BURR IT’S COLD IN HERE | Saying No to Nine | Saying No to Chaos
November 2, 2016
TODAY AT SCOTUS
|The justices struggled over a case that could make it easier to sue foreign governments in U.S. courts, considering whether an Oklahoma-based oil company could pursue a lawsuit against Venezuela. The justices seemed concerned over potential consequences to foreign relations, with JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER noting he was swinging “back and forth” on how to rule.
CAN'T CHANGE THE STORM OF A HURRICANE
|The eight justices heard arguments in State Farm’s challenge to a 2015 lower court ruling upholding the verdict in a 2006 lawsuit brought by two whistleblowers under the False Claims Act. Justices seemed unlikely to throw out the jury verdict that found State Farm defrauded the federal government when it assessed damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
BURR IT'S COLD IN HERE
|The election is less than a week away, and eyes are already looking beyond the presidency to the biggest outstanding question in our country right now: What is to come of the Supreme Court? If you ask some Senate Republicans, it seems they have a pretty clear answer to that question. A third GOP senator, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman RICHARD BURR joked this week about shooting HILLARY CLINTON, and then said, “If Hillary becomes president, I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that four years from now, we’re still going to have an opening on the Supreme Court.” Apparently he was joking about one of those comments, apologizing only for what he said about shooting Clinton.
SAYING NO TO NINE
|The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein notes we shouldn’t only be concerned with what SENATOR RICHARD BURR said about an indefinite Supreme Court vacancy, but also with what he didn’t say. Stein points out that no longer is the argument being made that voters should pick a president to nominate a SCOTUS justice. Those days are long gone.
LIKE NEVER BEFORE
|“An extended vacancy like the one BURR is proposing is absolutely without precedent in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.” That’s The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham reporting on Senator Burr’s proposal which “would represent a break with nearly 150 years of precedent.”
WHAT COMES NEXT
|“What’s the opposite of Court-packing? It’s one of those linguistic holes that no one knew existed until last week. Now it’s time for the wordsmiths to get to work.” That’s David Graham with The Atlantic considering what might happen if Republicans refuse to fill the SCOTUS vacancy left by JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA. And I’m here to tell you it’s a bit more than wordsmithing. Graham says if Republicans are serious about blocking any nominee from a President Clinton it would mean one thing: “American government would only function when a single party had complete control.”
THREE'S A CROWD
|The count’s at SENATORS JOHN MCCAIN, TED CRUZ, and now RICHARD BURR — anyone else? As of now we have three GOP senators publicly taking the position in support of an indefinite blockade. When The Guardian asked SENATOR MARCO RUBIO if he’d want to throw his hat into the ring, he decided instead to hang his hat on the issue altogether. Rubio: “No, I don’t believe that we should do that if they propose nominees that are good. I’m not going to go and predispose them that way.”
WATCH YOUR MOUTH
|Or The Associated Press will watch it for you. AP compiled a list of what key players — MCCONNELL, GRASSLEY, CLINTON, TRUMP, and SCHUMER — are saying about the Supreme Court vacancy.
DISORDER IN THE HOUSE
|In The New York Times, Ross Douthat opines that although the pro-life movement suffered a major loss with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, it isn’t enough to justify a vote for DONALD TRUMP. There’s little in the way of delicateness from Douthat in his piece. He writes, “A vote for Trump is not a vote for insurrection or terrorism or secession. But it is a vote for a man who stands well outside the norms of American presidential politics, who has displayed a naked contempt for republican institutions and constitutional constraints, who deliberately injects noxious conspiracy theories into political conversation, who has tiptoed closer to the incitement of political violence than any major politician in my lifetime,” and so on and so on. In essence, he argues it’s time to accept that this election should not fall to Trump. Why? “Because the deepest conservative insight is that justice depends on order as much as order depends on justice.” And if you ask Douthat, Trump isn’t exactly offering order.
WELL THAT'S JUST CRAZY TALK
|“Too many top Republicans have made clear in recent years that they care more about winning than about adhering to political norms or doing what’s best for the country.” For The New York Times, David Leonhardt opines that the GOP’s recent Supreme Court talk is radical and worth talking about seriously.
2016 ELECTION WATCH
|The presidential election isn’t the only thing worth keeping your eye on this year. The Associated Press put together a report of notable state supreme court races in 2016 that have been backed by hundreds of thousands of dollars from partisan groups.
LISTEN UP FOLKS
|The attorneys representing both parties in the transgender case headed to the Supreme Court were on NPR’s Morning Edition talking about the legal arguments they plan to present to justices next year. Listen in and get to know attorneys KYLE DUNCAN and JOSH BLOCK who are key players in what might be a landmark case.
LOVING YOU IS EASY
|Jeff Nichols brings us “Loving,” a film about the real-life couple RICHARD and MILDRED LOVING, who “became accidental revolutionaries in their quest to raise a family together in their home state of Virginia.” Their story culminated in the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967, which found laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional. The film is expected to be a major contender this awards season.
OTHER NEWS
3 Cheers for Gary Johnson's Supreme Court Short List
ReasonYesterday, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson released a list of six candidates that he says he would consider naming to the Supreme Court if he wins the presidency. Damon Root notes, “Libertarians have good reason to be impressed by Johnson’s list.”