Reviews look good, but summer isn't over and I got places to be, lol. Maybe plane reading between naps. Just want to harp a little more on ACB. I'm not saying she's wrong. I'm just saying her oral questioning and her background makes me believe that she has a very different world perspective from other women. Pregancy being forced by law to carry to term is a lot less scarier and less of a perceived liberty infraction by a woman who has carried so many kids to term - that's why she was picked. And she backed it up by her oral questioning being like (in my Seinfeld voice), "What's the big deal with having to give birth? You can just give your kid away and not be in trouble with safe haven laws." Look, there were 3 other justices who totally agreed with that and then Kavanaugh who said something like, "it's a tough decision because I get both sides and both sides have merit, but ultimately the people via the states (or Congress) should decide." And you can have similar backgrounds and come out with different perspectives. Two current Justices grew up poor (I don't know about the new one). Thomas hates poor people and wants no help from the government for the poor. Sotomayor loves poor people and thinks government should do everything to help the poor. And they both were poor growing up and either philosophy of government is fine. I'm sure there an many pro-choice legal scholars out there with a bunch of kids. Most women who get abortions have kids or end up with kids. That said, ACB wasn't in that group for sure. She was a ringer and did the job she was put there for.
so I'm interested in this and I suspect you know more than I do on the subject of Coney Barrett. By oral questioning I assume you are referring to her confirmation hearings? in which case I could use some help in locating what you're citing. I did not watch her confirmation hearings, but the transcripts for the four days of questioning are online at: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/amy-coney-barrett-senate-confirmation-hearing-day-1-transcript https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/amy-coney-barrett-senate-confirmation-hearing-day-2-transcript https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/amy-coney-barrett-senate-confirmation-hearing-day-3-transcript https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/amy-coney-barrett-senate-confirmation-hearing-day-4-transcript if you've got tips on where to start or even just what to search for, I could read what she said during her nomination process. Or if there are earlier sources from her initial judicial confirmation, that would be helpful
No man, I meant during oral arguments for Dobbs. All the justices were showing their hands. Roberts was like, "why aren't we talking about the original petition for 15 weeks?" and the Mississippi SG was like, "yeah RBG died, so I'm kind of ignoring you and talking to ACB and Kav, the new center of the court." I heard ACB during the oral arguments and was knee slapping because, you know, of course she would say what she said. Again, not saying she's legally wrong. It's just not surprising at all that pregnancy ain't no thing to her. I'm sure there were many articles about it. Here's one and it went way too deep, lol. Good history info though as perhaps a strong justification that the 14th could protect abortion since it was about black rights to choose when to have family, something that was denied to them as they were treated as cattle and sex objects prior to that, and many reacted by choosing to not marry or continue their lineage as much as possible to deny slavery in their legacy. https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/a-response-to-justice-amy-coney-barrett/ As for confirmation hearings. Pretty sure Gorsuch, Kav, and maybe ACB all did the lawerly thing and say "Roe is settled law" which is technically accurate at the time, lol.
so actually, I'm taking a look at the oral argument transcripts for Dobbs, which are linked at the blog post you cited. Do you have a rough location where Barrett's questions "showed her hand"? https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/19-1392_4425.pdf
https://www.businessinsider.com/amy...en-laws-solutions-unwanted-motherhood-2021-12 I think around the 1:55 mark BTW, as someone who enjoys digging into SCOTUS history, I wish it were structurally like that past, when oral arguments could take multiple days instead of a couple of hours. The streamlined modern court makes it more like a platform for everyone to just talk about what they've already decided, vs having full-on knock multi-day debates like it used to be.
As someone who clearly knows SCOTUS history...is this a result in more politicization? Or have they just dropped the facade? Something else?
Actually, it's mostly caseload management. Like, from a practical standpoint, we probably should have many more Scotus due to case growth and population growth, but then there always has to be a court of last resort. No perfect solution.
I'd agree with that. We often forget that for every BIG case like Plessy, Korematsu, Roe there are cases about really minor things that just kind of don't get taught outside of law school. A lot of my PhD colleagues are really into judicial politics, which I could care less about. I am picking up an extra certificate in International Law though. I imagine I'll learn some more about big cases if only through conversations with Law Professors/students. Are you a lawyer? Did you ever cover that stupid Pepsi Harrier Jet case?
Congrats and good luck. Not a lawyer. I just teach government at university and I've been nerding out on this stuff for the past three years. I'm published in like a field that has nothing to do with the current SCOTUS cases...well, maybe some tribal law stuff.
