Justices Show Skepticism For “Bridgegate” Prosecution | Chief Justice Invokes “OK, Boomer” During Arguments Today
January 15, 2020
BUILDING BRIDGES
|The Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments regarding the notorious “Bridgegate” scandal in which lanes of the George Washington Bridge were closed in order to punish a political opponent of then-GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE. Justices were skeptical of whether two of Christie’s associates committed a crime for their involvement in creating the traffic jam. Specifically, the question for the high court was whether it is criminal for government officials to give false reasons for their actions and abuse their power even if they aren’t personally enriching themselves. Several justices seemed to signal that the answer to that question is no.
OK, BOOMER
|Sometimes Supreme Court justices can surprise and delight with their cultural awareness, just as CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS did today by invoking the popular meme/phrase/retort of younger generations: “OK, Boomer.” A baby boomer himself, Roberts dropped the phrase at the high court today when asking questions in a case about age discrimination in the workplace. Mark Sherman with The Associated Press reports, “It was the first time, according to databases of high court arguments, the somewhat pejorative phrase used by younger people to criticize the less flexible, tolerant and tech savvy ways of their elders has been uttered in the Supreme Court, where the nine justices range in age from 52 (Neil Gorsuch) to 86 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg).”
SPEAKING OF ROBERTS
|The chief justice will soon have a change of scenery when he presides over the Senate impeachment trial of PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. Adam Liptak with The New York Times reports on the role JOHN ROBERTS will soon play. And as Liptak writes, although that role may be largely ceremonial, what is certain is that his responsibilities in this process “will be full of peril for his reputation and that of his court.”
NAMING NAMES
|In their interview with Democratic presidential candidate SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR, the Editorial Board of The New York Times asked if she would offer up some names of people she would consider appointing to the Supreme Court if she were to become president. The senator replied, “I’m not going to give names of people. I think that — could be something that — I don’t think it’s the right way to govern. But I will tell you the kind of justice I’d like to see. I think we have some great models in a SONIA SOTOMAYOR who I helped work on that nomination. ELENA KAGAN, also, STEPHEN BREYER and may I not forget the notorious R.B.G.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Democrats Can Get Witnesses With 50 Votes — If Roberts Does His Job
The Washington Post“Perhaps no actor in Washington is more eager for Roberts’s role to be strictly honorary than Roberts himself. The trial promises to be an unruly political free-for-all governed by demagoguery and raw will, the polar opposite of the decorous world of reason and precedent that prevails across the street at the Supreme Court. But Roberts might not have the luxury of that choice. Acknowledging that the sparseness of precedent and the primacy of politics inject an element of uncertainty into all predictions of how the trial will unfold, the idea that he will be a robed dignitary with no substantive role to play is tenuous.”
The Courts Don’t Even Try To Settle Fights About War Powers Anymore
The Washington Post“The idea of judicial intervention in war powers disputes will certainly strike some as radical. But it hasn’t been historically. And even in modern times, it seems increasingly preferable to the alternative — in which the executive branch, across different administrations and political parties, will only continue to accumulate more and more power to use military force on its own, and the only realistic checks on that power will come at the ballot box. It is hard to imagine that this is the separation of powers the Founding Fathers had in mind — or that the current Supreme Court would champion. But even if it is, it seems increasingly clear that it would be better to have the matter settled, rather than waiting to have the same debate all over again the next time the president goes it alone.”
A Trump Tweet Revealed The Absurdity Of The Legal Case Against Obamacare
Vox“Even the Supreme Court seems to view Trump as a loose cannon whose words should be discounted. The Court, in its travel ban case, treated Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric as largely irrelevant to the question of whether the purpose of the travel ban was to exclude Muslims. Nevertheless, if the ordinary rules that apply to nearly every other litigant applied to Trump, this tweet would be a very big deal. That’s because Trump, in one tweet, essentially contradicted a central prong of the administration’s argument in its ongoing effort to convince the courts to repeal Obamacare in its entirety.”