MORE CALLS FOR 18-YEAR TERM LIMITS | SCOTUS LEAVES LEAD PAINT RULING IN PLACE | Brooklyn Witches Plan A Public Cursing
October 15, 2018
LET ME PAINT YOU A PICTURE|
Monday, the Supreme Court rejected appeals from paint manufacturers challenging a California ruling that held them liable for millions of dollars in damages relating to the use of lead paint decades ago. Lead paint was banned by the U.S. government in 1978 for use in homes but remains a top cause of lead poisoning, especially for children. The California appeals court said the companies were liable for the cost of lead abatement in homes built before 1951.
Alan Morrison in The Hill argues term limits are “the best way to fix this Supreme Court mess.” And his proposal is both straightforward and well-known: 18-year term limits that would regularize and de-politicize the process for appointing justices. Morrison points out, “I have supported this basic idea for more than a dozen years, but I wanted to do it by statute, which I concluded would be more likely to happen and come sooner than changing the document our Founding Fathers gave us. I have now concluded we must amend the Constitution to make the change stick. Although a statute would probably be both legal and effective, I fear that it would be vulnerable to a shift in the political winds whenever there was a change in control of the federal government and those in power decided that another system would favor them.”
REIN IT ON IN|
“Now that he’s officially taken his seat on the Supreme Court, BRETT KAVANAUGH has no obvious reason to care what you think. Neither does SONIA SOTOMAYOR, or SAMUEL ALITO, or RUTH BADER GINSBURG. They and their colleagues are justices for life, which should in theory give them the freedom to write unpopular opinions.” However, Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux with FiveThirtyEight points out that Supreme Court history shows that’s not always how things work. She writes, “In the past, the justices have appeared to bend to popular opinion, in addition to being reined in by other branches of government when they deviate dramatically from the mainstream.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE|
“Who’s attacking political norms now?” That’s the headline for a new piece from the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal reacting to Democrats’ continued targeting of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy.
POLL DU JOUR|
Yet another poll — this one from The Washington Post and ABC News — notes a majority of Americans don’t approve of JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH. The poll shows a majority of folks would support an investigation into his conduct, believing the Senate Judiciary Committee did not do enough to investigate the allegations of sexual assault.
The president was on 60 Minutes last night defending the speech he gave in which he made fun of DR. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about BRETT KAVANAUGH allegedly sexually assaulting her. When asked if PRESIDENT TRUMP thinks he treated Ford with respect, he responded, “I’m not going to get into it. Because we won. It doesn’t matter. We won.”
Halloween is right around the corner, and some women in Brooklyn are already getting in the spirit. Apparently a bookstore in the borough is holding a public event to put a hex on JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH. The event organizer has said, “We wanted to have an act of resistance. It’s about having space for survivors of sexual assault who are not going to be silent and who don’t want Brett Kavanaugh to serve as a symbol of defeat.”
SCOTUS VIEWSThe New York Times
“If liberals want to change the direction of the courts, they should do more to replicate the kind of long-term projects their opponents have undertaken since the 1980s to nurture judicial talent and create a deep pool for future appointments. Liberals need to do better at using congressional procedure and handling open hearings to diminish political support for conservative nominees — and obviously they need to win elections, starting in November.”The Associated Press
“Fixing this phenomenon does not require a constitutional amendment. We are legal scholars who have written across a broad swath of areas including constitutional law. We believe Congress could pass a law providing that a president gets two Supreme Court appointments per four-year term in office.”
OTHER NEWSThe New York Times
“Theodore H. Frank is familiar with the adage that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. But later this month, he will stand before the Supreme Court to argue his own case. ‘It was a very tough decision to decide to do it myself,’ he said. The usual play would have been to hand the case off to an expert lawyer who specializes in Supreme Court arguments. But Mr. Frank, who has spent the last decade filing objections to class action settlements he considers abusive, said he was the right man for the job in the case that bears his name, Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961.”