Judicial Restraint

[ljb5]

Justice Scalia went on a little rant today in reading his dissenting opinion on the Arizona immigration law. His comments were motivated by (and directed against) President Obama's recently announced policy on immigration.

Here's the thing I can't understand: President Obama announced his policy last week, but oral arguments on the Arizona Law concluded nearly two months ago.

Is it appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to direct his opinion at a policy that was not brought before him... and didn't even exist at the time the case was heard?

It seems to me an act of extreme judicial activism to insert himself into cases that haven't even been filed, much less briefed, researched and argued.

Is he over-stepping his role?

[Paul Pless]

Justice Scalia went on a little rant today in reading his dissenting opinion on the Arizona immigration law. His comments were motivated by (and directed against) President Obama's recently announced policy on immigration.

To be fair, he gave approximately equal time in his rant to blasting Congress for inadequately funding enforcement of immigration law.

[skuthorp]

Sounds like he's gone all political on you, still it is your S.C. isn't it.

[Paul Pless]

Sounds like he's gone all political on you, still it is your S.C. isn't it.

Whoever said the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to be political?

[skuthorp]

Whoever said the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to be political?

After the Florida vote decision everyone knew that.

[Horace]

After the Florida vote decision everyone knew that.

Yeah, four of those judicial Democrats tried to the very last to steal that election.

[Norman Bernstein]

Is it appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to direct his opinion at a policy that was not brought before him... and didn't even exist at the time the case was heard?

I'm certainly no legal expert, but I'm pretty shocked to learn this... not sure if I could think of anything more inappropriate.

[ccmanuals]

Yeah, four of those judicial Democrats tried to the very last to steal that election.

rewriting history a bit here Horace?

[Paul Pless]

Is it appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to direct his opinion at a policy that was not brought before him... and didn't even exist at the time the case was heard?

I'm certainly no legal expert, but I'm pretty shocked to learn this... not sure if I could think of anything more inappropriate.

Seriously. I think what it ultimately represents is the disgust a certain part of the court has at least for the current situation in Congress and the White House regarding immigration. Its not even really a stalemate in the sense that we have come to understand partisan politics of late. Its a failure of both institutions to even really fairly address the issue. I also think both of you (Norm and ljb5) place too much emphasis on the comments being directed at Obama. His comments were directed pretty much equally at Congress and Obama.

It seems to me an act of extreme judicial activism to insert himself into cases that haven't even been filed, much less briefed, researched and argued.

Not quite sure where the charge of judicial activism is coming from, his comments carry no force of law.

[ljb5]

I also think both of you (Norm and ljb5) place too much emphasis on the comments being directed at Obama. His comments were directed pretty much equally at Congress and Obama.

His comments should have been addressed at neither Obama, nor the Congress.

The issue before him was Arizona SB1070.

Any comment outside the scope of that issue is an attempt to get involved in a political issue that has not been brought before the court.

[Paul Pless]

The issue before him was Arizona SB1070.

Which was largely struck down, but was itself a reaction to the lack of initiative of the Federal government to deal with illegal immigration - I think that was his point.

[tigerregis]

The scalias of Justice are out of balance.
Impeach -Earl Warren- I mean Antony Scalia

[Norman Bernstein]

Seriously. I think what it ultimately represents is the disgust a certain part of the court has at least for the current situation in Congress and the White House regarding immigration.

I'm not sure it's the court's place to express 'disgust' at Congress or the White House.... the same sentient could appropriately be applied by both Congress and the White House, towards the court. Regardless, the longstanding tradition (and an appropriate one) is that the Court, in an effort to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, does not (and SHOULD not) comment on issues in politics that don't appear before the court. Scalia's word are indeed inappropriate.

Its not even really a stalemate in the sense that we have come to understand partisan politics of late. Its a failure of both institutions to even really fairly address the issue. I also think both of you (Norm and ljb5) place too much emphasis on the comments being directed at Obama. His comments were directed pretty much equally at Congress and Obama.

Less so at Obama, since longstanding tradition among presidents of BOTH parties is to use executive powers to do what Congress will not, to the fullest extent of their executive power. Sorry, but the immigration reform issue has been simmering before Congress for YEARS, and Obama's move is hardly 'pre-emptive'.... it is an expression of exasperation. Would you expect him to throw up his hands and do nothing, and just blame it on Congress? Or is it better for him to do SOMETHING?

[Paul Pless]

Would you expect him to throw up his hands and do nothing, and just blame it on Congress?

That seems to be Obama's chief political whine.

[Norman Bernstein]

That seems to be Obama's chief political whine.

