of Education. (In another well-reported case, the majority’s inordinate fear of bongs trumped this stalwart commitment to free speech.) So, if you’re keeping score, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy came down like this: money good, corruption good, drug hysteria good; clean politics bad, youthful irony bad, integration bad. Oh, wonderful. Suddenly, the announcement that the Court will take a look at the Guantanamo cases doesn’t sound so appetizing. Update: Slate‘s slate of legal observers discuss.
Paid for by the John-Roberts-is-a-Corporate Stooge Committee.
“‘This is deja vu all over again,’ said Justice Stephen G. Breyer. ‘We’ve heard it.’” The Supreme Court hears oral arguments on McCain-Feingold…again, and word suggests the act’s fate may now be in jeopardy with Roberts and Alito on the Court. “Those justices seemed open to a Wisconsin anti-abortion group’s challenge of a provision that corporate-funded ads broadcast in the weeks before an election not mention a candidate by name.” Update: Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick was watching too, and agrees that it doesn’t look good for McCain-Feingold, which she labels a “Dead Duck Walking.”
The Other Shoe Drops.
“The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.” In keeping with a tendency to move right incrementally, without necessarily overturning any laws (one that may also pose trouble for the McCain-Feingold act in coming weeks), the Roberts Court upholds a ban against partial-birth abortion 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing vote. (He was joined, of course, by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.) Kennedy’s reasoning? According to Slate‘s always-perceptive Dahlia Lithwick, it was fear of the Inconstant Woman: “Today’s holding is a strange reworking of Taming of the Shrew, with Kennedy playing an all-knowing Baptista to a nation of fickle Biancas.” For her part, Senator Barbara Boxer sadly summed it up as such: “‘It confirms that elections have consequences,’…alluding to Bush’s re-election and the seven GOP Senate wins in 2004 which set the stage for the appointment of Roberts and Alito.“
With that in mind, all the major candidates for 2008 obviously weighed in on the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, although everyone pretty much followed to party script, even the ostensibly pro-choice Giuliani. [Clinton | Edwards | Giuliani | McCain | Obama | Richardson | Romney] “Wednesday’s ruling raises the stakes for the 2008 presidential election, which is almost certain to pit an abortion-rights Democrat against an anti-abortion Republican.” Let’s not make the same mistake again, y’all.
Getting Warmer.
“EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.” By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court determines that the Dubya EPA violated the Clean Air Act when it refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, thus hopefully setting the stage for an (admittedly unlikely) reevaluation of global warming by the executive branch. “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote one dissent, which was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.” Yep, the usual suspects.
Roberts: Go Along to Get Along.
“If it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case. Division should not be artificially suppressed, but the rule of law benefits from a broader agreement. The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is a decision on the narrowest possible grounds.” In a Georgetown commencement address, new Chief Justice John Roberts expounds on his view of the job after eight months. Well, we’ll see when those next few decisions come in.
Robbing for Roberts?
Did White House officials steal a file on John Roberts’ affirmative action record from the National Archives last year? “This investigation is unresolved and the file is still missing,” says a new report by the Archives Inspector General, which Tim Noah dissects over at Slate. (Hmmm…was it reclassified, perhaps?) Still, according to the report, a White House staffer was the last person known to have the file, and “[t]he report’s findings contradicted the assertions of Archives officials, who said last August that an attendant had been in the room at all times and that the lawyers had been separated from their bags.” The mystery deepens…
Jose, can you see?
“‘Even if the Court were to rule in Padilla’s favor,’ Kennedy went on, ‘his present custody status would be unaffected. Padilla is scheduled to be tried on criminal charges. Any consideration of what rights he might be able to assert if he were returned to military custody would be hypothetical, and to no effect, at this stage of the proceedings.” By a margin of 6-3 (Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter dissenting), the Supreme Court punts on Padilla, on the grounds that Padilla’s dilemma has been rendered “hypothetical” now that he’s been transferrred into the normal justice system.
Justice Ginsburg disagrees: “This case…raises a question of profound importance to the Nation. Does the President have authority to imprison indefinitely a United States citizen arrested on United States soil distant from a zone of combat, based on an Executive declaration that the citizen was, at the time of his arrest, an ‘enemy combatant’? It is a question the Court heard, and should have decided, two years ago. Nothing the Government has yet done purports to retract the assertion of Executive power Padilla protests.“
Hearing Hamdan.
“The president’s consistent refusal to try the Guantanamo detainees before criminal courts or courts-martial leads a reasonable observer to conclude that the government’s case would fail if it were subjected to scrutiny by an impartial adjudicator. And if that is the only justification for military tribunals, it must be rejected. No one denies that the war on terror presents new challenges to the rule of law. But prosecuting someone with a crime that does not exist, before a commission that does not have rules, simply does not constitute justice under any set of circumstances.” Slate files several dispatches on the important case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which the Supreme Court (without Chief Justice Roberts, who has recused himself…as should probably Scalia) will hear today. Emily Bazelon finds that GOP Senators Kyl and Graham seem to have tried to deceive the Court about the legislative history of their Detainee Treatment Act, while Ariel Lavinbuk suggests a compromise solution: the Supreme Court could “find that ‘conspiracy’ — the only charge against Hamdan — does not violate the law of war.“
Update: The Court hears the case, and it seems a majority — Scalia and Alito notwithstanding — are not amused with the Dubya administration: “Without Chief Justice John Roberts…the argument seemed lopsided against the government.” Still, as was expected to be the norm on the Roberts Court,”the outcome of the case will likely turn on moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.”
Justices and Gerrymanders.
The Bush administration loves it, but many Justice Dept. officials think it’s illegal…Now, it’s the Supreme Court’s turn to weigh in on Boss DeLay’s gerrymandering plan in Texas. “Two years ago, justices split 5-4, in a narrow opening for challenges claiming party politics overly influenced election maps. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was the key swing voter in that case, and on Wednesday expressed concerns about at least part of the Texas map.” (Rehnquist and O’Connor sided against the map challenge then, so a switch by Roberts or Alito will only mean a larger majority against the DeLay redistricting, should the same votes hold.) Update: Justice Ginsburg finds the subject exhausting, and Dahlia Lithwick reports in.