JULY 9 IS OUR DAY | DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS GO TO BATTLE OVER A COUPLE VOTES | WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE AREN’T LOOKING
July 2, 2018
LEO SEASON IS UPON US
|An empty seat on the Supreme Court can only mean one thing: it’s Leo season (and we’re not talking about astrology). Jess Bravin with The Wall Street Journal re-introduces us to LEONARD LEO, the leader of the Federalist Society who is the GOP’s go-to guy when it comes to filling Supreme Court seats with ultra-conservative picks.
BACK TO BASICS
|Philip Rucker and Seung Min Kim with The Washington Post report on DONALD TRUMP’S plan to replace JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY and note that the president plans to execute the same playbook he did when he swiftly selected JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH. They write, “As Trump looks to reorient the nation’s high court with a replacement for retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he has left himself little room for improvisation — in part because he has delegated and outsourced much of the spadework.”
MARK YO CALENDARS
|Saturday, the president reaffirmed that he plans to announce his Supreme Court pick on July 9. This date is significant, of course, because the next day the president heads to Europe for meetings with NATO and a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Brent D. Griffiths with POLITICO reports.
STICKING IT OUT
|Top White House officials who were ready to get out of dodge are instead planning on sticking around to see through the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. Those officials include White House counsel DON MCGAHN, Legislative Affairs director MARC SHORT and Domestic Policy director ANDREW BREMBERG.
READY YOUR ENGINES
|With the president planning to fast-track his nominee straight to SCOTUS, Democrats have had to get their act together incredibly quickly. Ben Kamisar and Jessie Hellmann write in The Hill that liberal groups are already mounting a major offensive and hoping to pressure every single Democrat in the Senate — and even some swing Republicans — to vote against a Trump nominee.
ACHILLES' HEEL
|It’s no secret that Democrats are bad on the Supreme Court. Unlike the Grand Old Party, Democratic leadership has long struggled to get its base to vote with SCOTUS in mind. David Weigel wonders in The Washington Post if all that might finally change in the fight to replace JUSTICE KENNEDY.
IT ALL COMES BACK TO THIS
|There is one important reason why it’s possible that Democrats might finally wake up and show some reverence for the Supreme Court: reproductive rights. Over the weekend, Senators started ringing the alarms to lay out the stakes in the fight over the next Supreme Court justice with their focus namely on the protection of Roe v. Wade. Brett Samuels notes in The Hill, “Democrats are likely to appeal to SENS. SUSAN COLLINS (R-Maine) and LISA MURKOWSKI (R-Alaska), two pro-life Republicans. Collins said Sunday that it would “not be acceptable” for a Supreme Court nominee to vow to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
COMIN' FOR YA
|Nicholas Fandos and Emily Cochrane report in The New York Times on the hunt for SUSAN COLLINS’ vote and the comments she made this weekend that made clear she views Roe v. Wadeas a precedent that should not be overturned. They write, “Ms. Collins, among the few remaining voices of centrism in the Republican Party, is one of two Republican senators who have supported abortion rights and, in the past, have shown themselves willing to break with their party. The other is SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI of Alaska. Because Republicans have only the narrowest of majorities in the Senate, their votes could sink or elevate whomever President Trump nominates to fill the seat.”
MAKING AMERICA LESS AMERICAN
|“In other parts of the world that don’t have blanket rulings like Roe that bar criminalizing abortion, there are tight restrictions and outright bans of abortions. Abortion rights advocates fear that an overturning of Roe could make laws in some United States look more like those that exist in foreign countries.” That’s Siobhán O’Grady in The Washington Post explaining how other countries handle abortion, providing insight into where our country falls on the spectrum right now and how that might change with another Trump justice.
OPEN UP MY EAGER EYES
|While our attention is largely fixed on the future of the Supreme Court, it’s important to also take stock of what transpired this term and what it might mean about that very future. David Savage with the Los Angeles Times points out that this term was actually an important preview of things to come — all of which is likely to be good for DONALD TRUMP, for employers and for Republicans.
TOP-ED
|In The Washington Post, Mark Janus explains why he brought his case — Janus v. AFSCME — to the Supreme Court. His was the case that ultimately led to the justices ruling non-union members don’t have to pay “fair share” fees to public-sector unions. Janus writes, “Union leaders said I did have a choice: Quit my job. Agree with the union or quit my job as a government worker. Think about that for a minute: To be a government worker, you have to agree with and fund a private organization? Not only is it common sense that people should not have to fund a private organization that is advancing government policies they oppose, it also violates the First Amendment.”
TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS
|“While the nation was focused on big, controversial cases, corporate America was quietly racking up a remarkable string of victories in the high court this term.” That’s a headline from a new piece in The Atlantic from Kent Greenfield and Adam Winkler. They note that while most of America wasn’t looking, the Supreme Court ruled on “under-the-radar disputes with broad implications for business and the economy.” Of course what they should have written is *most of America save for those smart souls who read SCOTUSDaily.
SCOTUS VIEWS
Next Up — Supreme Court Vs. The People
San Francisco Chronicle“The future of abortion rights is central to the coming battle. But so are civil rights, corporate power and our democratic capacity to correct social injustices. Conservatives should not be allowed to distract attention from the aspects of their agenda that would horrify even many who voted for Donald Trump.”
The First Amendment's Undisputed Champion
The Wall Street Journal“But in one area of the law Justice Kennedy was not in the center of the court—he was its leader. He was the Supreme Court’s most dedicated, consistent and eloquent defender of the First Amendment. He played that role when other conservatives rejected First Amendment arguments, and when liberals did. He was the First Amendment champion of the High Court.”
Seeking A Successor to Justice Kennedy's Complex Legacy
The Hill“This being an election year, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement came as a surprise. Was the timing simply observance of the unstated rule that a justice tries to resign when his political party is incumbent, or did it represent — like the reputation of Justice Kennedy himself — that the electoral question could go either way?”
Make The Supreme Court Lots Bigger. It's Not A Priesthood, It Should Represent America
USA Today“Let’s keep the nine we have who are appointed by the president, and add one from each state, to be appointed by governors, and then confirmed by the Senate. Fifty-nine justices is enough to ensure (I hope) that they aren’t all from Harvard and Yale as is the case now, and enough to limit the mystique of any particular justice. If the Supreme Court is going to function, as it does, like a super-legislature, it might as well be legislature-sized.”
Trump Should Pick A Woman For Supreme Court
CNN“Trump may ultimately choose another white male. With all due self-respect, that would be a waste of an extraordinary opportunity for this President to not only make history (appointing the fifth female justice would indeed be historic), but to force detractors to take a second look at him, and dare I say — maybe even to expand his base? It’s no secret that Trump’s standing with women could use some improvement, and nominating a female to the high court would be one way of demonstrating that he gets it and he cares.”
OTHER NEWS
5 Takeaways From A Momentous Supreme Court Term
CNN“When the final gavel came down to end the Supreme Court term on Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court press corps scurried to their computers to begin writing stories about a momentous term where the justices took a hard right turn on core issues and liberals found themselves on the losing end of more than a dozen 5-4 opinions. And then, in a flash, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, and everything changed.”
A Lifetime Investment: Big Money Pours Into Supreme Court Battle
NPR“To wage this high-decibel debate, each side is expected to spend tens of millions of dollars. That kind of money can win you a Senate seat. But a Senate term only goes for six years; the Supreme Court bench is good for a lifetime. The ads, of course, will get more specific once Trump names a nominee on July 9 — and Democrats have begun their attacks.”