Call it a 'whine' of you like.... I'd say it was more a reflection of the simple truth.

[Paul Pless]

Regardless, the longstanding tradition (and an appropriate one) is that the Court, in an effort to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, does not (and SHOULD not) comment on issues in politics that don't appear before the court.

When was this longstanding tradition established? It certainly wasn't in place during the very vocal and often controversial Warren Court.

I think you also fail to understand that the role of the Supreme Court is not just to make decisions on the cases before, but it also serves as the administration for the entire Federal Court system.

Admit it, your criticism here is because you don't like the court as it is currently made up, you don't like the personalities involved, and you don't like the fact that the court leveled its gaze upon your dear leader, Obama.

[Norman Bernstein]

When was this longstanding tradition established? It certainly wasn't in place during the very vocal and often controversial Warren Court.

You'd have to demonstrate some examples. SCOTUS justices aren't obligated to be recluses, and they often speak in public, but on very broad themes, and not on specific issues that are before them, or may come before them. Got examples from the past?

I think you also fail to understand that the role of the Supreme Court is not just to make decisions on the cases before, but it also serves as the administration for the entire Federal Court system.

Uhhh, I don't recall saying anything about that aspect of their duties. However, even considering that, they DON'T 'administer' lower courts by making statements in public that would prejudice the decisions of lower courts. Those courts are supposed to make up their OWN minds... and SCOTUS steps in only to reverse or affirm, when an appeal happens. Signalling an opinion BEFORE a case comes before them is bad policy.

Admit it, your criticism here is because you don't like the court as it is currently made up, you don't like the personalities involved, and you don't like the fact that the court leveled its gaze upon you're leader, Obama.

You're right, I don't like the right wing of the court, and I think they try to mask their politics with ideological rationalizations. Scalia's 'originalism' is a very good example.

[wardd]

shouldn't the supremes at least give the appearance they are as pure as Caesars wife?

[wardd]

You'd have to demonstrate some examples. SCOTUS justices aren't obligated to be recluses, and they often speak in public, but on very broad themes, and not on specific issues that are before them, or may come before them. Got examples from the past?



Uhhh, I don't recall saying anything about that aspect of their duties. However, even considering that, they DON'T 'administer' lower courts by making statements in public that would prejudice the decisions of lower courts. Those courts are supposed to make up their OWN minds... and SCOTUS steps in only to reverse or affirm, when an appeal happens. Signalling an opinion BEFORE a case comes before them is bad policy.



You're right, I don't like the right wing of the court, and I think they try to mask their politics with ideological rationalizations. Scalia's 'originalism' is a very good example.

weren't the originals right wing ideologs ?

[ccmanuals]

Here is an interesting statistic, of the 9 current justices 3 are Jewish and the remaining 7 are Roman Catholic.

[John Smith]

Whoever said the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to be political?

Actually, I believe their role is set by the constitution, but you can't take politics out of anything.

I can't speak to older decisions, but recent decision are not as likely to be based on constitutional grounds as we'd like to think.

Given that we have a two party system, I'd like to see an amendment that alternates who appoints nominees to the court. so that no one party nominates two in a row.

[ljb5]

When was this longstanding tradition established? It certainly wasn't in place during the very vocal and often controversial Warren Court.

I think you're confusing the issue here. The Warren court may have been vocal and controvesial, but (as far as I know), they acted through the opinions they issued on the cases that were brought to them.

I am not aware of any Warren court opinions that were delivered on matters not germane.

If you can point one out, I'd like to see it.

[ChaseKenyon]

Here is an interesting statistic, of the 9 current justices 3 are Jewish and the remaining 7 are Roman Catholic.

Let me get this straight

Jewish supreme court justices = 3

Catholic supreme court justices = 7

total justices are 9

so which one is the Catholic Jew? or if the other way

which one is the Jewish Catholic.

Since both faiths require prospective spouses to convert before marriage

Will the Rabbi or the Priest be performing the service?

Nah I get it the Jewish catholic or Catholic Jew is the one that has not and can not get married.

Can they still get a civil union like same sex persons?

[ChaseKenyon]

I think you're confusing the issue here. The Warren court may have been vocal and controvesial, but (as far as I know), they acted through the opinions they issued on the cases that were brought to them.

I am not aware of any Warren court opinions that were delivered on matters not germane.

If you can point one out, I'd like to see it.

+42

[Roger Cumming]

Whoever said the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to be political?

Justice Roberts said that during his confirmation hearing. He said he was supposed to be like an "umpire", without an agenda. I don't think anyone believed it when he said it, but it sounded good on TV.