Tag Archives: Supreme Court

And Then There’s The Court…

Equal Justice Under Law. That motto is both aspirational and descriptive; in four words, it summarizes the whole point of the rule of law–the founding premise of America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Well-paid lobbyists may influence legislation to give Group A an advantage over Group B, elected officials may listen more carefully to people who wrote big checks to their campaigns, but citizens are supposed to be able to appeal for justice to the nation’s courts, and those courts are supposed to  administer equal justice under the law.

Granted, it has never worked that seamlessly. Judges are human, with human biases and foibles. Laws are often opaque. Access to the nation’s courts requires resources–either substantial funds or representation by one of the country’s public interest law firms, like the ACLU or Lambda Legal. But for a long time, America’s courts–especially its federal courts–have been there to redress inequality and corruption and instances of fundamental unfairness.

Now, thanks in large part to Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, the Supreme Court itself has been corrupted. Any doubts on that score were laid to rest during the Court’s eye-opening and frequently chilling hearing on Trump’s ridiculous “immunity” claims. Those claims had been summarily and properly dismissed by the lower courts, and I fully expected the Supreme Court to follow suit. After all, the Court’s unnecessary delay in addressing the claim had given Trump what most observers knew he really wanted: a delay. The appeal was a transparent effort to postpone Jack Smith’s case until after the election, and most of us who were following the case expected the Court–having given him that delay– would rule on the merits by affirming that no one is above the law.

I will leave further discussion and analysis of that oral argument to the multitude of observers who found it appalling, because I want to address other aspects of the high court’s corruption that are relevant to the widespread loss of respect for that body and to the growing calls to expand its membership.

Over the past few years, Americans have learned about the truly gob-smacking conflicts of interest, money-grubbing and pious dishonesty of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The head of the Alliance for Justice pulled no punches:

Today, our republic is buckling under the weight of those misdeeds, as Americans no longer trust their Supreme Court to be a citadel of democracy and justice. Quite the opposite — they have come to expect the worst from our pay-for-performance judiciary. Are we really going to stand idly by and do nothing about this corruption?”

A recent article from The Intercept pointed to a lesser-known but no less troubling influence of money on the Court. The article focused on a case challenging two states’ efforts to limit social media moderation of user-posted content (which Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton equated to “censorship) then turned to the broader issue of influence.

After the Supreme Court wraps up arguments for the current term next week, it will turn to finalizing decisions in dozens of pending matters, including these social media cases plus high-stakes cases about abortion, guns, the limits of presidential immunity, and how the federal regulatory apparatus itself functions. In doing so, the justices will have a chance to review hundreds of amicus briefs.

Like the money spent on elections, the money spent on the deluge of amicus briefs each term is incredibly difficult to track. The Supreme Court’s disclosure rule for amicus briefs is quite narrow, requiring only a footnote that indicates whether there were any outside monetary contributions “intended to fund the preparation or submission” of that specific brief.

The article quoted Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of Take Back the Court,

“It’s no secret that the many of the rich benefactors cozying up to the conservative justices are the same people who fund right-wing organizations with business before the court. But too often, stories about the Supreme Court don’t connect these dots — and as a result, they leave us with an incomplete picture.”

A reform bill authored by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse–described in the Intercept article– would be a good first step, but it is past time to consider enlarging the Court and imposing 18-year term limits on Justices, among other measures that are being considered. (When lifetime tenure was established, people didn’t live as long as they do today. Eighteen years is sufficient to accomplish the goal of lifetime terms, which was to insulate the Justices from political pressure.)

The Court has never been the unblemished guardian of liberty that we like to think, but its current, shameful partisanship and outright corruption are a new low. It’s time for a change.

Comments

Hard Cases…

As I used to tell my students, cases rarely make it to the Supreme Court unless they’re difficult–unless there are persuasive arguments on both (or several) sides of the issue or issues involved. That admonition has actually become debatable as the current Court, dominated by religious “originalists,” has accepted cases that previous Courts wouldn’t have agreed to hear, but it remains largely true.

And hard cases, as the old legal precept warns, make bad law.

Which brings me to a First Amendment Free Speech case currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The question before the Court is the constitutionality of laws passed by Florida and Texas that restrict social media giants from removing certain political or controversial posts–in other words, from moderating the content posted to their platforms. As the Washington Post reported,

During almost four hours of argument Monday, the Supreme Court justices considered whether state governments can set the rules for how social media platforms curate content in a major First Amendment case with implications for the future of free speech online.

The laws being litigated are an effort to prevent social media companies from removing “conservative” viewpoints. The laws would impose strict limits on whether and when firms can block or take down content on their platforms.
At the heart of the matter is the issue highlighted by an exchange between Justice Alito and lawyer Paul Clement.
Justice Samuel Alito pressed NetChoice — a group representing the tech industry — to define the term “content moderation,” asking whether the term was “anything more than a euphemism for censorship.” “If the government’s doing it, then content moderation might be a euphemism for censorship,” said Paul Clement, an attorney representing NetChoice. “If a private party is doing it, content moderation is a euphemism for editorial discretion.”
I’ve frequently posted about Americans’ widespread lack of civic literacy–especially about censorship and freedom of speech. It is depressing how few citizens understand that the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things that government is forbidden to do. Government is prohibited from dictating our beliefs, censoring our communications, searching or seizing us without probable cause, etc. Those restrictions do not apply to private actors, and for many years, courts have recognized the right of newspapers and other print media to decide what they will, and will not, print, in the exercise of their Free Speech rights.
Perhaps the most important question posed by the recent First Amendment challenges to Texas and Florida’s new social media laws is whether platforms exercise a constitutionally protected right to “editorial discretion” when they moderate speech. The platform’s central challenge to both laws is that their must-carry and transparency obligations infringe on that right by interfering with the platforms’ ability to pick and choose what speech they host on their sites. It’s the same right, they argue, that newspapers exercise when they pick and choose what speech appears in their pages.
In other words, whose First Amendment rights will we protect? Or to put it another way, does the First Amendment give all of us a right to have our opinions disseminated by the social media platform of our choice? Or, to ask that in a different way, if the First Amendment protects speech, does it also protect the right of powerful social media companies to suppress the speech of some number of people who use their platforms?
The Knight Foundation argues
The First Amendment is not concerned solely—or perhaps even primarily—with the maximization of speech per se. Instead, what it protects and facilitates is the kind of information ecosystem in which free speech values can flourish. Courts have recognized that protecting the right of speech intermediaries to choose what they do and do not publish—in other words, protecting their right to editorial discretion—is a necessary means of creating that kind of environment.
Most of us have concerns about the content moderation policies of these enormously influential and powerful sites. The question before the Court is–once again–who decides? Are those who run those sites entitled to decide what appears on them, or can government control their decisions?
Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now ridiculous “X”) and his idiosyncratic definition of “free speech” has turned that site into a cesspool of anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories. The First Amendment currently gives him the right to make the site odious, just as Facebook has the right to remove racist and other objectionable posts. We the People decide which platforms we will patronize.
As I used to tell my students, the Bill of Rights addresses a deceptively simple question: who has the right to make this decision?
Comments

A No-Win Choice

The Washington Post recently ran a story about the 91-year old Republican woman who is a plaintiff in the Colorado case that removed Donald Trump from that state’s ballot.

In one way, the piece was just one more reminder of how very far today’s GOP is from the political party it used to be. The woman being profiled, Norma Anderson, was described as a trailblazing former GOP legislator, and she joins people like Liz Cheney and other “Never Trumpers” in reminding us that what is on display these days is a very far cry from both conservatism and what the Grand Old Party used to be.

But that article is only one commentary on a critically-important and unprecedented issue: should Trump be barred from the ballot under the very clear language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?

That Section reads as follows:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Guardian was among several media outlets that have reported on an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court by some of this nation’s most eminent historians. Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction argued in support of the Colorado decision to remove Trump from the ballot.

“For historians,” the group wrote, “contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th amendment [ratified in 1868] is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”

Sean Wilentz of Princeton is a well-regarded historian who did not participate in the Supreme Court brief, but he too has dismissed arguments for allowing Trump to remain on the ballot.

“By their reasoning,” Wilentz writes, “Trump’s misdeeds aside, enforcement of the 14th amendment poses a greater threat to our wounded democracy than Trump’s candidacy. In the name of defending democracy, they would speciously enable the man who did the wounding and now promises to do much more.”…

 “Whether motivated by … fear of Trump’s base, a perverted sense of democratic evenhandedness, a reflexive hostility toward liberals, or something else, [commentators who say Trump should stay on the ballot] betray a basic ignorance of the relevant history and thus a misconception of what the 14th amendment actually meant and means. That history, meanwhile, has placed the conservative members of the Supreme Court in a very tight spot.”

No kidding. And they’re ducking and weaving…

“Textualists” and “original intent” devotees on the Court are faced with unambiguous language buttressed by reams of contemporaneous evidence submitted by the historians. The hearing Thursday telegraphed the Court’s reluctance to give the Fourteenth Amendment language its obviously intended effect. The decision is likely to be another nail in the coffin of this Court’s eroding legitimacy.

