Search the Lounge


« The Hunger Games - Valpo Edition | Main | LSAC and Predicting Applicants for 2016-17, Part 30 »

July 12, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Given the clarity with which the Justices' political identities are already established, have there been any recent 5-4 decisions that involved politically charged issues but with respect to which proponents of the losing side were placated by the thought that at least the Court acted, or purported to act, "impartially"? When Citizens United or Heller is overruled, or sharply limited, by a 5-4 vote, will it make any difference whether the most recently appointed Justice explicitly promised that vote in advance or maintained a traditional pose of open-mindedness? I think there is a fair argument that the Court gains institutional authority when it renders decisions by majorities that can't be explained politically, not when its members feign political innocence.


What is sort of appalling is the "above the law" nature of it. This appears to be based on the notion that if you are "right" on the issues, little annoyances like the law, ethics and propriety shouldn't apply to you.

One would expect these days a sitting justice to blatantly violate the Judicial Code of Conduct. After all, she can say, she is above it. That is par for the course. Let's have Justices go out and campaign for candidates based on the candidates' positions on the issues the Justices advocate. That way, when litigants come before the court, they will know that the Judge has already ruled against them. Yes, in our Orwellian culture, this is a positive good!

But, what I don't understand is, for example, the constant harping on Citizens United by folks who should know better. The public hasn't a clue, and I get that. But, here in the FL, there should be a least SOME effort to understand the issues. In that case, it was stipulated that the law in question would ban books. It would also arguably infringed on freedom of the press, owned, in most instances, by corporations. (A "corporation" has freedom to publish speech that advocates for the election of a candidate? Ridiculous, the advocates of restricting speech say, a corporation like NBC should not have any such right!)

What, exactly, did Citizen's United hold, good people? THINK! The sloganeering is so pedestrian.


she's doubling-down. not good at all.

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

"Damaging the Court as an institution by weakening the public's support?" Please. That ship sailed in 2000 when they selected Bush. Or when Scalia banned photographers at the University of Mississippi---should I go on about Scalia and Thomas. What about the free tires he accepted for his Corvette?

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

She's right. We have a duty as legal professionals, practitioners, judges and academics to sound the alarm just like her. What is at stake here is nothing short of the rule of law and our place among nations as a benevolent super power. A good many folks vote because they want to "kick us in the ass." "Screw 'em." "Ha, Ha, Ha while rolling coal in their F-150s.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad