Unless some major curveball comes across home plate in the ninth inning here, this seems spot on. Though I’m curious if the new commission on to-reform-or-not-to-reform SCOTUS will have the same read of the situation.
I know and like and think highly of a bunch of people on the commission. But I think it’s purview is defined and/or being interpreted such that it will add little to the dialog.
David, I agree with your premise for the current term. You make some very good points. Your comments reminded me of what Adam Liptak of the NYT recently pointed out, saying the liberal wing of the court is having a surprisingly good run through the 39 decisions that have been released.
However, the threat remains that the next term has the potential to drastically change that perception depending on how the Court comes down on the outstanding gun and abortion rights cases.
I definitely agree with you about the next Term, as my footnote 4 suggests. But I also think that the justices, despite constantly protesting that they are not politicians, are shrewd about spending (and preserving) their political capital.
My guess is that although they will rule in favor of expanding gun rights and contracting abortion rights, they will do so in a way that does not lead to the kind of backlash and anti-Court sentiment faced by, say, the Warren Court. Maybe all this talk of "Court packing" will end up like a mini-version of FDR's threat: it will keep the current conservative Court from going TOO crazy.
Unless some major curveball comes across home plate in the ninth inning here, this seems spot on. Though I’m curious if the new commission on to-reform-or-not-to-reform SCOTUS will have the same read of the situation.
I know and like and think highly of a bunch of people on the commission. But I think it’s purview is defined and/or being interpreted such that it will add little to the dialog.
I agree.
I wonder if you caught Will Baude's observation that Cedar Point appeared to harken back to the Court's Lochner-era reasoning.
If they continue down that path, then no amount of narrow free exercise decisions will justify not acting swiftly to curb the Court's power.
David, I agree with your premise for the current term. You make some very good points. Your comments reminded me of what Adam Liptak of the NYT recently pointed out, saying the liberal wing of the court is having a surprisingly good run through the 39 decisions that have been released.
However, the threat remains that the next term has the potential to drastically change that perception depending on how the Court comes down on the outstanding gun and abortion rights cases.
I definitely agree with you about the next Term, as my footnote 4 suggests. But I also think that the justices, despite constantly protesting that they are not politicians, are shrewd about spending (and preserving) their political capital.
My guess is that although they will rule in favor of expanding gun rights and contracting abortion rights, they will do so in a way that does not lead to the kind of backlash and anti-Court sentiment faced by, say, the Warren Court. Maybe all this talk of "Court packing" will end up like a mini-version of FDR's threat: it will keep the current conservative Court from going TOO crazy.