Roberts And Schumer Get Into It | Abortion Access Case Underscores Need For Better Access To SCOTUS
March 5, 2020
WAR OF THE WORDS
|Yesterday, SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER and CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS got into a dust-up after Schumer made comments outside of SCOTUS while justices were hearing the Louisiana abortion case inside. Schumer seemed to be attacking the high court’s newcomers appointed by PRESIDENT TRUMP — NEIL GORSUCH and BRETT KAVANAUGH. He said, “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” In a rare public response, Roberts shared a statement condemning Schumer’s comments: “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”
SO MUCH FOR PLAYING UMP
|But a spokesperson for SENATOR SCHUMER argued that CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS was wrong to respond the way he did. The spokesperson, JUSTIN GOODMAN, clarified that Schumer was commenting on the price Senate Republicans would have to pay for installing Trump’s justices to the court. He also added, “For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”
POLITICAL ANIMALS
|Aaron Blake with The Washington Post explains why yesterday’s exchange between the Senate Minority Leader and the Chief Justice is so important. He charts how the incident comes as the latest of a growing and persistent trend among high-ranking politicians on both sides of the aisle to criticize SCOTUS. “The common thread running through all of it is justices being treated as political actors — and in a couple cases acting that way. The subtext is that they can be installed to realize certain outcomes and pressured to decide cases in ways that align with one party or another.”
IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS HARD
|Jordan S. Rubin and Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson with Bloomberg Law report that yesterday’s Supreme Court case on abortion access underscored the problem of accessing SCOTUS as well. They write, “The obligatory campouts to hear arguments at a tribunal that provides no live- or even same-day audio have fueled growing public frustration at being shut out from participation in crucial national discussions.” Executive Director of Fix the Court, GABE ROTH, said of the lack of access, “Tens of thousands of Americans want to know what happened in the courtroom today, but instead, the justices have again chosen to limit access to the select few who have the connections to get in or the wherewithal to wait in line overnight.”
WINK WINK
|Joan Biskupic with CNN argues that although CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS guarded his views yesterday of whether increased regulation of abortion access is constitutional, he “has clearly laid the groundwork for an important Supreme Court decision that would reverse precedent and uphold new restrictions on physicians who perform abortions.”
CAN'T STAND FOR THIS
|What’s the one question no one is asking about the Supreme Court and abortion? Mary Ziegler with The Washington Post says it has to do with standing. The question of who has the standing to challenge abortion laws is both technical, and likely to determine the fate of abortion rights in America. She writes, “Generally, the justices require that someone can only bring a case protecting their own rights. But in the realm of abortion rights, the court has allowed abortion providers and clinics to sue on their patients’ behalf. The justices reasoned that because patients need a doctor to have a safe abortion, the interests of doctors and pregnant people are closely aligned. And the court identified practical barriers that might stop patients from bringing lawsuits of their own. But now Louisiana and antiabortion allies in amicus briefs argue that these decades of jurisprudence have been a mistake. As the state sees it, abortion providers should not have standing because they don’t care about their patients.”