Opinion: The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Is Intact - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

Opinion The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Is Intact

19:30  09 october  2018
19:30  09 october  2018 Source:   nationalreview.com

Kavanaugh sworn in as Supreme Court justice

  Kavanaugh sworn in as Supreme Court justice The Latest on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh (all times local):6:20 p.m.Brett Kavanaugh has taken the oaths of office to become the 114th Supreme Court justice, just a couple of hours after the Senate voted 50-48 to confirm him.The quick swearing in enables Kavanaugh to begin work immediately in advance of arguments at the court Tuesday in two cases involving prison sentences for repeat offenders.The court says Kavanaugh took the oath required by the Constitution and another for judges that is part of federal law in the same room where the justices meet for their private conferences.The 53-year-old justice's wife, children and parents were in attendance.

The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.© Carlos Barria/Reuters The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

There is a puzzling line of argument emerging in the aftermath of the battle over Brett Kavanaugh. Now that the balance of power in the Supreme Court is swinging towards originalism, there is grave concern over the Court’s alleged “legitimacy.” Even though each person on the Court was nominated and confirmed through entirely constitutional processes, there is now a “cloud” because of entirely unproven allegations against two justices. Even though there was nothing at all unconstitutional about the Senate’s refusal to consent to Merrick Garland’s nomination, there’s a further “cloud” because of an allegedly “stolen” seat.

Supreme Court asked to review abortion law signed by Pence

  Supreme Court asked to review abortion law signed by Pence Indiana is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments over a law that bars women from having abortions based on gender, race or disability. Vice President Mike Pence signed the law in 2016 when he was Indiana's governor. But federal courts have blocked it, saying it violates a woman's right to end her pregnancy.

Not one of the three branches of government has violated the Constitution. Each of them has fulfilled its constitutional role. Yet now we hear dark warnings that the Court is damaging itself beyond repair.

Those warnings are wrong. Those warnings depend on a fundamental misunderstanding about the operation of the law in 21st-century America. Those warnings also depend on selective amnesia about the operation of the law. Because, let’s not forget, when the Supreme Court has issued unpopular progressive rulings that have overturned democratically enacted statutes or disrupted social norms, in progressive eyes the Court was never been more legitimate. It was an intellectual and moral elite, operating at the vanguard of social justice.

EU top court tells Poland to suspend supreme court measure

EU top court tells Poland to suspend supreme court measure The European Union's top court ruled on Friday that Poland must immediately suspend politically-charged measures relating to the lowering of retirement age for supreme court judges. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); The ruling, which has the potential to further strain relations between the two, also obliges Poland to restitute to their jobs those Supreme Court judges who had been forced into retirement due to having reached or passed the age of 65.

This week on “The Daily,” the New York Times popular podcast, the host, Michael Barbaro, and his guest, Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak, pondered the legitimacy question at length. Liptak in particular emphasized the fragility of the Court’s power. Liptak referred to Andrew Jackson’s famous disagreements with the Supreme Court, a history that is far more complex than most now remember, to emphasize the importance of voluntary compliance to the Court’s authority.

But the America of Jackson’s two terms was fundamentally different from the America of today. The federal government was a fraction of its current size and reach, the balance of power between the states and national government was a matter of live debate (the nullification crisis started in Jackson’s first term), and the Civil War Amendments hadn’t yet placed American civil liberties beyond the reach of state and local governments.

Justices won't disturb conviction in triple killing

  Justices won't disturb conviction in triple killing The Supreme Court is rejecting an appeal from a man convicted of joining a New Orleans police officer in the killing of her fellow officer and two other people during a 1995 robbery. The justices on Tuesday declined to review a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that upheld the man's convictions, despite questions about the impartiality of several jurors and the judge who presided over the trial.Defendant Rogers LaCaze said the judge should have stepped aside from the trial because of an appearance of possible impropriety.

In 1832, if the Supreme Court issued orders against state authorities, states not only had the practical power to defy the ruling, but the federal government had limited (and debatable) power to enforce the Court’s decree. Now, defying the Court carries with it more than mere political risks. A well-developed body of law and a comprehensive law-enforcement apparatus means that court orders carry with them the implicit promise of prison for any person who subjectively deems any decree “illegitimate.”

In other words, for the Court to lose its authority, layers upon layers of federal authority would have to break down, with multiple authorities choosing open defiance over compliance. Is it possible? Theoretically. Likely? Not at all.

Moreover, many of the Court’s most contentious orders involve upholding state authority. There is no risk of state defiance when the state itself is seeking vindication in court. Let’s take the most contentious ruling the Court could foreseeably issue — an order striking down Roe. There would likely be street demonstrations. Think pieces would decry the ruling as tainted by the number of men on the Court or the past accusations against any of its members. Millions of Americans would believe a decision reversing Roe was every bit as illegitimate as pro-life Americans view Roe itself.

Top 10 things we learned about college football this weekend

  Top 10 things we learned about college football this weekend Top 10 things we learned about college football this weekend

And none of that anguish would matter, at least not in the short term.

You see, a decision reversing Roe would immediately restore state power. Street protests in New York wouldn’t matter one bit to the governor of Mississippi, tasked with enforcing the laws of his state. Fury in California would protect the right of abortion on the West Coast. It would be irrelevant to the state legislature in Tennessee.

Warnings about the Court’s legitimacy represent wishful thinking far more than they do a coherent, real-world critique about the power of the Court. The key word when debating the Court isn’t “legitimacy,” it’s “authority.” The battle over Kavanaugh has done nothing to diminish the very real authority of the Court. In fact, the battle was so intense because of the Court’s authority.

There is no question that America faces a crisis of confidence in its institutions. Yet Congress’s abysmal approval ratings don’t mean that its new tax rates don’t take effect. The president’s low polling numbers don’t mean that the military will ignore orders to, for example, launch air strikes against the Assad regime. Similarly, progressive fury at a conservative majority will not mean that its rulings won’t reshape American law.

For generations, American conservatives and conservative American governments have complied with Supreme Court rulings they believed — with very good reason — to be legally absurd and morally monstrous. The fabrication of a right to abortion is one of the most illegitimate governmental actions in American history. But it was a decision backed by the authority of the Court, an authority buttressed by the power of the federal state.

In the years to come, we’ll hear more about “clouds.” We’ll have more arguments about legitimacy. But absent a constitutional crisis so severe that it makes our present troubles look like the quaint squabbles of a placid past, there is one word that will absolutely apply to the rulings of the Roberts Court. That word is “law.”

Dems wage war on Kavanaugh, court: New battles over legitimacy, impeachment, recusal .
The narrow confirmation of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh over the weekend marked a major political victory for President Trump – and the beginning of a new battle for Democrats, who are now shifting their message to threaten possible impeachment against the newest high court justice and question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!