Posts Tagged ‘John Roberts’

Schumer backtracks on SCOTUS diatribe, but not far enough

On Wednesday, at a rally on the Supreme Court steps, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) cut loose with a truly amazing diatribe against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, declaring that the two would “pay the price” and “won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Schumer’s menacing if vague comments drew prompt disapproval from a broad range of legal figures, such as the heads of the American Bar Association and New York City Bar Association as well as Democratic SCOTUS shortlister Neal Katyal and Harvard’s Larry Tribe. Chief Justice John Roberts weighed in with a rare public rebuke: “threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”

Schumer proceeded to dig in and even blast Roberts personally for the criticism. By Thursday, he was ready to concede grudgingly that he “should not have used the words I used. They didn’t come out the way I intended to,” while still staying on the offensive in every other respect and accusing his adversaries of “manufacturing” the uproar.

I’ve got a new post at Ricochet reviewing the controversy, including its much-echoed “what about…?” dimension:

Defenders of Schumer assailed the chief justice for not having weighed on some other inappropriate Trump sallies, including his ill-grounded speculation recently (never filed as an actual motion) that Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor should recuse themselves from Trump matters, and his aspersions on the judge in the Roger Stone case. Those are part of a frequent and blatant Trump habit of trash-talking judges, both as a candidate (calling the judge in the Trump University case “Mexican” and “a hater”) and as President (“so-called judge” among numerous others). Some — I’m one — would say that this is among Trump’s very worst and most damaging patterns of behavior.

But as cooler heads noted, including Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, the chief justice is not a playground proctor who can step in to write up every demerit; he needs to save his efforts for the instances that are most dangerous, as he in fact has done.

The wider picture, it might be noted, is one in which nasty swipes at judges have been routinized for years, from a range of public figures and also from former President Barack Obama, both in his 2010 State of the Union speech and also repeatedly during the court review of ObamaCare. Still, none of these have gone as far to suggest personal threat as did Schumer — not even the extraordinarily inappropriate amicus brief filed by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Senate Democrats last August, assailing the Court’s legitimacy and warning that “restructuring” at the hands of political branches lies ahead if it does not mend its ways.

I conclude that Schumer needs to go back and apologize, seriously this time. And it’s time for all who’ve fallen short of defending judicial independence — Republicans and Democrats alike — to do so. [cross-posted from Cato at Liberty]

Supreme Court roundup

The Court begins its new term each year on the first Monday in October:

Riley’s best line

“The United States asserts that a search of all data stored on a cell phone is ‘materially indistinguishable’ from searches of [a wallet or purse] … That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon. Both are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together.” — Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court in Riley v. California, in which the Justices unanimously disallowed warrantless police searches of arrestees’ cell phones.

Law schools roundup

  • “How To Fix Law School” symposium at New Republic with David Lat, Paul Campos, Mike Kinsley etc. follows up on Noam Scheiber article on erosion of BigLaw business model, which in turn drew semi-rebuttal from Mark Obbie at Slate;
  • “So the poor defendants have to spend thousands on legal fees, while law students get their ‘practice.'” [John Stossel]
  • Brian Tamanaha vs. Simkovic and McIntyre “law degree worth a million bucks” study [Balkinization, response here, Adler, Caron]
  • Amid crisis, tone-deaf ABA “actually in the process of trying to make it harder for accredited law schools to fire professors and control their costs” [Elie Mystal]
  • Foundation case studies include Carnegie 1921 report on legal education, Olin support for law and economics, and some others related to law schools [J. Scott Kohler and Steven Schindler, Philanthropy Central]
  • “Shifts in law professors’ views” [Kyle Graham]
  • Bring on the strong verbs, and not just in legal writing [Ross Guberman] In recent Nike shoe case, Chief Justice Roberts wrote rings round Justice Kennedy [same]

May 14 roundup

Constitutional law roundup

  • Colorado solon’s lawsuit claims direct voter initiatives are unconstitutional. Nice try but no go [Ilya Shapiro]
  • Gail Heriot and Alison Somin on creative interpretations of the Thirteenth Amendment [Fed Soc]
  • Ted Olson’s work on punitive damages provides clue to his approach on originalism [Mike Rappaport]
  • Yes, Prof. Seidman, there is an Origination Clause [Shapiro, my related take]
  • Justice Roberts and legislative deference [PoL]
  • Easterbrook, Barnett and others: video of panel on federalism and federal power [Fed Soc] Constitutional law treatise available free online through Library of Congress [Volokh] New Podcast: Who violates the constitution–statutes or individuals? [Nick Rosenkranz, PoL]
  • National Endowment for the Arts uses creative misreading to conjure up a constitutional charter for its existence [Roger Pilon/Cato]

Politics roundup

July 23 roundup

  • Oh, ABC: “America’s Wrongest Reporter” Brian Ross achieves another feat of wrongness [Hans Bader] “Don’t turn Aurora killer into celebrity” [David Kopel, USA Today] For the media: five tips on how not to misreport the gun angle [Robert VerBruggen, NRO]
  • Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars challenges me on the War For Roberts’ Vote, and I respond;
  • The “contains peanuts” warning on a peanut jar [Point of Law]
  • “California Stats Show Elected Judges Disciplined More Often than Appointed Judges” [ABA Journal] New Federalist Society guide on state judicial selection procedures;
  • “Science Quotas for Women–A White House Goal” [Charlotte Allen, Minding the Campus; Hans Bader] More: Heritage. “Title IX swings wildly at invisible enemy” [Neal McCluskey]
  • So that’s what his business card meant when it said he practiced at Loeb and Wachs [AP: “Hawaii attorney convicted in ear licking case”]
  • Rare occasion in which defendant is allowed to strike back: California appeals court says software executive can pursue malicious prosecution case against class action lawyers [NLJ]

Medical roundup

  • How’d we get shortages of hospital and community sterile injectables? Check out the role of FDA Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regs, warning letters, and resulting plant closures [Tabarrok, with comments controversy; earlier here, here, here, etc.]
  • California orthopedist sues, wins damages against medical society that took action against him based on his testimony for plaintiff in liability case [American Medical News; earlier here, etc.]
  • Can’t have that: medical apology should be opposed because it “can create an emotional connection with an injured patient that makes the patient less likely to ask for compensation.” [Gabriel Teninbaum (Suffolk Law), Boston Globe]
  • Feds’ war on painkillers is bad news for legit patients and docs [Reuters, Mike Riggs/Reason]
  • New federal pilot project in Buffalo will provide concierge-style home care to emergency-department frequent fliers. Spot the unintended consequence [White Coat]
  • Dastardly drug companies? Deconstructing Glaxo SmithKline’s $3 billion settlement [Greg Conko, MPT] More: Beck, Drug and Device Law, on suits over “what are mostly medically valid and beneficial off-label uses”. Paging Ted Frank: “HIPAA’s Vioxx toll” thesis may depend on whether one accepts that the premised Vioxx toll has been established [Stewart Baker, Ted’s recent post]
  • U.K.: “Lawyers seizing lion’s share of payouts in NHS negligence cases” [Telegraph]
  • Silver linings in SCOTUS ObamaCare ruling? [Jonathan Adler and Nathaniel Stewart] “DNC Scientists Disprove Existence of Roberts’ Taxon” [Iowahawk humor] Did Ginsburg hint at the court’s direction on the HHS contraception mandate? [Ed Morrissey, Hot Air]

[cross-posted at Cato at Liberty]