SOME CLUES FOR WHAT COMES NEXT | Justices Cross Ideological Divide | The Political Implications Of Remaining Cases
June 18, 2019
JUST ANOTHER MANIC MONDAY
|NPR’s Nina Totenberg takes a look back at a very busy Monday at the Supreme Court yesterday. She gives us an overview of the four decisions that were handed down, as well as a look ahead to some the decisions we are still on that could come out as soon as Thursday. Of the four outcomes yesterday, Totenberg notes, “Defying predictions, three were decided by shifting liberal-conservative coalitions.”
IF I'M READING THE SIGNS
|“Soothsayers were out in force at the Supreme Court on Monday, scrutinizing each move by the justices and hoping to better understand the future of the Roberts court, with its newly solidified conservative majority.” Ariane de Vogue with CNN also takes a look at yesterday’s judgements and says the justices “sent out a few clues of what’s coming next.”
A CRYIN' SHAME
|The Supreme Court yesterday upheld an exception to double jeopardy which allows states and the federal government to punish individuals for the same crime. Only two justices dissented in the ruling and it was an unlikely duo: JUSTICES RUTH BADER GINSBURG and NEIL GORSUCH. Mark Joseph Stern with Slate reviews yesterday’s ruling and notes that it doesn’t tell us a whole lot we didn’t already know, including that Ginsburg and Gorsuch have “fierce libertarian streaks.” He adds, “Before Monday, the separate sovereigns doctrine seemed to stand on shaky ground, suffering cross-ideological criticism from judges and scholars. Now it’s clearly here to stay. That’s a shame for criminal justice reform.”
POD DU JOUR
|And if you’d rather have a listen and hear about the double jeopardy ruling, Mark Joseph Stern joined Slate’s What Next podcast to discuss the unusual alliances we saw yesterday at the high court.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED
|“Liberals warning of a sharp right turn on the Supreme Court following JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY’S retirement haven’t been paying attention. The conservative justices aren’t voting in lockstep and are harder to predict than the court’s liberals, as two rulings Monday show.” That’s the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal also reacting to the dual sovereignty case in which conservative and liberal justices were on differing ends of the judgement. “Will liberals therefore now credit the conservative justices with not being political?” The Ed Board says, “Don’t bet on it.”
ONE IS ENOUGH
|The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times also took a look at the double jeopardy ruling and argues, “There are a few situations in which one can justify separate state and federal prosecutions arising from the same events.” In the eyes of LAT’s Ed Board, the Supreme Court should have ruled that, under the Constitution, one prosecution was enough.”
PREPARE YOURSELVES
|Amber Phillips with The Washington Post notes that of all the cases justices still have to rule on before the end of the month, “a sizable number of the cases carry political implications that could affect the 2020 election and beyond.” She argues, “There’s a good chance this will exacerbate public sentiment that the court, a supposedly neutral body, has been irrevocably politicized by the politicians who play a role in filling it.”
TODAY IN HISTORY
|One year ago today, SCOTUS allowed electoral maps that were challenged as excessively partisan to remain in place for now, declining to rule on the bigger issue of whether to limit redistricting for political gain. Of the more than 20 cases that are still outstanding as we enter the final days of the term, there is one that forces the justices to once again confront the issue of partisan gerrymandering. Stay tuned for what they decide this time.