Facing increasing criticism for his closed-door colloquys, Justice Scalia backs down to some extent on Speechgate…he now says he’ll allow print reporters to transcribe his remarks, but not radio or television journalists. What, may I ask, is our esteemed Justice afraid of? Surely he can find a way to express himself more moderately for televised public consumption. He’ll just have to give up the Cheney hunting stories.
Category: The Supreme Court
Channeling Taney.
Columbia historian (and one of my interlocuters two weeks hence) Eric Foner takes a gander at William Rehnquist’s new book on the disputed 1877 election, and, aside from the obvious Bush v. Gore overtones, discovers that the Chief Justice’s grasp of history is as backward as his jurisprudence. “The scholarship on which Rehnquist relies is almost entirely out of date and his grasp of the complex issues of the Reconstruction era tenuous…That the Chief Justice of the United States sees national protection of blacks’ rights as a punishment imposed on whites is disheartening.” Hmm…let’s hope Rehnquist doesn’t decide to regale us with his thoughts on Dred Scott anytime in the future.
The Party’s Over.
Reformers rejoice as interest groups on the left and right sputter to make sense of the brave new McCain-Feingold world. Everyone seems to agree that McConnell v. FEC is both a surprisingly bold decision and bad news for the Dems in the short term. Well, so be it. With the Supreme Court finally admitting that dollars debase democracy, the door is now open for tougher campaign finance laws in the very near future.
Woohoo!
By a vote of 5-4 (Justice O’Connor the swing vote as expected), the Supreme Court upheld the McCain–Feingold soft-money ban today in McConnell v. FEC. Well, Scalia may call this a “sad day for the freedom of speech,” but I for one think this is great, great news. “Money, like water, will always find an outlet,” as the majority put it, but at least the highest Court in the land has now recognized the corrosive impact of unregulated loot on the political process. This decision will hopefully do much to disentangle the pernicious conflation of speech and money in Buckley v. Valeo, and set the stage for continued meaningful campaign finance reform in the years to come. While McConnell v. FEC doesn’t eliminate the bad taste of Bush v. Gore, it is a huge step in the right direction by this Court.
The “Pocket Jeremiah.”
Consistently one of the most scintillating observers of the Supreme Court, Slate correspondent Dahlia Lithwick assesses Antonin Scalia and his recent decision to recuse himself from the Pledge of Allegiance case. “He is convinced that civilization is in decline and that this banishment of religion is directly responsible. He truly believes that the coarseness and callousness of modern mores and practices have imperiled us all. And if those beliefs make him sound more Jeremiah than Judge, well, Scalia would probably welcome the comparison.“
Split Decision?
As noted yesterday, the Court heard arguments this morning on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). And, in spite of reformers’ earlier hopes, it seems Chief Justice Rehnquist was predisposed against the law, meaning that the fateful decision is probably in the hands of Justice O’Connor, as per usual. Politically speaking, I’d think this Court would have to uphold reform after thrusting themselves so deeply into the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but I guess we’ll see. (Speaking of which, on a side note, conservative zealot Ted Olsen apparently referred to his friend and fellow Richard Mellon Scaife patron Ken Starr as “Justice Starr” during the proceedings, telling him he’ll “have to wait” for his spot on the bench. Sorry, Ken, not in a million years.)
Judgment Day.
Tomorrow, McCain-Feingold finally gets its day in court. For the plaintiffs (aiming to kill the legislation for Big Money), our old friend Ken Starr. For the government (nominally committed to the bill), Ted Olsen. For the reforms, former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman. All in all, it should be a doozy..if I had my druthers, of course, the Court will not only uphold McCain-Feingold but revisit the “money = protected speech” formulation drawn in Buckley v. Valeo. In terms of constitutional principle, it’s one person, one vote…dollars shouldn’t enter the equation.
Moment of Decision.
Rick Perlstein, author of Before the Storm, profiles historian George Chauncey for U. Chicago Magazine, and underlines the central role he and other scholars played in the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
Here Comes the Judge.
As McCain-Feingold nears its day in court, advocates and opponents of reform look to Chief Justice Rehnquist as a major swing vote (along with Justice O’Connor). Hmmm…I have to say I don’t have much faith in Rehnquist’s jurisprudence at this point, but perhaps he’ll surprise me.
American Mullah.
“We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court…One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?” Pat Robertson calls on God to put a hit out on three Supreme Court justices following Lawrence v. Texas. Well, while we’re praying for people’s “removal”…