No Left Turns - The Ashbrook Center Blog

Published in Courts

Courts

Kelover

Professor Bainbridge alerts us to the latest development in the Kelo case. Pfizer is abandoning the property that the City of New London, CT took from Suzette Kelo and others and gave it to develop.  Bainbriadge provides excellent analysis, including a surprise appearance by Russell Kirk.  Liberal jurisprudence in action.

Categories > Courts

Presidency

Franck Stones Obama Pot Policy

Matt Franck takes a whack not only at Obama's decriminalization policy but at some conservative defenders of it who see a respect for federalism: 

By announcing the non-prosecution of marijuana cases only in those 14 states that legalize some use of the drug for medical purposes, the administration has effectively proclaimed that federal law means one thing in those 14 states, and something else in the other 36.  That could readily give rise to equal protection claims in the 36 states where the federal government still considers itself free to prosecute.

Moreover:  "Worse, by conditioning the prospect of prosecution on the presence or absence of state laws that contradict a nationwide federal prohibition, the Justice Department has effectively subjected the validity of federal law to the will of state legislators."  As a prelude to relaxing drug prosecution generally, "This way evinces Professor Obama's usual respect for the Constitution: he rolls his own."

Categories > Presidency

Courts

Second Amendment

Peter Robinson has a conversation (first of five) with Judge Laurence H. Silberman, "the man who saved the Second Amendment."

Categories > Courts

Courts

A Consistent Ethic of Judicial Restraint?

According to Dionne, the proper battle that should animate the next Court confirmation process is the danger of right-wing judicial activism. I agree that some of our libertarian friends have pushed for the Court to do too much, but to say the least that danger is fading now. I can even agree that declaring the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional seems like judicial activism. But shouldn't we challenge E.J. to add that left-wing judicial activism (which we, beginning with ROE, have discussed on NLT often) is at least at bad, and the new danger is it will now get much worse?
Categories > Courts

Courts

Will a Friend of Justice Clarence Thomas Join the Court?

The WaPo article says much more about Justice Thomas than it does about Obama's possible nominee, Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears. Thomas has played a low-key role in helping black judicial nominees, including Democrats.

Other facts about her: She is an army brat, attended Cornell and Emory law, with an LL.M from UVA, appointed by Zell Miller, and is married to a former Deputy Mayor of NY, under Ed Koch.

For pros and cons on other possibilities, note this Jan Crawford Greenburg co-authored piece. From all of this, Gov. Granholm looks more likely, at least on paper. Or is there no such thing as too many Chicagoans?

Categories > Courts

Courts

Justice Scalia at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

In his remarks this morning at the 6th annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Justice Antonin Scalia contrasted the Jefferson who abridged the gospels to produce a humanist (and thoroughly uninteresting) Jesus with Thomas More, who defied Henry VIII and was eventually beheaded. But the comparison of one of Jefferson's silly moments with St. Thomas Morefs martyrdom is inapt. And unfortunately it feeds a prejudice many religious Americans have, that their faith is at odds with their patriotism, that they must ultimately live as aliens in America. Of course, the prevailing political and social trends bolster this feeling.

But denigrating, even implicitly, Jeffersonfs highest achievements (especially by contrast with a Saint) would further undermine Catholic self-understanding as well as patriotism. Preeminent among those achievements was the Declaration of Independence, with its radical statement of human equality, an assessment of the human condition that transformed the relationship of man to his government and the understanding of the relationship between man and the cosmos. Catholics, as well as those of other faiths and religious skeptics and scoffers, need the natural theology of the Declaration to ground our political and social conduct. They need the founding documentfs reason or natural law to establish their political principles. Philosophic reason paves the way for theology.

Justice Scaliafs remarks are not available, but Archbishop Burkefs powerful keynote address is here. Go, Notre Dame was not a leading theme.

Categories > Courts

Courts

Good Riddance and Bring It On!

I agree with Julie below that we would be better served by a top-notch liberal appointee from Obama. It clarifies things. Souter has always sent me into a near-rage, not so much for his liberalism as his mediocrity--and the incompetence of Bush-pere in naming him to the Court in the first place. Can anyone name one opinion or dissent of his that was significant or memorable? (Several are notable for their stupidity; he never seemed to have much influence with his fellow liberals on the Court.) Taney will always hold the crown for the worst Justice in the history of the Court, but Souter might have the second spot nailed down. Good riddance.
Categories > Courts

Courts

An Obama Judicial Nominee

I have been thinking (thanks to those who have commented below) about what might be the best thing we can hope for in an Obama nominee given the current political situation and what might be the best policy of conservatives in the Senate. Here's my preliminary conclusion: I hope Obama picks the absolute best proponent and the most articulate, well-spoken, and (above all) the best writer he can find for his understanding of the Constitution. It goes without saying that I believe his understanding of the Constitution to be completely off--but this does not mean that there is not a good case to be made for it. I want someone who will make the case with force and with clarity and with very little willingness (or, perhaps, capacity) to cover it with the veil that makes it politically palatable. I want a good and an honest liberal--one who will be a worthy opponent for Thomas, especially. And I say let them duke it out in print. At least then the opinions of the court will be entertaining and enlightening reading. It is even possible that in this stirring up things will begin to settle into a better kind of clarity than we have at the moment. Senators should question with intensity and probity . . . but more for the sake of exposing what the nominee is than for the sake of any ill-conceived effort to stop it. But an effort to demonize the nominee is also ill-advised. Just move toward clarity and, in the end, trust the judgment of the people. To the winner goes the spoils, and all that . . . This winner is banking on continued lack of clarity. That's where we should put a hold on his account.
Categories > Courts

