SOTU SCOTUS TRADITION | So Much For Federalism, Justices Ready To Cross State Lines

January 31, 2018

The State of the Union wasn’t high on the list of priorities for most of our Supreme Court justices, with a minority attending PRESIDENT TRUMP’S first annual address last night. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS was joined by JUSTICES STEPHEN BREYER, ELENA KAGAN and NEIL GORSUCH. Apparently, it’s not exactly newsworthy that some justices sit out of the SOTU even though it’s become something of a tradition to see who will miss the occasion each year. JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG was in Rhode Island at a speaking event, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR was in Panama, JUSTICE KENNEDY was here in California, and JUSTICE ALITO and THOMAS were no-shows as is customary for them. And though some argue it isn’t a big deal that not all nine justices attended the speech, it sure would have been nice to see them all in one place. I guess that’s reserved only for folks lucky enough to see them at their day job inside 1 First.

Michael Wines with The New York Times reports that the best way to really understand the severity of the issue of partisan gerrymandering is to ask the craftsman behind a gerrymandered map. “In a big partisan gerrymandering case that will come before the Supreme Court in March, lawyers and judges have already devoted thousands of words to the question of why some of Maryland’s eight congressional districts are so, ah, creatively drawn. But the best answer by far comes from the man who drew them.”

During her speaking event at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island, JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG noted that her biggest fear as a justice is that the high court will be seen as just another political branch mired in partisanship. She pointed to the recent SCOTUS nomination fights and said, “Four fine justices who should have gotten overwhelming support but got many negative votes…I think it will take great leaders on both sides of the aisle to say ‘Let’s stop this nonsense and start working for our country the way we should.’”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern points out the conservative justices on the Supreme Court seem to be readying themselves to cross state lines and squash states’ authority to regulate partisan gerrymandering going on in their own states. MJS looks to the high court’s flirtation with the Pennsylvania supreme court decision which was appealed to SCOTUS last week. JUSTICE ALITO has indicated that he’s taking this appeal seriously, which begs the question of why. Why would the Supreme Court feel justified in intervening in a state supreme court decision that interpreted its own state’s constitution? MJS: “As election law expert Rick Hasen noted, Pennsylvania Republicans’ argument plainly draws from Bush v. Gore to question the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ability to supervise congressional elections. It’s a frightening theory that could, taken to its logical endpoint, forbid every state’s highest court from safeguarding the right to cast an effective ballot. Alito should have dismissed it immediately. His willingness to entertain this appeal instead bodes poorly for both democracy and federalism. The U.S. Supreme Court has no business forcing Pennsylvania voters to languish under a gerrymander that can’t pass muster under Pennsylvania law.”