THE HOT BENCH WITH JESS BRAVIN | Circus Coming To Town | Hawaii Having None Of It
March 16, 2017
THE HOT BENCH
|Yesterday, JESS BRAVIN of The Wall Street Journal spoke with SCOTUSDaily about his time covering the Court, how he has “fun” at his job, and what we can expect from next week’s nomination hearings. When asked what we know about JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH as a person, Bravin replied, “You know, the guy hasn’t been that great about doing interesting things in his life.” Catch our full interview here, because along with getting insight into Gorsuch and the SCOTUS fight ahead, you’ll also have yourself a good chuckle on this fine Thursday.
TOP-ED
|Linda Greenhouse with The New York Times says the time has come for hard choices to be made about the Supreme Court. She notes, “Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are getting plenty of advice in the run-up to next week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing for JUDGE NEIL M. GORSUCH. I offered my own advice in the days immediately following Judge Gorsuch’s nomination: Senators should ask how he would have decided Supreme Court cases from the past. Don’t accept the standard nominee response that ‘I can’t answer because that question might come before the court.’ It has already come before the court.”
I'M BALLIN, I'M BALLIN ON YOU
|Looks like JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH peaked at the perfect time, becoming the little darling of judicial conservatism right when the movement needed it most. Richard Wolf with USA Today writes the judge cried on the ski slopes of Colorado when he learned of JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA’S death. “Then in the months that followed, he wrote a series of notable dissents and concurrences that helped him become Scalia’s likely successor.”
THE CIRCUS IS COMING TO TOWN
|As a primer for next week’s SCOTUS confirmation hearings, Adam Liptak with The New York Times looks back at the four confirmation fights that shaped the Supreme Court. Topping the list is the fight that put JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS on the Supreme Court. If you remember, he said at one point during his hearing while fielding questions and accusations of sexual harassment that the whole thing was a “circus” and a “high-tech lynching.”
A LINE OF ATTACK
|Democrats may have found the ammunition they need to dig in and fight for the Supreme Court vacancy. Dems are requesting more information about NEIL GORSUCH’S role defending GEORGE W. BUSH administration lawsuits over terrorism policies and interrogations of detainees. Hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the Justice Department provided cryptic descriptions of Gorsuch’s work at the department. Could this be a preview of the questions we’ll hear in next week’s hearing? It’s likely.
FORGET ME NOT
|Let’s keep in mind that while politics of the SCOTUS nomination are grabbing national attention, the eight justices currently on the high court are currently knee-deep in the OT16 docket. The show must go on, as they say. Axios delivers a list of nine Supreme Court cases that matter big time, and are not to be taken for granted.
WHO RUN THE WORLD
|Marcia Coyle with The National Law Journal reports on the 726 women who have carved a legacy at the Supreme Court lectern. 726 women argued 1,430 times from 1880 to 2016. A small, but mighty number that is sure to grow in the decades ahead.
HAWAIIAN ROLLERCOASTER RIDE
|The president was dealt yet another renunciation of his immigration policy when U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii placed an immediate halt on Trump’s revised travel ban, finding that “a reasonable objective observer…would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.” Also yesterday, a federal judge in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in a similar case brought by refugee resettlement agencies represented by the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center.
HAVING NONE OF IT
|Moments before going on stage at a rally in Tennessee last night, PRESIDENT TRUMP got news of the first rebuke to his attempts at installing a travel ban. He wasted no time at all, firing back during his speech that his administration will appeal the ruling which he called “unprecedented judicial overreach.” But it was a rare moment of vulnerability for Mr. Trump. Onstage, in front of an adoring Nashville crowd, he admitted that the block on the ban was a major political setback. Executive Director of the National Immigration Law Center, Marielena Hincapie responded to his remarks saying, “He should just continue talking, because he’s making our arguments for us.”
WHAT'S NEXT
|Matt Zapotosky with The Washington Post reports on what’s next for Trump’s travel ban 2.0. Spoiler alert: All roads lead to the U.S. Supreme Court. Who knew the stakes could get even higher for next week’s SCOTUS nomination hearing.
OTHER NEWS
Appeals Court Judges Rebuke Trump for 'Personal Attacks' on Judiciary, 'Intimidation'
The Washington Post“Five judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit implicitly took President Trump to task for his disparaging comments on judges and the judiciary. The response, the strongest-to-date from sitting judges, came in a dissenting opinion Wednesday in which the five actually agreed with Trump on the legal issues surrounding his executive order on travel to the United States. Indeed, they were dissenting from the refusal of the full circuit to rehear an earlier panel decision that went against Trump.”
3 Questions for SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch
ReasonThe three questions Mr. Root would like to hear asked of Judge Gorsuch would address the nominee’s views on congressional power, executive power and unenumerated rights.
The judicial nomination war started with Bork. Let's end it with Gorsuch.
The Washington Post“Are there no statesmen in politics today? No game theorists? It is true that Democrats would not receive many points for making a cooperative move that can be coerced anyway, but there will be another election, and what goes around comes around.”
Correction
Yesterday’s edition of SCOTUSDaily noted that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has served on the Supreme Court for 22 years. Looks like we short-changed her because she has actually been on the high court for 23 years. Sorry, RBG. And H/T to Professor Stephen Wermiel for making the catch.