It’s true that a decision following the clear Constitutional language would run the risk of unleashing a violent reaction from the populists and neo-Nazis who support Trump.  Recognition of that probability has led some pundits to argue that the Court should punt–that it should “save democracy” by leaving Trump’s fate to the tender mercies of the voting public.

I understand that desire, which the Court clearly shares.

I truly believe that the likely match-up between Biden and Trump will result in a massive repudiation of Trump and his cult–that Trump’s intensifying and increasingly obvious mental decline, on top of his ignorance, narcissism and generally repulsive persona will lead to a massive rejection of the GOP at the polls. (Discount the polling averages that seem to show Trump even with or defeating Biden; as several scholars have noted, those averages include a large number of low-quality, partisan polls with which GOP propagandists have “flooded the zone.”)

It would be far more satisfying to defeat Trump at the polls, but America is facing a crucial test of our commitment to the rule of law. Are we, as John Adams famously proclaimed, a “nation of laws, not men”? Or are we a nation of scofflaws, ready to abandon rules when we find them inconvenient or unpopular?

The Court appears ready to place us among the scofflaws.

Comments

How Has It Come To This?

I’ve posted a lot about electoral structures that are currently enabling a distinct minority of Americans to govern the rest of us. One of those systematic distortions–gerrymandering–has been enabled by a judiciary unwilling to say what we all can see: that the practice is contrary to “one person, one vote” and thus the Constitution.

What’s relatively new is the willingness of the GOP to publicly defend its attacks on democracy.

In Wisconsin, Republicans have benefitted from a combination of extreme gerrymandering and the political complicity of a state Supreme Court dominated by Rightwing judges. A liberal judge just won a seat on that body (by a surprisingly large margin in a state where close elections have been the norm), and Republicans threatened to impeach her–before she can participate in a single case.

As an essay in the Guardian explains:

In 2011, Republicans gerrymandered Wisconsin’s state legislature so badly that the party can win supermajorities despite losing the popular vote, as it did in 2018. Voters have fought back, and earlier this year they elected Janet Protasiewicz to the state supreme court, ushering in a new liberal majority which looked poised to finally overturn the gerrymander and bring democratic regime change to Madison.

But Wisconsin Republicans have no intention of seeing their undeserved power slip away. They’re proposing to impeach Protasiewicz on spurious charges before she has ruled on a single case, paralyzing the court and leaving the gerrymander intact.

When Trump argued that he was the real winner of the election because the votes of people living in Democratic-leaning urban areas were somehow fraudulent and should not count, he was repeating arguments that Wisconsin Republicans had already honed. The speaker of the state assembly, Robin Vos, has explained that the state’s gerrymander is fair because “if you took Madison and Milwaukee out of the state election formula, we would have a clear majority”. Because Madison and Milwaukee are the parts of the state with the largest concentration of non-white voters, Vos has revealed what the Wisconsin gerrymander is really about: race.

No surprise there. The urban/rural divide isn’t just about racism, but rural racial grievance explains a lot.

Per Talking Points Memo, the election of a liberal judge to the state’s high court infuriated the beneficiaries of Wisconsin’s undemocratic gerrymandering.

For months, Republicans have been plotting how best to overturn her election, as two redistricting lawsuits were immediately filed at the state’s high court. In recent weeks, they’ve been coalescing around impeaching her, settling on the rationale that she called the state’s maps “rigged.” Notably, state Republicans have not brought the same ire to Justices Rebecca Bradley and Brian Hagedorn continuing to preside over abortion cases after likening abortion to the Holocaust and calling Planned Parenthood a “wicked organization,” respectively. 

The GOP is threatening to impeach both Protasiewicz, the judge, and Evers, the Democratic governor (since you can’t gerrymander statewide elections, voters were able to elect a liberal justice and a Democratic Governor). “The threat of actual democracy has convulsed the state government, while state Democrats express their outrage from their manufactured permanent minority.”

The use of skewed election systems to suppress the voices of minority voters is not new to the U.S. Wisconsin is only a blatant example.

Like their predecessors in other states, Wisconsin Republicans have been remarkably frank about their intention of ensuring that minorities stay in their place. When Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tony Evers powered to victory in 2018 with massive wins in Madison and Milwaukee, the Republican legislature used a lame-duck session to strip him of much of his power. Not content with that, Evers’ Republican opponent in 2022, Tim Michels, promised that if he was elected then Republicans in Wisconsin “will never lose another election”.

