SCOTUS SHOOTS DOWN APPEALS TO CA GUN LAWS | Does Clarence Thomas Got To Go? | Pennsylvania Has A New Map And New Hope For Dems
February 20, 2018
SHOT DOWN
|The justices today announced that they’re not yet ready to get in the middle of the mounting gun debate following last week’s mass shooting, choosing not to hear two appeals challenging California gun regulations. The justices left intact California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, turning away arguments that the policy violates the rights of people whose background checks take less time. The court also rejected a National Rifle Association appeal and let California keep using fees paid on firearm transfers to help fund efforts to track down people who acquire guns illegally.
A LONE DISSENT
|In response to the court’s refusal to examine the California waiting period, JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS wrote a 14-page dissent noting the refusal is a sign that “the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.” He also added, “The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan.” No other justice joined him for the dissent.
SPEAKING OF CLARENCE THOMAS
|ICYMI, Jill Abramson for New York Magazine renewed the call for further examination into the sexual harassment claims against JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS — only this time, she thinks we need to up the ante. She calls for a serious discussion of impeaching the justice because he lied in order to get himself onto the Supreme Court. “Given the evidence that’s come out in the years since, it’s also time to raise the possibility of impeachment. Not because he watched porn on his own time, of course. Not because he talked about it with a female colleague — although our understanding of the real workplace harm that kind of sexual harassment does to women has evolved dramatically in the years since, thanks in no small part to those very hearings. Nor is it even because he routinely violated the norms of good workplace behavior, in a way that seemed especially at odds with the elevated office he was seeking. It’s because of the lies he told, repeatedly and under oath, saying he had never talked to ANITA HILL about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.”
THE LATEST FROM PENNSYLVANIA
|The Pennsylvania Supreme Court re-drew the state’s congressional districts after ruling its prior map was unconstitutional for being a partisan gerrymander. The new map more closely reflects the partisan makeup of the state, all but ensuring Democrats will pick up several new seats in the U.S. House of Representatives come November. Based on 2016 voting patterns, Dems could pick up as many as three or four new seats.
A STUDY OF THE MAP
|For The New York Times, Nate Cohn, Matthew Bloch and Kevin Quealy review the new Pennsylvania map. They write, “Democrats couldn’t have asked for much more from the new map. It’s arguably even better for them than the maps they proposed themselves.” Also of note is that the state’s court made a map with partisan balance as its priority, despite that specification not being part of their order asking for a new map. “The new map is quite fair if it’s judged based on the relationship between seats won and the statewide popular vote. By that measure, it may still tilt slightly to the Republicans. If you value partisan fairness, you can cheer the result. If you think maps should be partisan-blind, you can argue that the map was drawn to the advantage of Democrats.”
BUT SIR, THINK OF THOSE CHECKS AND BALANCES
|The president wasn’t too happy with the new Pennsylvania map provided by the state supreme court. As he does, he took to Twitter this morning and wrote, “Hope Republicans in the Great State of Pennsylvania challenge the new ‘pushed’ Congressional Map, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Your Original was correct! Don’t let the Dems take elections away from you so that they can raise taxes & waste money!”
HOLD YOUR HORSES
|For CNN, Harry Enten urges that we not oversell the importance of the new Pennsylvania map. Sure, it’s good for Democrats, he says, but it doesn’t do much to change the odds of Dems taking back the House. He thinks Dems are likely to pick up only two seats thanks to the new map, which he thinks isn’t a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
OUR OLD FRIENDS FANNIE AND FREDDIE
|The Supreme Court also declined today to wade into a fight over the government’s handling of mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The justices, in a brief written order, said they won’t take up appeals brought by hedge funds and other distressed-asset investors who in recent years have invested in the companies, which have been in government conservatorship since the financial crisis
PERFECTLY PROPER POLITICAL CALCULATIONS
|In The New York Times, Adam Liptak points out that justices usually do their best to step down from the bench when a “politically like-minded president” holds office. For the second year in a row, all eyes are on JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY as rumors of his retirement sweep Washington. But what exactly influences a justice’s decision to retire? Adam Liptak digs in.
IT'S NOW OR NEVER
|Julia Manchester with The Hill reports experts are saying it’s now or never for JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY if he wants to retire and have a conservative justice replace him. Either he’s gotta do it now, or he’s gotta wait for the next election.
FOR THE DAILY DOUBLE
|The justices aren’t all “no’s” today — they said yes to a big double jeopardy case that centers around the concept if issue preclusion. This is the idea that a defendant can’t be tried for the same issue in more than criminal trial. Scott Bomboy with Constitution Daily covers the concept and previews the new case for us.
WHAT'S LEFT
|Lyle Denniston with Constitution Daily explains the Supreme Court’s options for acting on DACA — the program that’s been in effect for well over five years now and protects nearly 800,000 young immigrants from deportation. The first option he laid out yesterday came true today when the justices didn’t mention the case in their list of new orders. Denniston: “That could occur if the Justices have not yet made up their minds. It also might occur if the Court had voted last Friday against review, but some Justices wanted time to write dissents protesting that refusal. A denial of review would not be a real surprise, since the expedited procedure is so seldom used, and especially since the Administration did not seek to put everything on hold until the Justices could decide.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Pennsylvania Is Now Key To A Democratic House
Bloomberg“The November outcome, of course, will be affected by the performance of candidates and conditions: If optimism about the economy and tax cuts continues to rise, it should help Republicans, while they will be hurt if Trump scandals grow. Either way the Pennsylvania decision is a major boost for Democrats, whether two or three additional seats in a better-than-expected Republican year or a net gain of five or six seats in a blue-wave election.”
OTHER NEWS
This Supreme Court Case Is The Biggest Threat To Organized Labor In Years
HuffPost“There are plenty of reasons a worker might want to opt out of supporting a union that represents them. Maybe they don’t like the union’s politics. Maybe they think the union’s leadership is lousy. Maybe the union got them a weak contract. But there will be workers who know they benefit from the union but choose to opt out anyway, for the simple reason that it’s in their economic self-interest to do so. After all, the union will have to continue representing them whether they pay fees or not.”
Gorsuch Deciding Vote In Key Labor Union Funding Case
The Associated Press“America’s union leaders are about to find out if they were right to fiercely oppose Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court as a pivotal, potentially devastating vote against organized labor. The newest justice holds the deciding vote in a case to be argued Feb. 26 that could affect the financial viability of unions that are major supporters of Democratic candidates and causes.”