KAGAN V. GORSUCH, A Supreme Feud Nina Totenberg Bets Kagan Will Win | TRUMP CRIES WOLF OVER JUDICIAL NOMINEES | Justices Need Fact-Checkers
October 19, 2017
UH-HUH HONEY
|Looks like things are getting messy at SCOTUS, and leave it to Supreme Court Queen Nina Totenberg to bring us the gospel truth. On the latest podcast from First Mondays, Totenberg dropped a bombshell when she noted that there is quite the feud brewing between JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN and JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH. Totenberg: “My surmise, from what I’m hearing, is that Justice [Elena] Kagan really has taken [Gorsuch] on in conference. And that it’s a pretty tough battle and it’s going to get tougher. And she is about as tough as they come, and I am not sure he’s as tough—or dare I say it, maybe not as smart. I always thought he was very smart, but he has a tin ear somehow, and he doesn’t seem to bring anything new to the conversation.” (h/t Ebolutalese Airewele)
A SUPREME FEUD
|Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern responds to Totenberg’s revelation about the KAGAN, GORSUCH feud and writes, “It’s astonishing that any reporter would hear details from conference, let alone score some genuinely juicy scuttlebutt.” And while we’ve yet to see how this feud will bear out in terms of case decisions, Stern explains, “It is safe to say that, in Gorsuch, the justices did not get the deal they were promised. JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA could be a grouch, but he developed warm friendships with many of his colleagues, including those to his left. Gorsuch is a pale imitation of his predecessor, boasting a bratty attitude that has nettled justices across the ideological spectrum. He was supposed to build a new conservative consensus. Instead, it seems, his haughty demeanor has given his colleagues something they can agree on.”
DISAPPEARING ACT
|“Oral argument, a staple of practice in the U.S. Supreme Court, is fast disappearing in the federal appellate courts to the detriment of courts and the American public, according to a recent study by the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.” That’s Marcia Coyle with The National Law Journal reporting on the decline in oral argument in the circuit courts.
THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF
|“PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP says Democrats are holding up his judicial nominees, but almost nine months into his presidency, he has had more judges confirmed than PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA did in the same time period, and his numbers aren’t far off those of other recent presidents. Trump counts the confirmation of Supreme Court JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH as one of his signature achievements. But on Monday he charged that Senate Democrats are holding up confirmation of his other judicial nominees ‘beyond comprehension.’ A top Senate Democrat said claims Democrats are obstructing judicial nominees are false.”
TOP-ED
|Writing in The New York Times, John Pfaff opines Supreme Court justices are in serious need of some fact-checkers. Pfaff is responding to the new ProPublica report released this week that found at least seven errors in the citations of facts or research in recent SCOTUS cases. In fact, the court produced errors in nearly a third of the 24 cases. To mitigate this problem in the future, Pfaff suggests the high court “establish a group of technical advisers to the court.” He writes, “A small team of social scientists and statisticians could help justices sift through empirical evidence. There is no shortage of scholars with Ph.D.s who would be eager to do that work for the court.”
OTHER NEWS
In North Carolina, Republicans Stung by Court Rulings Aim to Change the Judges
The New York Times“Republicans with a firm grip on the North Carolina legislature — and, until January, the governor’s seat — enacted a conservative agenda in recent years, only to have a steady stream of laws affecting voting and legislative power rejected by the courts. Now lawmakers have seized on a solution: change the makeup of the courts.”
Federal Court Rules Against Travel Ban 3.0 Because It Discriminates Against Muslims
The Washington Post“Both rulings also impose nationwide restrictions on implementation of the new travel ban order (a temporary restraining order in the Hawaii case; a temporary injunction in Maryland). Technically, both are just preliminary decisions temporarily blocking implementation of the travel ban until the court can reach a final decision on the merits. But both make clear that the plaintiffs are highly likely to prevail in any such final ruling. One key difference between the two decisions is that the Maryland ruling only applies its injunction to persons with a ‘bona fide’ connection to persons or entities in the United States.”
Gun Control Is Constitutional — Just Ask the Supreme Court
The Hill“The NRA cannot justify rejecting gun control on the basis of 2nd Amendment rights, nor can they invoke the ‘freedom’ argument unless they want to be the sole dissenter in a nation that regulates most things, such as cars and air travel, in consideration of everyone’s safety. There is no valid rationalization or excuse for not having gun control.”
Lawyers: Courts Correctly Rejected Confederate Flag Lawsuit
The Associated Press“Attorneys for the Mississippi governor say two levels of federal courts have been correct in blocking a lawsuit that challenges the Confederate battle emblem on the state flag.”
Settlement Proposed in North Carolina Transgender Bathroom Lawsuit
Reuters“Transgender people would be allowed to use public restrooms in North Carolina that match their gender identity under a settlement agreement filed on Wednesday that aims to resolve the federal lawsuit over the state’s widely criticized bathroom law. The consent decree proposed by Governor Roy Cooper, the American Civil Liberties Union and transgender people who sued the state would remove some of the law’s harmful effects, civil rights groups said.”