Courts

Public Opinion and the Courts

I'm grateful for Ken's post below, with the link to Matt Franck's good advice. I really agree that Republican senators should raise the choice not to filibuster to higher principle. I also agree that they should ask tough questions about controversial decisions. I never thought nominees had the right not to give their opinion on whether ROE was rightly decided (and why etc.) or whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, for example. I have to add that I believe that JUDICIAL RESTRAINT is a real issue: Nominees should be asked whether the agree with the mystery clause in PLANNED PARENTHOOD or the claim in LAWRENCE v. TEXAS that the word "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment is nothing more than a weapon to be used to expand the realm of freedom for every generation of Americans--led by the Court. I agree that the Constitution is too important to be left to lawyers, but I have to add that justices are nothing more than really good lawyers--and not philosophers, and they are interpreting a written Constitution as a law, even if a fundamental law. As the example of the C+ existentialism in PLANNED PARENTHOOD reminds us, the justices are led most astray when they think of themselves as a lot more than lawyers. JUDICIAL RESTRAINT properly understood means recognizing that a lot of the troubles of our time come from the fact that the Court has gotten too involved in "regime change." The absence of JUDICIAL RESTRAINT has become, in certain ways, a real threat to SELF-GOVERNMENT. The Constitution is not only too important to be left to lawyers. It's too important to be left to the Court (as Mr. Lincoln said with singular eloquence).
Categories > Courts

Courts

How to Argue About the Supreme Court

Generally, Republicans and conservative activists do a poor job of advocating their sensible and constitutionally necessary position. Matt Franck does outline a coherent strategy designed to change public opinion.

Unfortunately, those on the right tend to argue like lawyers, while Obama had (probably justified) contempt for his law school education (see his autobiography)--hence his emphasis on "empathy" as a judicial credential, which has attracted the ire of conservatives. If the right took to heart the Constitution's basis in the Declaration of Independence, they would sing a different song and interrupt the leftist appeal to the passions.

The Supreme Court is too important to be left to the lawyers--something Bush probably realized in his unfortunate initial pick of Harriet Miers. But he didn't have the skill (or the proper weapon) to make his point. The language of "judicial restraint" has no political cache and in fact is a secondary point. We want jurists who are zealous in their defense of the Constitution, while realizing the moderation essential to their office.

Categories > Courts

Courts

Justice Souter retiring?

He apparently hasn't hired his clerks yet.
Categories > Courts

Courts

Federalism and firearms

An interesting case:
Montana's staunchly pro-Second Amendment Governor, Democrat Brian Schweitzer, has signed Montana HB 246, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The bill declares that a firearm which is manufactured in Montana, and never leaves the State of Montana, "is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce."
Presumably Wickard v. Filburn, or something like it, will be made to apply. Our courts don't like it when elected officials get uppity, and try to challenge their right to be the sole and final arbiters of the meaning of the constitution. Even so, it is interesting to see the people, acting through their representatives, questioning what the limits of federal jurisdiction are.
Categories > Courts

Courts

Constitutional Amendment?

I talked with Matt Spalding regarding his recent testimony to a Joint Committee that is looking into the possibility of amending the Constitution; insisting on immediate election of a U.S. Senator in case of vacancy. You know, democracy above all considerations, including federalism. Matt was the only guy testifying against the proposal.  
Categories > Courts

Courts

Strippers and the Rule of Law

I thought that might get your attention. The late Anna Nicole Smith is back in the news. Smith died from a drug overdose in 2007, but her lawsuit against the estate of her former husband, J. Howard Marshall, lives on. In the latest legal maneuver, the executor of her estate, Howard K. Stern--who is currently facing legal troubles of his own after being " target=new>charged with conspiring to prescribe and administer drugs to the late model in violation of California law--asked Justice Kennedy to lift a stay issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to allow the estate to collect on a judgment issued by a California federal court against Marshall's estate. Kennedy rejected the request, which comes as little surprise, given the merits of the case, and the lack of merits of the petition.

The whole tawdry tale is one of litigation run amok, which I have previously discussed here and the ever-insightful Professor Rotunda had discussed more recently here. Recapping the case briefly, in an attempt to gain more than the millions in cash and gifts that she had received during his life, Anna Nicole challenged her billionaire husband's estate plan, claiming that he had made a verbal promise of half of his fortune. The jury in Texas didn't buy this story, so she shopped for a more receptive court in California, and she found one in a federal bankruptcy court. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the millions awarded by the court based upon a federal jurisdictional rule, but the Supreme Court in 2006 reversed, saying that the federal court could consider the merits of the case. Contrary to Stern's failed petition, which suggests that he is now entitled to the judgment, his case looks grim. For when the Ninth Circuit looks at the merits, they will be obliged to apply Texas law and to respect the final decision of the Texas probate court. That court was crystal clear:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED by the Court that J. HOWARD MARSHALL II did not intend to give and did not give to VICKIE LYNN MARSHALL, A/K/A ANNA NICOLE SMITH, a gift or bequest from the Estate of J. HOWARD MARSHALL II or from the J. Howard Marshall, II, Living Trust either prior to or upon his death.
And yet, despite this clear finding, finality is not had. All the original players in the sad drama are now dead, but the litigation continues. The law treats probate court judgments as determinative of these questions for a reason: to avoid the protracted litigation and gamesmanship that have been the hallmark of this case.

Cross Posted on The Foundry.

Categories > Courts

Courts

NJ

If you want a perfectly clear (and shocking) explanation and interpretation of the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on the Torricelli case, see this great Robert Alt piece. And George Will argues persuasively that the Democratic Party should be punished nationally for this travesty.
Categories > Courts