Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Let's Make a Deal
|
Monday, July 02, 2012
Let's Make a Deal
Gerard N. Magliocca
Randy Barnett was on MSNBC this weekend, and his take on the Health Care Cases was (and I'm paraphrasing here) that eight Justices acted in a principled way and one rendered a political decision. Now I do not agree with this. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion is principled--it's just a different kind of principle. But even if I accept Randy's premise, he's still wrong.
Comments:
Yes, Randy Barnett continued to be in "advocacy mode" or something in thinking that Breyer and Kagan didn't pragmatically do that.
John Marshall was known to compromise. Juries are known to compromise. In real life, what "the law is" is not as "pure" as some make it out to be. The Constitution itself is a compromise, some vague language papering over difficult. It is artificial how some try to find the true cross here. The law can be a matter of some compromise or we can have like what happened in the Confrontation Clause case, a 4-1-4 ruling or something where Thomas mostly agreed with the dissent but disagreed on some originalist point that even Scalia didn't agree with.
Gerard, I did not see Randy Barnett on MSNBC but I did read his WaPo OpEd published promptly after the ACA decision, in which Randy patted himself on the back because his positions on commerce/necessary & proper clauses were, in his eyes, swallow hook, line and sinker by CJ Roberts - and the other conservative Justices. If you read the OpEd, how does it compare, in your view, to Randy's comments on MSNBC a day or so later? I'm afraid Randy continues to get heartburn from "Wick-burn." This isn't good for his health. But we have Obamacare as a balm.
Two things.
1. I don't get how making Medicaid 7-2 rather than 5-4 would be enough for the price of Roberts's vote, or why making it 7-2 would even much matter. 2. I'm not really aware of any "prior opinions or stated views" on Kagan's part about the Spending Clause, but that aside, if you listen to the oral argument, Breyer spent the whole hour trying to get some assurances that HHS couldn't take back all the Medicaid funding because doing so would be arbitrary and capricious and violate the APA. When Verrilli wouldn't sign off on that and Clement and Scalia batted it down, he seemed concerned. Kagan, for her part, seemed skeptical of Clement's argument, but ultimately spent the back side of the hour trying, like Breyer, to extract a promise from Verrilli that the Secretary wouldn't withhold all the money. For example, take this colloquy: JUSTICE KAGAN: But, General Verrilli, you're not willing to give away whether the APA would bar that [withholding all the money], but the APA surely has to apply to a discretionary act of the Secretary. GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree with that, Justice Kagan, but - JUSTICE BREYER: What's making you reluctant? Ginsburg, on the other hand, didn't ask Verrilli a single question, and Sotomayor only questioned him in an attempt to throw him a liferaft. Maybe Breyer and Kagan were already advancing their pragmatic views at argument, but it seems to me they wanted to uphold the expansion but genuinely thought withholding all the money was a constitutional problem, hence their anxiousness to get a promise that all the money would never be withheld.
I don't understand how Roberts' opinion was "transparently designed to avoid" making the Court look political, in any other sense than Roberts was the only justice who voted against his presumed partisan preferences. His legal analysis of the taxing power issue is clear, straightforward, and well-grounded in the law. Are you suggesting otherwise? If so, you need to make the argument.
If there is anything transparent about Roberts' opinion, it is his apparent desire to provide a silver lining to his conservative brethren by reaching the Commerce Clause issue, which he did not have to reach. But even that decision, while debatable, is defensible.
The APA issue might have affected Breyer's vote but yes, it is not the same thing as the Spending Clause.
1. I don't get how making Medicaid 7-2 rather than 5-4 would be enough for the price of Roberts's vote, or why making it 7-2 would even much matter. I don't get how getting two liberals on a major issue on a case that even some opponents thought was striking they took "would [not] much matter." The thinking is Roberts was trying to get Kennedy to sign on to his CC opinion. The net result if that happened is that three justices from both sides would agree with a "middle approach." As is, Roberts got two from the 'liberal' or 'moderate' side to sign on to a case most really thought was a total loser. Why wouldn't did matter?
AF,
1. The entire discussion of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause is dicta. 2. I'm not persuaded that this was a tax.
