| Balkinization   |
|
Balkinization
|
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Justice O'Connor's Fragile Legacies
Marty Lederman
Joan Biskupic has a story today about how "much of [Justice O'Connor's] legal signature already is fading from the court." Joan generously cites me as someone "who has been tracking the fate of O'Connor precedents since she retired." She is referring to a post of mine to SCOTUSblog back in July 2005, listing almost three dozen precedents that were the most vulnerable in the wake of Justice O'Connor's retirement.
Comments:
Marty Lederman wrote:
>>>>>>Last year, in a comment to a post by Michael Dorf on 5-4 decisions that might have come out differently if Justice Alito had not replaced Justice O'Connor, and in a post here, I republished a slightly updated list, which is limited to cases decided in O'Connor's final decade on the Court. <<<<<< Because of the changing composition of the court, those decisions would be at risk of being overturned even without O'Connor's retirement from the court. What if, instead of replacing O'Connor, Alito had replaced one of the other justices in the majority in those 5-4 decisions? Here is my assessment of Justice O'Connor (these are general comments, not just comments about where O'Connor's decisions are at risk of being overturned): Positive Establishment Clause -- "Endorsement test" introduced in concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984). The endorsement test is widely used but unfortunately has not supplanted the infamous Lemon test. Eminent Domain -- Dissenting opinion in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) Negative Wrote court's opinion in Hallstrom v. Tillamook County (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that failure to give the required 60 days notice of intent to sue in a "citizen suit" is a fatal error and that the case must be refiled from scratch. The obvious solution is to just suspend the case for 60 days and then proceed. Justice O'Connor has been lecturing about the virtues of "judicial independence," asserting that criticism of the courts is not justified. A lot of the criticism of the courts is justified.
When a justice bases her opinions on political compromise rather than the law, as often did Justice O'Connor, then the roots of those opinions are very shallow and can easily be pulled like so many weeds.
When a justice bases her opinions on political compromise rather than the law, as often did Justice O'Connor, then the roots of those opinions are very shallow and can easily be pulled like so many weeds.
That's just rhetoric. ANY close decision can be pulled like weeds when the composition of the court changes or even when a justice simply changes his or her mind. For instance, National League of Cities v. Usery was not a decision based on "political compromise", but that didn't stop the Court from overruling it in Garcia v. San Antonio. Nor was Logan Valley a decision based on "political compromise", but the Court overruled it in Hudgens v. NLRB. Bart wants to make snide comments about Justice O'Conoor, but the fact is that the phenomenon he is describing happens on any closely divided court and has nothing to do with the persuasiveness of the decisions.
Dilan:
O'Connor's line of politically based decisions is infamous. Here are some of the worst: Casey finding that is was too late to reverse Roe, McConnell upholding the violations of the First Amendment in McCain/Feingold, the Bollinger cases trying to split the baby on racial preferences,
That doesn't really respond to my point, Bart. I could get into an argument with you about Justice O'Connor's jurisprudence (she also was capable of producing opinions I am sure you would consider principled, like her dissent in Kelo), but my point was that there isn't anything about "political" decisions that make them less steady precedents than any other close cases. The Court sometimes overrules precedents that could be characterized as "political compromises"; it also sometimes overrules precedents that clearly were not "political compromises".
dilan said...
That doesn't really respond to my point, Bart. I could get into an argument with you about Justice O'Connor's jurisprudence (she also was capable of producing opinions I am sure you would consider principled, like her dissent in Kelo), but my point was that there isn't anything about "political" decisions that make them less steady precedents than any other close cases. The Court sometimes overrules precedents that could be characterized as "political compromises"; it also sometimes overrules precedents that clearly were not "political compromises". Decisions like those which I cited that ignore the First Amendment and the EPC of the 14th Amendment or decline to reverse imaginary "rights' because of fear of political fallout have no legal roots which a subsequent court need respect under stare decisis. It does not appear that this Court has much respect for O'Connor's political decisions. With any luck and another justice or two from McCain, O'Connor's worst political decision - Casey - will also reversed.
Bart has a real point with the Bollinger baby-splitting. That said, I don't agree with Marty that Parents Involved actually undermines Grutter. Parents Involved involved a strict quota, similar, roughly speaking, to what got shot down in Gratz - not so similar to the "plus" in Grutter.
SOC, while she was on the Court, had her club of admirers, of which I was a late joiner.
I am convinced, as many others are, that she was a moderating influence and her "minimalism" was an excellent strategy given the cohort she found herself in. I think her long-term legacy will be not so much whether her decisions stand the test of time, but the influence her prudent approach will continue to have throughout the Article III community.
When a justice bases her opinions on political compromise rather than the law, as often did Justice O'Connor, then the roots of those opinions are very shallow and can easily be pulled like so many weeds.
================================== johnson741 Alabama Treatment Centers http://www.treatmentcenters.org/alabama/
I'm a big fun of issues that concern the law, and political stuff. This is why I hook up to this blog all the time. I tend go seek blogs of only my interest, the best part of being reading this blog is that I found a website to buy my dose of Viagra Online, by a casualty.
HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Post a Comment
Bayan porno izleme sitesi. Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin. Liseli kızların ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle. Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift. harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013)
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues
Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012)
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011)
Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011)
Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011)
Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010)
Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010)
Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010)
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007)
Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |