And Now We Wait…Justices To Share Decisions On Future Of DACA, Power Of The President, Power Of Electoral College
May 18, 2020
IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN
|“Now that oral arguments are over for this Supreme Court term, the attention turns to decisions. As of now, 26 cases remain to be decided.” Pete Williams with NBC News reports that of those 26 cases are some of the biggest disputes of the term — if not the decade. The future of DACA, the power of the president, and the power of the Electoral College are all to be decided. Williams notes that still no one knows when the term will end. Typically everything gets wrapped up at the end of June, but it’s possible the closing of the court and delay in arguments due to the coronavirus crisis will push things back further into the summer.
GET INTO THE GROOVE BOY
|Ariane de Vogue with CNN reviews the two weeks of SCOTUS doing its oral arguments remotely and allowing the public to listen in live. She writes, “While CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS and others have long recoiled from any change in the format of oral arguments, those fears, except for one mysterious toilet flush, never came to fruition. The great experiment, prompted by a pandemic, of allowing the public more access is now over. The question lingers: will the justices allow it to continue in the future?” She considers the pros and cons of how the quarantine format worked for the justices, noting that most got the hang of things almost immediately, while others took a little time to adapt and get into their rhythm. “JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, who often writes and speaks in language aimed at a non-lawyer, didn’t hold back under the new format.” Meanwhile, JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR forgot to take herself off mute a couple of times (we’ve all been there), but she got into her groove and figured out how to best make use of her time before CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS interrupted to move onto the next justice’s questions.
DENNISTON DISSENTS!
|Adam Liptak with The New York Times reports that although SCOTUS has gotten “a fair amount of praise” for its remote oral arguments, there has been one notable dissenter: LYLE DENNISTON. Liptak points out that Denniston has attended more arguments than any other journalist — and possibly any person living today. Denniston told Liptak of the format overall, “It’s very hard for me to be charitable about it because I see so many flaws in it. The only virtue is that the court was publicly exhibited as it did its work. There is a civic value in that. But the process in terms of what we really need the Supreme Court to do, which is to resolve these dreadfully important constitutional and statutory and cultural questions, we just cannot have them doing it by a process that is so inherently flawed.”
HELLO? IT'S ME
|Of course, one of the biggest stories from the remote arguments was that JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS found his voice. The typically mum man asked a whopping 63 questions. But Thomas wasn’t the only one serving up some extraordinary moments. JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG dialed in from a hospital to participate in arguments, and there was that weird moment when it sounded like a toilet flushed in the background of someone’s line. Devin Dwyer with ABC News reviews the highs and lows of the oral arguments and writes, “Transparency advocates are hoping the justices will be encouraged by the public’s response — particularly a general lack of partisan controversy around their arguments — and continue the practice of allowing all Americans to listen live to future proceedings.”
ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE IF YOU JUST SPEAK
|Speaking up can do wonders for a person’s public image. Just ask Nicholas Casey writing for The New York Times that some conservatives think JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS could rise to the kind of icon status Notorious RBG has enjoyed for years. “Justice Thomas hasn’t changed, nor has his bitterness about the way his confirmation hearings unfolded. But the political moment has. Renewed interest in his life, work and philosophy may be coming from the same place as that in Justice Ginsburg: the Trump era.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Washington Post’s Editorial Board weighed in on the recent cases before SCOTUS concerning faithless electors. “At issue is a perennial constitutional conundrum: whether all 538 presidential electors are free to vote for whomever they please, or whether states may pass laws requiring them to cast votes for the candidate to whom they pledged their votes prior to the election — and punishing them, including criminally, if they don’t.” The Ed Board urges the justices to follow their instincts to avoid any election-related chaos stemming from this issue and allow states that wish to bind their electors legally to do so.
TOTALLY DIFFERENT
|Republican SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM said in an interview on “Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren” that the Senate would go forward with confirming a nominee to the Supreme Court if there’s a vacancy this year — because it would be a “different situation” from when the Senate blocked the nomination of MERRICK GARLAND by blaming on it being an election year. Graham said, “You had the president of one party nominating, and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party. A situation where you’ve got them both would be different.” Tal Axelrod with The Hill reports.
POLL DU JOUR
|POLITICO’s Nerdcast last week took a look at the cases the Supreme Court heard regarding PRESIDENT TRUMP’S financial records and tax returns, as well as the disputes over the power of electors. White House reporter Nancy Cook joined the pod for the discussion.