I think his tax section was well written, but many think he stretched things. OTOH, Roberts argued that the tax interpretation as a constitutional avoidance mechanism that he wouldn't have used if the CC provided a better way.
Some dispute this too, but if we want to take his full tax argument (including on the injunction issue) at face value, why not this?
Let's channel Groucho Marx by substituting "penalty" for "rose," "law" for "girl" and "tax" for "Sam":
"Show me a rose, And I'll show you a girl named Sam. Show me a rose, Or leave me alone." (CJ Roberts, 5-4)
Principled in what way?
In adhering to the law as written? The four conservatives on the commerce and taxing, but questionably on the spending power. In adhering to their own view of judicial review? Everyone but Roberts. The Roberts tax and penalty distinction is not even internally consistent. Political in what way? In following the voters? The four conservatives' dissent seeking to strike down Obamacare reached the result preferred by voters. In following the desired outcome of the progressive legal establishment? The self identified progressives and Roberts after the proper pressure was applied.
The APA and the Spending Clause are different issues, but as I read their questions, they were trying to get some guarantee that, because of the APA, a withholding of funds that they actually thought was coercive wouldn't happen. Not that they thought there was actually some lurking APA issue in the case (as the putatively arbitrary and capricious action hadn't happened yet) For example:
JUSTICE KAGAN: General Verrilli, before you do that, I'm sorry, but in response to the Chief Justice's question, I mean, the money or your life, has consequence because we are worried that that person is actually going to shoot. So I think that this question about are we -- what do we think the Secretary is going to do is an important one. Here, Kagan buys the states' "money or your life" framing of the expansion, which is why she wants to know if the threat was real. And Breyer, notably, didn't push Clement on his theory at all; all of his questions to Clement were about whether the Secretary could really or would really withhold the old funds. Their votes are surprising, but entirely predictable given their questions at argument. If you'd told me a week ago that Kagan would join an opinion saying that false statements of fact only are protected by intermediate scrutiny/"proportionality review" because they're low-value speech, I really wouldn't have believed you, but here we are and no one thinks that was a horse-trade.
I said the same thing last week. No other way to explain Kagan's and Breyer's votes other than that it was part of a deal for Roberts's vote.
I'm reading Sandy Levinson's "How I Lost My Constitutional Faith," his contribution to a Symposium on Jack Balkin's book "Constitutional Redemption." (A link to the article, and others, is available at Concurring Opinions.") At page 967, Sandy says:
"And, as we are seeing with the Supreme Court's consideration of the Affordable Care Act, even passage by Congress and the signature of the President may not be enough, should a bare majority of five of the Justices--all, of course, readily identifiable as conservative Republcans--feel empowered to exercise their own veto power, which can be overcome only by constitutional amendment.49" "49. By the time this Essay is published, readers will have the answer. For what it is worth, my own prediction, as of May 21, 2012, is that the Court will in fact uphold the Act, whether because of Chief Justice Roberts's and Justice Kennedy's fidelity to well-established precedent or because of a prudential judgment, particularly by the Chief Justice, that a 5-4 decision striking it down would do immense damage to the Court's institutional reputation and perhaps even tarnish the legitimacy among significant elements of the American polity." Now, back to finish Sandy's essay.
bifold doors
I think the Supreme court's decision is for themselves, for their own good. They should make a decision for the good of all.
I see Breyer's vote differently. I think he went into conference, ased on oral argument, believing that the statute should be construed to prevent this, and that the states should have the right to sue the federal government to have all funds not directly related to a group they did not want to cover restored. That's more or less what he said in oral argument. This would have given the justices a way not to reach the Constitutional question.
Post a Comment
The problem with a view like that is that it gives the states full power to draw lines. What if a state says "you know, people at 130% of poverty line can buy health insurance. We will only cover up to 125%. Now we will sue to have all funds restored except for those used to cover that last fraction of people that would have been covered under the new plan." I think the fact that such an argument would be a litigation nightmare would have become clear in conference, and Breyer may have changed his mind. If the horror he exhibited in oral argument didn't go away, that would have left the Constitutional option. So I do think it is possible that Breyer and Kagan in fact voted the way they did for principled reasons, initially holding a statutory argument and later thinking about it and realizing it really was not a good thing.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) 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 |