CHIEF JUSTICE CONTINUES ROLE OF REFEREE AS HOUSE MOVES ON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
September 25, 2019
YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN
|In non-impeachment news, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS yesterday did his darndest to convince an audience in New York that justices aren’t divided along partisan lines. Greg Stohr with Bloomberg reports, “Roberts portrayed the nation’s highest court as a collegial institution that isn’t swayed by criticism or infected by the political rancor that has overwhelmed the other two branches of U.S. government.”
PARTY LIKE A ROCK STAR
|The Chief Justice also shared in Manhattan yesterday, “When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in those terms. That’s not how we at the court function and the results in our cases do not suggest otherwise.” Lawrence Hurley with Reuters also points out that CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS drew laughs and cheers from the crowd at the Temple Emanu-El Streicker Center when he referred to JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG as a “rock star.”
MORE THAN HE BARGAINED FOR?
|Richard Wolf with USA Today considers whether JOHN ROBERTS is dealing with a “double dose of the seven-year itch” after 14 years as chief justice of the United States. Wolf writes, “A buttoned-down conformist who fights to preserve his court’s reputation, he must referee continual battles between lower court judges blocking Trump administration initiatives and a Justice Department seeking the high court’s intervention to stop them. A go-slow incrementalist who tries to move the law in baby steps by consensus, he is pushed by conservatives eager to jettison the court’s precedents. When he deviates from their path, he is exposed by highly unusual leaks to the media. All this comes on the eve of a presidential election in which the Roberts Court may play an outsized role, much to the chief justice’s consternation. And on top of all that, if the House of Representatives impeaches PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, it is Roberts who would preside over the trial in the Senate.”
TOP-ED
|Former president of the D.C. Bar and counsel to the Watergate special prosecutors, Philip Allen Lacovara argues in The Washington Post that CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS can learn a thing or two from the British Supreme Court. He urges, “The British Supreme Court just showed how an independent and nonpartisan judiciary works in a healthy democracy to keep a chief executive from getting out of control. Our Supreme Court, and especially Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., should be chastened by this inspiring example of judicial independence and public responsibility.”
SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED
|But Christopher Caldwell argues in The New York Times that Britain’s Supreme Court is politicized, just as ours is. “Pundits of all persuasions speculate about future confirmation hearings, at which Supreme Court nominees would be quizzed on Brexit just as their American counterparts are quizzed on Roe v. Wade. The British Supreme Court’s landmark decision seems to have shaken Britain’s traditional constitution more than it has Britain’s Brexit prospects — but increasingly those are two ways of saying the same thing.”
YOU SCRATCH MY BACK
|“As PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP tries to elude oversight in Congress for his actions, including recent dealings with Ukraine, Trump’s personal lawyers have made a far-reaching claim that could remove a judicial check on a president’s alleged transgressions.” That’s Joan Biskupic with CNN reporting on a federal case to be heard today in which Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the Constitution shields the president from any criminal investigation — not just from actual prosecution — while he holds office. Their justification for the claim? An essay from now-Supreme Court JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH.
SCOTUS VIEWS
The Not-So-Supreme Court
The Atlantic“Americans deeply disagree on the substance of many constitutional issues. Does the Second Amendment cover semiautomatic rifles? Does a woman have a constitutional right to an abortion? But there is one area of broad agreement: The Supreme Court will have the final say, like it or not.”
OTHER NEWS
Rams Want Supreme Court To Weigh In On NFL Relocation
Bloomberg Law“The Los Angeles Rams want the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in its dispute with St. Louis over the team’s 2016 relocation back to the City of Angels. The Rams on Sept. 24 asked the justices to halt a state court ruling requiring the franchise to litigate the dispute in the courts, rather than through arbitration.”