Give him credit for transparency…

Republicans aren’t even pretending any more. It’s not just Wisconsin–but what happens in Wisconsin will be a test case, telling us whether these increasingly brazen attempts to secure minority rule will succeed.

The author of the Guardian essay–a British historian of the United States–notes that Wisconsin Republicans were among the most fervent backers of Trump’s undemocratic coup attempt, “but they needed no lessons from him in how to suppress the will of the people.” 

The Republican party’s belief in its own god-given right to rule – and that of its white, rural electorate – found its most dangerous expression in Trump’s attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, but it long predated him. It will outlive him unless it is chastened by accountability and defeat at every turn. All eyes are now on Wisconsin and Janet Protasiewicz to see if it will be. 

If the Wisconsin GOP’s shameless abandonment of even a pretense of playing by the rules succeeds, we’re in for a world of hurt.

Comments

And The Hits Keep Coming…

What happens when government–the primary mechanism through which humans engage in collective action– is no longer perceived as legitimate? 

Two headlines from last Wednesday’s Guardian suggest that we may soon be able to answer that question.

First, the Supreme Court.  It’s Clarence Thomas–again.

Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party.

The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice.

Despite the fact that the payments all referenced Thomas’ Christmas party, the article says it remains unclear what the funds were actually for. Most of the former clerks who made the payments are currently lawyers working for large and prominent law firms–firms with substantial business before the Court. None of them responded to the Guardian’s requests for clarification.

Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W Bush administration and has been a vocal critic of the role of dark money in politics, said is was “not appropriate” for former Thomas law clerks who were established in private practice to – in effect – send money to the supreme court via Venmo.

“There is no excuse for it. Thomas could invite them to his Christmas party and he could attend Christmas parties, as long as they are not discussing any cases. His Christmas party should not be paid for by lawyers,” Painter said. “A federal government employee collecting money from lawyers for any reason.”

Gee, it must be nice to be a Supreme Court Justice. As a steady stream of reports has confirmed, if you are a Justice like Clarence Thomas,  you don’t have to pay for anything–your mother’s home, fancy trips, memberships in exclusive clubs, your nephew’s tuition, your wedding reception…evidently, not even your Christmas Parties.

The steady drip, drip, drip of disclosures–especially those about Thomas and Alito– have deeply damaged the legitimacy of the highest Court in the land. But it isn’t only the Court.

Across the way, Congressional Republicans are doing their best to de-legitimize that branch of government.

The headline and sub-head tell the tale: “Former House Republicans and DoJ veterans lambast efforts to curb FBI and justice department”.”Current GOP members ‘disconnected from reality’ while working toward weakening democracy and the justice system.”

As House Republicans with close ties to Donald Trump widen investigations into alleged bias at the Department of Justice and the FBI – while also mulling impeachments of top Biden administration officials – justice department veterans and ex-GOP members are voicing concern that these efforts weaken the justice system and democracy.

 Led by the judiciary committee chairman, Jim Jordan, the far-right House Freedom Caucus members have helped spearhead inquiries into the alleged “weaponization of the federal government” with significant backing from the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, and other GOP leaders.

Freedom Caucus members have issued wild and irresponsible threats to impeach pretty much everyone connected with the justice system, starting with Merrick Garland;  they’ve threatened budget cuts and/or the freezing of some officials’ salaries to penalize perceived biases against Trump, even though such moves would seem to undercut traditional GOP “law and order” rhetoric and policies.

That was “traditional” rhetoric at a time the GOP was a political party rather than a lunatic cult. Several former Republican Representatives clearly understand the devolution.

“Jordan is not only accepting Trump’s falsehoods but actively promoting them. It’s an alternative reality. Members are doing it for re-election purposes, fundraising and power,” said the former Michigan Republican representative Dave Trott.

Trott added that he thought “what the Trump crazies have promoted is undermining our democracy and confidence in our judicial system and justice department. Now they want to defund justice and the FBI because they know it will further energize the far-right base.”…

Looking ahead, House GOP alumni warn that the Republican investigations may appeal to Trump and his base, but alienate moderate voters.

“I’m sure Trump is thrilled by it all,” the former Republican Pennsylvania representative Charlie Dent said. “I bet he’s talking to his allies regularly. Trump is looking at this from his sense of personal grievance.”

Corruption on the Court. Keystone Kops running the House of Representatives. A  political party turned into a grievance cult by a dangerously mentally-ill ex-President.

We’re in a world of hurt.

Comments