SCOTUS SET TO KEEP 170 YEAR PRECEDENT | Terms Limits Continue To Make Headlines | Top-Ed From Linda Greenhouse
December 6, 2018
CAN YOU BELIEVE
|The big double jeopardy case was before justices today, and JUSTICES RUTH BADER GINSBURG and CLARENCE THOMAS seemed ready to make an unusual team in the fight to block federal and state prosecution for the same crime. To quote Queer Eye, “Can you believe?!” Arguments ran long — eighty minutes — and although some justices seemed interested in overturning the long running precedent of “dual sovereignty” the majority of justices seemed more interested in keeping the status quo. SCOTUS newbie BRETT KAVANAUGH said following precedent on this issue represented “a doctrine of stability and humility that we take very seriously.”
GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD
|NPR’s Nina Totenberg provides us with a primer on today’s case, providing the history of double jeopardy, background on the case, and information on its possible implications for the Mueller probe. She reports George Washington University law professor STEPHEN SALTZBURG says that if SCOTUS bars dual prosecutions, “there is a concern that a president of the United States could pardon an individual for all federal offenses” and it would effectively be a “pardon for everything.”
LEAVE IT BE
|The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal thinks the Supreme Court should leave its 170 year precedent on double jeopardy alone. The Board argues, “vitiating dual sovereignty by judicial fiat would reshape America’s legal system in ways that are best left to the political branches.”
NICE FOR WHAT
|In this week’s column, Linda Greenhouse with The New York Times reflects on the presidency of GEORGE H.W. BUSH and his Supreme Court legacy of DAVID SOUTER and CLARENCE THOMAS. She writes that Bush’s combative approach put Thomas on the court, and that had consequences we are still seeing today. “Poles apart, the Souter and Thomas nominations offered templates for the presidencies that followed. Democrats have shied from confrontation, while Republicans have generally embraced and even sought it.”
WE TALKIN TERMS
|Term limits for Supreme Court justices is neither a new idea, nor a bad one. In fact, recent polling shows a majority of voters already support the idea. Lydia Wheeler with The Hill writes that the subject continues to build steam following BRETT KAVANAUGH’S controversial ascension to the Supreme Court, and RBG’s most recent health scare. She notes, however, that debate remains over “whether the Constitution would have to be changed or whether term limits could be imposed by way of legislation.” If you ask GABE ROTH with Fix the Court, he’s pushing for legislation to set 18-year term limits.