Interesting. UGA has a big tribal law/Native Studies sub program here. If I had thr time and money Id take classes there too (Im a big time nerd and stay taking classes forever if I could) Where do you teach?
this is helpful, and I enjoyed listening to the recorded exchange between Barrett and the attorney for Jackson Women's Health. But I guess I'm not seeing the point you made originally about Barrett "tipping her hand" (ideologically?). That exchange seems to me to be simply about the point Barrett makes about the "undue burden" of motherhood--as opposed to the "undue burden" of pregnancy. As such that question might have been asking by any of the other eight justices, there seems to be no reason to think the question reveals something unique or idiosyncratic about Barrett's thinking. Or am I missing something here. the quoted section I'm considering is this: "So petitioner points out that in all 50 states you can terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after [birth], and I think the shortest period might have been 48 hours, if I'm remembering the data correctly. So it seems to me, seen in that light, both Roe and Casey emphasize the burdens of parenting. And insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women's access to the workplace and to equal opportunities, it's also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. Why don't the safe-haven laws take care of that problem?" I actually think that's a good question in light of the amicus brief(s) that likely argued the "undue burden of motherhood" line of reasoning.
more about Moore v. Harper Next Term, Another Landmark Looms The Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that may settle a dispute over who gets to set election rules. https://www.city-journal.org/will-scotus-bless-the-independent-state-legislature-doctrine excerpt: On the last day before its summer recess, the Supreme Court agreed to hear in its next term Moore v. Harper, a case that will determine whether state courts may strike down state legislative acts regulating congressional elections. The caseoriginates from North Carolina, where state court decisions invalidated the general assembly’s enacted congressional maps, replacing them with one drawn by court-appointed experts. But Harper’s ramifications could extend well beyond the Tar Heel State. Most importantly, the decision will likely settle the debate surrounding the “independent state legislature doctrine” (ISL), which contends that legislatures’ authority to regulate congressional elections comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, thus precluding state court review and even substantive limitations imposed by state constitutions. more at the link also, this: The Case That Could Blow Up American Election Law A radical and baseless legal theory could upend the country’s most essential democratic process. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...t-could-upend-integrity-our-elections/670472/
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." I can see arguments in both directions for this. It can be argued that state courts cannot overule state legislatures when it comes to election law, based on the above clause.
How Many Opinions Did Each Justice Write During OT 2021? https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/11/how-many-opinions-did-each-justice-write-during-ot-2022/ most interesting comment (bolded) is about Gorsuch: Justice Gorsuch also wrote 8 dissents. Three were solo YOLO dissents (Babcock, Kemp, and Shoop). The other 5 were lefty-dissents: Zubaydah (joined by Sotomayor), Patel(joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), Denezpi (joined by Sotomayor and Kagan), George (joined by Breyer and Sotomayor), and Castro-Huerta (joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan). Gorsuch does not fit on a normal ideological scale. For example, the Times plotted him somewhere near Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett, but he is not in the center. The same person would dismantle the administrative state but cede half of Oklahoma to Indian tribes. On some cases, he is hard left. On other cases, he is hard right. He is tough to characterize. But, with the law of averages, he falls in the middle. more at the link
I see that, but it seems counter to how the courts are supposed to function. If the legislature can just ignore a judicial ruling...why have a judicial system?
[devil's advocate]For everything that isn't specifically delegated to the state legislature in the Constitution?[/devil's advocate]
Interesting. My understanding was the Constitution limited the federal, not state, governments according to orginalism.
So behind on everything. Anyhow, upon second and thrid listens, I don't think it was a bad question. I stand by tipping the hand though. They all did. Mississippi did it by all but ignoring Roberts. Roberts did it when he kept saying 15 weeks. Kav did it when he said, "the Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice" then wrote those exact words later. Alito did it when he kept calling the fetus a "baby" in all his scenarios. The liberals did it forever when they kept writing about how this court doesn't care about precedent. And I think ACB did it here when she's talking about no burden after birth. I think there's a strong philosophical argument there against it (from the Harvard Law Review opinion piece) that ACB is simplifying that burden relief via safe haven laws way too much. It's still a decent question, but to me, she tipped her hand because it played onto the notion that she doesn't see the forced preganancy to term burden as a violation of Constitutional Liberty, so she's trying to frame the argument in a manner that can only be seen as that tradeoff instead of both liberty tradeoffs. This was contemporaneous thinking at the time of oral by me and probably many other legal commentators. Anyhow, not saying she's wrong, just saying this was probably 5-4 long before oral and briefs with maybe Kav being persaudable the other way, which is why I don't get the Kav hate because he's not that crazy, if liberals consider extreme conservativism to be crazy. A lot of the hate must be from him maybe/probably drunk attempted banging/potential sexual violence against a college girl, or whatever happened.
