IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT, COURTESY CALLS | SCOTUSDaily Can Save Your Life, And Your Butt
November 4, 2016
IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT
|Turns out, even in this tumultuous time of electoral politics and uncertainty, sometimes courtesy can still win in the end. Last night, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS provided the fifth vote necessary to delay the execution of an Alabama inmate, even though Roberts said he thought the execution should go forward. He gave his vote as a “courtesy” — to his four colleagues who wanted to block the execution pending an appeal, and to avoid another 4-4 split.
HOW SCOTUSDAILY CAN SAVE YOUR BUTT, AND YOUR SOUL
|The Huffington Post’s Cristian Farias reports on a recent interview with HuffPo in which Democratic vice presidential nominee SENATOR TIM KAINE made quite the gaffe. He said, “The Constitution doesn’t set the size of the court. It sets a maximum, I think, of 15.” Tisk tisk, Tim. If only you’d been keeping up with our SCOTUSDaily briefings.
NIGHTMARE ON FIRST STREET
|“What happens if America wakes up on Nov. 9 to another undecided, hotly disputed presidential election? What if the outcome turns on the razor-thin margin in one or two states, one candidate seeking a recount, the other going to court? We know what happened in 2000, when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote effectively settled the election in favor of GEORGE W. BUSH. As controversial as that decision was, it was made by a nine-justice court. This time around, there are only eight justices and the possibility of a tie vote. That would leave a lower federal or state court ruling in place, with no definitive judgment from the nation’s highest court.” Halloween already happened, but AP’s Mark Sherman has a nightmare no goblin or ghoul could possibly compare to.
SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE?
|The election is likely to end with a government divided. Bloomberg reports the presidency will likely go to HILLARY CLINTON, with Democrats having a slightly higher chance of winning back the Senate. Republicans are likely to retain control of the House. But Andre Tartar and Ben Brody also play out a couple of other scenarios to see what might happen if everything goes to the Dems, if everything goes to the GOP, or if they have to split the diffference. No matter what happens, we know what should be the first order of business: the United States Supreme Court.
ICE WAS GETTING THINNER
|The North Carolina senator is giving us the same run-around we saw last month from SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, thawing his promise to block any and all Supreme Court nominees from a President Hillary Clinton. Yesterday, SENATOR RICHARD BURR said he would “assess the record of any Supreme Court nominee.”
LESS IS MORE
|Republicans are ready to ditch the whole “We Need Nine” thing altogether, suggesting perhaps we only need eight justices at the high court. NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports on the promise of an indefinite SCOTUS blockade writing, “The pronouncements are such a break with history and tradition that they often provoke the response, ‘Really?’ Some see such statements as little more than an attempt to motivate the Republican base to get out and vote. Others, however, see the trend as a further deterioration of American institutions of government.”
BUILDING A WALL
|Senate Republicans are building a wall around 1 First St., preparing to keep out any nominees from HILLARY CLINTON. Carl Hulse with The New York Times reports that stonewall likely won’t crumble anytime soon. Hulse also notes, “Of course, this all becomes moot if DONALD J. TRUMP is elected president and Republicans hold the Senate. Then it will be the Democrats searching for ways to hold up Mr. Trump’s court choices.” And then there would be two walls.
WELL DONE, CARL
|NBC’s Steve Benen reacted to the aforementioned piece from Carl Hulse, highlighting a point in the article where Hulse notes a SCOTUS blockade has some serious backing from the far right. Benen writes, “Heritage Action, a project of the far-right Heritage Foundation, hosted a briefing yesterday on Capitol Hill, calling on Senate Republicans to leave Supreme Court vacancies along ‘perhaps for as long as five years,’ assuming there’s a Democratic president.”
DON'T BE CRAZY
|Jennifer Rubin with The Washington Post opines that the Grand Old Party has to make one really easy decision right now: whether or not to be sane. She calls the recent promise to block any SCOTUS nominee from HILLARY CLINTON “lunacy in a prom dress,” and ultimately decides Republicans are likely to choose the course that will make them look the most “buffoonish.”
WAKE UP PEOPLE
|“Abortion rights are on the line in this election and people don’t seem to be the least bit concerned.” Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick delivers a wake up call, reminding folks that Roe v. Wade is on the ballot Tuesday. “Sometimes it’s easy to become a victim of your own success. Other times, it’s easy to become a victim of your own illusions. When it comes to the Supreme Court, liberals seem to be a bit of both right now, especially on issues that affect women. What many don’t seem to realize is that this election isn’t just about not elevating a misogynist of DONALD TRUMP’S caliber to the White House. It’s now coming down to whether Republican Senators can reverse women’s progress even in the event that we elect our first female president.”
WOMEN OF THE HOUR
|On LENA DUNHAM’S special election podcast, “Nasty Women of the Hour,” Liz Watson reads a story about “The Secret Supreme Court Women’s Bunker” — cut to 20:36 to hear the reading. Fair warning: Listening to this piece is not for the faint of heart, or for anyone who finds women to be nasty. (S/O to Celeste Carswell for the tip!)