THE HIGH, HIGH STAKES OF THE PUERTO RICO CASE | One Father’s Story Of Taking His Young Daughter To The Supreme Court
October 16, 2019
HIGH HIGH STAKES
|“The more they heard, the more hesitant Supreme Court justices seemed to be Tuesday about disrupting the work of the board Congress put in place to fix Puerto Rico’s catastrophic economic problems.” That’s Robert Barnes with The Washington Post reporting on yesterday’s hearing at SCOTUS, which seemed to have especially high stakes. “If the hundreds of billions of dollars at stake were not enough, the justices were warned that upholding a constitutional challenge to the way the board’s members were appointed could hold serious repercussions for other territories and enclaves where the federal government plays an outsized role in government affairs, such as the District of Columbia.”
A SKEPTICAL SCOTUS
|Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr also reports on the justices seeming skeptical yesterday of contentions that members of the oversight board responsible for pulling Puerto Rico out of its bankruptcy were appointed in violation of the Constitution. “Congress created the board in 2016 as part of federal legislation aimed at solving Puerto Rico’s debt crisis. President Barack Obama selected the members, three Democrats and four Republicans, from a list provided by congressional leaders of both parties.” It was contended that process violated the Constitution’s appointments clause, which requires Senate confirmation for “officers of the United States.”
PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS
|Adam Liptak with The New York Times reports that JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO questioned Theodore Olson when he argued on behalf of his client that the appointment process was unconstitutional. Alito asked, “Are you and your client here just to defend the integrity of the Constitution, or would one be excessively cynical to think that something else is involved here involving money?” Liptak notes, “Olson allowed that the case concerned ‘over $100 billion of indebtedness being adjudicated in various procedures.'”
TOP-ED
|In The National Law Journal, Keith T.W. Anderko details his visit to the Supreme Court with his young daughter, highlighting the great lengths one must go to in order to see the justices in action. He writes, “Americans are accustomed to the corrupting influence of money in our government. Have we reached the nadir when citizens cannot even witness their judiciary without buying a seat?”
WE [FINALLY] TALKIN' TERMS
|During last night’s Democratic debates, candidates discussed ideas for structural reforms to the court. In response, Fix the Court’s Executive Director, GABE ROTH, released a statement which argues, “Though it was ignored in the debates until now, the Supreme Court is a major political issue that will impact the 2020 race and beyond. But the truth is that it shouldn’t be; political victories on the left and right should be based on results at the ballot box and not on when someone appointed to a position 30 years ago happens to pass away. Three-fourths of Americans say we can do better, that we should replace life tenure at the Supreme Court with a fairer, more rational system of term limits.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Difficult Issues Involving Human Sexuality Require Dialogue, Not Scorn, Misinformation
The Hill“On Oct. 8, I had the privilege of representing Harris Funeral Homes at the U.S. Supreme Court in my role with Alliance Defending Freedom. I participated in the oral argument and the rally that followed. Yet I do not recognize the description of each that some in the media have described.”
What The Gun Lobby Gets Wrong About The 2nd Amendment
Los Angeles Times“In evaluating gun control regulations, it’s legitimate to take into account the social harms and risks arising from individuals keeping, bearing and using firearms. Constitutional analysis of the 2nd Amendment, as with other fundamental rights, requires some kind of balancing of interests, which includes considering the state’s need to promote public safety.”
OTHER NEWS
Trump's Lawyers Ready For Supreme Court In Tax Record Fight
The Associated Press“President Donald Trump’s lawyers said Tuesday they’ll immediately go to the Supreme Court if an appeals court in New York agrees that his tax returns can be released to state prosecutors. The lawyers notified the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan of the urgency hours before Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. filed written arguments insisting the president is not above the law.”