•   
  •   
  •   

Opinion The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Is Intact

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

House Democrat Promises Kavanaugh Investigation if Party Wins Control

  House Democrat Promises Kavanaugh Investigation if Party Wins Control Representative Jerrold Nadler, who is in line to be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he was prepared to look into accusations of sexual misconduct and perjury.WASHINGTON — House Democrats will open an investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct and perjury against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh if they win control of the House in November, Representative Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat in line to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on Friday.

Law & the Courts . The Supreme Court ’ s Legitimacy Is Intact . 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.

He warned that the court would be putting its legitimacy in the eyes of the public on the line if it became the state-by-state arbiter of partisanship gone too far. I’d like to take seriously the chief justice’ s evident worry about the Supreme Court ’ s legitimacy and play it out a bit.

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.

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.

Test your Supreme Court knowledge: In the entire history of the court , exactly one justice has been. a) nominated by a president who didn’t win the popular vote and. But I implore you to take a moment to be angry about all this, too. This is a severe legitimacy crisis for the Supreme Court .

The US Senate is in the process of examining Donald Trump’ s first nominee to the Supreme Court , Neil Gorsuch. His confirmation hearings are forcing the Democrats into a tricky decision: still smarting from the Republicans’ refusal to even consider similar hearings for Barack Obama’ s 2016 nominee

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.

Dems wage war on Kavanaugh, court: New battles over legitimacy, impeachment, recusal

  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.

Think of the Supreme Court ’ s decision last term in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the Court shrunk a massive showdown over “I think he cares deeply about the institution and its legitimacy .” The stakes in this battle are extraordinarily high — greater, even, than

A Supreme Court decision, needless to say, is not a popularity contest, nor should it be. At the same time, the court necessarily skates on thin ice when As Professor Fallon defines it, “When legitimacy is measured in sociological terms, a constitutional regime, governmental institution or official decision

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.

Is court -packing — adding additional seats to the Supreme Court to dilute the vote of its illegitimate member — an acceptable solution? The ultimate danger of a judiciary that reaches beyond its legitimate bounds is that it encourages the other branches to test the scope of their own legitimacy

Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said that the highest court in the land risks losing legitimacy without a centrist swing-vote, reports Bloomberg. She added: "All of us need to be aware of that , every single one of us and to realize how precious the court ’ s legitimacy is ."

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.

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.

Republicans might have won a majority in the highest court but it has lost legitimacy , says the academic Andrew Gawthorpe.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin, handing supporters of “The court ’ s decision leaves plenty of room for future challenges to racial preference policies at other schools,” he said.

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.”

Washington state Supreme Court rules juvenile life sentence without parole is unconstitutional.
Washington state's Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the chance for parole is unconstitutional. The court ruled 5-4 to uphold a state court of appeals ruling that a statute that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to be sentenced to life without parole violated the state's ban on cruel punishment. "We hold th at sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole or early release constitutes cruel punishment and, therefore, is unconstitutional," Justice Susan Owens wrote in the Supreme Court's majority opinion.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

This is interesting!